Ottawa appeals court ruling on accessible websites
Visually-impaired activist Donna Jodhan asks, 'Should we be interpreting this to mean that the government does not consider us as equal?'
Ottawa (24 January 2011) – The federal government is appealing a December 2010 ruling of the Federal Court of Canada ordering it to make its websites accessible to visually impaired users.
The appeal is against a landmark victory by Donna Jodhan in a case against the federal government regarding accessible websites. The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) profiled Jodhan’s victory in a report celebrating the United Nations' International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD) on Dec. 3, 2010.
Jodhan was also a guest speaker at a NUPGE meeting of equality and human rights activists held in Ottawa in December. She talked about her successful Charter challenge and her decade-long mission to challenge Ottawa to make federal websites more accessible to vision-impaired Canadians.
NUPGE applauded Justice Michael Kelen’s ruling that Canada's federal government must deliver key websites in a usable format for blind and partially-sighted Canadians.
During the court case, federal lawyers argued that no discrimination was occurring because those same services are provided in other formats, such as on the phone, in person or by mail. Jodhan, however, was successful in convincing the court to side with her view that, "visually impaired people should have equal access to services and information on federal government websites."
Commenting on the federal government’s decision to appeal the court's ruling, Jodhan told NUPGE:
"On the one hand I am not very surprised to see that this government has decided to appeal but on the other I am extremely disappointed, saddened and tremendously disturbed. This government knows exactly what needs to be done and I do not understand why they would continue to spend so much money to fight us for something that is our right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," she said.
"At a time when this government continues to preach economic restraint, it can somehow justify the need to spend taxpayers' money to deprive our community of our rights. Should we be interpreting this to mean that the government does not consider us as equal? Are we being told in so many words that we are nothing more than second class citizens?" she asked.
"This is probably one of the saddest days for our community. We seldom have much to celebrate and now this government has slapped us in the face through their actions. We are not going to go away. Rest assured that there are others who are willing and ready to walk the walk with me to ensure that our future becomes a better one. I go in the name of all of us and for our kids of the future."
NUPGE
The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is one of Canada's largest labour organizations with over 340,000 members. Our mission is to improve the lives of working families and to build a stronger Canada by ensuring our common wealth is used for the common good. NUPGE
Monday, January 24, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The Supreme Court of Canada will not hear an appeal from Democracy Watch.
The Supreme Court of Canada will not hear an appeal from a democracy advocacy group that says Prime Minister Stephen Harper broke his own law in 2008 when he asked for a federal election.
On Thursday, Canada's top court denied leave to appeal by Democracy Watch, the national non-profit organization's third legal challenge.
As is routine, the Supreme Court did not give reasons for dismissing the appeal.
Democracy Watch claims the prime minister broke his own fixed election date law, which received royal assent in May 2007, by asking then-governor general Michaelle Jean to dissolve Parliament in September 2008.
Jean agreed to Harper's request and Canadians went to the polls on Oct. 14, 2008.
The Federal Court of Appeal ruled in May last year that Bill C-16, the fixed election date law, did not prevent such snap elections and therefore the 2008 election was legal.
The amendments to the Canada Elections Act in Bill C-16 say that: "Subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following a previous general election, with the first general election to be held on Monday, October 19, 2009."
The federal appeal was heard after a judgment in September 2009, which also found the election call to be within the government's legal right.
The Prime Minister's Office has always contended the 2008 election was called in accordance with Canadian law.
Democracy Watch co-ordinator Duff Conacher has said the election call provided the Conservatives with an advantage because of the short time other parties had to prepare candidates for the election.
The October 2008 election resulted in another minority government for the Conservatives.
Fixed election dates are also in effect in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Appeal+over+Harper+2008+election+dismissed+Supreme+Court/4140233/story.html#ixzz1BpvFDjaD
On Thursday, Canada's top court denied leave to appeal by Democracy Watch, the national non-profit organization's third legal challenge.
As is routine, the Supreme Court did not give reasons for dismissing the appeal.
Democracy Watch claims the prime minister broke his own fixed election date law, which received royal assent in May 2007, by asking then-governor general Michaelle Jean to dissolve Parliament in September 2008.
Jean agreed to Harper's request and Canadians went to the polls on Oct. 14, 2008.
