In the days following the revelation of just how monumentally disastrous the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is going to be, it has emerged that the oil industry is asking the government of Canada to loosen restrictions and regulations for safety on drilling in Canada's arctic waters. Are they insane? If nothing else, did their entire PR departments take an unscheduled mass vacation? To suggest that measures to protect the environment should be loosened now, when it is becoming clear to even the most thickheaded and troglodytic supporter of offshore drilling that it represents a colossal threat to the environment, is moronic. To make the suggestion at all is verging on psychopathic.
This isn't something that I am suggesting lightly. The people in charge of the oil industry are exhibiting the classic lack of empathy and emotion that characterizes psychopaths. They are actively endangering the health and wellbeing of millions, if not billions, of people for their own gratification. When confronted, they cry crocodile tears, as the CEO of BP did after his company's heinously negligent behaviour placed one of the most biodiverse ecosystems in the world in peril. They don't care about other people, though as explained in the film The Corporation this is an inherent defect of the corporate form and a not so inherent defect of the system of legislative regulation of corporations in North America and western Europe. Their only motivation is profit, the basic gratification of the capitalist.
The disaster in the Gulf is as bad as it is because the gusher can't be capped. It can't be capped because the pressure is far to high. The pressure can't be reduced until a relief well is completed. And it is going to take ninety days, NINETY DAYS, to drill the relief well. So oil is going to keep pouring into the Gulf of Mexico for ninety days!! That is fundamentally unacceptable, yet there is nothing that can be done about it. Canadian regulations require that in Arctic Ocean waters, relief wells must be drilled within the same season as the main well. This sensible precaution means that if a Deepwater Horizon-type incident were to have occurred in Canada's arctic waters (touch wood that it doesn't) it would have been much more easily sealed off, because a relief well would already have been drilled and could be put into use immediately to allow the capping of the main well. If there absolutely must be drilling in arctic waters, this is at least the most sensible way of doing it.
The same-season relief well requirement is expensive though. It means the oil companies have to put in a lot of money to make sure that the relief well is finished before the end of the season. Accordingly, they don't like it. And now they want the government of Canada to scrap it. I say fuck that and fuck them. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
Even now, when the oil industry has been caught with its lies on safety exposed in a spill so massive it is visible from space, they are playing a game of musical chairs over who is responsible. BP is trying to foist as much blame as it can off on other players. It remains to be seen how much of the financial burden of trying to clean up this gigantic mess is going to be foisted onto American tax payers, many of whom have had their livelihoods stripped away as a result of BPs uncaring and callous negligence, but you can bet it will be a lot. If there was any justice in this world, a fine would be levied against BP big enough to put them and their affiliates out of business forever.
The oil industry's behaviour, seeking to avoid all but the most basic repercussions of their actions, and to seek to eliminate measures that might prevent it from happening again, demonstrate the basic principle of capitalism: do whatever you have to do, no matter how down and dirty, sleazy, underhanded and hurt whoever or whatever you have to hurt to make as much money as you can. That's why I fundamentally reject capitalism. As a system of social organization, it is the embodiment of psychopathy. Greed is good. Harm is good. Responsibility and ethics are bad. Even after the Exxon Valdez catastrophe, the oil industry had to be dragged kicking and screaming into mandatory double-hulling on oil tankers. I am willing to bet that even now, after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the oil industry and their bought-and-paid-for slugs in the US Congress are going to fight tighter regulation on offshore drilling every miserable step of the way. Because heaven forfend that anything should get in the way of the almighty dollar, be it plants, animals or people. Because other things just don't count. That's the psychopathy of capitalism.
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Monday, January 19, 2009
Montreal to Ban Masks at Protests
Of all the foolish stupidness in the world, this may not rate that high, but it is pretty damn foolish and stupid. The Montreal Gazette is reporting that the City of Montreal plans to ban the wearing of masks or face coverings at public demonstrations (as a side note, why this is in the "Business" section of the Gazette is beyond me).
This bylaw is quite possibly unconstitutional on two grounds. First, and more questionably, this bylaw is potentially in violation of the constitutional division of powers. This law bans a behaviour and attaches a penalty, with no connection to any provincial head of power that I can think of under the Constitution. This risks a finding that the law is, in pith and substance, criminal law and therefore ultra vires the province (and therefore the city, which derives all of its powers from the province). This is more shaky, because a good constitutional lawyer can make arguments for connection to a provincial head of power surprisingly easily. Second, this bylaw clearly runs afoul of the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many people wear masks to protests to parody a politician or world figure with whom they disagree. That is clearly conveying meaning, and therefore it fits within the rubric of s. 2. There may also be an issue of denial of liberty without the principles of fundamental justice since a law like this is dramatically over-broad, and would catch far more people the occasional yahoo that starts trouble a rally. The real question is whether it would survive the s. 1 test of being demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
I don't see any real or pressing need for this ban. Sure, at some protests a few masked idiots decide to start violence, but many people who wear masks or face coverings do so only to convey a political meaning, without any sinister intent. This is a massive and unnecessary intrusion into the civil liberties of protesters in Montreal.
A tightly focused law is the only way this would be acceptable, and to write such a law would be almost impossible. Any such law gives enormous discretion in enforcement to police officers. Frankly given the behaviour of police officers in Quebec, most damningly the agents provocateur placed by the Surete du Quebec at the Security and Prosperity Partnership summit in Montebello a while ago, I don't see any reason to trust Quebec police with such discretion.
A law like this is also unnecessary. If the masked individuals are causing property damage or assaulting people, then arrest them and charge them with that. Arrest for wearing a mask is simply a form of guilt by association and preventative arrest. Our legal mechanisms have always been sufficient to deal with idiot anarcho-vandalists in the past, and they remain so now. This law is offensive, excessive and redundant, serving only to provide prosecutors with a means of loading the bill against defendants. The City of Montreal should see sense, and drop this law.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 1 (oh dear gawd, I can't wait for it to be over)
This bylaw is quite possibly unconstitutional on two grounds. First, and more questionably, this bylaw is potentially in violation of the constitutional division of powers. This law bans a behaviour and attaches a penalty, with no connection to any provincial head of power that I can think of under the Constitution. This risks a finding that the law is, in pith and substance, criminal law and therefore ultra vires the province (and therefore the city, which derives all of its powers from the province). This is more shaky, because a good constitutional lawyer can make arguments for connection to a provincial head of power surprisingly easily. Second, this bylaw clearly runs afoul of the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many people wear masks to protests to parody a politician or world figure with whom they disagree. That is clearly conveying meaning, and therefore it fits within the rubric of s. 2. There may also be an issue of denial of liberty without the principles of fundamental justice since a law like this is dramatically over-broad, and would catch far more people the occasional yahoo that starts trouble a rally. The real question is whether it would survive the s. 1 test of being demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
I don't see any real or pressing need for this ban. Sure, at some protests a few masked idiots decide to start violence, but many people who wear masks or face coverings do so only to convey a political meaning, without any sinister intent. This is a massive and unnecessary intrusion into the civil liberties of protesters in Montreal.
