If Hezbollah does it, it's a war crime. If Israel does it, it's self defense.
In criticizing Liberal leadership candidates as "anti-Israeli", Harper has once again shown how limited and short sighted his positions really are.
Hezbollah lobbing rockets at Israeli settlements is just as wrong as Israel dropping high explosives on Lebanese villages. Both are civilian populations, and neither side is exempt from criticism for it. Under many standards, both Hezbollah and Israel can be accused of "war crimes" for attacking civilian populations.
Mr. Harper's own response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon last summer was to call Israel's response "measured", as if some kind of restraint was exercised. I suppose, if one considers the prospect that Israel could have nuked Lebanon, one might consider Israel's invasion "measured"...but that's like saying that a disgruntled customer that burns a restaurant down after a bad meal experience engaged in a "measured" response - it just depends on what rubber ruler you use.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Conservative "3 Strikes" Law - Next Revelation
Ever so slowly, our elected government in Ottawa is showing us more and more of their agenda - however brain-damaged it may be.
In today's news, Harper's blathering on about their "3 Strikes" approach to declaring people a "dangerous offender".
Laws that tally up an offender's past worry me, but this particular one is really beginning to scare me as it looks like a fairly serious reversal of rights and obligations in our justice system.
This is very worrisome for several reasons. First of all, it is next to impossible to "prove a negative". Anyone with some basic grounding in formal logic and argument will recognize that it is far easier to demonstrate that "there is a reasonable expectation that X is the case" than it is to demonstrate that "X is NOT the case".
The second aspect of this that bothers me greatly is the reversal of obligations. We are creating a scenario here. The previous legal standard was eminently consistent with the notion that the Crown as the accuser is obliged to show before the court why someone should be considered a dangerous offender. Now we find a situation where the accused must demonstrate the opposite.
There are a few reasons why this is bad news. First, it is a clear violation of the presumption of innocence. Yes, the person has been convicted of crimes, but it seems to me that the onus should fall upon the state to demonstrate that someone is in fact a dangerous offender, not upon the offender to demonstrate that they are not. In essence, you are playing out the very scenario that the movie "Minority Report" played with - the notion of stopping a crime before it is committed.
I'm not saying that the designation of dangerous offender is a bad idea, far from it, but rather I am objecting to it being applied automatically as a matter of statute. I would feel much more at ease with the statue obliging the Crown to make application for dangerous offender designation following a third offense. (In other words, retain the current basic structure, but oblige the crown to make the application instead of allowing it to be a matter of discretion).
This is significantly different in how it reflects the core principles of our justice system in that it still requires the Crown to demonstrate before the court why such a designation is appropriate on a case by case basis.
The second, and more subtle aspect of this legislation, is the implicit attack it contains upon citizen rights and freedoms as guaranteed in the Charter. In automatically designating someone a "dangerous offender", this law is in essence filing a pre-emptive accusation against someone, and then demanding that they prove that they will not do what they are being accused of. This is worrisome because it is a subtle attack on the guarantees in Sections 7 - 14 of the Charter, and in particular sections 10 and 11, as it gives the government blanket rights of detention without accountability to either the accused or the public.
Again, one may argue that an offender should be obliged to demonstrate that they have taken steps to minimize or manage the risk that they pose to society. Of that I have no particular difficulty, however, such obligations are far more reasonably bound to the rules around a prisoner's release. (e.g. Traceable commitments to attend group therapy or other appropriate constructs) Post incarceration supervision can reasonably be applied beyond the term of an offenders' sentence if there is reason to suspect that further similar offenses are likely. (Again, as with the 'dangerous offender' designation, I still feel that it is the obligation of the Crown to demonstrate why this is necessary, not the accused.)
When the legislation is tabled in the House of Commons, I'll take a closer look then. Harper's words today suggest a law that is potentially quite harmful to the rights of otherwise law abiding citizens.
In today's news, Harper's blathering on about their "3 Strikes" approach to declaring people a "dangerous offender".
