Saskatchewan's highest court has ruled that marriage commissioners who are public servants cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples.
The decision by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rejects two proposals from the provincial government that would allow some or all marriage commissioners to refuse to perform a service involving gay or lesbian partners if it offended their religious beliefs.
The government proposed that marriage commissioners who were employed before the law changed in 2004 could refuse to perform the services. It also proposed a second option where all marriage commissioners could refuse.
But the court noted that marriage commissioners are appointed by the government to perform non-religious ceremonies and are the only option for some same-sex couples seeking to tie the knot.
Lawyers appointed to argue that the proposals were constitutional said that if anyone was refused a marriage service, it would be easy to find another commissioner who would perform the same service. The court of appeal said the proposals were "contrary to fundamental principles of equality in a democratic society" and rejected both options.
"Both of the possible amendments offend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Either of them, if enacted, would violate the equality rights of gay and lesbian individuals," Justice Robert Richards said in the ruling, supported by justices John Klebuc, Ralph Ottenbreit, Gene Ann Smith and William Vancise.
Implications cited
Richards also expressed concern that if marriage commissioners were allowed to opt out of services, they might also do so because they object to interfaith marriages or interracial marriages.
The case has its roots in a 2004 Supreme Court of Canada decision affirming the validity of same-sex marriages.
That decision and subsequent legal changes led some marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan to refuse to solemnize same-sex marriages, saying it was a violation of their personal religious beliefs.
One of those commissioners, Orville Nichols, had a human rights complaint filed against him by a same-sex couple. A tribunal under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission upheld the complaint.
Among those praising Monday's decision was the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, one of the interveners in the case.
"This is a very important decision," Donna Smith, a member of the SFL's solidarity and pride committee, said in a release. "An important precedent has now been set that will help to deter discrimination against same-sex couples that wish to marry."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/01/10/sk-marriage-commissioners-1101.html#socialcomments#ixzz1Af5spYKG
Monday, January 10, 2011
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is to release its opinion Monday on the thorny issue of what to do when a marriage commissioner says “I don’t” to gay couples seeking wedding .
REGINA — The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is to release its opinion Monday on the thorny issue of what to do when a marriage commissioner says “I don’t” to gay couples seeking wedding services.
Five judges of the province’s top court have been mulling over the constitutional question since May. Two days were spent hearing legal arguments examining the religious rights of marriage commissioners and the equality rights of same-sex couples.
“The case is significant on the very issue itself,” noted John Whyte, a constitutional expert and former provincial deputy justice minister, in a recent interview. “The case also opens the door — a much wider door — on the question of accommodation of religious needs.”
He suspects that if the court allows for accommodation of the marriage commissioners’ religious views, the decision will likely try to narrow the application to that specific situation.
“But it has some impact on the general question of accommodation of religious belief in public servants and public service generally. That’s what’s at stake here in a conceptual way, and so the case has that significance,” Whyte added.
The court was asked to wade into the contentious legal territory by the provincial government, seeking advice on two versions of a proposed law.
It’s the first time in 20 years the province has used the Constitutional Questions Act to seek an opinion from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, the last being in 1990 on electoral boundaries.
Whyte explained that reference cases are advisory, so the province isn’t technically legally bound to follow the court’s advice. But he noted that from a more practical standpoint, such advice is often followed.
“I would be very surprised if the government didn’t just go along with the court’s decision,” Whyte said.
The government asked the court to consider two draft bills: One allowing all marriage commissioners to refuse to perform civil marriage ceremonies that are contrary to their religious beliefs, and another that would grant the exemption only to those commissioners who held office when gay marriage was legalized in November 2004.
The Saskatchewan Party government is on record supporting a law that would accommodate marriage commissioners’ religious beliefs. However, Justice Minister Don Morgan told reporters in May, prior to the hearing, that if the court found both draft bills unconstitutional, the government would tell marriage commissioners they are obliged to perform same-sex marriages. There are some 300 marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan.