The Federal Court of Appeal ruled in May last year that Bill C-16, the fixed election date law, did not prevent such snap elections and therefore the 2008 election was legal.
The amendments to the Canada Elections Act in Bill C-16 say that: "Subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following a previous general election, with the first general election to be held on Monday, October 19, 2009."
The federal appeal was heard after a judgment in September 2009, which also found the election call to be within the government's legal right.
The Prime Minister's Office has always contended the 2008 election was called in accordance with Canadian law.
Democracy Watch co-ordinator Duff Conacher has said the election call provided the Conservatives with an advantage because of the short time other parties had to prepare candidates for the election.
The October 2008 election resulted in another minority government for the Conservatives.
Fixed election dates are also in effect in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Appeal+over+Harper+2008+election+dismissed+Supreme+Court/4140233/story.html#ixzz1BpvFDjaD
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Keith Olbermann signs off of MSMBC.
After eight years together, MSNBC and Keith Olbermann are parting ways.
A statement from NBC Universal revealed the move late Friday. "MSNBC and Keith Olbermann have ended their contract," it read, "The last broadcast of 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' will be this evening. MSNBC thanks Keith for his integral role in MSNBC's success and we wish him well in his future endeavors."
At the end of his show Friday night, Olbermann announced his departure in typical deadpan style, evoking scenes from the film "Network" and thanking viewers for keeping him on the air for eight years.
"In the mundane world television goodbyes, reality is laughably uncooperative," Olbermann said before launching into a story about his exit from ESPN 13 years ago.
"As God as my witness, in the commercial break just before the emotional moment, the producer got into my earpiece and he said, 'um, can you cut it down to 15 seconds so we get in this tennis result from Stuttgart,'" he said, half-smiling, pausing for composure.
"So I'm grateful I have a little more time to sign off here. Regardless this is the last edition of 'Countdown.' "
Olbermann thanked his crew and co-workers, with special praise for the man he called "my greatest protector and most indefatigable cheerleader," Tim Russert, the host of NBC's "Meet the Press" who died in 2008.
Olbermann was suspended for two days in November of 2010 after the news website Politico revealed donations made to to three Democrats seeking federal office. One of them was Arizona Rep. Gabriel Giffords, who was wounded earlier this month in a mass shooting and attempted assassination in Tucson.
He gave $2,400 -- the maximum individual amount allowed -- to Gifford's campaign, and the campaigns of Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway and Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva. Conway lost his bid, while Grijalva and Giffords eked out wins.
NBC said the donations violated a policy that requires employees of the news organization to obtain permission ahead of any political donations or activities that could be deemed as a conflict of interest.
Olbermann complained publicly about his frustration with NBC's management. He made it clear that he resented the insinuation that he was attempting to hide his actions.
"When a website contacted NBC about one of the donations, I immediately volunteered that there were in fact three of them; and contrary to much of the subsequent reporting, I immediately volunteered to explain all this, on-air and off, in the fashion MSNBC desired," Olbermann also said in a statement released during the time.
He also accused NBC of "inconsistently"applying its policy and suspending him without first hearing his side of the story.
A statement from NBC Universal revealed the move late Friday. "MSNBC and Keith Olbermann have ended their contract," it read, "The last broadcast of 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' will be this evening. MSNBC thanks Keith for his integral role in MSNBC's success and we wish him well in his future endeavors."
At the end of his show Friday night, Olbermann announced his departure in typical deadpan style, evoking scenes from the film "Network" and thanking viewers for keeping him on the air for eight years.
"In the mundane world television goodbyes, reality is laughably uncooperative," Olbermann said before launching into a story about his exit from ESPN 13 years ago.
"As God as my witness, in the commercial break just before the emotional moment, the producer got into my earpiece and he said, 'um, can you cut it down to 15 seconds so we get in this tennis result from Stuttgart,'" he said, half-smiling, pausing for composure.
"So I'm grateful I have a little more time to sign off here. Regardless this is the last edition of 'Countdown.' "
Olbermann thanked his crew and co-workers, with special praise for the man he called "my greatest protector and most indefatigable cheerleader," Tim Russert, the host of NBC's "Meet the Press" who died in 2008.