Laws that tally up an offender's past worry me, but this particular one is really beginning to scare me as it looks like a fairly serious reversal of rights and obligations in our justice system.
Under the proposed legislation, the person would automatically be considered a dangerous offender and would have to prove the designation should not apply.
Harper said if the person cannot prove this, he or she will be put in prison for an indeterminate period of time and won't be eligible for parole for seven years.
This is very worrisome for several reasons. First of all, it is next to impossible to "prove a negative". Anyone with some basic grounding in formal logic and argument will recognize that it is far easier to demonstrate that "there is a reasonable expectation that X is the case" than it is to demonstrate that "X is NOT the case".
The second aspect of this that bothers me greatly is the reversal of obligations. We are creating a scenario here. The previous legal standard was eminently consistent with the notion that the Crown as the accuser is obliged to show before the court why someone should be considered a dangerous offender. Now we find a situation where the accused must demonstrate the opposite.
There are a few reasons why this is bad news. First, it is a clear violation of the presumption of innocence. Yes, the person has been convicted of crimes, but it seems to me that the onus should fall upon the state to demonstrate that someone is in fact a dangerous offender, not upon the offender to demonstrate that they are not. In essence, you are playing out the very scenario that the movie "Minority Report" played with - the notion of stopping a crime before it is committed.
I'm not saying that the designation of dangerous offender is a bad idea, far from it, but rather I am objecting to it being applied automatically as a matter of statute. I would feel much more at ease with the statue obliging the Crown to make application for dangerous offender designation following a third offense. (In other words, retain the current basic structure, but oblige the crown to make the application instead of allowing it to be a matter of discretion).
This is significantly different in how it reflects the core principles of our justice system in that it still requires the Crown to demonstrate before the court why such a designation is appropriate on a case by case basis.
The second, and more subtle aspect of this legislation, is the implicit attack it contains upon citizen rights and freedoms as guaranteed in the Charter. In automatically designating someone a "dangerous offender", this law is in essence filing a pre-emptive accusation against someone, and then demanding that they prove that they will not do what they are being accused of. This is worrisome because it is a subtle attack on the guarantees in Sections 7 - 14 of the Charter, and in particular sections 10 and 11, as it gives the government blanket rights of detention without accountability to either the accused or the public.
Again, one may argue that an offender should be obliged to demonstrate that they have taken steps to minimize or manage the risk that they pose to society. Of that I have no particular difficulty, however, such obligations are far more reasonably bound to the rules around a prisoner's release. (e.g. Traceable commitments to attend group therapy or other appropriate constructs) Post incarceration supervision can reasonably be applied beyond the term of an offenders' sentence if there is reason to suspect that further similar offenses are likely. (Again, as with the 'dangerous offender' designation, I still feel that it is the obligation of the Crown to demonstrate why this is necessary, not the accused.)
When the legislation is tabled in the House of Commons, I'll take a closer look then. Harper's words today suggest a law that is potentially quite harmful to the rights of otherwise law abiding citizens.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Harper and The TheoCons - Part I
Related Articles:
Harper and the TheoCons - Part II
The Walrus: Stephen Harper and The TheoCons - October 2006
(8/4/08: Link to Walrus Archives added due to restructuring of their website breaking some links in this post)
This is the first part of my impressions and thoughts on the article in the October, 2006 issue of The Walrus entitled "Harper and The TheoCons".
The article itself is a lengthy expose of the connections betweens the Harper-led Conservatives and the theologically-oriented conservative movement in Canada.
Elsewhere in this blog, I've speculated that what Harper was presenting to Canadian voters during the last election was something quite separate from what he intends to do, especially should he achieve a majority government. Much of this this article tends to underscore that.
This reinforces what I argued in December of 2005 - that Harper was at the time presenting something to the people of Canada that was considerably at odds with what he actually believes and represents.
