Tag: Law

Friday Bullets For A Heat Wave And The Heat

I watched Lebron. Then I didn’t. Yawn. Going to The Heat. Yawn. Stay in Cleveland? Jump up and down saying “Cleveland Rocks!” and bring out Drew Carey to sing “Cleveland Rocks!” with you and then promise to make something big happen in your home state and screw big cities and screw big money and look in the camera and say “I am the greatest” invoking Ali himself…. that’s what you do when you call a personal hour long press conference live on TV. Going to the Heat? Yawn. Burn baby burn.

  • Hey, I Like This Gig Update: new Tory Senators suddenly not backing Harper’s Senate reform.
  • Jack Hughes Update: Cavs owner goes absolutely MENTAL over Lebron’s decision.
  • Spy Swap!!! I don’t really care that much except that it is fun to write “Spy Swap!!!” I so knew that Flea’s cake candidate Anna Chapman was Anna Kushchenko. I did. I just didn’t tell you.
  • This is a fun web toy to play with at work today … until you remember that it describes out the history of nuclear testing.
  • Will the US catch up to Canada on same sex marriage? Isn’t that so 2004?
  • You know you have been suckered by the seduction of mobile internet when you actually think you can walk around France streaming a radio station from Alberta for free.
  • How do you “challenge” the plain words of the constitution?

Out into the oven again today. Thanks God I got that deep long and restful sleep.

None

Friday Bullets For The Beginning Of The Orgy

And so it begins. An embarrassing manufactured jingoistic spend-fest. Imagine the regret in March, the bills, the questions as to whether all the bronze medals and seventh to seventeenth place finishes were worth it. But then it will be spring, there will be baseball, representational democracy will be returned to us and we can get back to ignoring the good of the nation in favour of our petty regional and political interests. Teams I am backing? Canadian hockey (who’s kidding who?), Norwegian cross country (great sweaters), Latvian everything else (plucky and maroon). Name your real favorite teams in the comments. Five extra points for your list of Olympic sports that are not real sports. Me? I’d trade real wooden toboggan races down the downhill ski run for aerial ski flips and twists. Team snowball, too.

  • What an odd speech. Interesting to see the Great Chilly One needed to have the “very well” in thanking people for a job very well done so he could be reminded to actual attempt human contact at that point in the presentation. For someone who has spent most of his life undermining the national identity, it’s fun to watch him choke out a call to patriotism. I have no idea what he means by it but good to see him try.
  • The culture of casual hate framed in a cartoon.
  • If the Mohawk were Amish or another conservative community no one would care much. Yet it is quite the thing to be reminded that the mini-mall world of Olympic-style cultural identify is not the only game in town.
  • Ben, at yet another site, gets the difference between blogging journalists and political leadership. But does anyone really believe the GOP is working hard behind the scenes to create program alternatives that fulfill the wish that “All Americans should receive the same tax benefit as those who are insured through work, whether through a tax credit or other means”? I love all non tax based health care being described as “other means”.
  • Another moment of the “new Canadian pride“: “They have a magnetic component in their sled that does something. It’d be nice to have that investigated.” Something. Something?? Now there’s a stand to take.
  • China fears cyber attacks (cyber attacks!!!) as Iran hones it skills at turning off the internet. In the future when the Iranians keep us from gathering on Fridays, do have a kind thought for me.

That is it. I am off for an eight hour drive today. What fun.

None

Friday Bullets For The Last Of Spring

So how did spring 2009 turn out? We hardly judge them, springs. They are a gift after the bleak second half of winter. They convey none of the foreboding that can even creep in around mid-July. It’s all give, give, give. Except it was cold. We had the air conditioning on for one day the whole time. I fully expect to be obviously sweating in public by the end of May. Not pretty but it’s what I’ve come to expect. Nature can be so disappointing.

  • Married Priest Update: but this time it’s OK.
  • I do hope they ban Cheddar soon in Quebec, too, as the particular tang of English cheese might also lend some support to the destruction of culture as we know it.
  • Zombie croquet
  • The level of dumbness that arises of not having a two-party state in the culture can be quite startling.
  • I don’t particularly have a hackle raised by the theocrats of Iran (subject to bombing any nuke-ish facility without notice) but the clerics do look a bit silly when they try to explain themselves. But I like this slogan: “Every single Iranian is valuable. Government is a service to all.” Nothing like a chill down the spine to clarify the mind.
  • I wouldn’t aim a missile at Hawaii. Not me. No good comes of that.
  • Heard on NPR this morning: the trillion dollar health bill adds up to three boxes of girl guide cookies per person per day. Plus it is an extra trillion over ten years representing a 100 billion annual increase on 2.2 trillion annual health spending. thought it was a trillion over one year. I am still not sure if it is net or gross costs. No skin off my nose but that waitress in Maine who said she was spending $650 per month on health insurance back around 1994? It’ll matter to her.