The government appointed Regina lawyer Mike Megaw to argue in favour of the draft laws and Saskatoon lawyer Reynold Robertson to argue against their constitutionality. In addition, 10 lawyers representing 18 groups and individuals — including the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, churches, unions, gay rights activists, and three marriage commissioners — were granted intervener status, so they too could give their position.
With the issue considered by five judges, a split by the court is possible.
If the court finds the proposed laws constitutional, Whyte suspects the judges will offer some suggestions about accommodating the marriage commissioners’ religious beliefs while still preventing insult to gay couples.
The issue came to the fore in 2008 when a Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal found longtime Regina marriage commissioner Orville Nichols violated the province’s human rights code by refusing to marry a gay couple.
Several other provinces are wrestling with the same issue. Although the Saskatchewan court’s decision could have some “persuasive impact,” it wouldn’t have any legal effect in the other provinces, Whyte said.
Read more: http://www.leaderpost.com/life/Sask+Appeal+Court+reveal+opinion+refusing+couples/4083419/story.html#ixzz1Abb3vQdu
Five judges of the province’s top court have been mulling over the constitutional question since May. Two days were spent hearing legal arguments examining the religious rights of marriage commissioners and the equality rights of same-sex couples.
“The case is significant on the very issue itself,” noted John Whyte, a constitutional expert and former provincial deputy justice minister, in a recent interview. “The case also opens the door — a much wider door — on the question of accommodation of religious needs.”
He suspects that if the court allows for accommodation of the marriage commissioners’ religious views, the decision will likely try to narrow the application to that specific situation.
“But it has some impact on the general question of accommodation of religious belief in public servants and public service generally. That’s what’s at stake here in a conceptual way, and so the case has that significance,” Whyte added.
The court was asked to wade into the contentious legal territory by the provincial government, seeking advice on two versions of a proposed law.
It’s the first time in 20 years the province has used the Constitutional Questions Act to seek an opinion from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, the last being in 1990 on electoral boundaries.
Whyte explained that reference cases are advisory, so the province isn’t technically legally bound to follow the court’s advice. But he noted that from a more practical standpoint, such advice is often followed.
“I would be very surprised if the government didn’t just go along with the court’s decision,” Whyte said.
The government asked the court to consider two draft bills: One allowing all marriage commissioners to refuse to perform civil marriage ceremonies that are contrary to their religious beliefs, and another that would grant the exemption only to those commissioners who held office when gay marriage was legalized in November 2004.
The Saskatchewan Party government is on record supporting a law that would accommodate marriage commissioners’ religious beliefs. However, Justice Minister Don Morgan told reporters in May, prior to the hearing, that if the court found both draft bills unconstitutional, the government would tell marriage commissioners they are obliged to perform same-sex marriages. There are some 300 marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan.
The government appointed Regina lawyer Mike Megaw to argue in favour of the draft laws and Saskatoon lawyer Reynold Robertson to argue against their constitutionality. In addition, 10 lawyers representing 18 groups and individuals — including the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, churches, unions, gay rights activists, and three marriage commissioners — were granted intervener status, so they too could give their position.
With the issue considered by five judges, a split by the court is possible.
If the court finds the proposed laws constitutional, Whyte suspects the judges will offer some suggestions about accommodating the marriage commissioners’ religious beliefs while still preventing insult to gay couples.
The issue came to the fore in 2008 when a Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal found longtime Regina marriage commissioner Orville Nichols violated the province’s human rights code by refusing to marry a gay couple.
Several other provinces are wrestling with the same issue. Although the Saskatchewan court’s decision could have some “persuasive impact,” it wouldn’t have any legal effect in the other provinces, Whyte said.
Read more: http://www.leaderpost.com/life/Sask+Appeal+Court+reveal+opinion+refusing+couples/4083419/story.html#ixzz1Abb3vQdu
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Internet usage costs to rise in Canada.!
