What She Said!

Every so often, someone makes a comment that just gets it all in perspective. Back here, commenter Stephanie writes:

It's bad enough that Harper is trying to use techniques from the Bush/Rove playbook on fearmongering, but it is even more pathetic that he is trying to use tactics that are several years past their "best before" date.

Thank you, Stephanie! You said it all, and oh-so elegantly!

(I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of reprinting your comment on the front page)

Law, Terrorism, Civil Liberties and Stephen Harper

Unless you've been living under a rock recently, you'll know that MPs voted to allow two unused clauses of Canada's post-9/11 "anti-terrorism" laws to lapse.

Now, we have to start asking the question: Why does Stephen Harper insist that Canadians must "give up" civil liberties such as due process when detained?

"The Liberals chose internal caucus politics over the national security of Canadians," he said Tuesday.

No, actually I'd say Dion and the rest of the opposition MPs made a very principled stand in favour of Canadian civil rights and liberties.

Law enforcement and intelligence in Canada have had 5 full years to demonstrate that such laws are useful tools. They haven't used them, and arguably, do not need them at this time. I don't like the idea of leaving a little turd lying around in law that can be used to lock someone away arbitrarily because the government doesn't like who they're talking to.

Harper is trying to play this as a political smear - something he started last week when he slimed MP Bains in the House of Commons, and had Minister Nitwit post this bit of partisan crap on the "Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness" department website.

Abusing Their Power

It appears that the Conservative government thinks that the resources of the Federal Government are at their disposal for partisan propaganda.

As The Galloping Beaver notes, our "Minister of Public Safety" Stockwell Day has posted the following screed on his department's website:


I'd like to draw your attention to the last paragraph, which reads:

At a time when the Opposition Parties are being soft on security and soft on terrorism, Canada’s New Government remains unwavering in its determination to safeguard national security and is committed to working with all its partners to protect the safety and security of Canadians.”

If I found that screed on the Conservative Party website, I'd look and shrug at it. However, when I see such obviously partisan crap on the Government's website, I get very angry. The Government and its agencies exist at the will and the service of all Canadians, regardless of how we voted. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition represents a sizable fraction of Canada's voters (a majority in this parliament, actually).

If Harper and crew are so willing to abuse government resources to forward their partisan chicanery now - while they have a razor-thin control over the House of Commons agenda - voters must ask themselves just how ugly are they going to get if they get anything close to a majority in the House of Commons. Harper has already demonstrated that he has little - or no - regard for anyone but his most loyal followers, and will quite cheerfully throw anyone else "under the bus".

Typical of the Bully

Harper's tactics in the House of Commons are like watching someone use a blunderbuss where they need a scalpel - the results are messy and appalling.

Yesterday, he put forth an "all or nothing motion to extend the expiring clauses of Canada's "anti-terrorism" legislation.

After tabling an all-or-nothing motion to extend the two clauses in question, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the day before the vote he is open to suggestions for a compromise on new anti-terror legislation.

"The Senate has proposed a couple of things that are realistic; we want to see something. You know we are open to something, it is important to have anti-terror legislation that is effective," Harper said.

Once again, in the style of the grade school bully, Harper does something utterly ridiculous, and then turns around and tries to belittle the opposition. "Realistic" is Harper-speak for "sufficiently authoritarian to satisfy his BDSM fantasies".

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has said that giving only 24 hours to submit a list of about 50 recommendations before the vote is a joke.

It is a joke - but there's a reason for it. Like his idol from Alberta, Ralph Klein, Stephen Harper seems to think that the best way to run a democracy is behind closed doors. If he can't do that, he does everything he can to truncate or eliminate debate entirely.

Liberals in support of letting the laws fade away have argued the two clauses have never been used and therefore won't be missed, since they were merely an understandable reaction to fears about terrorism in the uncertainty immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks.

Which is exactly the point of having a "sunset clause" on them. If they are so blasted important, PMSH can bring forth specific legislation to reinstate them. Frankly, they are the aspects of the post-9/11 legislation that bothered me the most from the beginning, and it's time we let them go.

I would guess that short of a major change in the landscape of the house, that these clauses will quietly expire tonight, and Harper will try to play the "Tough on Crime(tm)" card, attempting to portray the opposition as "soft" on terrorism.

Ignorance and Bigotry

Via Canadian Cynic this morning, I found myself directed to Canada's Right Wing Nut Club, and reading what could possibly be one of the most ignorant bits of screed I've ever read.

While defending his stance that he is "not homophobic", the author brings out just about every cliche and misunderstanding of gay men that I've ever heard of.

Here are 10 more things you should know about most typical heterosexual males:

1. Just because we like art and fine furniture, wash our cars, regularly bathe and brush our teeth, and like nice clothes doesn’t mean we’re latent. What it means is that your team doesn’t have a monopoly on taste or decorum.

2. No, we don’t want highlights in our hair or a manicure/pedicure.

3. We think Vespas are for beautiful girls to ride. Not guys. Harley’s, custom West Coast Choppers, Triumphs, Indians or Von Dutchs = a dude’s bike.