Must run. Learning day. Fridays are so much nicer when there is less learning.

None

Oh, To Be In England With All The Cameras There

Oh, to be a automated camera salesman, too. Sounds like the nation has gone mad what with the checking up upon itself:

It was at one of these protests that Sussex police put a “marker” on his car. That meant he was added to a “hotlist”. This is a system meant for criminals but John Catt has not been convicted of anything and on a trip to London, the pensioner found himself pulled over by an anti-terror unit. “I was threatened under the Terrorist Act. I had to answer every question they put to me, and if there were any questions I would refuse to answer, I would be arrested. I thought to myself, what kind of world are we living in?” Sussex police would not talk about the case.

And whoever wakes in England sees, some morning, unaware, that the lowest boughs and the brushwood sheaf round the elm-tree bole are with tiny lens, while the police view from the orchard in England – now!

None

What Is A Canadian Citizenship Worth?

Quite a number of years ago, I check out a cousin’s child’s right to Canadian citizenship and, as the person in question was born somewhere else, they needed to assert their Canadianness before a certain date or lose it. Apparently the rules will tighten tomorrow:

April 17 marks the implementation of a new rule created by the Canadian government. If you are a Canadian living overseas, passing on your citizenship will now become more difficult: Your children won’t get a Canadian passport unless one of their parents was either born in Canada, or had become a citizen by immigrating into Canada. Many Canadians are up in arms about this, ex-pats in particular. But I didn’t even know about the rule changes until a friend in Toronto forwarded me a mass-circulated protest e-mail. The message vilifies the policy, suggesting that all children of Canadian have a “right” to Canadian citizenship — no matter where they are born — and is accompanied by the obligatory petition to sign and forward.

I have a second nationality so this sort of scrutiny does not seem odd to me. In the 80s, I applied for and got UK right of abode. Under the current UK rules, I am pretty sure l am able to still apply for full citizenship based on family ties but that is not absolutely clear to me due to the complexity of the rules. Plus, I may have to show I am of good character. I hope I qualify. Maybe these bloggy posts would be my downfall.

I think these sorts of things are good. I am reminded of that by the scandal in PEI related to the selling of citizenships leading to an impossible but for-profit local explosion of immigrant investors which has come to the point that a Minister of the Crown has told people involved to retain lawyers. Those out of pocket may have to wait years to even get their papers.

Wouldn’t it be better if we had a firm set of rules around these things and rules that were actually administered by the level of government responsible for citizenship? Wouldn’t it be nice to know your citizenship is worth something, that I have been part of a process that relates to, you know, ideas like good character?

None

Of Course – It Was The War On Red Tape!

Do we hate “red tape” as much as before? Is there still a general feeling that too much intervention is always wrong? Not a chance. This morning I think even Stephen Harper with his recent anti-libertarian and anti- classic liberal statements would be nodding in agreement with this passage from today’s New York Times editorial page:

The financial crisis, including what went wrong at A.I.G., is not just the result of a missing regulator, a gaping structural gap in the regulatory framework. Rather, it is rooted in the refusal of regulators, lawmakers and executive-branch officials to heed warnings about risks in the system and to use their powers to head them off. It is the result of antiregulatory bias and deregulatory zeal — ascendant over the last three decades, but especially prevalent in the last 10 years — that eclipsed not only rules and regulations, but the very will to regulate.

Now, to be fair, our rural overlords in their heart of hearts want to regulate things in our private lives that mostly don’t need regulating but the point is still valid. What is the most important word up there? Deregulatory? Bias? No, it’s “zeal” – that thing that can overcome good sense wherever you go. Why would you want a zealot to structure your law – whether financial regulations or social engineering – when you would not want to sit next to that person at a dinner party? Is it not the zealot’s lack of balance that gives us terrorism, obscenely sub-prime mortgages, mockery of the deaths of the weak, bifurcation of the community and the undermining of the long standing social principles and institutions which have served us so well? And blogging. Don’t forget in inanity of blogging. Could it be plainer? Is there anything behind social instability other than zeal? So, in this time of transition and reformation, ought we not drum out zealotry wherever it may be found? Is this not the cause of the next five year?

