The Last Exile

Generally speaking, I am a law and order type but the one thing I have zero tolerance for is when agents of the state callously abuse the coercive powers of the law to subvert the law of the land. The civil suits from the G20 are going to be a horrendous burden on the taxpayers of this country because the security services acted in a fashion which put their conduct above the law they had sworn to uphold. Think I am wrong – just think Officer Bubbles. Secondly, it’s going to be very hard for the government to successfully win any of the suits brought against them considering the number of ‘legal monitors’ which were arbitrary detained among the 1100 plus arrested and detained, and then, mostly released without charge. The Hill Times Online

Civil liberties lawyers and Parliamentarians are gathering evidence they say will show Toronto police systematically violated legal and human rights as they quelled protests with the largest mass arrests in Canadian history at the G20 leaders’ summit in Toronto last month.

The evidence includes eyewitness accounts from lawyers who acted as monitors during the protests where police arrested 1,105 people, including bystanders, lawful protesters and some of the legal monitors, but released more than 900 with no charges.

Up to six lawyers who volunteered as monitors with the Osgoode Hall Law Union were swept up by police and have provided affidavit-style evidence to organizers about the abuses they witnessed in the notorious temporary prison Toronto police set up in an abandoned film studio, says Adrienne Telford, one of the organizers. The Canadian Civil Liberties Union had up to 50 legal monitors at the protests and is compiling information.

Go ahead and rant about the violent antics of the so-called Black Bloc rioters but remember this; 15,000 security officers allowed the Black Bloc to riot contrary to in downtown Toronto without a single police officer lifting a hand to stop the riot for over 90 minutes. The Black Bloc could have been easily been apprehended and stopped in their tracks, but instead, security forces chose to stand down regardless of potential threat to human lives and willful destruction to property. There were many law abiding citizens in the stores and restaurants the Black Bloc attacked but security forces chose not to intervene. Now the Toronto Police are spending umpteen hours and funds from the public purse attempting to hunt down and arrest the so-called Black Bloc. It would have been far easier on the public purse to arrest them in the act rather than harassing innocent citizens for wearing black and carrying backpacks long after the Black Bloc had disappeared much like thieves in the night.

Since the G20 Summit in Toronto there have been continuous protests calling for a public inquiry into police conduct during the G20 with no end in sight. No mass arrests have occurred, no police cars have been burned or store windows smashed. Although, the lack of violence, vandalism and thuggery may owe more to the fact that the Harperites don’t have their people coordinating Toronto’s policing than any other reason.

So just how far will the various levels of government go to avoid any public examination on the largest mass arrests in Canadian history? Well, the federal tories are now filibustering in an attempt to force the Commons Committee on Public Safety not to reconvene and put the matter to a committee vote. The Globe and Mail.

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are filibustering to block opposition efforts to launch hearings on policing at the Toronto G20 summit, accusing political rivals of seeking a platform to build sympathy for “thugs and hooligans” who rioted there. Parliament is adjourned for the summer, and the opposition majority – the NDP, Liberals and Bloc – forced the Commons committee on public safety to reconvene on Monday to vote on whether to start federal hearings on the G20 security.

But during a two-hour meeting, Conservative MPs on the committee repeatedly requested speaking time to object to holding an inquiry now, and the Tory chair refused opposition demands for a vote. Opposition MPs together can out-vote the Tories on the committee. “I don’t agree with the NDP and the fact it seems to be lining itself up with anarchist groups that went to Toronto and caused damage,” Tory MP Dean Del Mastro told the committee. “To recall this committee on an emergency basis is nothing more than a cheap political stunt.”

I’ll take cheap political stunts over the use of coercive power of the law against bubble blowers any day, and if that aligns me with the anarchists, so be it – I’ll stand with the bubble blowers. What’s the old line about Al Qaeda – they hate us for our freedoms? Seems like the police do too. Victor Davis Henson once wrote – “It is never wrong to be on the side of freedom – never.” For a political party which campaigned on and promised ‘accountability’ in governance it sure seems they spend most of their political capital playing duck, hide and cover.