Surfing and downloading from the internet is about to get more expensive for many Canadians as internet companies Shaw and Primus have announced plans to impose new fees and caps on internet usage.
Over the past year, the CRTC, Canada's communication regulator, let Bell and Rogers start charging extra for customers who download a lot of data. The growing demand for live-streaming and online movies gobbles up huge chunks of bandwidth on the World Wide Web.
Primus and Shaw have said they will begin passing on higher fees to their customers beginning Feb. 1. Primus, for example, rents bandwidth on Bell's networks and said Bell is inflating the costs for everyone, including them.
"It's an economic disincentive for internet use," said Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus. "It's not meant to recover costs. In fact these charges that Bell has levied are many, many, many times what it costs to actually deliver it."
Hugh Thompson, who runs the website Digital Home, said he's been hearing growing consumer complaints.
He said more people say they are receiving bills of $5 to $10 a month in penalties — with some complaining their penalties are running as high as $100 — all for their use of iTunes, YouTube and Netflix.
"Their bandwidth has skyrocketed from maybe a gigabyte or two a month to some cases of 200 to 300 gigabytes per month," said Thompson.
"So now that people are using so much bandwidth, the companies are crying foul. They're saying: 'We can't make money off this. We need to charge more.'"
Currently, only a small percentage of users download enough data to hit these new caps. But many fear these fees will soon apply to everyone as the internet becomes more video based.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2011/01/07/internet-expensive-surfing-canadians.html#ixzz1AVx0AscI
Over the past year, the CRTC, Canada's communication regulator, let Bell and Rogers start charging extra for customers who download a lot of data. The growing demand for live-streaming and online movies gobbles up huge chunks of bandwidth on the World Wide Web.
Primus and Shaw have said they will begin passing on higher fees to their customers beginning Feb. 1. Primus, for example, rents bandwidth on Bell's networks and said Bell is inflating the costs for everyone, including them.
"It's an economic disincentive for internet use," said Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus. "It's not meant to recover costs. In fact these charges that Bell has levied are many, many, many times what it costs to actually deliver it."
Hugh Thompson, who runs the website Digital Home, said he's been hearing growing consumer complaints.
He said more people say they are receiving bills of $5 to $10 a month in penalties — with some complaining their penalties are running as high as $100 — all for their use of iTunes, YouTube and Netflix.
"Their bandwidth has skyrocketed from maybe a gigabyte or two a month to some cases of 200 to 300 gigabytes per month," said Thompson.
"So now that people are using so much bandwidth, the companies are crying foul. They're saying: 'We can't make money off this. We need to charge more.'"
Currently, only a small percentage of users download enough data to hit these new caps. But many fear these fees will soon apply to everyone as the internet becomes more video based.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2011/01/07/internet-expensive-surfing-canadians.html#ixzz1AVx0AscI
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Ignatieff’s absence .
Back in the summer, when the long-form census was burning, RCMP senior staff were rebelling, Omar Khadr was languishing, and the head of CSIS was alleging Manchurian candidates were everywhere, a prominent Conservative sighed that some days it felt as though the government was reduced to reacting to events rather than controlling them.
.Those days are fading. This first week of January proved the Conservatives are firmly on top of the political agenda. Under the circumstances, it’s just as well there was no sign of Michael Ignatieff.
Consider this bit of evidence: The Tories may or may not truly believe they can take seats in the Greater Toronto Area from the Liberals in the next election. But the national media believe it, and that’s more important. Pundits universally agreed that Tuesday’s petite cabinet shuffle, elevating Peter Kent to Environment Minister and putting Julian Fantino in the seniors portfolio, proved that the Conservatives are on the warpath in the 905.
This reasoning, which could wildly inflate the Tories’ real prospects in the region, nonetheless puts the Liberals on the defensive by making them look vulnerable. The Grits aren’t really dominant anywhere in the country other than Toronto and environs. If those walls fall, then what’s left?