None

Head Scratching About ICCPR Comment 11

Great flibberty jibberty. I sure am grateful that there are smarter people out there than me. I sure would hate to be left to my own devices to make my way in the world and understand, you know, stuff. So it is with appreciation and relief that I read the news today that the media might soon be under the guiding hand of a national content watchdog according to a submission from the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

The media’s freedom of expression comes with a duty to “address issues of hate expression, and [media] should do so either voluntarily through provincial press councils, or through statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership,” the report reads. “At the same time, the OHRC recognizes the media have full freedom and control over what they publish. Ensuring mechanisms are in place to provide opportunity for public scrutiny and the receipt of complaints, particularly from vulnerable groups, is important, but it must not cross the line into censorship.”

Hmmm. That’s not what I expected. I thought this would be, you know, based on law. But what is that? Where is that “duty” from. Duties are not just made up you know. The footnote to the OHRC submission right at that spot reads:

UN treaty bodies such as the Committee on Civil and Political Rights have stated through their interpretive “Comments” that human rights treaties such as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights convey positive obligations on signatory States to take immediate and progressive measures including refraining themselves from making any hate propaganda (see for example ICCPR Committee Comment #11).

So a committee of an international bureaucracy has commented on the text of a treaty and come up with an idea that should be adopted in Canada as the equivalent of a duty which limits to some degree or another the freedom of speech. How wacky. Not what I had imagined at all. What can this mean? Let’s see. The “ICCPR” is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But I can’t seem to find the comments, let alone Comment 11. This page, however, seems to have it if you scroll down a bit where we learn that Comment 11 relates to Article 20 which states:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

That’s interesting and sensible. There ought to be a law! And that is what Comment 11 says at section 2:

In the opinion of the Committee, these required prohibitions are fully compatible with the right of freedom of expression as contained in article 19, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities. The prohibition under paragraph 1 extends to all forms of propaganda threatening or resulting in an act of aggression or breach of the peace contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, while paragraph 2 is directed against any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether such propaganda or advocacy has aims which are internal or external to the State concerned… For article 20 to become fully effective there ought to be a law making it clear that propaganda and advocacy as described therein are contrary to public policy and providing for an appropriate sanction in case of violation.

See, it actually does say “there ought to be a law.” And you though that I was making it up. And, fortunately, Canada has a law. It’s called the criminal code. It is a law that provides for an appropriate sanctions in cases of violations. And the Criminal Code of Canada has a specific one on the question of hate law. It’s right there at section 319. Perfect. Duty fulfilled. The treaty says we need a law to deal with this stuff and we have it. Hooray for Canada!

But I don’t see where it says we need a national press oversight body. That isn’t in the authority cited for the principle. It actually says in the submission of the OHRC that:

Striking this balance between different forms of rights is important and necessarily has some legal parameters. Hate expression against identifiable groups is undeniably a human rights matter and should be confronted through human rights law, not just criminal law. But a perfect balance cannot be legislated. It’s also an active process that all individuals, organizations and institutions in society are obliged to go through; a process that must include being open to public debate.

Where is the authority for that? Where is the authority for the idea that hate expression against identifiable groups is undeniably a human rights matter? And where is the authority for the implicit accusation that the Criminal Code is not open for public debate? It may be out there but it is not provided. It also is couched in the sort of insecure language – “undeniably” and “should be” – that makes one wonder if it is actually out there just waiting to be cited. This is pretty unsatisfactory stuff. A constitutional right is balanced off against a comment in a treaty obligation discussion which does not even support the principle to which it is stated to relate. Then it is extrapolated from to state that the obligation isn’t good enough. And an underlying tone that the legislative branch is not about public debate. Weird.

That is a whole lot of sliding and sledging and slipping for me. It may well be that there is a case for some of all of this. I am not one of those Chicken Littles who obsess about hate speech and human rights. But it would be nice if the underlying factors supporting the cause were put in a way that could be read without scratching one’s head.

None

Unexpected Truths And The Beliefs Of The Doofus

It is a funny old world. We walk around in a haze of assumptions and build up layer upon layers of accepted truths which can leave us amazed by the unexpected things we hear on any given day, which leave our beliefs challenged:

The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed. “It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence,” the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here. He termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated.

[h/t M. CT.] Never thought I’d see that sort of thing but it makes sense and, while TDL says he hearts GWB in the balance of the article, he is really stressing that the problem is one of education. Compare this to the surprise I have this morning reading this headline “Liberal-NDP coalition would protect war resisters from deportation: MPs” I am not surprised about the idea of non-deportation. I am surprised that someone actually still believes there is a Liberal-NDP coalition. Apparently someone was sitting near the back when Iggy was talking and missed the message.

