Bill C-36 Analysis In Detail Part 3: Advertising

The government is playing some very subtle games with the language in C-36.  In some respects, the language is ridiculously broad (e.g. the undefined nature of "sexual services"), in other areas they are getting remarkably specific.

Advertising sexual services286.4 Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months. 

Immunity — material benefit and advertising286.5 (1) No person shall be prosecuted for(a) an offence under section 286.2 if the benefit is derived from the provision of their own sexual services; or(b) an offence under section 286.4 in relation to the advertisement of their own sexual services. 

Immunity — aiding, abetting, etc.(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or being an accessory after the fact or counselling a person to be a party to such an offence, if the offence relates to the offering or provision of their own sexual services. 

The implication here is that a prostitute can advertise their own services, this is somewhat more generous than I had initially expected.  But, because of the other aspects of the law, this still ends up smelling like a form of entrapment.

Okay, an individual is allowed to advertise their services (so, no, your local Sun newspaper isn't likely to go bankrupt from a lack of advertisers), but you aren't, apparently, supposed to actually purchase those services:

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of,(i) in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,(A) for a first offence, a fine of $2,000, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $4,000, or(ii) in any other case,(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and a minimum punishment of,(i) in the case referred to in subparagraph (a)(i),(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000, or(ii) in any other case,(A) for a first offence, a fine of $500, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $1,000. 

If this smells a little fishy to you, there's a good reason for it.  It is.  In today's world of mass surveillance, how much do you think it's going to take for the government to designate any phone or email address associated with "sexual services" as something to monitor and simply start grabbing any and all traffic related to that address/phone number?  (Hint:  It isn't difficult at all, and I suspect that the "anti-bullying" bill (Bill C-26) before parliament would allow them to do so without a warrant and still use the evidence against you in a court of law)

What's the net effect of this?  Fundamentally, it means that although someone can advertise sexual services, anybody "procuring" those services is subject to significant criminal penalties.  Under the surveillance capabilities today, it's almost impossible not to have any "communication for procurement" to be monitored except in isolated, private places.  In other words, creepy places where the "johns" can assert control and dominance through violence or the threat of it.

Because of the undefined (and therefore, presumably broad) wording of "sexual services", I wonder how this will play out for sex shops, BDSM dungeons and other businesses which cater to various sexual appetites that aren't necessarily prostitution per se.  Because a lot of those exist as legal businesses, separate from their owners and with employees, one is left wondering just how it is that those businesses will be able to advertise themselves without the owners being charged under these laws?

While I'm sure that this will make people like MP Joy Smith ecstatically happy, driving sex underground doesn't really solve any of the issues associated with prostitution as identified in Bedford.  (Ms. Smith is the same twit who wants to block all porn on Canada's internet)  There are aspects of this legislation which certainly start to create a blanket ban on any and all sexuality, and in particular the discussion of that sexuality.  These blanket proscriptions create interesting problems not only for prostitutes, but for others who are working in the sex industry, or work with sexual minorities of one sort or another for any reason.

One thing we already know from experience is that driving it underground won't address the very real and legitimate safety and security of the person issues that the Bedford decision raises.

Bill C-36 Analysis In Detail Part 2

Bill C-36 casts a much wider net than I had first thought.

Traditionally, when a term is being used to define an offence, a definition of that term is inserted in S2 of the Criminal Code which gives a clear, understandable definition.  

Throughout the text of Bill C-36, the term "Sexual Services" is used constantly, but at no time is the term defined at all.  It is used, but never really nailed down.

For example, does C-36 place a BDSM "dungeon" under the concept of Sexual Services?  Or, for that matter, depending on how one looks at it, it could also encompass any number of "adult entertainment" businesses that are out there, which have traditionally sat on the edge - they are certainly offering sexual stimulus for sale, but not necessarily sex per se.

For that matter, what are the implications of offering sex toys or magazines for sale?  Or, for that matter, what about a sex therapist?  Does that constitute a "sexual service" under this law?  This is especially important when we are looking at the advertising restrictions part of this law.

“advertisement of sexual services”« publicité de services sexuels »“advertisement of sexual services” means any material — including a photographic, film, video, audio or other recording, made by any means, a visual representation or any written material — that is used to advertise sexual services contrary to section 286.4. 