What I find fascinating are some of the other connections in this article. We find Preston Manning and his "Manning Centre For Building Democracy" showing up as a primary background force in trying to rein in the more extreme members of the party and attempting to create a "moderate" face for the party.
Well, so far, my experience with this particular aspect of the CPoC has been an MP who refuses to answer communications that aren't ideologically correct for him. (But my personal experiences with my MP predate the creation of the Manning Centre, but not Manning himself).
There's a few things that this article points out about how Harper has organized his cabinet that are deeply worrisome for those of us who actually believe that Canada is based on a plurality of religions, and that no particular religious belief should hold sway.
This is quite an eyeopener. Among other things, I find it something of a slap in the face to Canadians as a whole. We are all stakeholders in our government. To create a position that is clearly focused upon keeping a specific - and rather noisy - group of stakeholders "happy" is very disturbing. (Especially when one considers the kind of agenda some of those "stakeholders" actually pursue.
I wasn't entirely surprised when Kenney wasn't appointed to a ministerial portfolio. I suspected back then that his role needed less accountability than being a minister would oblige him to accept. (And believe me, the man amazingly deft at making sure he's nowhere near anything that would make him "accountable" for anything.
I think the underlying point, so far, is that the Harper government is about one thing - gaining power at all costs. They are trying desperately to do so without the Canadian public twigging to what they would really be electing. Their own actions to date have been intriguing. On one hand, they have tried to stick to "five key points" legislatively, and on the other hand, their "spending cuts" speak to a much different agenda than what they ran on.
To this point, I have but scratched the surface. Although Harper has clearly kept most of his extremists well zippered (Perhaps with the exception of Maurice Vellacott), it is quite clear that the "TheoCons" are not merely a "faction" within the party, but a very powerful one. As someone who watched the Reform/Alliance party grow in Alberta, this comes as little surprise. In its early days the Reform party quickly became a roost for the extreme religious movement, and they have never to my knowledge left the party - even after the "merger" with the former "Progressive Conservative" party.
Next, I will begin to examine just who some of the "background" lobbyists that the Walrus talks about and what they represent.
Harper and the TheoCons - Part II
The Walrus: Stephen Harper and The TheoCons - October 2006
(8/4/08: Link to Walrus Archives added due to restructuring of their website breaking some links in this post)
This is the first part of my impressions and thoughts on the article in the October, 2006 issue of The Walrus entitled "Harper and The TheoCons".
The article itself is a lengthy expose of the connections betweens the Harper-led Conservatives and the theologically-oriented conservative movement in Canada.
Elsewhere in this blog, I've speculated that what Harper was presenting to Canadian voters during the last election was something quite separate from what he intends to do, especially should he achieve a majority government. Much of this this article tends to underscore that.
Three years ago, in a speech to the annual Conservative think-fest, Civitas, he [Harper] outlined plans for a broad new party coalition that would ensure a lasting hold on power. The only rout, he argued, was to focus not on the tired wish list of economic conservatives or "neo-cons," as they'd become known, but on what he called "theo-cons" - those social conservatives who care passionately about hot-button issues that turn on family, crime and defence.
- Oct 06 Walrus, P. 50
This reinforces what I argued in December of 2005 - that Harper was at the time presenting something to the people of Canada that was considerably at odds with what he actually believes and represents.
What I find fascinating are some of the other connections in this article. We find Preston Manning and his "Manning Centre For Building Democracy" showing up as a primary background force in trying to rein in the more extreme members of the party and attempting to create a "moderate" face for the party.
Now Manning is doing his part to ensure that his spiritual protege and the estimated seventy evangelicals in the Conservative caucus - however well muzzled - don't suffer the same fate. [ed. as Stockwell Day] Last year he set up the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, a $10 million Calgary-based non-profit aimed at training Conservatives how to run ridings and campaigns, then staff MPs' offices. He calls it a"a school of practical politics," but one of the centre's main preoccupations is tutoring the Christian evangelicals now flooding into Ottawa on how to survive the perilous waters of public life. Oct. 06 Walrus P. 50-51
Well, so far, my experience with this particular aspect of the CPoC has been an MP who refuses to answer communications that aren't ideologically correct for him. (But my personal experiences with my MP predate the creation of the Manning Centre, but not Manning himself).