A tightly focused law is the only way this would be acceptable, and to write such a law would be almost impossible. Any such law gives enormous discretion in enforcement to police officers. Frankly given the behaviour of police officers in Quebec, most damningly the agents provocateur placed by the Surete du Quebec at the Security and Prosperity Partnership summit in Montebello a while ago, I don't see any reason to trust Quebec police with such discretion.
A law like this is also unnecessary. If the masked individuals are causing property damage or assaulting people, then arrest them and charge them with that. Arrest for wearing a mask is simply a form of guilt by association and preventative arrest. Our legal mechanisms have always been sufficient to deal with idiot anarcho-vandalists in the past, and they remain so now. This law is offensive, excessive and redundant, serving only to provide prosecutors with a means of loading the bill against defendants. The City of Montreal should see sense, and drop this law.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 1 (oh dear gawd, I can't wait for it to be over)
Thursday, December 04, 2008
The Governor General Has Sabotaged Parliamentary Democracy
The Governor General has allowed the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament just a few weeks after the session began, without anything passing the House and simply to allow the government to escape the loss of the confidence. The Governor General has fundamentally sabotaged the nature of parliamentary democracy by allowing Harper to govern without Parliament. This is contrary to the basic nature of representative parliamentary democracy.
The government must be responsible to the Parliament, and must be able to sustain the confidence of Parliament. The Governor General by granting prorogation has allowed Harper to abrogate this principle, and ought to be ashamed of herself. She has allowed a lying, mendacious, cowardly and bullying Prime Minister to display contempt for Parliament and for the institution of the Constitution of Canada. She ought to be ashamed of herself.
This is absolutely unprecedented in Canada. The Governor General has effectively allowed Harper to do what he wants because he doesn't like what Parliament is up to. The institution of the Governor General has betrayed Canada. The Governor General has endorse a campaign of lies by the Prime Minister that is unprecedented in Canada. She has impeached the honour of her office by endorsing it. That she would allow Harper to display such craven cowardice as to suspend Parliament to avoid the loss of confidence is absolutely shameful.
No government without Parliament! Constitution now!
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 47
The government must be responsible to the Parliament, and must be able to sustain the confidence of Parliament. The Governor General by granting prorogation has allowed Harper to abrogate this principle, and ought to be ashamed of herself. She has allowed a lying, mendacious, cowardly and bullying Prime Minister to display contempt for Parliament and for the institution of the Constitution of Canada. She ought to be ashamed of herself.
This is absolutely unprecedented in Canada. The Governor General has effectively allowed Harper to do what he wants because he doesn't like what Parliament is up to. The institution of the Governor General has betrayed Canada. The Governor General has endorse a campaign of lies by the Prime Minister that is unprecedented in Canada. She has impeached the honour of her office by endorsing it. That she would allow Harper to display such craven cowardice as to suspend Parliament to avoid the loss of confidence is absolutely shameful.
No government without Parliament! Constitution now!
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 47
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Will He or Won't He
The question now is whether Harper will prorogue Parliament to avoid an official loss of the confidence of the House. I really hope he doesn't, both because I want to see the coalition come to pass and because if he does it will be a huge blow to parliamentary democracy.
The fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy is that the government remains in office so long as it enjoys the confidence of the Parliament, and in Canada that means the House of Commons. The corollary of this principle is that the executive branch governs with the Parliament, so that if the confidence is lost, the Parliament may signal that that is so, and the government leaves office. If the Governor-General grants Harper a prorogation, the executive will functionally be governing without Parliament, in violation of the basic principles of Parliamentary democracy.
Prorogation, for those that don't know, ends the session of the Parliament, until it is recalled for a new session with a new Speech from the Throne. This kills all bills on the order paper and sends MPs back to their constituencies. Essentially, the legislative branch of government is dismissed, while the executive continues to govern. There is no precedent in Canada for a prorogation so early in a first session of a Parliament, and no precedent for a prorogation before anything other than the motion approving the Speech from the Throne has passed the House.
If Harper obtains a prorogation from the Governor General, it will be a blatant admission that the government no longer enjoys the confidence of the House, and will represent a brazen abuse of the Prime Minister's power to advise the Governor-General on the convention and dismissal of Parliament. If there is a prorogation, it will be a clear statement that Harper's government is illegitimate, and governing in an anti-democratic and anti-constitutional manner.
So the question now is, as I posed above, will he or won't he. In the House today, Harper said that his government would take all legal means to avoid defeat (and some of his supporters in Alberta are committing sedition by saying they will take up arms if he falls). I take this to mean that he is threatening the coalition with a prorogation. I still don't know if he would do it though, given how massively illegitimate it would render his government.
I want to hear from everyone who reads this, do you think he will or won't? I'm interested in what you think regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum.
By the way, there are going to be rallies across the country on Thursday in support of the coalition for change. I'll be out in Halifax. You can find information on the rallies, including whether there is one in your neck of the woods at http://www.makeparliamentwork.com/.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 48
The fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy is that the government remains in office so long as it enjoys the confidence of the Parliament, and in Canada that means the House of Commons. The corollary of this principle is that the executive branch governs with the Parliament, so that if the confidence is lost, the Parliament may signal that that is so, and the government leaves office. If the Governor-General grants Harper a prorogation, the executive will functionally be governing without Parliament, in violation of the basic principles of Parliamentary democracy.
Prorogation, for those that don't know, ends the session of the Parliament, until it is recalled for a new session with a new Speech from the Throne. This kills all bills on the order paper and sends MPs back to their constituencies. Essentially, the legislative branch of government is dismissed, while the executive continues to govern. There is no precedent in Canada for a prorogation so early in a first session of a Parliament, and no precedent for a prorogation before anything other than the motion approving the Speech from the Throne has passed the House.