Ah, the beliefs of the doofus. The belief of the doofus is a particularly powerful thing. Consider the need to re-do the oath of office for President Obama. Why re-do even though it was pretty clear that the Chief Justice botched the job the first time? Flakes! Flacks and yahoos and nutbars and dingbats, that is why:

It’s a question being asked by constitutional experts – not to mention Fox News pundits and bloggers – after the man generally considered the finest orator of his generation fluffed his lines while reciting the oath of office on Capitol Hill yesterday. Actually, the blame may well lie with John Roberts, the Chief Justice, whose job it was to guide Mr Obama through the 35-word oath prescribed by the constitution and decided to do it from memory in front of a live crowd of around 2 million people and a further billion or so following via television.

Bloggers! Never mind that constitutional experts had a question but to face the concern of bloggers, well, surely that is too much for the constitution of the most powerful nation on the face of the nation to bear. Never mind that the hand on or off Bible thing is not settled. Never mind that Andrew Johnson, whose “normal oratorical style when speaking extemporaneously tended toward the wild and uncontrolled” was stumblin’ drunk when he took the oath as VP in 1865. Never mind that Chester Arthur and Calvin Coolidge each also had to do a redo, too. Never mind that other past flubs did not lead to a re-do. Bloggers are restless. Take the oath again.

Interestingly, however, as the oath is in the constitution itself, it has been subject to actual official review based on its actual words:

“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

See, it is the execution of the office that the oath is about. He is elected and he is made President, according to the constitution, by the stroke of the clock at noon. But expect a bazillion dopey bloggers and Rush Limbaugh, too, to get it wrong for the next four to eight years. Belief systems are powerful things.

None

A Very Special Friday Bullets For Christmas

Why so special? Because I took the day off, of course. We have stuff to get in, stuff to put up and stuff to eat. We have a snow storm coming a guests tonight. Ball cap wearing guests, fortunately. But there is that eternal question – how much booze to buy in anticipation of a party that may be one-third of the expected if the snow storm hits hard? Last weekend I kad the kids note down all the species we may consume in one form or another as part of Yule and it was quite impressive: scallops, lobster, crab, oysters, haddock, cod, salmon, chicken, duck, turkey, beef, lamb, pork, buffalo. Surely there are more. T’is the season to eat nature.

  • Mr Orange Togue heads to Afghanistan. I showed Darcey’s pal MOT a good time around Ottawa a year and a half ago. Our thoughts are with MOT and his companions. Christmassy. Definitely Christmassy.
  • Evil web hacker jerks help destroy nature. Not Christmassy at all.
  • The New York Times has vital cookie batter information for you just when you need it. Massively Christmassy.
  • Can the definition of individual liberty posed here actually stand? Seems like wishery to me. Christmassiness neutral.
  • Please tell him to be quiet. Interesting to see how many of the At Issue panel considered Stephen Harper overrated. Very Christmassy or not at all depending on your position. I saw Iggy on The Hour last night. He can actually string two sentences together, something foreign to Canadian politics. Harper is toast. But thanks for the extra seats at this special time of year.
  • Ben pointed out the 1793 legislation (within maybe a year of Ontario’s creation) barring slavery’s expansion. Anti-slavery is very Christmas.

There you go. Off to buy cleaning products and liquor. Happy happy everyone and if your happy is a holiday, whoops up and woots a plenty for that, too.

None

Jay’s Party Of One On Free Speech

Being the leftist libertarian that I am, I have a certain affinity for what Jay is writing about these days, like this one, on the theme on better regulation of the regulation of free speech – though we are not on the same page in any ways and I think he wanders in unnecessary and potentially unhelpful areas. And I wrote the following comment and, being uncaffeinated as yet, thought it worth saving as I suspect Jay’s comment function may be unintentionally set back at “Abyss Mode”:

I was going to make a point about the third [class of free speech protections – libel, copyright and incitement arguments]. You can’t say that it is not the role of the state when it reaches inciting hatred as that is at the extreme criminal law and at a lesser point still within mischief or breach of the peace. But all enforceable by the state though the court and police systems and not administrative tribunals. And libel is not about property, it is about reputation – though they are connected. Civil society has a layer of regulation that is about decency on a human to human level. Loss of that respect leads to many wrongs including potential loss of property values. But it is not limited to that. A poor and unknown person without wealth can be libeled if, through the status, dignity is denigrated. This becomes a useful tool in creating a civic identity and standards of speech and interrelation – not socialism but civic republicanism. Without that, there is only true moral relativism, that Satan spawn of Ayn Rand’s wacko ideas.

See, libertarians will never admit that they are the actual source of moral relativism, the loss of community standards of decency and acceptability that carries with it a myriad of complications. Well, I suppose that that is because libertarians will admit nothing, it being just a selfish day dream in the guise of a philosophy wrapped in the illusion of a political theory.

None