There's a few things that this article points out about how Harper has organized his cabinet that are deeply worrisome for those of us who actually believe that Canada is based on a plurality of religions, and that no particular religious belief should hold sway.
Borrowing a page from Bush's White House, which boasts a deputy responsible for "Christian Outreach", Harper has installed a point man for the religious right, among other groups in his government, under the title "director of stakeholder relations"
Oct. 06 Walrus P. 50
This is quite an eyeopener. Among other things, I find it something of a slap in the face to Canadians as a whole. We are all stakeholders in our government. To create a position that is clearly focused upon keeping a specific - and rather noisy - group of stakeholders "happy" is very disturbing. (Especially when one considers the kind of agenda some of those "stakeholders" actually pursue.
But evangelical activists know that a more direct route to the prime minister is through his parliamentary secretary, Jasone Kenney. After the election, many in the Ottawa press corps were astonished when the Calgary loyalist who served as a critic in every recent Reform/Alliance shadow cabinet didn't win a portfolio. But these days, Kenney may have more clout than any minister, playing emissary to groups with whom Harper doesn't wish to leave prime ministerial fingerprints, above all on the religious right.
Oct. 06 Walrus P. 50
I wasn't entirely surprised when Kenney wasn't appointed to a ministerial portfolio. I suspected back then that his role needed less accountability than being a minister would oblige him to accept. (And believe me, the man amazingly deft at making sure he's nowhere near anything that would make him "accountable" for anything.
I think the underlying point, so far, is that the Harper government is about one thing - gaining power at all costs. They are trying desperately to do so without the Canadian public twigging to what they would really be electing. Their own actions to date have been intriguing. On one hand, they have tried to stick to "five key points" legislatively, and on the other hand, their "spending cuts" speak to a much different agenda than what they ran on.
To this point, I have but scratched the surface. Although Harper has clearly kept most of his extremists well zippered (Perhaps with the exception of Maurice Vellacott), it is quite clear that the "TheoCons" are not merely a "faction" within the party, but a very powerful one. As someone who watched the Reform/Alliance party grow in Alberta, this comes as little surprise. In its early days the Reform party quickly became a roost for the extreme religious movement, and they have never to my knowledge left the party - even after the "merger" with the former "Progressive Conservative" party.
Next, I will begin to examine just who some of the "background" lobbyists that the Walrus talks about and what they represent.
Monday, October 09, 2006
October Issue of "The Walrus"
If you haven't read the October, 2006 issue of "The Walrus", its feature article is well worth the time and effort to track a copy down.
The feature article is entitled "Harper and the TheoCons".
I will be commenting on the particulars of the article over the coming days (it's lengthy), but it is well worth the read. I've read about half of it so far, and most of it strongly reinforces many of my assertions on this blog in the past that Harper's government is not what the CPoC campaigned on.
Sadly, The Walrus website is locked down for subscribers only - so you'll have to find the dead tree edition at Chapters.
The feature article is entitled "Harper and the TheoCons".
I will be commenting on the particulars of the article over the coming days (it's lengthy), but it is well worth the read. I've read about half of it so far, and most of it strongly reinforces many of my assertions on this blog in the past that Harper's government is not what the CPoC campaigned on.
Sadly, The Walrus website is locked down for subscribers only - so you'll have to find the dead tree edition at Chapters.
North Korea Tests A Nuke ... So What?
...or at least that's the claim. Whether or not North Korea actually detonated a test device or we are merely hearing the continued ravings of Kim Jong Il, I don't know. (The evidence suggests that something happened)
Even if North Korea has nuclear arms, I'm not sure it means a whole lot on the world stage. Kim Jong Il is, as far as anyone can tell, a quasi paranoid loon whose focus appears to be on stirring things up, rather than any kind of coherent plan.