If Harper obtains a prorogation from the Governor General, it will be a blatant admission that the government no longer enjoys the confidence of the House, and will represent a brazen abuse of the Prime Minister's power to advise the Governor-General on the convention and dismissal of Parliament. If there is a prorogation, it will be a clear statement that Harper's government is illegitimate, and governing in an anti-democratic and anti-constitutional manner.
So the question now is, as I posed above, will he or won't he. In the House today, Harper said that his government would take all legal means to avoid defeat (and some of his supporters in Alberta are committing sedition by saying they will take up arms if he falls). I take this to mean that he is threatening the coalition with a prorogation. I still don't know if he would do it though, given how massively illegitimate it would render his government.
I want to hear from everyone who reads this, do you think he will or won't? I'm interested in what you think regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum.
By the way, there are going to be rallies across the country on Thursday in support of the coalition for change. I'll be out in Halifax. You can find information on the rallies, including whether there is one in your neck of the woods at http://www.makeparliamentwork.com/.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 48
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Canada Has Our Very Own Watergate
Buried in a CBC News story about how the Conservatives are moving up the date of the budget, we find this:
Even if criminal proceedings are not commenced against the dirty-tricks types in the Conservative Party, the Speaker should find the whole load of them to be in contempt of Parliament. Bugging the meetings of members is pretty much the definition of breaching the Parliamentary privileges of MPs.
The Harper government is inept, dishonest, desperate, and now criminal. When the Conservatives admit to a crime to cling to power, it is over. THROW THE BUMS OUT! COALITION NOW!
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 51
The Conservatives intercepting a telephone call is caught neatly under s. 184(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which reads:The Conservatives, meanwhile, have released details of an NDP caucus meeting they say was held in the form of a conference call on Saturday.
The Tories say they released a portion of the transcript on Sunday because it shows the NDP was working very closely with the Bloc long before last Thursday's economic update to replace the government.
"Let's just say we have strategies," NDP Leader Jack Layton said during the call. "This whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn't been made with the Bloc to lock them in early because you couldn't put three people together in … three hours. The first part was done a long time ago. I won't go into details."
NDP deputy leader Thomas Mulcair said at a news conference that nothing in the NDP-BQ talks is any different than the contingency planning Stephen Harper himself engaged in with the two parties during the last Liberal minority in 2004.
He said the meeting, whose co-ordinates were inadvertently given to a Tory, were illegally recorded and broadcast and that the party has consulted two experts including a legal specialist for an opinion on whether the Criminal Code was violated.
184. (1) Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
This is the Harper Conservatives bugging their political opponents. And who knows how long they have been doing this for. This is criminal. This is Watergate-type. Clearly the high-level Conservatives knew about this, and authorized both the bugging and the release of the information. They knew about it, and by authorizing the release of the recording, they abetted the offence after the fact. If Harper knew about and authorized it, he is equally guilty and should go on trial.
Even if criminal proceedings are not commenced against the dirty-tricks types in the Conservative Party, the Speaker should find the whole load of them to be in contempt of Parliament. Bugging the meetings of members is pretty much the definition of breaching the Parliamentary privileges of MPs.
The Harper government is inept, dishonest, desperate, and now criminal. When the Conservatives admit to a crime to cling to power, it is over. THROW THE BUMS OUT! COALITION NOW!
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 51
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Harper Lies About the Constitution
Shame on Mr. Harper. Last night, at his specially constructed and pseudo-Presidential podium in the foyer of the House of Commons (does he really think he is too good to go to the Press Gallery as every PM before him has done?), Steveo lied to the people of Canada.
He got up on his hind legs and started spewing nonsense about how the opposition could not form a coalition and govern without an election. This is bullshit, and what is worse I'm sure he knows it.
The King-Byng affair, as well as numerous precedents in both the provincial legislatures and the British Parliament, affirms that the Queen or her representative has every right in a situation where the government loses the confidence of the House during the first sitting of the Parliament to ask an opposition party leader to try to assemble a government that can gain the confidence of the House. This is the whole point of our parliamentary system, and it is why the opposition is known as both "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" and the "government-in-waiting."
Steveo has unleashed his con-bots across the Internet, all screeching the same lines about a coalition government being anti-democratic and even anti-constitutional. This is part of a coordinated attempt to politically undermine the coming coalition government, but it is being done by lying to the people of Canada.
Part of the reason for the ferocity, and mendacity, of this response to the looming collapse of the government is surely fear. The Conservatives very likely cooked the books in the financial statement if not before, and they are deadly afraid of the opposition getting into the Ministry of Finance and finding the documents to prove it. The Conservatives have, in their three years in control of the government, surely lied and covered up multitudinous sins. Once the opposition gets in there, they are all coming out, and the Conservatives know that it will be doled out piecemeal, and they will be completely sunk in the next election. And so they are afraid.
And the result of that fear is the lies being spouted to the Canadian public by Conservatives from Steveo on down. This government lies to the public, and if for no other reason it thereby renders itself unfit to govern.
Update: The Con-bots now have their talking points for call-in shows. The CPC has a whole site set up for their partisans who are apparently either too stupid to think what to say for themselves or too untrustworthy to be allowed to come up with their own lines. You can find the CPC talking-points site here. I got their talking-points for the coalition negotiations (yes I was bad and put in a fake postal code), and here they are:
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 52
He got up on his hind legs and started spewing nonsense about how the opposition could not form a coalition and govern without an election. This is bullshit, and what is worse I'm sure he knows it.
The King-Byng affair, as well as numerous precedents in both the provincial legislatures and the British Parliament, affirms that the Queen or her representative has every right in a situation where the government loses the confidence of the House during the first sitting of the Parliament to ask an opposition party leader to try to assemble a government that can gain the confidence of the House. This is the whole point of our parliamentary system, and it is why the opposition is known as both "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" and the "government-in-waiting."
Steveo has unleashed his con-bots across the Internet, all screeching the same lines about a coalition government being anti-democratic and even anti-constitutional. This is part of a coordinated attempt to politically undermine the coming coalition government, but it is being done by lying to the people of Canada.
Part of the reason for the ferocity, and mendacity, of this response to the looming collapse of the government is surely fear. The Conservatives very likely cooked the books in the financial statement if not before, and they are deadly afraid of the opposition getting into the Ministry of Finance and finding the documents to prove it. The Conservatives have, in their three years in control of the government, surely lied and covered up multitudinous sins. Once the opposition gets in there, they are all coming out, and the Conservatives know that it will be doled out piecemeal, and they will be completely sunk in the next election. And so they are afraid.
