Prentice Delays Copyright Reform Bill

I'm beginning to put money that it appears as a rider on a money bill, since Prentice is delaying the bill, and the HarperCons aren't exactly known for wanting to debate the merits of their legislation.

Of course, I think a big part of this is that Prentice knows that what he's been ordered to do is based on a deeply flawed approach to begin with - and any real debate or analysis would expose those problems quite quickly.

Would You Want To Return To This?

With Canada's wingnuts occupying the House of Commons, and the opposition seemingly missing in action, it's time to consider the ramifications of Bill C-484, which is unquestionably a direct attack on women's health, and abortion in particular.

Via Feministing, I found this essay from the New York Times - written by a retired gynecologist who lived through what is now often referred to as the "Pre-Roe era":

The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion. It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional.

Yes, it's gruesome. That's the point. If Canadians allow Bill C-484 and its cousins to come into force, we run a very real risk of our doctors encountering scenes like that in hospital emergency rooms once again.

All because some zealots are all about "consequences" for everyone except themselves.

Consider this - if Bill C-484's backers were actually being honest with Canadians about their intentions, why aren't they supporting Bill C-543? - as the keeper of 'Benediction Blogs On' points out.

Attacking Canadians For Corporate Greed

Rumour has it that Minister Prentice will introduce his "Canadian DMCA" in the next couple of days.

This will no doubt be a variation on the legislation he backed away from last December, and he's hoping that we aren't paying attention right now.

The HarperCon$ have repeatedly gone after closer alignment with the United States on all matters, even when the US approach has been demonstrably brain damaged. Anything that models itself on the US DMCA is beyond brain damaged, it is an outright attack on individual freedoms and liberties - and is the very legislation that the recording industry in the United States uses to sue its customers.

I agree with the government on one point - the copyright and patent system needs to be overhauled in light of the modern realities. After that, I have my own ideas that are intended to be more constructive than punitive.

Dear Liberals:

It's way past time to do your job as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Sitting on the sidelines on one confidence motion I can accept - and even consider it brilliant tactics. Doing it every time there's a confidence motion just makes you look bad.

Propping up the HarperCon$ by tacit support is not doing the Canadian people any favours. This is a government that needs to be held to the fire - and if that means you stage the living hell out of confidence votes so that they only get through by one vote, then that's what you do.

Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but absenteeism from the House of Commons looks bad - sort of like skipping class did in high school. It's time to start showing up and being effective - and if that means shouting down this bunch of thugs currently sitting in the government benches, then do it.

If Mr. Dion isn't able to bring himself to do what needs doing, then it's time for him to step aside and let others take the helm.

Gee ... Why Doesn't This Come As A Surprise?

Apparently, the HarperCon$ government is plunging in the polls as people figure out just how bankrupt this government really is:

But specific appraisals of the federal government were less flattering.

Satisfaction with government integrity fell 10 points, with just 27 per cent saying the Tories are doing a good job in this regard. And 65 per cent said the Harper government is doing a "bad job" on accountability. A shortfall in this category would suggest the government is losing support in an area that was critical to their electoral success two years ago. The Conservatives rode a wave of voter disgust over the Liberal sponsorship scandal into office in 2006.

Some 74 per cent said the government was doing a bad job on health care, 70 per cent believe the Tories are not being attentive to the views and priorities of Canadians, and 66 per cent gave the thumbs down on environmental policy.

Ratings for providing "smooth, orderly government" sank 12 points to 40 per cent from 52.

Of course, voters in Alberta still aren't getting the picture:

The online poll of 3,565 Canadians indicates satisfaction fell to 40 per cent from 53 per cent - with majority dissatisfaction in every region of the country except Alberta.

Dear Premier Stelmach:

I wasn't going to write this when I first caught wind of Alberta's Cabinet handing itself a 30% pay hike on what amounts to an Order In Council motion.

I recognize that politicians have demanding jobs - but two things have happened since that have made me reconsider that initial stance.

First was hearing one of your ministers braying away on the news about the "overwhelming mandate" that Albertans gave you. You won an overwhelming number of seats on an underwhelming plurality. Yes, your party won over 70 seats, but in terms of Alberta voters, you won that with just over 20% of Alberta's voters expressing direct support for you. That means just a hair under 80% of Alberta's voters DID NOT vote for you. (An absentee vote is not "a proxy in favour of status quo - it is in fact a non-vote - period) While I have my own opinions about the wisdom of Alberta's voters, I don't think any voter believes that they elected you and your party brethren just so you could go vote yourselves a hefty pay hike the moment you were sworn into office.

Second on my mind is the classic issue of accountability and transparency. This province's government has been one of the worst in Canada on both topics - largely because under Ralph Klein not only has the amount of time the Legislature sits dwindled to an absolute minimum, but worse, more and more of the government's actions are decided in forums that are closed-door. A sad condemnation of Ralph's need to protect his thin-skinned nature from any kind of criticism. In taking this action today, you have just signalled to Albertans that you are more likely to follow the footsteps of Don Getty - a man whose tenure in the province is memorable more for the utter ineptitude of the government than anything else.

When you have such an overwhelming majority, arrogance is the worst of all traps to fall into, and you seem to have walked right into the pit, willingly. I think it was Peter Lougheed, after winning a landslide majority in the late 1970s, who said something to the effect that the government has to be doubly careful when it has such a majority, for it can too easily lose touch with the wisdom of the people.

So, Ed, besides picking my pocket all the deeper, just what have you done for me today?

I See The "Persecuted Christian" Meme Is Alive and Well

Oh goody, I see that Lifesite has gotten onto its favourite hobby horse - the one with "Poor Persecuted Christian"(™) spray painted on the side.