About the only thing we know about North Korea is that the country can't even feed itself, and most of its citizens depend on international aid for food. That probably means that most of the country's resources are bound up in military programs of some sort or another, but at the same time, it's pretty apparent that the country hasn't got a whole lot of anything to bargain with. Certainly, without nuclear capabilities, they are pretty well hemmed in by powers that aren't overly impressed with the current ruling bunch of loons.
Do they pose any real threat outside of the Asian region? No. Even their "long range" missiles are unlikely to reach across the ocean today. Does the fact that they now publicly claim they have nuclear weapons change anything. Probably not. We have no idea how much of the old soviet-era nukes found their way into North Korean hands, and I suspect that there's a few that they've had 'in reserve' for a long time.
I fully expect to hear lots of the "A madman has nukes" line for the next little while - of course the people wringing their hands over that will be conveniently ignoring that other madmen have been running around starting wars - and they have much bigger arsenals than Pyongyang will ever achieve.
Even if North Korea has nuclear arms, I'm not sure it means a whole lot on the world stage. Kim Jong Il is, as far as anyone can tell, a quasi paranoid loon whose focus appears to be on stirring things up, rather than any kind of coherent plan.
About the only thing we know about North Korea is that the country can't even feed itself, and most of its citizens depend on international aid for food. That probably means that most of the country's resources are bound up in military programs of some sort or another, but at the same time, it's pretty apparent that the country hasn't got a whole lot of anything to bargain with. Certainly, without nuclear capabilities, they are pretty well hemmed in by powers that aren't overly impressed with the current ruling bunch of loons.
Do they pose any real threat outside of the Asian region? No. Even their "long range" missiles are unlikely to reach across the ocean today. Does the fact that they now publicly claim they have nuclear weapons change anything. Probably not. We have no idea how much of the old soviet-era nukes found their way into North Korean hands, and I suspect that there's a few that they've had 'in reserve' for a long time.
I fully expect to hear lots of the "A madman has nukes" line for the next little while - of course the people wringing their hands over that will be conveniently ignoring that other madmen have been running around starting wars - and they have much bigger arsenals than Pyongyang will ever achieve.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Freedom of Religion Examined
Every so often, a topic seems to take on a life of its own. Lately, there's been a lot of debate rolling around this blog, and others I read, about an odious little proposition with a working name of "Defense of Religions Act" (DoRA - sounds like a stage name for a drag artist, doesn't it?) has spawned a renewal of the "Omigod, Christian beliefs are being sidelined/marginalized/constrained debate - with the usual list of "suspect cases" being postulated as examples of unreasonable constraints being placed upon the notion of "freedom of religion".
Section 2 of the Charter reads as follows:
Perhaps equally significant and important is section 1 of the Charter which reads:
This is extremely important, because it states quite clearly that no rights described in the Charter are absolutes. Instead, they are bounded by other rights and freedoms, either as described in the Charter, or in statute law such as the Criminal Code.
I've stated my reasons why I do not accept the argument that cases such as Vriend, Brockie, Kempling and the Knights of Columbus in B.C. as being examples of constraining "freedom of religion" unreasonably.
It boils down to this fundamental point - each of those cases involves discrimination against somebody because another individual's "religious convictions" lead them to conclude that the other party is immoral/licentious or whatever.