And the result of that fear is the lies being spouted to the Canadian public by Conservatives from Steveo on down. This government lies to the public, and if for no other reason it thereby renders itself unfit to govern.
Update: The Con-bots now have their talking points for call-in shows. The CPC has a whole site set up for their partisans who are apparently either too stupid to think what to say for themselves or too untrustworthy to be allowed to come up with their own lines. You can find the CPC talking-points site here. I got their talking-points for the coalition negotiations (yes I was bad and put in a fake postal code), and here they are:
Not only is it stupid and inane, it is full of lies.Opposition lacks mandate to take power
- Is anyone else outraged by what the Opposition Parties are doing in Ottawa?
- We’re not even two months removed from the last election, and a group of backroom politicians are going to pick who the Prime Minister is. Canadians didn’t vote for this person. We don’t even know who this person will be.
- Not a single voter voted for a Liberal-NDP coalition. Certainly not a single voter voted for the Liberals to form a coalition with the separatists in the Bloc.
- Add – what’s worse the Liberals even promised that there wouldn’t be a coalition with the NDP – this is all about power, all about money and they don’t even want to face the voters
- This is what bothers me the most. The Conservatives won the election. The Opposition keeps saying that the Conservatives have to respect the will of the voters that this is a minority and so on. …how about Liberals, NDP and Bloc respecting the will of the voters when they said “YOU LOSE”.
- And what’s this going to do to the economy. I’m sorry, I don’t care how desperate the Liberals are – giving socialists (Jack Layton) and separatists (Gilles Duceppe) a veto over every decision in government – that is a recipe for total economic disaster.
- Here is what is bothering me about all of this backroom opposition coalition talk.
- Sure it bothers me that parties Canadian rejected are trying to seize power through the back door.
- But how more phony could these guys be? I mean, I follow the news, virtually every single day you have Harper or Flaherty out there telegraphing exactly what they plan to do with the economy. And not once did you hear the Liberals, NDP or separatists talking about toppling the government in response.
- No – do you know what set this off. When Flaherty said he was going to take taxpayer-funded subsidies away from the opposition. Now there is a reason to try and overturn an election– because the Conservatives the audacity to say “Hey, it’s a recession, maybe you should take your nose out of the trough.”
- And I wish the media would be more clear on this point – the opposition aren’t being singled out by this fact the Conservatives stand to lose the most money of all. The only difference is that Canadians are voluntarily giving money the Conservatives, so they don’t need taxpayer handouts. The only reason the opposition would be hurt more is because nobody wants to donate to them. They should be putting their efforts towards fixing that problem.
- I don’t want another election. But what I want even less is a surprise backroom Prime Minister whom I never even had the opportunity to vote for or against. What an insult to democracy.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 52
Friday, June 13, 2008
Sanity Makes a Comeback in the American Legal System
Carl Schurz had the idea right when he said "If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." Today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recognized that and restored habeas corpus to the American legal system, by ruling that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their imprisonment through the federal courts. After seven years, it is about damn time.
The right to challenge one's detention is a fundamental right in any society that is functionally democratic. Habeas corpus is the fundamental building block of a system of due process. No government has the right to hold anyone, without charge and without a chance to confront the evidence against them. The United States is on shaky enough ground about being considered a democracy, what with the rampant militarism, the outrageous xenophobia and so on, not to mention the two stolen elections and the limitation of electoral choice to effectively the blue and red wings of the Party of the Wealthy.
While this ruling by the SCOTUS is important, a note of concern should be that the ruling was a 5-4 split decision. I would expect two votes in favour of stripping away a person's legal rights, from Antonin Scalia and his hand-puppet Clarence Thomas, but also joining in the dissent were Chief Justice of the United States Roberts, and Samuel Alito. The fact that all four of them thought that the rule of law was not worth protecting shows clearly that there is every danger of this decision being reversed after the next election, especially if McCain wins and gets to fill the next opening.
As a bit of a tangent, why is it that in the United States the right can get away with appointing dionsaurs to the bench, but the left is too lily-livered to appoint anyone who isn't a moderate to the Court? This is how the US wound up with a court that makes some outrageously bad decisions, and has a four-strong dissent in cases like this. At least in Canada the Liberals have sometimes appointed decent judges to the bench. Heck, Pierre Trudeau even appointed a few New Democrats (though not to the Supreme Court). When are the Democrats going to grow some spine, and appoint someone who might be on the left-wing of their party (which would still make them a centrist Liberal in Canada)? My guess is never.
Anyway, back to the main point, this is still good news. For seven years, the rule of law has been functionally suspended in the United States. This ruling doesn't bring it all back, but it is a good step in that direction. The next step is to get rid of the PATRIOT Act, that founding document of the security state.
The United Kingdom, by the way, continues to traipse merrily down the path to dictatorship by lengthening the period for which people can be held without charge to 42 days. That is absolutely unacceptable. That is six-weeks. A month and a half. And the police claim that they need this time to put together cases. Well guess what, shoddy investigation technique is no excuse for denying people basic civil liberties. Britain seriously needs a new Magna Carta, this time to set out the rights of the people as against their government. If this law is allowed to stand, the British courts are not doing their job. They have a responsibility as the third branch of government to check the excesses of the other two branches, and if they let this government, a mockery of the name Labour, go forward with this, they have abdicated their claim to their positions.
Canada can't yet crow on this front either. We have legislation allowing for people to be tried in star chambers without the right to instruct their lawyer, know the evidence against them or confront their accusers. Our government holds a number of people indefinitely without giving them a trial. As of now that power can't be used against citizens of Canada, but if the government gets used to exercising this power against non-citizens for long enough, it will decide that it also wants to use it against citizens. And then we will be at the end of democracy.
Governments serve their people, not the other way around. Governments across the west have begun to forget that. Let's remind them.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 221
The right to challenge one's detention is a fundamental right in any society that is functionally democratic. Habeas corpus is the fundamental building block of a system of due process. No government has the right to hold anyone, without charge and without a chance to confront the evidence against them. The United States is on shaky enough ground about being considered a democracy, what with the rampant militarism, the outrageous xenophobia and so on, not to mention the two stolen elections and the limitation of electoral choice to effectively the blue and red wings of the Party of the Wealthy.