4. We don’t like dogs that have “toy” as a prefix to their name.

5. A hunted wild animal’s gut pile is a glorious and beautiful thing. Long live the hunt and the hunter.

6. Keep your lip gloss; we’ll use our Carmex.

7. We like boots not flip flops.

8. Normal men do not like Celine Dion. If you see us crying during one of her shows, it’s not because she struck a nerve with a ballad; but rather we are lamenting our manhood slowly draining away from us as we sit here, for the eight time, and listen to this chick whine.

9. When we look at a pretty girl, we think “wow” and say, “howdy.” To us, the lovely lady lumps trump a man’s hairy back any day. Call us crazy.

10. We don’t think Adam and Steve is an improvement or alternative to Adam and Eve. But that’s just us.

I could dissect the idiots argument piece by piece - as I often do when someone's stupidity is particularly galling, but I think that list makes it for me. That's one giant collection of stereotypes and ignorance coming out there.

Most social bias comes out in the form of ignorance. That column's author, Doug Giles, has just demonstrated his own ignorance of gay men - I'd have to guess he got most of his "knowledge" from the hallways of his high school, and hasn't updated it since.

Does ignorance of a group equate to hatred of them? Not necessarily, but ignorance tends to generate fear - which can devolve quite rapidly into the kind of loathing and hatred that results in gangs of thugs bashing the tar out of somebody.

What we are talking about is understanding people both for who they are and their cultural/social context. It means stepping back from a thought, and asking yourself if the thought/comment/whatever in your head is based on knowledge of the person or a lack of knowledge of their context.

When you start your argument from stereotypes - whether it is the "effeminate gay male", or the "illiteracy of immigrants" - you are guaranteed to completely misunderstand the situation you face.

It comes down to this - treat the people around you with a modicum of respect and dignity and you will get much further ahead. (Better yet, try to learn a little about them before you decide to judge them)

1 in 3 Alberta Teens Watch Porn

Yeah, so?...this is a big surprise how?

I'm not defending the porn industry here - I think that the industry itself propogates a huge amount of mythology, none of which is exactly what I'd call a "good thing" myself.

However, while parental strictures against visiting porn sites on the web etc. are of some value, I think the more important thing for us to do as a society is admit that these places exist, and then teach our children about the difference between the fantasy world that is portrayed on screen and reality.

This is not a matter of "moralizing" about the subject, but rather a matter of sitting down and describing the impact of various decisions about sexual activity to teens intelligently. We don't need to use pure fear tactics - personally I think that the knowledge of what happens to the human body as it is attacked by various STI's is probably quite an effective deterrent - without having to "preach".

One of the interesting aspects of the "information era" we live in is that it pulls back the curtains on a lot of 'taboo' subjects - things that used to be "not talked about", and shines a light on them. Sexuality, especially in North America, has been one of those areas. A "don't talk about it" attitude generates all sorts of unhealthy behaviours and beliefs. It is high time that we looked the topic in the eye, and dealt with it honestly. (As opposed to burying our heads in the sand, and wishing that teens learning about sex just wouldn't happen.)

Security Certificates and Law

Now that Canada's Supreme Court has examined the whole "Security Certificate" mechanism and found that it is in violation of basic principles of civil rights, such as due process, it's time to take apart one of the most abusive pieces of law on Canada's books.

I've always argued that in a country like Canada, we have a clear system of due process and law which should take precedence over the fear-mongering paranoia of politicians whose idea of power is nearly authoritarian in nature. A free and democratic society should not need tools as arbitrary as security certificates. If someone has been accused of the kind of criminal activity that warrants detention, then bloody well charge and prosecute them in the open courts. Secretive "you can't see the evidence" processes are abusive, and subject to political manipulation in ways that are simply not acceptable in a civil society.

For those willing to delve into the arcane language of law, the full ruling is already posted here, and it contains some intriguing insights.

From the Chief Justice's commentary (emphasis added):

2 In this case, we are confronted with a statute, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA”), that attempts to resolve this tension in the immigration context by allowing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Minister”), and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (collectively “the ministers”) to issue a certificate of inadmissibility leading to the detention of a permanent resident or foreign national deemed to be a threat to national security. The certificate and the detention are both subject to review by a judge, in a process that may deprive the person named in the certificate of some or all of the information on the basis of which the certificate was issued or the detention ordered. The question is whether the solution that Parliament has enacted conforms to the Constitution, and in particular the guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protect against unjustifiable intrusions on liberty, equality and the freedom from arbitrary detention and from cruel and unusual treatment.



3 I conclude that the IRPA unjustifiably violates s. 7 of the Charter by allowing the issuance of a certificate of inadmissibility based on secret material without providing for an independent agent at the stage of judicial review to better protect the named person’s interests. I also conclude that some of the time limits in the provisions for continuing detention of a foreign national violate ss. 9 and 10(c) because they are arbitrary. I find that s. 12 has not been shown to be violated since a meaningful detention review process offers relief against the possibility of indefinite detention. Finally, I find that there is no breach of the s. 15 equality right.

This more or less encompasses the fundamental problems that I have expressed (repeatedly) around the subject of detaining people on arbitrary mechanisms like this. I still fundamentally disagree with the whole notion of a secretive process, as it seems to me that it creates serious problems with the transparency and accountability that is essential in the government of an open society.