...

Advertising sexual services286.4 Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.

Depending on how this is interpreted, a lot of people could end up in prison for no worse an offence than having a web site for their business.

Dear Canadian National Firearms Association

How Dare You?

It is clear that Canada's excessive firearms control system has failed again. The excessive rules in place do not in any way increase pu blic safety, but merely contribute to an expensive and unnecessary regime which harms only those of lawful intent. Resources wasted on this fundamentally flawed firearms control regime could be better placed to support a health care system which could be better enabled to diagnose and treat conditions that put people's lives at risk.

Three RCMP officers lie dead today, two more seriously wounded and you try to use this tragedy to argue for less gun control?

At no time has the solution to gun violence ever been more guns.  We've seen that experiment tried in the US already, with its tragic price.

Fuck Off.

Sincerely,

A Canadian Who Likes Being Able To Walk The Streets Without Fear Of Being Shot

How The National Review's Williamson Gets It Wrong On Laverne Cox

Kevin D. Williamson is suddenly an expert on the topic of transgender and transsexual people it seems.  Or at least, he has appointed himself as an expert.

Titled "Laverne Cox is not a Woman", Williamson's column is a pretty basic attack on transsexual people and the issue of being cross-gender identified.  In its most fundamental sense, he is trying to erase the very narrative of transsexuals (and other transgender identified people):

The infinite malleability of the postmodern idea of “gender,” as opposed to the stubborn concreteness of sex, is precisely the reason the concept was invented. For all of the high-academic theory attached to the question, it is simply a mystical exercise in rearranging words to rearrange reality. Facebook now has a few score options for describing one’s gender or sex, and no doubt they will soon match the number of names for the Almighty in one of the old mystery cults.

Apparently the evolving language of an emerging field of study is just a bunch of academics trying to evade reality ... at least for Williamson.  Unfortunately for Williamson, it is not mere "rearranging words to rearrange reality" so much as seeking language that accurately depicts reality.  Had Mr. Williamson looked beyond his assumptions, he would have discovered that much of the modern language around cross-gender identity started with the "Benjamin Scale".  At this point in time, it became necessary to describe more than cross-dressing, and Benjamin made what seemed a reasonable approach at the time.  Since then, the understanding and language related to the broad notion of cross-gender identity has grown enormously, to the point of being daunting to those who do not spend significant time working with it.

It is not difficult to see why Williamson and his allies try to claim that this is just linguistic voodoo.  The semantics are complicated, and understanding the subtle distinctions that need to be grasped to fully appreciate the language involved is no small task.  Far easier to dismiss it as "irrelevant" or "magic" than to examine it critically.

Regardless of the question of whether he has had his genitals amputated, Cox is not a woman, but an effigy of a woman. Sex is a biological reality, and it is not subordinate to subjective impressions, no matter how intense those impressions are, how sincerely they are held, or how painful they make facing the biological facts of life. No hormone injection or surgical mutilation is sufficient to change that. 

Ah yes ... born with a penis = man, born with a vagina = woman ... and old and somewhat brain damaged way to look at these matters.  Unfortunately for Williamson, there is a distance to be covered between the social notions of "man" and "woman" - concepts which are mostly social, and the physiological sex notions of "male" and "female".  Physiological sex is fundamentally about the shape of the body, "man" and "woman" are primarily social constructs with roots in physiological sex.

DF Swaab 2007 states quite clearly the following:

 As sexual differentiation of the genitals takes places in the first 2 months of pregnancy, and sexual differentiation of the brain starts during the second half of pregnancy, these two processes may be influenced independently of each other, resulting in transsexuality. This also means that in the case of an ambiguous gender at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the same degree of masculinization of the brain. Differences in brain structures and brain functions have been found that are related to sexual orientation and gender. 

Research findings like this poke significant holes in the "has a penis = man" logic of people like Williamson. As many transsexuals can attest to, you can be born with a penis and never feel the least bit like a man.