The Liberals indignantly reply that those walls won’t fall, that it’s the Conservatives who should be worried about swing seats the Liberals will be taking from them in Southern Ontario. But right now, the argument doesn’t sound convincing. It isn’t so much a question of polls; it’s more intangible than that. In August the Liberals had a bounce in their step. These days, it’s the Conservatives who whistle as they walk.
Mr. Ignatieff is on holidays, and no one should blame him for taking some time off. He’ll be back out on the road next week, his handlers say. It wasn’t necessary he be around; his shadow cabinet is stacked with talent.
But finance critic Scott Brison will get little ink when he rails against Tory fiscal waste and incompetence Friday morning. The Conservatives have entrenched the idea in voters’ minds that they successfully managed the recession and have the deficit under control. The Liberals will not defeat the Conservatives on the question of who best will manage the economy, no matter what Mr. Brison says.
To win, the Liberals have to move voters’ minds off the economy, the way they succeeded a year ago this month in making people angry at the government for proroguing Parliament. That was another time – from prorogation through detainee documents to the Helena Guergis affair – when the Conservatives reacted more than acted.
Right now, though, they own the story. It’s just as well that Michael Ignatieff is not around. There’s not much he could say.
.Those days are fading. This first week of January proved the Conservatives are firmly on top of the political agenda. Under the circumstances, it’s just as well there was no sign of Michael Ignatieff.
Consider this bit of evidence: The Tories may or may not truly believe they can take seats in the Greater Toronto Area from the Liberals in the next election. But the national media believe it, and that’s more important. Pundits universally agreed that Tuesday’s petite cabinet shuffle, elevating Peter Kent to Environment Minister and putting Julian Fantino in the seniors portfolio, proved that the Conservatives are on the warpath in the 905.
This reasoning, which could wildly inflate the Tories’ real prospects in the region, nonetheless puts the Liberals on the defensive by making them look vulnerable. The Grits aren’t really dominant anywhere in the country other than Toronto and environs. If those walls fall, then what’s left?
The Liberals indignantly reply that those walls won’t fall, that it’s the Conservatives who should be worried about swing seats the Liberals will be taking from them in Southern Ontario. But right now, the argument doesn’t sound convincing. It isn’t so much a question of polls; it’s more intangible than that. In August the Liberals had a bounce in their step. These days, it’s the Conservatives who whistle as they walk.
Mr. Ignatieff is on holidays, and no one should blame him for taking some time off. He’ll be back out on the road next week, his handlers say. It wasn’t necessary he be around; his shadow cabinet is stacked with talent.
But finance critic Scott Brison will get little ink when he rails against Tory fiscal waste and incompetence Friday morning. The Conservatives have entrenched the idea in voters’ minds that they successfully managed the recession and have the deficit under control. The Liberals will not defeat the Conservatives on the question of who best will manage the economy, no matter what Mr. Brison says.
To win, the Liberals have to move voters’ minds off the economy, the way they succeeded a year ago this month in making people angry at the government for proroguing Parliament. That was another time – from prorogation through detainee documents to the Helena Guergis affair – when the Conservatives reacted more than acted.
Right now, though, they own the story. It’s just as well that Michael Ignatieff is not around. There’s not much he could say.
Friday, January 7, 2011
A provincial court judge has rebuked Calgary police in her finding that a man was not guilty of driving while disqualified. : Daniel 'uncomfortable' about officer's credibility, rules search unlawful
A provincial court judge has rebuked Calgary police in her finding that a man was not guilty of driving while disqualified.
Judge Cheryl Daniel ruled that officers harassed the accused during an investigation, then gave testimony at trial that wasn't credible.
Daniel found Fuk Kiun Chin not guilty of driving while under suspension.
His trial heard how Chin had a testy relationship with a police sergeant who was checking up on Chin's son over a curfew.
The officer testified that he knew Chin was not supposed to be driving so he staked out the man's car, pulled him over and charged him.
Chin testified he wasn't in his car when he was stopped by the officer, but was walking to a bus stop to go to work.