In a more better world the Tory filibuster would be met by opposition members blowing bubbles. Now that would be cheap political theatre although there is always the risk the Tories might call in the mounties to arrest the MP’s for conspiracy to commit mischief…

h/tip Stageleft for Bubbles

What is the absolute height of governmental incompetence and poor judgment? Deciding to build an artificial in-door lake which is mere minutes walking distance to one of the larger (and real) Great Lakes. But it takes a special kind of fiscal incompetence and mismanagement to spend 2 million to construct only to have to tear it down days later.

Who knew the day would come when Adscam starts to looks like small change?

Update: CTV and I quote:

It’s not a “fake lake” that cost $2 million, it’s a “fake lake” that’s part of a $2-million “marketing pavilion” partially aimed at foreign journalists, Prime Minister Stephen Harper clarified Tuesday. “This is a classic attempt for us to market the country,” Harper told an outraged opposition Tuesday during question period. The opposition was quick to protest the cost, which is in addition to the estimated $1 billion on security being spent for the upcoming G20 and G8 summits in Toronto and Huntsville, Ont. “What do fake lakes, gazebos and boats that don’t float have to do with security?” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff asked during question period Tuesday. “Its not just a waste of money, its that the summit promises to deliver so little on climate change, on women’s rights and jobs and growth.” Harper said it’s too early to judge the summit’s outcome.

Somehow, I don’t feel any better that the Fake Lake only cost $57,000, and I actually feel a great deal worse that $2 million is the budget set aside to woo the ‘foreign press’. I want a rebate only my taxes.

I miss the days when ‘prudence’ and ‘thoughtfulness’ were considered conservative values. In Canada’s current evolutionism, the Harperites have thrown principled conservatism to the four winds and replaced it with knee-jerk appeals to everyone’s lowest base instinct. No where is this more apparent than the Tories latest ‘tough on crime’ legislative offering. The Toronto Star.

OTTAWA—Criminals convicted of sexually abusing children or of three serious offences would be permanently ineligible for pardons under new reforms proposed today by the Conservative government. The bill would also drop the word “pardon” and replace it with “record suspension,” to better reflect the effect of a pardon, and society’s view of the long-lasting harm to victims.

(…)The reforms would also force offenders to wait longer before being able to apply for a pardon- extending the time to five years for summary offences, and to 10 years for more serious “indictable” offences.

And unlike former NHL hockey player Sheldon Kennedy, I am not ‘honoured’ by the ‘the thought’ which the Harperites drafted this cesspool piece of legislation. Let me explain why.

There are basically three levels of criminal offences brought be before the courts for prosecution – summary, indictable and what is referred to as hybrid offences. Hybrid offences are violations of criminal code wherein a Crown Attorney can make a choice to pursue a criminal matter as either a summary or indictable offence before the court. If a founding of guilt is established a Justice can impose a harsher penalty if the hybrid matter is treated as an indictable offence. Whether an offence is treated as a summary or indictable matter varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction across the country.

For example, simple possession of marijuana can be prosecuted as a ‘hybrid’ offence. In the City of Toronto just under a ounce of marijuana could potentially be prosecuted as a summary matter with a charge of simple possession wherein that same charge in Northumberland Country, New Brunswick – a Crown Attorney may seek to pursue the matter as an indictable offence. So an 18 year old found guilty of possession for a couple of joints under the proposed Tory legislation now has to wait five years for a pardon and be unduly punished for a relatively minor criminal code violation for which he would under the new law have to wait a full five years to obtain a pardon. Of course, if that same 18 year old in Northumberland County in New Brunswick is found guilty of possession as an indictable offence; he would have to wait 10 years. Either way, 5 to 10 years for a single non-violent, no-victim stupid mistake.

Or what about the man who is charged and found guilty for communicating for the purpose of prostitution for asking the wrong woman how much for a blow job would have to carry around a criminal record up to five years and be banned from working at even the local 7/11 because in a moment of weakness and/or need he made a bad decision and is not eligible to be ‘bonded’. While we are told the vast majority of pardon applications are approved it is not indicative that the pardon process is ‘broken’ but rather the vast majority of those seeking a pardon are able to demonstrate they have put criminal behaviour behind them.