Returning to Williamson's rather naive attack on transsexuals, we find a few more gems of logic:

Genital amputation and mutilation is the extreme expression of the phenomenon, but it is hardly outside the mainstream of contemporary medical practice. The trans self-conception, if the autobiographical literature is any guide, is partly a feeling that one should be living one’s life as a member of the opposite sex and partly a delusion that one is in fact a member of the opposite sex at some level of reality that transcends the biological facts in question. There are many possible therapeutic responses to that condition, but the offer to amputate healthy organs in the service of a delusional tendency is the moral equivalent of meeting a man who believes he is Jesus and inquiring as to whether his insurance plan covers crucifixion.

Oh yes, let's talk for a moment or two about the language of "delusion", shall we?  The DSM IV (and the drafts of the DSM V text I have reviewed) all contain a very clear statement regarding the issue of psychological delusion in transsexuals.  Quite specifically, there is a clause in there that recognizes that a transsexual is usually perfectly aware of the distance between their physical and psychological realities.  This isn't a delusion.

Gender Reassingment Surgery (GRS) is an imperfect solution, but at least for MtF transsexuals it enables a degree of physical congruence between self-image and body that otherwise is impossible to achieve.  Like many people, Mr. Williamson seems to view this is "mutilation".   Most transsexuals would disagree with good reason.

The question of the status of gay people interacts with politics to the extent that it in some cases challenges existing family law, but homosexual acts as such seem to me a matter that is obviously, and almost by definition, private. The mass delusion that we are inculcating on the question of transgendered people is a different sort of matter, to the extent that it would impose on society at large an obligation — possibly a legal obligation under civil-rights law, one that already is emerging — to treat delusion as fact, or at the very least to agree to make subjective impressions superordinate to biological fact in matters both public and private. 

As a matter of government, I have little or no desire to police how Cox or any other man or woman conducts his or her personal life. 

What Williamson is overlooking is the fact that the history of both sexual and gender minority communities is that they are traditionally oppressed by the state in a very explicitly.  It's all very well that Williamson doesn't wish to regulate how Laverne Cox lives her life.  What he is quietly ignoring is that the coercive power of the state has been used to suppress LGBT people, and gave rise to the hostility and discrimination that they experience.  This simple fact means that by definition, the matter of rights and non-discrimination requires active engagement on the part of the state to rectify past and present wrongs.

But having a culture organized around the elevation of unreality over reality in the service of Eros, who is a sometimes savage god, is not only irrational but antirational.

Here we have the last trope possible - namely that it's all about sex.  Williamson couldn't be more wrong if he tried.  Sure, most people want an active and satisfying sex life.  Some people achieve that, some do not.  While GRS certainly can play a significant role in helping achieve that goal, it is seldom the primary reason for it.  What Williamson appears to completely misunderstand is that bodily congruence is at the top of the list for most transsexuals.

I don't know what Williamson's criteria for "womanhood" are.  He doesn't really tell us, but I would suspect that a great many natal females would not meet his standards, whatever they might be.

Bill C-36: Analysis In Detail - Part I

The biggest pieces of Bill C-36 are well described elsewhere in the media, and there isn't any real surprise to it.  The Harper Government has more or less just resurrected the old environment.  

As with all such things the devil is in the details.  The odd little lines where the government changes clauses about without really talking about it.

For example, consider the following from the First Reading text:

3. Subsection 7(4.1) of the Act is amended by replacing the reference to “212(4)” with a reference to “286.1(2)”.

So, referring to the criminal code, Subsection 7(4.1) reads as follows right now:

Offence in relation to sexual offences against children
(4.1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission that if committed in Canada would be an offence against section 151, 152, 153, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3), section 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172.1, 172.2 or 173 or subsection 212(4) shall be deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if the person who commits the act or omission is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. *emphasis added

What exactly is subsection 212(4) of the Criminal Code?  In context, in the current criminal code, S212 in general is offences related to the "procurement" of prostitute's services.  In particular 212(4) is related to underage prostitutes:

(4) Every person who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.

This is being replaced with a reference to S286.1(2).  That's a fair distance away from the current Criminal Code provisions related to prostitution.  In fact, it's in a whole other part of the Criminal Code which this legislation amends.  At present, S286 reads:

286. In proceedings in respect of an offence under sections 280 to 283, it is not a defence to any charge that a young person consented to or suggested any conduct of the accused. 

