Well, good news on the free speech front: while the BC Human Rights Commission won't rule on the Canadian Islamic Congress' action against Maclean's for a couple of months yet (not sure why a decision like that takes a couple of months) the Canadian Human Rights Commission has decided to drop the case.
In their decision, the Commission first outlines the petinent section of the Canadian Human Rights Act, subsection 13(1), which reads as follows:
It is discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated,. . . any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited grounds for discrimination.
At the same time, the Commission acknowledges that to act upon section 13 would effectively limit section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads as follows:
2) Everyone has the fundamental freedoms: b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
The decision goes on to say (in essence) that precedent has established that, while section 13(1) of the CHRA could legally be used to limit section 2(b) of the Charter, the Commission must use "caution and restraint. . . so that the limitation of free speech would be minimized to the greatest extent possible." Further, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Dickson is quoted as saying that, "it is important to recognize that expressive activities advocating unpopular or discredited positions are not to be accorded reduced constitutional protection. . ."
In the end, the Commision has determined that while "The writing is polemical, colourful, emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. . . . the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered in whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court. . . and taking into account that an interpretation of section 13(1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a tribunal."
Council for the CIC said the decision came as no surprise "in light of the inappropriate political pressure that has been brought to bear on the commission and has prompted the commission to set up an internal review of its procedures. . ." I'm sorry, but did I read that correctly?? Inappropriate political pressure? Boy, have I been confused! I was somehow under the strange impression that Canada was a democratic country, and that democracy is premised on the idea of a government that is responsive to the will of the people. I had no idea that that will was subject to limitations on what is appropriate and what is not. The fact that the CIC has abused the legal process, attempting to have their "plight" heard in THREE seperate jurisdictions - they went to the BC Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which also dismissed the case - to me is inappopriate and appropriately has raised the eyebrows of the Canadian public who are forced to foot the bill!!
So, it looks as though democracy has dodged another bullet. I wish I could say I am relieved, but I know that the bullets will just keep coming, and I fear that, despite what they might say, Maclean's and other members of the media will take a lesson from this whole production and self-censor themselves in the future.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Dion's 'Green Shift'
I think most of us have come to the realization that something needs to be done to reduce our fossil fuel consumption. Even if the damage done by our greenhouse gas production is irreversible, the bottom line is oil is a non-renewable resource. Once it is gone, it's gone - then what? I am a firm believer that people will continue to engage in behaviour for as long as the benefits of said behaviour outweigh the costs. So, it seems to make sense that people will continue to over-consume oil and its byproducts until they really have to pay for it. Apparently Liberal leader Stephane Dion shares this insight, which has motivated him to roll out his 'Green Shift' plan.
The basic idea behind the plan is contained in its name. Increase taxes on gas consumption, cut taxes elsewhere. There are a few points of this plan that, I think, are quite strong. First, I like that it isn't a "tax grab" (despite what Stephen Harper would like us to believe). In fact, Dion stands so firmly behind his claim that his plan is 'tax neutral,' that he says, if he is given the opportunity to implement his green ideas, he will invite the Auditor General to "look at the numbers and confirm this each and every year to Canadians." In line with this not being a scheme to raise more money for the federal government, the plan also seems to make economic sense. From my very rudimentary understanding of how taxation works, the least disruptive taxes are those which are indirect (which don't tax our incomes or savings). Technically (although not practically) these are voluntary taxes. Of course, we can't entirely abstain from the use of fossil fuels in Canada, but we can become conscious of the amount of these fuels that we use. I also like that the Liberals have considered that different groups will be affected differently by carbon taxation, like those who live in rural and northern areas of the country, as well as low-income families, and have worked these considerations into the plan.
There are a few points that I find puzzling, especially the idea not to tax gas at the pumps. We hear that the rising cost of gas, as it is, has people changing their driving habits, so perhaps that is all that is necessary. I don't know. But it does seem that more options exist in how we transport ourselves, than in how we keep our homes heated in the lovely -30 Canadian winters. At the same time, I know that many people could alter their heating/cooling habits. For example, my roommates like to keep our house warm enough in the winter that they can walk around in shorts and t-shirts, and cool enough in the summer that I don't remove my sweatshirt and slippers until right before walking out the front door!
Anyway, it seems to me that there is some real potential behind Dion's 'Green Shift'. I also think that it's rather bold of him. He might find that he's just committed political suicide, or maybe enough people in this country will decide they are finally ready to walk the walk and cease simply talking the eco-talk. I'm interested to see how this all plays out through the summer, and, in particular, during the fall campaign which looks to be inevitable.
Thoughts?