Olbermann was suspended for two days in November of 2010 after the news website Politico revealed donations made to to three Democrats seeking federal office. One of them was Arizona Rep. Gabriel Giffords, who was wounded earlier this month in a mass shooting and attempted assassination in Tucson.
He gave $2,400 -- the maximum individual amount allowed -- to Gifford's campaign, and the campaigns of Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway and Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva. Conway lost his bid, while Grijalva and Giffords eked out wins.
NBC said the donations violated a policy that requires employees of the news organization to obtain permission ahead of any political donations or activities that could be deemed as a conflict of interest.
Olbermann complained publicly about his frustration with NBC's management. He made it clear that he resented the insinuation that he was attempting to hide his actions.
"When a website contacted NBC about one of the donations, I immediately volunteered that there were in fact three of them; and contrary to much of the subsequent reporting, I immediately volunteered to explain all this, on-air and off, in the fashion MSNBC desired," Olbermann also said in a statement released during the time.
He also accused NBC of "inconsistently"applying its policy and suspending him without first hearing his side of the story.
Friday, January 21, 2011
York Regional Police officer G20 officer: ‘This ain’t Canada right now’
A G20 incident caught on video that shows a York Regional Police officer telling a protester he is no longer in Canada and has no civil rights is under investigation.
The video shows several activists standing outside of the G20 security perimeter at King St. W. and University Ave. on June 27 while their bags are searched by a group of police officers. The mood is pleasant until a young man in a black T-shirt and cap refuses to hand over his backpack.
Just outside the St. Andrew subway station, a male York Regional Police officer wraps one arm around the protester and tells him: “You don’t get a choice, get moving.”
“Why are you grabbing me, man?” says the unidentified protester, who in another G20 video gives a brief monologue about animal rights. “I didn’t do anything.”
The officer’s badge number, 815, is clearly visible in the video. The officer with that number, Sgt. Mark Charlebois, said in an email that he would love to speak but couldn’t because the matter was before the Ontario Independent Police Review Director.
“If I was sensitive, I would likely be crying all the time with the comments about me,” he said.
No one from the OIPRD was available to comment.
York police media officer Sgt. Gary Phillips said the incident was the subject of a citizen’s complaint.
In the video, a woman’s voice from behind the camera points out that the protesters are not within 5 metres of the cordoned-off zone — the area in which Torontonians were led to believe, erroneously, that they could legally be searched by police officers at whim.
The male protester insists that, as a Canadian, he has the right to refuse the search. But the officer disagrees.
“This ain’t Canada right now,” he says.
While the crowd laughs in disbelief, the officer continues to tell the protester he has two choices: leave, or open his bag. The protester continues to refuse to do either. “I just don’t like to have my civil rights violated,” he says eventually.
“There is no civil rights here in this area,” the officer replies. “How many times do you gotta be told that?”
“I was upset that police officers could make those kinds of statements in a democracy,” says Derek Soberal, co-filmmaker of the film Toronto G20 Exposed, who re-posted the video on his YouTube site.
The video has been viewed more than 40,000 times.
The video shows several activists standing outside of the G20 security perimeter at King St. W. and University Ave. on June 27 while their bags are searched by a group of police officers. The mood is pleasant until a young man in a black T-shirt and cap refuses to hand over his backpack.
Just outside the St. Andrew subway station, a male York Regional Police officer wraps one arm around the protester and tells him: “You don’t get a choice, get moving.”
“Why are you grabbing me, man?” says the unidentified protester, who in another G20 video gives a brief monologue about animal rights. “I didn’t do anything.”
The officer’s badge number, 815, is clearly visible in the video. The officer with that number, Sgt. Mark Charlebois, said in an email that he would love to speak but couldn’t because the matter was before the Ontario Independent Police Review Director.
“If I was sensitive, I would likely be crying all the time with the comments about me,” he said.
No one from the OIPRD was available to comment.
York police media officer Sgt. Gary Phillips said the incident was the subject of a citizen’s complaint.
In the video, a woman’s voice from behind the camera points out that the protesters are not within 5 metres of the cordoned-off zone — the area in which Torontonians were led to believe, erroneously, that they could legally be searched by police officers at whim.
The male protester insists that, as a Canadian, he has the right to refuse the search. But the officer disagrees.
“This ain’t Canada right now,” he says.