Once Bill C-36 is passed, it will read:

286. In proceedings in respect of an offence under sections 280 to 283, it is not a defence to any charge that a young person consented to or suggested any conduct of the accused. 

Commodification of Sexual Activity

Obtaining sexual services for consideration 

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of, 

(i) in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,  

(A) for a first offence, a fine of $2,000, and 

(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $4,000, or

(ii) in any other case,(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and a minimum punishment of,(i) in the case referred to in subparagraph (a)(i),(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000, or(ii) in any other case,(A) for a first offence, a fine of $500, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $1,000.Obtaining sexual services for consideration from person under 18 years(2) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person under the age of 18 years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of(a) for a first offence, six months; and(b) for each subsequent offence, one year.Subsequent offences(3) In determining, for the purpose of subsection (2), whether a convicted person has committed a subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:(a) an offence under that subsection; or(b) an offence under subsection 212(4) of this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subsection comes into force.Sequence of convictions only(4) In determining, for the purposes of this section, whether a convicted person has committed a subsequent offence, the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences, whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction or whether offences were prosecuted by indictment or by way of summary conviction proceedings.Definitions of “place” and “public place”(5) For the purposes of this section, “place” and “public place” have the same meaning as in subsection 197(1).Material benefit from sexual services286.2 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.Material benefit from sexual services provided by person under 18 years(2) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(2), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.Presumption(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person received a financial or other material benefit from those services.Exception(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who receives the benefit(a) in the context of a legitimate living arrangement with the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;(b) as a result of a legal or moral obligation of the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;(c) in consideration for a service or good that they offer, on the same terms and conditions, to the general public; or(d) in consideration for a service or good that they do not offer to the general public but that they offered or provided to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived, if they did not counsel or encourage that person to provide sexual services and the benefit is proportionate to the value of the service or good.No exception(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) if that person(a) used, threatened to use or attempted to use violence, intimidation or coercion in relation to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;(b) abused a position of trust, power or authority in relation to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;(c) provided a drug, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived for the purpose of aiding or abetting that person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration;(d) engaged in conduct, in relation to any person, that would constitute an offence under section 286.3; or(e) received the benefit in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration.Aggravating factor(6) If a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court that imposes the sentence shall consider as an aggravating factor the fact that that person received the benefit in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration.Procuring286.3 (1) Everyone who procures a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(1), recruits, holds, conceals or harbours a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.Procuring — person under 18 years(2) Everyone who procures a person under the age of 18 years to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(2), recruits, holds, conceals or harbours a person under the age of 18 who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years.Advertising sexual services286.4 Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.Immunity — material benefit and advertising286.5 (1) No person shall be prosecuted for(a) an offence under section 286.2 if the benefit is derived from the provision of their own sexual services; or(b) an offence under section 286.4 in relation to the advertisement of their own sexual services.Immunity — aiding, abetting, etc.(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or being an accessory after the fact or counselling a person to be a party to such an offence, if the offence relates to the offering or provision of their own sexual services. 

This is an important change, and one that is both subtle and infuriating.  Sections 280-286 deal with abduction scenarios - particularly those involving underage victims.  The government has wedged a bunch of prostitution related discussion into S286, and in doing so is implicitly arguing that prostitution is clearly and directly linked with abduction and human trafficking.

Are you concerned yet?  You should be.  The Harper Government is muddying the legal waters here considerably, and there are potentially serious consequences to these changes.  First of all, the assumption that lies under this is questionable indeed.  To assert that there is an undeniable link between underage prostitution and child abduction is questionable at best.

Further, although S280-S286 appears to largely be intended to deal with abduction of youth scenarios, the amendments to S286 appear to be broad, involving more than scenarios which involve youth, which fundamentally perverts the intended application of S286.

I suspect that in part the government's intention in burying this in S286 is to create a bit of a legal shield for this portion of their legislation.  It clearly reiterates much of what used to be covered in the previous legislation, and thus creates the same hazards for sex workers in general.  By attaching to the sections on youth abduction, the Harper Government is clearly hoping that they will be able to make the case that these provisions should stand because they are "intended to protect youth".