The basic idea behind the plan is contained in its name. Increase taxes on gas consumption, cut taxes elsewhere. There are a few points of this plan that, I think, are quite strong. First, I like that it isn't a "tax grab" (despite what Stephen Harper would like us to believe). In fact, Dion stands so firmly behind his claim that his plan is 'tax neutral,' that he says, if he is given the opportunity to implement his green ideas, he will invite the Auditor General to "look at the numbers and confirm this each and every year to Canadians." In line with this not being a scheme to raise more money for the federal government, the plan also seems to make economic sense. From my very rudimentary understanding of how taxation works, the least disruptive taxes are those which are indirect (which don't tax our incomes or savings). Technically (although not practically) these are voluntary taxes. Of course, we can't entirely abstain from the use of fossil fuels in Canada, but we can become conscious of the amount of these fuels that we use. I also like that the Liberals have considered that different groups will be affected differently by carbon taxation, like those who live in rural and northern areas of the country, as well as low-income families, and have worked these considerations into the plan.
There are a few points that I find puzzling, especially the idea not to tax gas at the pumps. We hear that the rising cost of gas, as it is, has people changing their driving habits, so perhaps that is all that is necessary. I don't know. But it does seem that more options exist in how we transport ourselves, than in how we keep our homes heated in the lovely -30 Canadian winters. At the same time, I know that many people could alter their heating/cooling habits. For example, my roommates like to keep our house warm enough in the winter that they can walk around in shorts and t-shirts, and cool enough in the summer that I don't remove my sweatshirt and slippers until right before walking out the front door!
Anyway, it seems to me that there is some real potential behind Dion's 'Green Shift'. I also think that it's rather bold of him. He might find that he's just committed political suicide, or maybe enough people in this country will decide they are finally ready to walk the walk and cease simply talking the eco-talk. I'm interested to see how this all plays out through the summer, and, in particular, during the fall campaign which looks to be inevitable.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Continuing the Debate on the Representation of Women in Canadian Politics
Well, we had quite the discussion in our tutorial today! The topic was, "Should Parliament mirror Canada's social diversity?" Somehow (I am probably to blame) the conversation narrowed to a rather heated (again, my bad) debate about whether or not institutional changes are necessary and/or desirable to increase the number of women represented in Parliament.
Of course, I realize my views are no secret, but I would like to clarify, elaborate, and substantiate my position. First, I am not the raging feminist that I know I sound to be. I do, however, know that women are without adequate political representation in this country, and I do not believe any "organic" or "evolutionary" process will change this. I would also like to be clear that my argument is not really that women should make up half of all members of parliament. If that were to happen democratically, so be it, but I do not argue for half of the seats in Parliament to be set aside for women. Instead, I argue for a more equitable candidate nomination process and a change to the electoral system to facilitate this.
Basically, the reality is this: women cannot be elected to Parliament if they are not given the opportunity to campaign. In this way, political parties function as the 'gatekeepers' to government office. There is clear evidence to support the positive correlation between the percentage of women nominated for candidacy and the resulting number of women elected to the House of Commons. So, it seems that getting the political parties to nominate more women candidates is a necessary step to increasing the number of women overall in Parliament.
This is why I argue for electoral reform. While there are many problems inherent in the single member plurality (SMP) electoral system, one is that it minimizes the number of female candidates put in the running for election. The reason is, because the party has to choose a single candidate to nominate for a riding, they most often will choose a male candidate because, they believe, he will have the widest appeal. Also, the SMP system allows local constituency associations to determine for themselves which representatives to run, so even if a party, at its core, decides to be more open to female candidates, decentralization makes enforcing this nearly impossible.
So, I believe that a combination of quotas and electoral reform would be the best remedy to this problem. With a proportional representational (PR) system, the party creates a list of candidates for a multi-member riding, electors vote for the party, the party wins a number of seats proportional to the number of votes they received, and then appoints candidates to those seats from their list. Quotas could be introduced at this stage to ensure that half of all candidates on a party's list are women. I believe the PR system to be superior to the SMP system for many reasons, but one is that it usually results in a more diverse political body, more reflective of the varied interests of society (including minorities of all descriptions). Countries which boast the greatest representation of women in national parliaments use List-PR systems.
This is definitely a complicated issue and I do not pretend for a moment that this is the only thing that needs to be done to increase women's participation in the political process, but I think that this would be an effective start.
I hope to hear from some of you. . .
(P.S. I've posted some links which you might find informative if you are interested in exploring this topic more.)
Of course, I realize my views are no secret, but I would like to clarify, elaborate, and substantiate my position. First, I am not the raging feminist that I know I sound to be. I do, however, know that women are without adequate political representation in this country, and I do not believe any "organic" or "evolutionary" process will change this. I would also like to be clear that my argument is not really that women should make up half of all members of parliament. If that were to happen democratically, so be it, but I do not argue for half of the seats in Parliament to be set aside for women. Instead, I argue for a more equitable candidate nomination process and a change to the electoral system to facilitate this.
Basically, the reality is this: women cannot be elected to Parliament if they are not given the opportunity to campaign. In this way, political parties function as the 'gatekeepers' to government office. There is clear evidence to support the positive correlation between the percentage of women nominated for candidacy and the resulting number of women elected to the House of Commons. So, it seems that getting the political parties to nominate more women candidates is a necessary step to increasing the number of women overall in Parliament.