Daniel said Chin's testimony had a "ring of truth" but she was "uncomfortable" about the credibility of the officer.
She also found a search of Chin's car, which turned up nothing illegal, was unlawful.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2011/01/06/calgary-police-judge-rebuke-.html#ixzz1AK9zaDFk
Judge Cheryl Daniel ruled that officers harassed the accused during an investigation, then gave testimony at trial that wasn't credible.
Daniel found Fuk Kiun Chin not guilty of driving while under suspension.
His trial heard how Chin had a testy relationship with a police sergeant who was checking up on Chin's son over a curfew.
The officer testified that he knew Chin was not supposed to be driving so he staked out the man's car, pulled him over and charged him.
Chin testified he wasn't in his car when he was stopped by the officer, but was walking to a bus stop to go to work.
Daniel said Chin's testimony had a "ring of truth" but she was "uncomfortable" about the credibility of the officer.
She also found a search of Chin's car, which turned up nothing illegal, was unlawful.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2011/01/06/calgary-police-judge-rebuke-.html#ixzz1AK9zaDFk
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The former Harper spin doctor Kory Teneycke who helped advance the Conservative brand is back at the helm of the right-leaning Sun TV News startup.
Kory Teneycke is expected to resume working at the 24-hour news channel next week, The Globe and Mail has learned.
The odd turn of events comes 3 1/2 months after Mr. Teneycke made a high-profile and abrupt exit from the Quebecor project, telling a news conference last September that increasingly bitter public acrimony over his role had made him a liability to the TV venture. At the time, it was petitioning federal regulators for a broadcasting licence.
Mr. Teneycke’s return will likely give Sun TV News the sharp edge and taste for controversy that was intended when he helped to conceive the idea for the network.
The combative one-time spokesman for Stephen Harper built a reputation as a take-no-prisoners political operative and lobbyist even before he reached the Prime Minister’s Office. He was a key player in the successful Conservative attack on former Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion’s carbon tax plan, and as a lobbyist for renewable fuels helped coax the Tories to spend billions of dollars on ethanol and biodiesel subsidies.
The populist Sun TV News undertaking – which critics have labelled Fox News North – is expected to begin broadcasting as early as March and feature a variety of personalities, from right-wing author Ezra Levant to Liberal spin doctor and columnist Warren Kinsella.
Mr. Levant, who says he will host a show on Sun TV News in the 5 p.m. ET slot, said he was delighted to hear Mr. Teneycke is returning.
“He’s the spiritual leader, so to speak. He’s the one who has the grand plan and created this thing from a spark. He’s our Roger Ailes,” Mr. Levant said, referring to the Republican political operative who founded Fox News.
In the months leading up to his departure from Sun TV News last September, Mr. Teneycke had deliberately courted controversy to publicize his new venture. These actions, he acknowledged upon leaving, had “contributed to the debasing of [the] debate” over Sun TV News.
Mr. Teneycke’s formula for generating buzz about the venture included a no-holds-barred approach to rivals and naysayers. He publicly derided other news outlets as the “lame-stream media” and lashed out at Sun TV News critics, calling veteran TV journalist Don Newman “the Helen Thomas of Canada.” That was a reference to the disgraced White House reporter who recently resigned after saying Israelis should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to places such as Germany.
Mr. Teneycke's resignation last September came one day after Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby asked the RCMP and Ottawa police to investigate tampering with an online petition against Sun TV News organized by global activist group Avaaz.org.
In the Avaaz incident, the organization had alleged that fraudsters added the names of Canadian journalists without their consent to the petition – as well as the names of fictitious characters such as Sesame Street's Snuffleupagus.
Mr. Teneycke became embroiled in the matter when he used his Twitter account Sept. 3 to announce he'd been in contact with a prankster who'd admitted to tampering with the petition. “Source e-mailed me to say they registered Boba Fett, D. Shroot, etc. Petition lacks basic controls,” he wrote. Avaaz said the data collected on the alleged fraudsters suggests they were based in Ottawa and using a Rogers Internet connection.