Section 15 of the Charter itself runs at odds with the notion of "freedom of religion" in those cases. There are two key observations I wish to raise about this:
a) First, as previously observed, no right is an absolute - they are bounded to varying degrees. So, for example, while I argue that "freedom of religion" is not an adequate argument in the commonly cited cases, it is because those cases all involve projecting religious beliefs upon those who do not necessarily share them. I am not arguing that the faithful cannot have those beliefs, nor am I arguing that they cannot express them. Merely that like all of us, we must be circumspect in when and how we do so. For example, within a Bible Study context, it may well be perfectly reasonable to express strong "anti-gay" beliefs, but that doesn't mean it is appropriate to do so in the workplace.
b) Second, is the complaint that recent amendments to section 318 of the Criminal Code unreasonably constrain "religious freedom". Again, a careful examination of the wording makes it clear that there are contexts where such expressions are quite reasonable (See the "Defenses" subheading):
Again, this makes it fairly clear that any prosecution of these clauses is bound to refer back to section 2 of the Charter. What is perhaps less clear is whether an argument which - for example - cites the work of Paul Cameron could then claim religious protection because the argument is intended to support a religious viewpoint. (Cameron's work is notoriously suspect in quality and method)
Conservatives in Canada have long complained that programs such as the "Charter Challenge Program" (recently axed by the Government) work against their freedom of religion and expression. While I agree that by far the majority of cases that I've heard about have certainly arose out of someone raising a "religious objection" (mostly to GLBT rights), there are other cases where challenges have arose regarding the application of religious freedom.
In particular, I am thinking of the RCMP Uniforms incorporating Turbans. I don't recall if this was a specific "Charter Challenge" case, however, it certainly is a case where an application of the Charter was key to the final decisions. Here is a clear case where "freedom of religion" was being unreasonably constrained, and the complaints about "tradition" etc. fell by the wayside.
Now, the distinction here is that the Turbans case involved an individual's expression of his religious faith in a manner which really only impacted his appearance as compared with situations like Vriend where religious faith was being projected from an individual or group in a manner intended to regulate someone else's life.
In many respects, what goes on within the context of a faith community doesn't worry me too much. Churches which choose to adopt the 'abomination' line towards the GLBT are free to do so, for I have no obligation whatsoever to accept their tenets of faith. However, I do have reason to get upset when those groups attempt to impose those views outside their faith community.
The Charter actually appears to strike a very delicate, but appropriate balance. By specifying individual rights, the Charter recognizes implicitly the variety of belief systems that a nation like Canada has, and extends protections to all of them. However, it also creates an implicit obligation that the exercise of those freedoms is necessarily bounded by consideration for the rights and freedoms of others. (Hence the presence of the critical equality clauses)
Section 2 of the Charter reads as follows:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
Perhaps equally significant and important is section 1 of the Charter which reads:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
This is extremely important, because it states quite clearly that no rights described in the Charter are absolutes. Instead, they are bounded by other rights and freedoms, either as described in the Charter, or in statute law such as the Criminal Code.
I've stated my reasons why I do not accept the argument that cases such as Vriend, Brockie, Kempling and the Knights of Columbus in B.C. as being examples of constraining "freedom of religion" unreasonably.
It boils down to this fundamental point - each of those cases involves discrimination against somebody because another individual's "religious convictions" lead them to conclude that the other party is immoral/licentious or whatever.
Section 15 of the Charter itself runs at odds with the notion of "freedom of religion" in those cases. There are two key observations I wish to raise about this:
a) First, as previously observed, no right is an absolute - they are bounded to varying degrees. So, for example, while I argue that "freedom of religion" is not an adequate argument in the commonly cited cases, it is because those cases all involve projecting religious beliefs upon those who do not necessarily share them. I am not arguing that the faithful cannot have those beliefs, nor am I arguing that they cannot express them. Merely that like all of us, we must be circumspect in when and how we do so. For example, within a Bible Study context, it may well be perfectly reasonable to express strong "anti-gay" beliefs, but that doesn't mean it is appropriate to do so in the workplace.
b) Second, is the complaint that recent amendments to section 318 of the Criminal Code unreasonably constrain "religious freedom". Again, a careful examination of the wording makes it clear that there are contexts where such expressions are quite reasonable (See the "Defenses" subheading):
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
Again, this makes it fairly clear that any prosecution of these clauses is bound to refer back to section 2 of the Charter. What is perhaps less clear is whether an argument which - for example - cites the work of Paul Cameron could then claim religious protection because the argument is intended to support a religious viewpoint. (Cameron's work is notoriously suspect in quality and method)
Conservatives in Canada have long complained that programs such as the "Charter Challenge Program" (recently axed by the Government) work against their freedom of religion and expression. While I agree that by far the majority of cases that I've heard about have certainly arose out of someone raising a "religious objection" (mostly to GLBT rights), there are other cases where challenges have arose regarding the application of religious freedom.