While this ruling by the SCOTUS is important, a note of concern should be that the ruling was a 5-4 split decision. I would expect two votes in favour of stripping away a person's legal rights, from Antonin Scalia and his hand-puppet Clarence Thomas, but also joining in the dissent were Chief Justice of the United States Roberts, and Samuel Alito. The fact that all four of them thought that the rule of law was not worth protecting shows clearly that there is every danger of this decision being reversed after the next election, especially if McCain wins and gets to fill the next opening.
As a bit of a tangent, why is it that in the United States the right can get away with appointing dionsaurs to the bench, but the left is too lily-livered to appoint anyone who isn't a moderate to the Court? This is how the US wound up with a court that makes some outrageously bad decisions, and has a four-strong dissent in cases like this. At least in Canada the Liberals have sometimes appointed decent judges to the bench. Heck, Pierre Trudeau even appointed a few New Democrats (though not to the Supreme Court). When are the Democrats going to grow some spine, and appoint someone who might be on the left-wing of their party (which would still make them a centrist Liberal in Canada)? My guess is never.
Anyway, back to the main point, this is still good news. For seven years, the rule of law has been functionally suspended in the United States. This ruling doesn't bring it all back, but it is a good step in that direction. The next step is to get rid of the PATRIOT Act, that founding document of the security state.
The United Kingdom, by the way, continues to traipse merrily down the path to dictatorship by lengthening the period for which people can be held without charge to 42 days. That is absolutely unacceptable. That is six-weeks. A month and a half. And the police claim that they need this time to put together cases. Well guess what, shoddy investigation technique is no excuse for denying people basic civil liberties. Britain seriously needs a new Magna Carta, this time to set out the rights of the people as against their government. If this law is allowed to stand, the British courts are not doing their job. They have a responsibility as the third branch of government to check the excesses of the other two branches, and if they let this government, a mockery of the name Labour, go forward with this, they have abdicated their claim to their positions.
Canada can't yet crow on this front either. We have legislation allowing for people to be tried in star chambers without the right to instruct their lawyer, know the evidence against them or confront their accusers. Our government holds a number of people indefinitely without giving them a trial. As of now that power can't be used against citizens of Canada, but if the government gets used to exercising this power against non-citizens for long enough, it will decide that it also wants to use it against citizens. And then we will be at the end of democracy.
Governments serve their people, not the other way around. Governments across the west have begun to forget that. Let's remind them.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 221
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Justice Michel Bastarache to Retire
The Supreme Court of Canada has announced that Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache, a puisne justice of the Court, will retire at the end of the spring session. Bastarache J has sat on the court since 1997, and is (aside from Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin) the most senior judge of the Supreme Court. Bastarache J was the judge from the Atlantic provinces, and as such his successor will have to be drawn from the Atlantic provinces. I hope that Harper does not follow the model of the American right and appoint a partisan to the Supreme Court as he has done with some of the Provincial Courts of Appeal.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 285
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 285
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Former Vancouver Police Complaints Commissioner Was Reluctant to Investigate
The Vancouver Sun is reporting that the former Commissioner of the Vancouver Police Complaints Commission Don Morrison didn't launch investigations unless there was a media outcry. You can find the Sun story here. This story is based on testimony of Matt Adie, the former Deputy Commissioner.
This kind of thing illustrates the central problem with watchdogs that are also lapdogs. The RCMP Complaints Commission is no different. I can't remember the last time it came back with a ruling that there had been wrongdoing on the part of the police.
We need a proper, civilian run, independent oversight process for police from the smallest municipal police force to the RCMP. For too long the police have been functionally above the law, whether it be the summary execution by Taser of Robert Dziekanski, or the murder of Neil Stonechild by the Saskatoon police, nothing is ever done, or if it is done it's far too late. Frankly, I have come to the opinion that the police as an institution are so hopelessly corrupt and morally rotten that the whole lot should be scrapped and we should start from scratch. I know this isn't practical, but it needs to be done somehow.
We also need to make sure that the police are not able hold their inquiries in secret. A democracy thrives on the availability of information to citizens The police must be made to let in the light, and to allow the people to scrutinize their behaviour. If they have done nothing wrong, as they claim, they have nothing to hide. No structure that fears the light of day has any business surviving in a democracy.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 289
This kind of thing illustrates the central problem with watchdogs that are also lapdogs. The RCMP Complaints Commission is no different. I can't remember the last time it came back with a ruling that there had been wrongdoing on the part of the police.
This is horrifying. If a situation like that one doesn't qualify for an investigation, what does? I would absolutely love to see a citizen of Vancouver slap a misfeasance of public duty suit on Morrison for this."It is my perception that it would be extremely unlikely that Commissioner Morrison would order a public hearing against the Vancouver police unless the matter was in the media and there was very little other option," said former OPCC deputy commissioner Matt Adie.
This was Adie's explanation for why Morrison refused to order an public hearing into the death of Frank Paul, a homeless, alcoholic, aboriginal man who died in December 1998 after being dumped while stupefied with alcohol in a cold, wet downtown alley by Vancouver police.
We need a proper, civilian run, independent oversight process for police from the smallest municipal police force to the RCMP. For too long the police have been functionally above the law, whether it be the summary execution by Taser of Robert Dziekanski, or the murder of Neil Stonechild by the Saskatoon police, nothing is ever done, or if it is done it's far too late. Frankly, I have come to the opinion that the police as an institution are so hopelessly corrupt and morally rotten that the whole lot should be scrapped and we should start from scratch. I know this isn't practical, but it needs to be done somehow.
We also need to make sure that the police are not able hold their inquiries in secret. A democracy thrives on the availability of information to citizens The police must be made to let in the light, and to allow the people to scrutinize their behaviour. If they have done nothing wrong, as they claim, they have nothing to hide. No structure that fears the light of day has any business surviving in a democracy.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 289
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Canadians Sending Afghans to Torture
Thanks to some excellent investigative reporting by the Globe and Mail, it has come to light that the Canadian government has been knowingly handing over Afghan prisoners of war to face torture in prisons run by the Afghan government. Not only did senior commanders on the ground clearly know about it, but the political leadership in Ottawa has been clearly demonstrated to be in the know as well.
Afghan prisoners report being beaten with bundles of wire, choked/asphyxiated, made to stand naked outside overnight in sub-zero temperatures and other inhuman and cruel treatment. I don't think any reasonable person could argue that this does not constitute torture. The fact that Canada knew about this and continued to hand prisoners over to Afghan torturers places Canada clearly in violation of our responsibilities under the Third Geneva Convention and under the Anti-Torture Convention. Canada has broken international law by handing these people over, knowing that they would be tortured for information. We have become a criminal state.