Contacted Wednesday, the Ottawa police could not immediately say whether they had investigated the complaint.
The federal broadcast regulator approved Quebecor Inc.’s Sun TV News licence application last November. Sun TV is now set to launch in mid-March. The launch was originally set for Jan. 1, but technical delays including later-than-expected equipment deliveries have slowed things down somewhat.
The company has been building the network’s main studio, in downtown Toronto close to the Toronto Sun offices, which will also house a second studio. Others will be built in Ottawa, Calgary, and likely Edmonton.
Sun TV had originally requested a license that would oblige cable and satellite companies to carry it on their services. That was rejected; and Sun TV tried again, asking for a standard license with the exception that distributors would have to offer it to customers on at least one of their packages, in the first three years. In early October, the company said it would withdraw that request, and ask for a standard Category 2 licence
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
“What has happened to you guys? I thought you were the human rights good guys.”
“What has happened to you guys? I thought you were the human rights good guys.”
That is what my military escort at Guantanamo Bay said one day in August while I was there to observe Omar Khadr's military commission trial. He was well aware that Khadr had long been the only Westerner left in the prison camps and that the Canadian government had no interest, to put it mildly, in giving him a hand.
Those were the words of a U.S. soldier on active duty at Guantanamo Bay — not a human-rights activist or opposition politician. And they are words that invite reflection, at year's end, about Canada's human rights standing on the world stage. What has happened to us? Are we still the human rights good guys?
The year 2010 held great promise for Canada, with tremendous opportunities to shine on the world stage, including the chance to highlight important human rights issues. The world was watching Canada stage the Olympics and Paralympics; host the G8 and G20 summits; and, of course, promote our candidacy for a seat on the UN Security Council.
But it went awry in so many ways. Hosting the G8 and G20 summits did leave behind a new initiative to tackle a critical human rights concern, maternal and newborn health. But the financial support from other governments is uncertain. And the initiative was strained by the government's refusal to ensure that a solid sexual and reproductive rights framework, including some attention to access to abortion services, was at its heart.
At the end of the day, what transpired within the official summits was overshadowed by the staggering assault on freedom of expression that played out on the streets of Toronto. It still seems impossible to imagine that more than 1,100 people were arrested over the weekend, the overwhelming majority of whom were involved in peaceful acts of protest or were just passing by.
What is needed in the aftermath is a comprehensive joint provincial/federal public inquiry that will examine how policing the demonstrations could have gone so terribly wrong. So far, however, neither government shows any appetite for doing so.
Canada's ill-fated Security Council bid, with a withdrawal from the process to avoid certain defeat, still smarts. Many Canadians hung their heads in shame when they realized past supporters had deserted us, and it became clear that Portugal was going to leave Canada in the dust. It is the first time in UN history that we have run for a seat and lost — by no means a proud moment.
Of course there are many explanations for the result, some of which are wrapped up in the often deceptive and complex world of back-scratching that mars many UN votes. But there is no denying that a significant piece of the outcome stems from our tarnished global reputation impacted by failure to respect human rights.
There is Omar Khadr. Our defiant refusal to come to the aid of a child soldier, who has made credible (fully corroborated in at least one instance) allegations of torture and ill-treatment and who has been ensnared in Guantanamo injustice for eight years, has certainly been noted. It has left open just where Canada stands on key human rights issues that we long championed, including protecting child soldiers and standing firm against torture.
There is Africa. Our nearly wholesale shift of humanitarian, diplomatic and political attention away from Africa has sent a distressing message. Canada, which has long played a key role in addressing serious human rights concerns in Africa — apartheid-era South Africa, military rule in Nigeria, catastrophe in Sudan — has now virtually become a non-player in most corners of the continent. It is a continent that needs more, not fewer, human rights champions.