In particular, I am thinking of the RCMP Uniforms incorporating Turbans. I don't recall if this was a specific "Charter Challenge" case, however, it certainly is a case where an application of the Charter was key to the final decisions. Here is a clear case where "freedom of religion" was being unreasonably constrained, and the complaints about "tradition" etc. fell by the wayside.
Now, the distinction here is that the Turbans case involved an individual's expression of his religious faith in a manner which really only impacted his appearance as compared with situations like Vriend where religious faith was being projected from an individual or group in a manner intended to regulate someone else's life.
In many respects, what goes on within the context of a faith community doesn't worry me too much. Churches which choose to adopt the 'abomination' line towards the GLBT are free to do so, for I have no obligation whatsoever to accept their tenets of faith. However, I do have reason to get upset when those groups attempt to impose those views outside their faith community.
The Charter actually appears to strike a very delicate, but appropriate balance. By specifying individual rights, the Charter recognizes implicitly the variety of belief systems that a nation like Canada has, and extends protections to all of them. However, it also creates an implicit obligation that the exercise of those freedoms is necessarily bounded by consideration for the rights and freedoms of others. (Hence the presence of the critical equality clauses)
Friday, October 06, 2006
Talking Point: Delwin Vriend Case and Religious Freedom
Back here, we have a commenter dredging up the Delwin Vriend case in Alberta as an example of how "unfair" the Charter Challenge Program is to "religious freedom".
Given that the Vriend case concluded sometime back in the 1990s, I decided to go digging around and take a look at what the actual Charter challenge that Vriend raised really was all about.
Vriend was fired from his job - specifically because he was gay. I'm not going to get into my opinions about firing someone because of their sexual orientation here - I've expounded on what I think of that particular issue many times before. However, the Vriend v. Alberta case has little to do with the particulars of Vriend's firing. In fact, almost nothing.
The Charter challenge was related to the fact that Vriend's attempt to file a human rights complaint was rejected specifically because Alberta's Human Rights legislation at the time did not include GLBT citizens. The Vriend case was a matter of forcing the Alberta government to cease its tacit discrimination by omission against GLBT citizens living in that province.
It is notable that neither King's College or The Christian Reformed Church are named in the suit itself, nor in fact do they appear on the list of intervenors in the case. (They may have been members of one or more of the groups listed as intervenors in the case, as quite a large number of them are conservative religious organizations).
In short, the Vriend case with respect to King's College didn't go very far in the first place. (As far as the Alberta Court of Appeals perhaps - but I don't happen to have the case documentation for that at hand). The actual Supreme Court challenge was with respect to the laws of Alberta, not King's College per se.
So far, I have yet to see any religious organization actually launch a charter challenge. (If I recall correctly, the CCP was specifically intended for funding challenges against laws that breach the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, therefore, I would expect that it would provide funding assistance to the parties launching the challenge) Since the other party to such challenges is, unsurprisingly, the government, this is quite legitimate. Few individuals have the financial resources to push a challenge like that through to the Supreme Court, while the Government has effectively boundless resources. (If nothing else, they can stall things almost indefinitely - draining the plaintiffs resources if they so choose - after all when your budget is in the billions, what's a few million?)