Not only does it provide them with a shield in court, but they can accuse any opposition amendments of "not being willing to protect children".  Which is complete nonsense, but then again, so are most of the criminal justice laws that this government has passed.

The Harper Government - Slimy.  Dishonest. Unethical.

Apparently MacKay Missed The Point ...

When the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's prostitution laws last year, it did so on the basis that the existing laws placed sex workers in unreasonably dangerous situations.  

Quite appropriately, the Supreme Court gave the government a year to table new legislation.  Today, Justice Minister Peter MacKay tabled the government's response in the House of Commons.

The bill would create new offences for: 

— The purchase of sexual services and communicating in any place for that purpose. 

— Receiving a financial or material benefit from the prostitution of others, including through businesses that sell the sexual services of others online or out of venues such as escort agencies, massage parlours, or strip clubs that also provide sexual services. 

— Advertising the sale of sexual services in print media or on the Internet. 

— Communicating for the purpose of selling sexual services in public places where a child could reasonably be expected to be present.

Frankly, I'm not sure that I see any substantive difference over the old laws.  

Under the old laws, prostitution itself was legal but almost all related activities — including communicating in a public place for the purposes of prostitution, pimping and running a brothel — were criminal offences.

Eyes open.  The Harper Government has just done exactly what one might expect.  Essentially they have just returned to the old laws, and added a few new words here and there.  Particularly "clever" is the offence of "communicating for the purpose ... where a child could reasonably be expected to be present".  Gotta protect the children, donchaknow.

Of course, the government knows full well that a public place by definition is a place where children can be found.  Come to think of it, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this same clause in the law used to effectively criminalize prostitutes who have children.  If it is "dangerous" for a child to witness a transaction being negotiated, the one might imagine that the government presumes that a child living with a prostitute parent must be in enormous danger.

Okay, you can't "communicate in a public place".  So, you go into a "coffee shop" or "club" to negotiate the deal.  Presto, that's illegal too.  If the business in question exists to facilitate such negotiations, they are subject to other clauses in the law.

Want to advertise your services?  No can do.  That's illegal too.

Once again, we see the Harper Government's inability to comprehend the finer points of constitutional law in this country.  What they have done is just re-create the same conditions that rendered the previous laws inoperative.  Now this country's sex workers face another decade or so of litigation to overturn what amounts to the same laws as were thrown out last year.  I'm sure the Harper Government has written a few clever weasel phrases into the legislation to sidestep the particulars of the criticisms of the previous laws - just enough to force further litigation before the right thing happens again.

Oh yes, the government is blathering on about "programs" to help people exit the sex trade.  Newsflash:  not everybody in that trade wants to leave it.

Harper: A Decade In And He Still Doesn't Get It

Stephen Harper has been in power for the high side of a decade.  That's a long time.

Most Prime Ministers by this point in their careers have figured out that the foreign affairs portfolio is a tricky one.  When you are a smallish nation like Canada, you get much better results by influencing rather than playing the puffed up pugilist.

Harper hasn't figured this out.  Does he really think that Putin notices his pronouncements in the wake of sanctions?  Is he really daft enough to believe that his military posturing is going to convince Putin to back out of Crimea?

It seems to me that Harper is following his usual hyper-partisan instincts.  He isn't actually trying to influence Putin.  He's not interested in that.  He is much more interested in playing the foreign policy cards in his hand as part of a propaganda campaign aimed at getting re-elected next election.

No doubt, Harper's base loves the idea of a foreign policy that they don't have to think about.  A world which is cast in stark tones of good and bad.  Israel is good, Russia is bad.  The US is good, Iran is bad and so on.  It seems easy to grasp.

Yet, it is also not so simple.  In reality the world is a subtle place, shaded mostly in degrees of grey.  No country is essentially good or bad.  The days of looking upon Russia as "the other", shrouded in secrecy behind the old "Iron Curtain" are long past.  Globalization has dissolved those mythologies.  Russia is a nation led by a man who wishes to revive the old Cold War tensions, and Harper is fool enough to believe that this is to his own benefit.

Harper has been tone deaf on foreign affairs from day one.  Just as Putin is in fact a fool to try and resurrect the old "Soviet Empire", Harper is an even greater fool for playing to Putin's tune.