There is Israel. The government proudly proclaims that Canada is a staunch friend of Israel and will not apologize for being so. Apologies are not necessary. Being a friend of Israel is a fine thing. But with friendship must come honesty about human rights. Canada has refused to criticize the Israeli government — be it at the UN or in one-on-one dealings — about the vast array of grave human rights violations that are the daily reality for Palestinians in the region; it does no favours for Palestinian victims of those violations, the hopes of lasting peace in the Middle East, and Canada's standing and reputation.
And what transpires globally has been matched domestically. Over the past year, a stunning number of Canadian organizations have lost government funding for important humanitarian programming because those organizations strive to strengthen protection of Palestinian rights. In the end, Canada's reputation as an honest broker about a contentious and long-standing human rights tragedy lies in tatters.
There is the death penalty. In 2007, 2008 and again this year, an important resolution came before the UN General Assembly seeking a global moratorium on executions. Canada votes for it. But Canada refuses to demonstrate leadership by joining the more than 80 other countries that have put their names to the resolution and co-sponsored it. We are the only firmly abolitionist country to refuse to do so. We are the only country with a track record of co-sponsoring earlier UN death penalty resolutions that refuses to do so now. That is beyond a failure to demonstrate leadership, it is a retreat from leadership.
And then there are Indigenous peoples. Part of what went sour for Canada during the Security Council vote can be traced back to our appalling behaviour in 2006 and 2007, when the UN finally adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which had been in the works for more than 20 years. We not only voted against it, we aggressively (and fortunately unsuccessfully) pressed other countries to oppose it. And when it was passed by an overwhelming majority we claimed it did not apply to us because we had voted against it. That was an unacceptable view of the status of UN decisions that we would never accept from other countries.
Finally this year — after four years of bullying and defiance — Canada changed its mind. It wasn't announced until November, after the Security Council vote. And it could have been such a good news moment. Only it was clear there was nothing proud or genuine about the change of heart. In fact, the decision was announced to no fanfare, with a posting to government websites on a Friday afternoon (a well-established trick for burying a news story).
So, the soldier's view from Guantanamo may well have hit the mark. It is time to ask what has happened to Canada, the human rights good guys. And it is time to turn it around.
Globally, we end the year with grave worry about simmering human rights crises in places like Haiti and Ivory Coast. However, we also end the year with a bit of a boost from the uplifting news of Aung San Suu Kyi's release from imprisonment in Myanmar and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese prisoner of conscience Liu Xiaobo.
Struggles go on. Victories are possible. Human rights good guys are in short supply. Canada needs to get back in that game.
That is what my military escort at Guantanamo Bay said one day in August while I was there to observe Omar Khadr's military commission trial. He was well aware that Khadr had long been the only Westerner left in the prison camps and that the Canadian government had no interest, to put it mildly, in giving him a hand.
Those were the words of a U.S. soldier on active duty at Guantanamo Bay — not a human-rights activist or opposition politician. And they are words that invite reflection, at year's end, about Canada's human rights standing on the world stage. What has happened to us? Are we still the human rights good guys?
The year 2010 held great promise for Canada, with tremendous opportunities to shine on the world stage, including the chance to highlight important human rights issues. The world was watching Canada stage the Olympics and Paralympics; host the G8 and G20 summits; and, of course, promote our candidacy for a seat on the UN Security Council.
But it went awry in so many ways. Hosting the G8 and G20 summits did leave behind a new initiative to tackle a critical human rights concern, maternal and newborn health. But the financial support from other governments is uncertain. And the initiative was strained by the government's refusal to ensure that a solid sexual and reproductive rights framework, including some attention to access to abortion services, was at its heart.
At the end of the day, what transpired within the official summits was overshadowed by the staggering assault on freedom of expression that played out on the streets of Toronto. It still seems impossible to imagine that more than 1,100 people were arrested over the weekend, the overwhelming majority of whom were involved in peaceful acts of protest or were just passing by.