So, as I suggested earlier to my commenter, I can't think of a single case where a religious organization has in fact launched a charter challenge of any sort. There have certainly been numerous cases where they have claimed that their "charter rights" are being infringed upon, but nobody seems to have actually raised an actual charter challenge. (Not surprising, when the legislation that generates the most whining almost always provides explicit references back to the Charter - it becomes pretty hard to claim that the law itself breaks the Charter)
The Vriend decision has been a sore point with religious conservatives in Alberta for a long time. Mostly because it forced the Alberta government to recognize the civil rights of GLBT citizens, and made it much more difficult to deny those citizens recognition in law. I suspect that had Vriend's appeal to the human rights tribunal in Alberta been heard in the first place (which would have tacitly admitted GLBT citizens have right to recourse under Alberta's human rights legislation), that no Charter Challenge would have been launched anyhow. I also suspect, in light of other human rights decisions I've seen, that his dismissal would likely have stood anyhow - but it is troubling to think that an employer would dismiss someone simply because they are gay.
However, the talking point that Vriend got a "free ride" is utter bunk. The man was fired from his job (removing his income source), made a public figure whether or not he wanted it, and had his life dragged through the court system for years. I can hardly call that "a free ride".
Given that the Vriend case concluded sometime back in the 1990s, I decided to go digging around and take a look at what the actual Charter challenge that Vriend raised really was all about.
Vriend was fired from his job - specifically because he was gay. I'm not going to get into my opinions about firing someone because of their sexual orientation here - I've expounded on what I think of that particular issue many times before. However, the Vriend v. Alberta case has little to do with the particulars of Vriend's firing. In fact, almost nothing.
The Charter challenge was related to the fact that Vriend's attempt to file a human rights complaint was rejected specifically because Alberta's Human Rights legislation at the time did not include GLBT citizens. The Vriend case was a matter of forcing the Alberta government to cease its tacit discrimination by omission against GLBT citizens living in that province.
It is notable that neither King's College or The Christian Reformed Church are named in the suit itself, nor in fact do they appear on the list of intervenors in the case. (They may have been members of one or more of the groups listed as intervenors in the case, as quite a large number of them are conservative religious organizations).
In short, the Vriend case with respect to King's College didn't go very far in the first place. (As far as the Alberta Court of Appeals perhaps - but I don't happen to have the case documentation for that at hand). The actual Supreme Court challenge was with respect to the laws of Alberta, not King's College per se.
So far, I have yet to see any religious organization actually launch a charter challenge. (If I recall correctly, the CCP was specifically intended for funding challenges against laws that breach the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, therefore, I would expect that it would provide funding assistance to the parties launching the challenge) Since the other party to such challenges is, unsurprisingly, the government, this is quite legitimate. Few individuals have the financial resources to push a challenge like that through to the Supreme Court, while the Government has effectively boundless resources. (If nothing else, they can stall things almost indefinitely - draining the plaintiffs resources if they so choose - after all when your budget is in the billions, what's a few million?)
So, as I suggested earlier to my commenter, I can't think of a single case where a religious organization has in fact launched a charter challenge of any sort. There have certainly been numerous cases where they have claimed that their "charter rights" are being infringed upon, but nobody seems to have actually raised an actual charter challenge. (Not surprising, when the legislation that generates the most whining almost always provides explicit references back to the Charter - it becomes pretty hard to claim that the law itself breaks the Charter)
The Vriend decision has been a sore point with religious conservatives in Alberta for a long time. Mostly because it forced the Alberta government to recognize the civil rights of GLBT citizens, and made it much more difficult to deny those citizens recognition in law. I suspect that had Vriend's appeal to the human rights tribunal in Alberta been heard in the first place (which would have tacitly admitted GLBT citizens have right to recourse under Alberta's human rights legislation), that no Charter Challenge would have been launched anyhow. I also suspect, in light of other human rights decisions I've seen, that his dismissal would likely have stood anyhow - but it is troubling to think that an employer would dismiss someone simply because they are gay.
However, the talking point that Vriend got a "free ride" is utter bunk. The man was fired from his job (removing his income source), made a public figure whether or not he wanted it, and had his life dragged through the court system for years. I can hardly call that "a free ride".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)