While the crowd laughs in disbelief, the officer continues to tell the protester he has two choices: leave, or open his bag. The protester continues to refuse to do either. “I just don’t like to have my civil rights violated,” he says eventually.
“There is no civil rights here in this area,” the officer replies. “How many times do you gotta be told that?”
“I was upset that police officers could make those kinds of statements in a democracy,” says Derek Soberal, co-filmmaker of the film Toronto G20 Exposed, who re-posted the video on his YouTube site.
The video has been viewed more than 40,000 times.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Police "ordered" to stop Montebello protest: Court ruling boosts union leader's case : Bad news for the PMO/RCMP !.
"Yesterday's decision by a Quebec court judge is more proof that police are being used by politicians to carry out orders to stop democratic protests," says Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada.
Coles is the union leader who made headlines after unmasking Sûreté du Québec "provocateurs" at the Montebello SPP summit of American, Mexican and Canadian leaders in August 2007.
Quebec Judge Real Lapointe ruled yesterday that the order to stop the demonstration at Montebello contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Leila Martin brought the case to court after she was arrested at Montebello for protesting against the summit.
"It is obvious that the officers were following orders, and that these orders violated rights and freedoms," Judge Lapointe ruled. [translation].
Dave Coles says: "It's now clear that the decision to stop the protest at Montebello was illegal, but our question remains: Who was calling the shots? Protesters should be guaranteed that the government will not use police to incite violence again. Otherwise, how does legitimate dissent get a hearing?"
Coles made headlines when a video of his confrontation with police, one armed with a rock, and wearing black shirts and bandanas went viral on YouTube.
CEP immediately called for an inquiry to find out who ordered the police to try to turn a peaceful protest into a violent one, but was told it had to take the case through the Quebec Ethics Committee, where "it is now mired in red tape" according to Coles.
"No more hiding behind commissions and committees," says Coles. Prime Minister Harper should do the right thing now and hold an independent judicial inquiry. Yesterday's ruling is one more nail in the coffin of whoever was responsible for this whole cover up."
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/202363#ixzz1BYKzQwXO
Coles is the union leader who made headlines after unmasking Sûreté du Québec "provocateurs" at the Montebello SPP summit of American, Mexican and Canadian leaders in August 2007.
Quebec Judge Real Lapointe ruled yesterday that the order to stop the demonstration at Montebello contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Leila Martin brought the case to court after she was arrested at Montebello for protesting against the summit.
"It is obvious that the officers were following orders, and that these orders violated rights and freedoms," Judge Lapointe ruled. [translation].
Dave Coles says: "It's now clear that the decision to stop the protest at Montebello was illegal, but our question remains: Who was calling the shots? Protesters should be guaranteed that the government will not use police to incite violence again. Otherwise, how does legitimate dissent get a hearing?"
Coles made headlines when a video of his confrontation with police, one armed with a rock, and wearing black shirts and bandanas went viral on YouTube.
CEP immediately called for an inquiry to find out who ordered the police to try to turn a peaceful protest into a violent one, but was told it had to take the case through the Quebec Ethics Committee, where "it is now mired in red tape" according to Coles.
"No more hiding behind commissions and committees," says Coles. Prime Minister Harper should do the right thing now and hold an independent judicial inquiry. Yesterday's ruling is one more nail in the coffin of whoever was responsible for this whole cover up."
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/202363#ixzz1BYKzQwXO
TeleZone case against Industry Canada will go to trial... Industry Canada 0 TeleZone .
TeleZone case against Industry Canada will go to trial
“The decision was extremely important ... what it means is that if anybody ... has a claim in law against the government which would give rise to a claim to money damages, they can pursue it automatically or directly in court the same way you would sue any other person or company,” Eliot Kolers, a partner at Stikeman Elliott in Toronto and co-counsel for TeleZone in the case, said in an interview.
“And it's not necessary to seek judicial review of that decision first.”
“The decision was extremely important ... what it means is that if anybody ... has a claim in law against the government which would give rise to a claim to money damages, they can pursue it automatically or directly in court the same way you would sue any other person or company,” Eliot Kolers, a partner at Stikeman Elliott in Toronto and co-counsel for TeleZone in the case, said in an interview.
“And it's not necessary to seek judicial review of that decision first.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)