What is needed in the aftermath is a comprehensive joint provincial/federal public inquiry that will examine how policing the demonstrations could have gone so terribly wrong. So far, however, neither government shows any appetite for doing so.
Canada's ill-fated Security Council bid, with a withdrawal from the process to avoid certain defeat, still smarts. Many Canadians hung their heads in shame when they realized past supporters had deserted us, and it became clear that Portugal was going to leave Canada in the dust. It is the first time in UN history that we have run for a seat and lost — by no means a proud moment.
Of course there are many explanations for the result, some of which are wrapped up in the often deceptive and complex world of back-scratching that mars many UN votes. But there is no denying that a significant piece of the outcome stems from our tarnished global reputation impacted by failure to respect human rights.
There is Omar Khadr. Our defiant refusal to come to the aid of a child soldier, who has made credible (fully corroborated in at least one instance) allegations of torture and ill-treatment and who has been ensnared in Guantanamo injustice for eight years, has certainly been noted. It has left open just where Canada stands on key human rights issues that we long championed, including protecting child soldiers and standing firm against torture.
There is Africa. Our nearly wholesale shift of humanitarian, diplomatic and political attention away from Africa has sent a distressing message. Canada, which has long played a key role in addressing serious human rights concerns in Africa — apartheid-era South Africa, military rule in Nigeria, catastrophe in Sudan — has now virtually become a non-player in most corners of the continent. It is a continent that needs more, not fewer, human rights champions.
There is Israel. The government proudly proclaims that Canada is a staunch friend of Israel and will not apologize for being so. Apologies are not necessary. Being a friend of Israel is a fine thing. But with friendship must come honesty about human rights. Canada has refused to criticize the Israeli government — be it at the UN or in one-on-one dealings — about the vast array of grave human rights violations that are the daily reality for Palestinians in the region; it does no favours for Palestinian victims of those violations, the hopes of lasting peace in the Middle East, and Canada's standing and reputation.
And what transpires globally has been matched domestically. Over the past year, a stunning number of Canadian organizations have lost government funding for important humanitarian programming because those organizations strive to strengthen protection of Palestinian rights. In the end, Canada's reputation as an honest broker about a contentious and long-standing human rights tragedy lies in tatters.
There is the death penalty. In 2007, 2008 and again this year, an important resolution came before the UN General Assembly seeking a global moratorium on executions. Canada votes for it. But Canada refuses to demonstrate leadership by joining the more than 80 other countries that have put their names to the resolution and co-sponsored it. We are the only firmly abolitionist country to refuse to do so. We are the only country with a track record of co-sponsoring earlier UN death penalty resolutions that refuses to do so now. That is beyond a failure to demonstrate leadership, it is a retreat from leadership.
And then there are Indigenous peoples. Part of what went sour for Canada during the Security Council vote can be traced back to our appalling behaviour in 2006 and 2007, when the UN finally adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which had been in the works for more than 20 years. We not only voted against it, we aggressively (and fortunately unsuccessfully) pressed other countries to oppose it. And when it was passed by an overwhelming majority we claimed it did not apply to us because we had voted against it. That was an unacceptable view of the status of UN decisions that we would never accept from other countries.
Finally this year — after four years of bullying and defiance — Canada changed its mind. It wasn't announced until November, after the Security Council vote. And it could have been such a good news moment. Only it was clear there was nothing proud or genuine about the change of heart. In fact, the decision was announced to no fanfare, with a posting to government websites on a Friday afternoon (a well-established trick for burying a news story).
So, the soldier's view from Guantanamo may well have hit the mark. It is time to ask what has happened to Canada, the human rights good guys. And it is time to turn it around.
Globally, we end the year with grave worry about simmering human rights crises in places like Haiti and Ivory Coast. However, we also end the year with a bit of a boost from the uplifting news of Aung San Suu Kyi's release from imprisonment in Myanmar and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese prisoner of conscience Liu Xiaobo.
Struggles go on. Victories are possible. Human rights good guys are in short supply. Canada needs to get back in that game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)