Under the Third Geneva Convention (available here) the detaining power (that is Canada) remains responsible for the well-being of prisoners of war transfered to another power (in this case Afghanistan). In the case of inhumane treatment by the power to which prisoners have been transfered, the detaining power has a responsibility to either take substantive action to fix the situation or to take the prisoners back. The Canadian government has done neither of those things. That means that Canada has violated the international laws of war, and thus has committed war crimes.
Additionally, the government is making a conscious effort to brush off the torture of these people. The government suggests that they are all Taliban fighters and thus their complaints cannot be believed. The government calls the reports "rumours." The government response to this is so wrong.
Torture is wrong, and we cannot countenance, condone or tolerate it by any state or actor, be they allied or opposed to the Canadian government. Now is manifestly the time to stand up for reason and justice in a world rapidly spiraling downwards.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 640
Afghan prisoners report being beaten with bundles of wire, choked/asphyxiated, made to stand naked outside overnight in sub-zero temperatures and other inhuman and cruel treatment. I don't think any reasonable person could argue that this does not constitute torture. The fact that Canada knew about this and continued to hand prisoners over to Afghan torturers places Canada clearly in violation of our responsibilities under the Third Geneva Convention and under the Anti-Torture Convention. Canada has broken international law by handing these people over, knowing that they would be tortured for information. We have become a criminal state.
Under the Third Geneva Convention (available here) the detaining power (that is Canada) remains responsible for the well-being of prisoners of war transfered to another power (in this case Afghanistan). In the case of inhumane treatment by the power to which prisoners have been transfered, the detaining power has a responsibility to either take substantive action to fix the situation or to take the prisoners back. The Canadian government has done neither of those things. That means that Canada has violated the international laws of war, and thus has committed war crimes.
Additionally, the government is making a conscious effort to brush off the torture of these people. The government suggests that they are all Taliban fighters and thus their complaints cannot be believed. The government calls the reports "rumours." The government response to this is so wrong.
- These people have not been tried or convicted of anything. Anything at all. So to call them Taliban is to violate the presumption of innocence that should be afforded to all people.
- Even if they are Taliban fighters, it does not mean that their complaints of torture are necessarily false or that they deserve to be tortured.
- The minimization of the reports of torture as "rumours" makes clear that the government does not plan to investigate them with any vigour.
Torture is wrong, and we cannot countenance, condone or tolerate it by any state or actor, be they allied or opposed to the Canadian government. Now is manifestly the time to stand up for reason and justice in a world rapidly spiraling downwards.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 640
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Opposition Defeats Terrorism Act Provisions
For once, I have something nice to say about the Liberals. They voted the right way on the government motion to extend the arrest-without-charge and compulsory testimony provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. These sections of the Act posed a serious threat to the freedoms of Canadians and should never have been enacted in the first place. What is hilarious is to see the Liberals posturing as the defenders of civil liberties. To hear them tell it, you would never think that they wrote the law in the first place. One Liberal voted in favour of the government motion, notorious right-winger and arch-bigot Tom Wappell. It remains to be seen what, if any, punishment he will face for breaking ranks with the rest of his party.
The Conservatives now think that the Liberals have handed them a club for the next election. Expect to hear an endless repetition of "soft on terrorism" for the next couple of months. What is true is that by finally doing the right thing, the Liberals have proven that once again they are hopeless flip-floppers, following the political winds of the day. The NDP opposed these provisions from the beginning. The NDP was the only one to be concerned that the government was using the threat of terrorism as a means to induce Canadians to accept a diminution of their civil liberties.
The Conservatives also seem to have decided that they will bring in a new act to reinstate the measures that were allowed to expire on Wednesday. Expect it to be a matter of confidence, so that the Conservatives can say after they are defeated that the Liberals (plus the NDP and the Bloc) brought down the government because they support terrorism. It would be about par for the Republican course, and would fit right in with the playbook used by the American right in the last several elections.
All of this should make for more interesting politics in the weeks to come.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 696
The Conservatives now think that the Liberals have handed them a club for the next election. Expect to hear an endless repetition of "soft on terrorism" for the next couple of months. What is true is that by finally doing the right thing, the Liberals have proven that once again they are hopeless flip-floppers, following the political winds of the day. The NDP opposed these provisions from the beginning. The NDP was the only one to be concerned that the government was using the threat of terrorism as a means to induce Canadians to accept a diminution of their civil liberties.
The Conservatives also seem to have decided that they will bring in a new act to reinstate the measures that were allowed to expire on Wednesday. Expect it to be a matter of confidence, so that the Conservatives can say after they are defeated that the Liberals (plus the NDP and the Bloc) brought down the government because they support terrorism. It would be about par for the Republican course, and would fit right in with the playbook used by the American right in the last several elections.
All of this should make for more interesting politics in the weeks to come.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 696
Monday, February 26, 2007
A bit of catch-up
Hi everybody. Sorry for the long absence from posting to this blog. A lot has happened in Canada and Canadian affairs that I should catch up on.
First up, the timing of the federal budget. This is the most transparent federal interference in a provincial election that I can recall. The budget (which is sure to be full of goodies for Quebec and claims to have resolved the "fiscal imbalance" between Quebec and the federal government) is a manipulative attempt by Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada to influence the outcome of the provincial election and create the conditions for the Conservatives to grow in the next federal election. It is simply disgusting that the federal budget would be timed for a week before the provincial election. Now, I know some people out there are going to be thinking to themselves: "but the election was called after the budget date was announced, so there can't be collusion." Those people are either willfully deluding themselves or idiots. It's frank, but it's the truth. Anyone who doesn't believe that Harper and Jean Charest were consulting each other on the timing of the budget and the election is seriously gullible. Shame on Harper, shame on Charest and shame on the media who are doing nothing to make this known to Canadians.