There's two gems that come bubbling up on their "news" site from the last two days:

CHRC Spokesman Will Not Say if Christian Teaching on Sexuality is “Hate”

followed by

Saskatchewan Marriage Commissioner Fined For Refusing To "Marry" Homosexuals

Let's explore these a bit further, shall we - after all it's always interesting to see how these people twist reality to suit their politics.

Pete Vere, a Catholic writer who has been working on the clashes between the Human Rights Commissions and Christians, asked Mark van Dusen, a media spokesman for the CHRC, “If one, because of one’s sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered ‘hate’?”

van Dusen replied, “We investigate complaints, Mr. Vere, we don’t set public policy or moral standards. We investigate complaints based on the circumstances and the details outlined in the complaint. And ...if...upon investigation, deem that there is sufficient evidence, then we may forward the complaint to the tribunal, but the hate is defined in the Human Rights Act under section 13-1.”

That's the bit that Lifesite wants you to pay attention to. If, however, you read a little further on, you discover what reality really is:

“Our job is to look at it, compare it to the act, to accumulated case law, tribunal and court decisions that have reflected on hate and decide whether to advance the complaint, dismiss it or whether there is room for a settlement between parties.”

In short, in a classic conservative line of questioning, a question was asked that calls for an absolute answer, and the CHRC responded with "it depends". Of course it depends on something - context and situation. When we are talking about topics such as the intersection between various aspects of the civil/human rights debate, there are seldom absolutes.

The real debate going on today (including cases like Boissoin) is about where the intersection of rights actually lands. When does "expressing an opinion" become promoting hate? Or when does "an opinion" arguably lead to violence or discrimination against some second or third party?

Of course, that isn't how Lifesite wants to frame it:

The issue before the CHRC, therefore, is whether Christian and Catholic teaching itself is considered under Canadian law to be “hate speech”.

Still more absolutism speaking here. In such circumstances, one has to ask if every utterance of someone who is Catholic is in fact "Catholic"(™)? In other words, just because a person claims to be a practicing Catholic (or member of any other faith), does that automatically extend protections to everything that they say on controversial subjects? What is the legal status of those utterances should the church decide that in fact the statements are heresy, and disavows them?

Just to muddy the waters even further, it's not as if the greater body of Christianity is unified in its teachings on sexuality at all. There is a great deal of differentiation between the various churches, so you can't even argue that there is a teaching on sexuality that is universally held within the broad spectrum of beliefs that stand under the umbrella term "Christian".

In the second article, we find the following:

A Saskatchewan human rights tribunal has fined Regina marriage commissioner Orville Nichols $2,500 for refusing to "marry" two homosexual men who approached him for the ceremony in 2005.

Mr. Nichols told the two men, identified only as "M.J." and his partner as "B.R." in the court documents, he would not marry them because it went against his religious convictions as a devout Baptist, but referred them to another commissioner, Edna McCall, because he was aware that she would perform same sex marriages.

Let's consider this for a moment. A marriage commissioner is a form of public servant - they are licensed to solemnize marriages before the law. They are not by definition ordained ministers acting simultaneously in their capacity as clergy.

If we start granting public servants the right to deny service based on some "religious belief", we return very quickly to the days of segregation and "separate but equal" treatment. The cold, hard fact is that under Canadian law, we are all equal before the law and government. Therefore, anyone who is a public servant is obliged to respect that reality when they are delivering government services to citizens.

The tribunal ruling stated that Mr. Nichols had contravened section 31.4(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code and that his refusal based on religious belief conflicted with his duties as a public officer. "The Commission stands by its position that to allow public officials to insert their personal morality when determining who should and who should not receive the benefit of law undermines human rights in Saskatchewan beyond the issue of same-sex marriages."

Of course, the wingnuts over at Lifesite continue their argument by painting the commissioner in question as such a wonderful, noble and upstanding citizen, and by implication, is being downtrodden by the evil human rights commission:

Mr. Nichols testified at the hearing that he had never received a complaint in his 24 years of service as a marriage commissioner, nor had there ever been a problem with any of the services that he had provided in his capacity as a marriage commissioner, even though he had in a number of different situations refused to perform a marriage ceremony, such as marriages of convenience for immigration purposes or when he had been asked to perform a marriage dressed up in a cowboy costume.

There's quite a difference between the examples cited above and denying services to a GLBT couple:

1. A "marriage of convenience" is something that is attempting to subvert the immigration process. There are good ethical (and possibly legal) reasons why knowingly participating in such a scheme is suspect at best. (Arguably to do so is in fact to perpetrate a fraud)

2. Being asked to participate in a manner that goes beyond the solemnization of the marriage itself (e.g. dressing in a "theme costume") is also a legitimate reason to walk away. Remember, at that point, the reason for denial of service is in fact not denying anyone access to legal services that others would receive from you. No protected grounds of discrimination have been violated here.

Meanwhile, denying someone service that you would grant to somebody else - based entirely upon your moral assessment of the situation, puts you into much more dubious straights when we are talking about people acting as agents of the government.

Of course, in the minds of Lifesite's writers, these are all examples of how Christians are being "persecuted" in the public square. Never mind that what is really happening is that discrimination based on Christian scriptures is being called out for what it is - discrimination, and often unlawful discrimination.

(BTW - if Christianity were really being "persecuted", one might well imagine that the CHRC and related bodies would have long since taken the Roman Catholic Church to task in Canada for its refusal to ordain women - a clear violation of Charter Rights no matter how you twist it - however, the CHRC has not touched such cases, arguing that in fact such matters are protected under Freedom of Religion and thus rightly handled within the context of the Catholic Church hierarchy)