This is why I argue for electoral reform. While there are many problems inherent in the single member plurality (SMP) electoral system, one is that it minimizes the number of female candidates put in the running for election. The reason is, because the party has to choose a single candidate to nominate for a riding, they most often will choose a male candidate because, they believe, he will have the widest appeal. Also, the SMP system allows local constituency associations to determine for themselves which representatives to run, so even if a party, at its core, decides to be more open to female candidates, decentralization makes enforcing this nearly impossible.
So, I believe that a combination of quotas and electoral reform would be the best remedy to this problem. With a proportional representational (PR) system, the party creates a list of candidates for a multi-member riding, electors vote for the party, the party wins a number of seats proportional to the number of votes they received, and then appoints candidates to those seats from their list. Quotas could be introduced at this stage to ensure that half of all candidates on a party's list are women. I believe the PR system to be superior to the SMP system for many reasons, but one is that it usually results in a more diverse political body, more reflective of the varied interests of society (including minorities of all descriptions). Countries which boast the greatest representation of women in national parliaments use List-PR systems.
This is definitely a complicated issue and I do not pretend for a moment that this is the only thing that needs to be done to increase women's participation in the political process, but I think that this would be an effective start.
I hope to hear from some of you. . .
(P.S. I've posted some links which you might find informative if you are interested in exploring this topic more.)
Saturday, June 7, 2008
To Speak or Not to Speak, THAT Really is the Question. . .
I have been debating whether I should follow through with my intention to discuss here on my blog the topic of free speech/hate speech in Canada. My dilemma has to do with both the complexity (in terms of the rules, regulations, laws, procedures, etc.) and heated nature of the issue. While I've investigated the Canadian Human Rights Act, I am by no means an expert on it, nor am I fluent in the functions of the various human rights commissions in this country, so if I get something wrong, please set me straight. Also, as I said, I recognize that the idea of hatred is inflammatory in so much as it arouses strong emotion. I want to be very clear that, while I've posted the link to Mike Steyn's article (yes, THE article) and the links to both his and Ezra Levant's blogs, I've done so only to encourage exploration and understanding and not because I share their opinions.
So, the story is this: Maclean's magazine published an excerpt of Mike Steyn's book America Alone in which he, more or less, argues that the end of the world as we know it is nigh as changing demographics result in the recession of western liberalism (that's classic liberalism folks, Steyn is a right-winger) and the spread of Islam. Consequently, Maclean's is up against the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and faces a variety of punishments should it be found guilty of spreading hate, not least of which involves (essentially) censorship of its further publications. While the complaint made to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is said to have been in response to Maclean's refusal to print a rebuttal to Steyn's article, what seems to be at issue in the proceedings is whether or not the article exposed the Muslim community to hatred.
Now, I've read this article and I encourage you to read it as well. After having digested its contents, my opinion is that it is a poorly written argument which has the power to offend and, while I don't agree that it is hateful (my mother always told me to be careful with the word hate), its tone is certainly contemptuous. Bottom line is, I found it to be distasteful, yes, but do I think that Maclean's should have exercised restraint and never given Steyn's words their space? No, not for a second.
Canada is a liberal democracy, for which most of us, I believe, are grateful. As such, we have a number of protected rights one of which, as it is expressly written in our constitution, is freedom of expression and, with it, freedom of the press. We are now seeing the inability for these freedoms to coexist with the prohibition of hate messages. While I am a BIG proponent of human rights and I don't like, and quite frankly have a hard time understanding, intolerance, I give primacy to the necessity of a free marketplace of ideas.
I leave it here, conscious of the length of this post and wishing not to bore my audience (if I have one), with the promise to follow up soon. . .
So, the story is this: Maclean's magazine published an excerpt of Mike Steyn's book America Alone in which he, more or less, argues that the end of the world as we know it is nigh as changing demographics result in the recession of western liberalism (that's classic liberalism folks, Steyn is a right-winger) and the spread of Islam. Consequently, Maclean's is up against the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and faces a variety of punishments should it be found guilty of spreading hate, not least of which involves (essentially) censorship of its further publications. While the complaint made to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is said to have been in response to Maclean's refusal to print a rebuttal to Steyn's article, what seems to be at issue in the proceedings is whether or not the article exposed the Muslim community to hatred.
Now, I've read this article and I encourage you to read it as well. After having digested its contents, my opinion is that it is a poorly written argument which has the power to offend and, while I don't agree that it is hateful (my mother always told me to be careful with the word hate), its tone is certainly contemptuous. Bottom line is, I found it to be distasteful, yes, but do I think that Maclean's should have exercised restraint and never given Steyn's words their space? No, not for a second.
Canada is a liberal democracy, for which most of us, I believe, are grateful. As such, we have a number of protected rights one of which, as it is expressly written in our constitution, is freedom of expression and, with it, freedom of the press. We are now seeing the inability for these freedoms to coexist with the prohibition of hate messages. While I am a BIG proponent of human rights and I don't like, and quite frankly have a hard time understanding, intolerance, I give primacy to the necessity of a free marketplace of ideas.
I leave it here, conscious of the length of this post and wishing not to bore my audience (if I have one), with the promise to follow up soon. . .
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