Second, the Supreme Court ruling on the security certificate regime. For those that don't know, security certificates are documents signed by the ministers of Immigration and Justice that allow for non-citizens to be held in indefinite detention, with the evidence behind their detention is heard in a sealed court room by a judge of the federal court in the absence of the detained person or their attorneys. These documents have, in recent memory, been used to detain a number of men who, it is suggested, are tied to al-Qaida, though the evidence against them is clearly insufficient to bring them to trial or that is where they would be, rather than rotting in a detention centre in central Ontario. The Supreme Court recently ruled that it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (specifically section 11[d]) for detainees to be denied the opportunity to confront the evidence against them. The court gave the government one year to alter the law in order to ensure that it complies with the Charter. This is a good ruling. It does violence to the concept of justice that a person could be imprisoned for the rest of their life without being granted a fair trial and without being able to even know on what grounds they are being imprisoned. Unfortunately, the Court, in it's ruling, suggested that the government adopt a "special advocate" system, similar to what is in place in Britain in which security-cleared lawyers act for the defendant and are able to challenge the evidence on his or her behalf. The key problem with such a system is that the special advocate is prevented from discussing the evidence with his or her client and as such can not bring forward alternate facts or explanations to dispute the arguments of the government. As such, a fair trial is denied and the burden of proof is reversed. In essence, the defendant must prove that he or she is not guilty, rather than the state being forced to prove that the defendant is guilty.
Finally, I come to Afghanistan. The occupation rumbles on, though Stephen Harper has now launched an effort to convince Canadians that we are doing more in Afghanistan than propping up a puppet government made up of misogynistic and homophobic drug dealers while blowing Afghanis in the south into little teensy bits. Now let me be very clear on this point: the Taliban were, are and likely will always be, a nasty group of people committed to making the lives of the people under their rule very, very difficult and generally living in the word of 1007 as opposed to 2007. I do not want to see the Taliban return to power, but it has to be recognized that the Taliban are a potent force in Afghan society and cannot be crushed by force of arms. Ultimately a political, negotiated, solution is the only possibility in Afghanistan. There is still time to end the occupation with a political settlement, but in not that long the occupiers in Afghanistan will cross the same threshold that was crossed in Iraq years ago: the point where the only possibility for withdrawal is a Saigon-style evacuation under fire. Yet Harper is spending $200 million on "development" work in order to convince the Canadian public to back the continuation of the occupation, and (though he won't admit as much) to back the next extension that Harper wants to pass to the mission, namely to 2011. By itself, $200 million in aid to Afghanistan is a good thing. But this aid will be tied to the existing government and will be delivered by agencies that are irrevocably tied to the occupation. If we want the insurgency to stop blowing up schools, we have to stop having them built by the armed forces. The insurgency will rightly see anything built by occupation forces as being a tool of the occupation. I don't know another way to get it done, but funding local groups indirectly through international NGOs might be a good start.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 699
First up, the timing of the federal budget. This is the most transparent federal interference in a provincial election that I can recall. The budget (which is sure to be full of goodies for Quebec and claims to have resolved the "fiscal imbalance" between Quebec and the federal government) is a manipulative attempt by Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada to influence the outcome of the provincial election and create the conditions for the Conservatives to grow in the next federal election. It is simply disgusting that the federal budget would be timed for a week before the provincial election. Now, I know some people out there are going to be thinking to themselves: "but the election was called after the budget date was announced, so there can't be collusion." Those people are either willfully deluding themselves or idiots. It's frank, but it's the truth. Anyone who doesn't believe that Harper and Jean Charest were consulting each other on the timing of the budget and the election is seriously gullible. Shame on Harper, shame on Charest and shame on the media who are doing nothing to make this known to Canadians.
Second, the Supreme Court ruling on the security certificate regime. For those that don't know, security certificates are documents signed by the ministers of Immigration and Justice that allow for non-citizens to be held in indefinite detention, with the evidence behind their detention is heard in a sealed court room by a judge of the federal court in the absence of the detained person or their attorneys. These documents have, in recent memory, been used to detain a number of men who, it is suggested, are tied to al-Qaida, though the evidence against them is clearly insufficient to bring them to trial or that is where they would be, rather than rotting in a detention centre in central Ontario. The Supreme Court recently ruled that it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (specifically section 11[d]) for detainees to be denied the opportunity to confront the evidence against them. The court gave the government one year to alter the law in order to ensure that it complies with the Charter. This is a good ruling. It does violence to the concept of justice that a person could be imprisoned for the rest of their life without being granted a fair trial and without being able to even know on what grounds they are being imprisoned. Unfortunately, the Court, in it's ruling, suggested that the government adopt a "special advocate" system, similar to what is in place in Britain in which security-cleared lawyers act for the defendant and are able to challenge the evidence on his or her behalf. The key problem with such a system is that the special advocate is prevented from discussing the evidence with his or her client and as such can not bring forward alternate facts or explanations to dispute the arguments of the government. As such, a fair trial is denied and the burden of proof is reversed. In essence, the defendant must prove that he or she is not guilty, rather than the state being forced to prove that the defendant is guilty.
Finally, I come to Afghanistan. The occupation rumbles on, though Stephen Harper has now launched an effort to convince Canadians that we are doing more in Afghanistan than propping up a puppet government made up of misogynistic and homophobic drug dealers while blowing Afghanis in the south into little teensy bits. Now let me be very clear on this point: the Taliban were, are and likely will always be, a nasty group of people committed to making the lives of the people under their rule very, very difficult and generally living in the word of 1007 as opposed to 2007. I do not want to see the Taliban return to power, but it has to be recognized that the Taliban are a potent force in Afghan society and cannot be crushed by force of arms. Ultimately a political, negotiated, solution is the only possibility in Afghanistan. There is still time to end the occupation with a political settlement, but in not that long the occupiers in Afghanistan will cross the same threshold that was crossed in Iraq years ago: the point where the only possibility for withdrawal is a Saigon-style evacuation under fire. Yet Harper is spending $200 million on "development" work in order to convince the Canadian public to back the continuation of the occupation, and (though he won't admit as much) to back the next extension that Harper wants to pass to the mission, namely to 2011. By itself, $200 million in aid to Afghanistan is a good thing. But this aid will be tied to the existing government and will be delivered by agencies that are irrevocably tied to the occupation. If we want the insurgency to stop blowing up schools, we have to stop having them built by the armed forces. The insurgency will rightly see anything built by occupation forces as being a tool of the occupation. I don't know another way to get it done, but funding local groups indirectly through international NGOs might be a good start.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 699
Sunday, December 24, 2006
UN Security Council Proclaims Sanctions Against Iran
On Saturday, December 23, the UN Security Council proclaimed trade sanctions against Iran intended to prevent it from aquiring the materials needed for its uranium enrichment programme and missile programme. It seems to have escaped the notice of the members of the Security Council that these sanctions are patently in violation of international law. As a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Iran is entitled to persue nuclear power for peaceful purposes. As the NPT states:
Now let me be very clear. I don't believe that any state has the right to nuclear power or nuclear weapons because both pose an unconscionable risk to the people of this small world. What I am opposed to is the blatant hypocrisy and disregard for international law being displayed by many, many western states that either have nuclear weapons (US, UK, France, Israel) or have the capacity to produce such weapons through a domestic nuclear energy programme (most of the rest of the west, including Canada). These states claim a right to nuclear energy but are unwilling to allow such to their geopolitical adversaries. Such blatant hypocrisy is sickening.
Not until every other state abandons its nuclear energy/weapons can the west claim a moral prerogative to stop Iran from building up nuclear energy capability. Someday, I hope this will be the case.
May the holiday season find all of you who may read this well and may you have a prosperous 2007. May you enjoy whatever activity you undertake at this time of year, be it a religious observance or simply spending time with family.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 760
Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in cooperation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes... (text available at this page)No evidence has to date been presented to prove that Iran is seeking anything other than peaceful nuclear power. Iran has not attacked any of it's neighbours since before the Islamic Revolution of 1979 which is a marked contrast to other states in the region like Israel, which is in fact armed with nuclear weapons.
Now let me be very clear. I don't believe that any state has the right to nuclear power or nuclear weapons because both pose an unconscionable risk to the people of this small world. What I am opposed to is the blatant hypocrisy and disregard for international law being displayed by many, many western states that either have nuclear weapons (US, UK, France, Israel) or have the capacity to produce such weapons through a domestic nuclear energy programme (most of the rest of the west, including Canada). These states claim a right to nuclear energy but are unwilling to allow such to their geopolitical adversaries. Such blatant hypocrisy is sickening.
Not until every other state abandons its nuclear energy/weapons can the west claim a moral prerogative to stop Iran from building up nuclear energy capability. Someday, I hope this will be the case.
May the holiday season find all of you who may read this well and may you have a prosperous 2007. May you enjoy whatever activity you undertake at this time of year, be it a religious observance or simply spending time with family.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 760
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Harper Appoints Bigot Judge to Ontario Bench
The Globe and Mail is reporting that Stephen Harper has appointed David Brown to the Ontario Superior Court bench in the Toronto region. This is the man who acted for bigoted and anti-feminist groups like Focus on the Family and REAL Women when they intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada in an attempt to block equal marriage. We do not need a judiciary following in the footsteps of George Bush and his demented pack of right-wing nutjobs in the United States. We do not need a court system that has been polluted by the appointment of judges on a partisan basis. Canada has had a history of balanced, generally apolitical jurisprudence for many years because our judicial system has not been stacked in favour of any one political party or any particular societal point of view.
The appointment of David Brown is a stunning display of political hubris on the part of Stevie Harper. He has a minority government, and a thin one at that. Where does he think he gets off appointing one of the most socially conservative judges that this country has ever seen? The judiciary is not an appropriate way for the Prime Minister of the day to advance his or her political agenda. Public policy is much more appropriate as a tool, and has a history of being used as such.
Stevie, leave our judiciary alone. It isn't a toy for you to play with, and if you keep playing roughly with it, you will break it. If you break our judicial system, it will take a very long time to fix when you get the boot to your ass that you so richly deserve. When you are out of government, Stevie, people still have to continue on. If you use appointments to the judiciary to try and turn back the clock to the turn of the twentieth century, you destroy everything that this country stands for. Stevie, you've been bad. Go to your room and think about what you've done.
Cheers,
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 860
The appointment of David Brown is a stunning display of political hubris on the part of Stevie Harper. He has a minority government, and a thin one at that. Where does he think he gets off appointing one of the most socially conservative judges that this country has ever seen? The judiciary is not an appropriate way for the Prime Minister of the day to advance his or her political agenda. Public policy is much more appropriate as a tool, and has a history of being used as such.
Stevie, leave our judiciary alone. It isn't a toy for you to play with, and if you keep playing roughly with it, you will break it. If you break our judicial system, it will take a very long time to fix when you get the boot to your ass that you so richly deserve. When you are out of government, Stevie, people still have to continue on. If you use appointments to the judiciary to try and turn back the clock to the turn of the twentieth century, you destroy everything that this country stands for. Stevie, you've been bad. Go to your room and think about what you've done.
Cheers,
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 860
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Leader of Aum Shinri Kyo to be Hanged
Al Jazeera is reporting that Japan's Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentence against Shoko Asashara, 51, the former leader of Aum Shinri Kyo (Supreme Truth Sect), the cult that carried out the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway system in 1995, which killed twelve people and injured about five thousand.
While what Mr. Asashara and the members of his cult did was abominable, I remain morally opposed to the death penalty. Obviously Mr. Asashara deserves to be punished, but I believe that he would be punished much more by being incarcerated for the remaining years of his life, in all likelihood at least twenty more, with no chance of parole. I do not believe that killing a person for their crimes makes the world any better or any safer. As cliche as it has become, the words of Mahatma Ghandi still ring true: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Together the world must move past a system of justice in which it becomes permissible for the state to take someone's life when that person poses no further threat to the community. If he was incarcerated, Mr. Asashara would cease to be a threat just as much as once he has been executed.
Capital punishment is archaic and outmoded. As human beings we must seek to move forward together and move past capital punishment as a solution to the problems facing our societies. Capital punishment as a deterrent has been shown not to work and is, in fact, a way for society to take the easy way out. If society believes that by taking the life of a person convicted of a serious crime that the crime problem will be dealt with, it is society refusing to face up to the real solutions to crime, namely the eradication of poverty and inequality.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 867
While what Mr. Asashara and the members of his cult did was abominable, I remain morally opposed to the death penalty. Obviously Mr. Asashara deserves to be punished, but I believe that he would be punished much more by being incarcerated for the remaining years of his life, in all likelihood at least twenty more, with no chance of parole. I do not believe that killing a person for their crimes makes the world any better or any safer. As cliche as it has become, the words of Mahatma Ghandi still ring true: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Together the world must move past a system of justice in which it becomes permissible for the state to take someone's life when that person poses no further threat to the community. If he was incarcerated, Mr. Asashara would cease to be a threat just as much as once he has been executed.
Capital punishment is archaic and outmoded. As human beings we must seek to move forward together and move past capital punishment as a solution to the problems facing our societies. Capital punishment as a deterrent has been shown not to work and is, in fact, a way for society to take the easy way out. If society believes that by taking the life of a person convicted of a serious crime that the crime problem will be dealt with, it is society refusing to face up to the real solutions to crime, namely the eradication of poverty and inequality.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 867
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