My understanding of the ‘three or more serious offences’ legislative strike the Tories are proposing does not take into account that an individual can commit and be convicted of multiply serious charges arising from a single matter. In fact, its quite common for police to lay a multitude of charges applying the widest possible interpretation to criminal code violations in order to give the Crown something to bargain as an inducement to get a defendant to plea guilty for.

I knew individual who was convicted of armed robbery times two, and three counts of aggravated assault from one single incident at 18. He was duly sentenced to jail, paroled and managed to turn his life around. Twenty years, four kids, and a business owner employing 10 people – today he wouldn’t even jaywalk if you paid him. I once asked how was he able to put everything behind him. He had a great deal of help, a great probation officer and the knowledge if he could get through the 5 year wait period he could finally turn his back on all his bad decisions. It doesn’t happen often but it does happen. So why remove the carrot and deny hope a chance to take root?

Take a stroll through my archives, I have constantly ranted about the justice system but its not the pardon process which represents a crucial flaw in the process. If anything, the current pardon process is the one thing which has more or less functioned extremely well. And while you may think the proposed legislation is not aimed at an 18 year olds convicted of a few joints or a the socially challenged schmuck looking for a blow job that is exactly who stands to suffer the most – and ask yourself this – who do exactly do you think is most representative of a pardon seeker; a Hell’s Angel biker or the stupid schmuck? Better yet, demand Harper tell you which contingent of ‘criminals’ are actually seeking the majority of pardons.

While Sheldon Kennedy may be outraged that his sexual abuser only had to wait a few years for his pardon after serving a relatively light sentence of 3 and ½ years in jail for the sexual assault of a minor his anger at the pardon process is misplaced and should be directed towards though who sit on high in judgment and consistently sentence sexual offenders to relatively light (or even no) jail terms. That is what gets my outrage meter moving.

Now if the Tories wanted to take a stab at real reform of the criminal justice system they could start by reviewing if political appointments to the Judicial bench is the way to best way of picking a Judge or a Justice of the Peace. Can we say its the ultimate in cushy patronage appointments? The Tories could see about establishing a review process set up as a mandatory mechanism every few years where all justices records and rulings are reviewed. We could even allow input from the public, the Crown’s office and the police force all have a say wherein any Justice has found to consistently take too light a hand with his grovel in handing down sentence. The Tories could even take a shot at reforming our current bail system wherein alleged accused is allowed out on multiple bails for multiple different matters.

Of course, true reform of our justice system without summarily addressing the role addiction and mental illness play in criminality is more or less just sticking a finger in the dyke strategy and hoping the deluge won’t wash you away when the dyke breaks periodically. Alternatively, we might try taking a comprehensive look at how Sweden handles addiction and mental illness and crime. But that would take time, thoughtfulness and prudence….all things missing in Harper style conservatism.

Most women in North America don’t think of giving birth as playing roulette with our lives, which is a testament to modern medicine, relatively high access to pre-natal care, and good nutrition. Most of us aren’t forced to deal with yearly pregnancies anymore which probably speaks to our relatively good overall health.

Good for us, but what about women in places like the Congo or Cambodia where access to the bare necessities is woefully inadequate? Childbirth is still playing roulette with the lives of those women and you cannot promote women’s health in third world countries without including and acknowledging there is a necessary role that therapeutic abortions play in both the emotional and physical lives of women.

I wish it were otherwise, but it isn’t, and failure to fund any third world women’s health initiatives without providing funding for therapeutic abortions is playing roulette with the lives of the most vulnerable women in the world. Frankly, it is not the role of those promoting women’s health to deny access to therapeutic abortions, because personal sensitivities are on the squeamish side. Squeamishness has no role in medicine or the promotion of healthcare.

For a Canadian senator to warn Canadian NGO’s for women’s healthcare to ’shut the fuck up about abortion’ or feel the wrath of a Canadian Prime Minister with a grudge is a challenge which deserves to be met if we actually care about the healthcare of women at home or around the world. I would even go so far as to suggest that a survey of Canadian women across the country would reflect that, we are currently very happy with the status of the laws governing abortion in Canada which is to say – we are happy that there are no laws governing abortion, but the conscience of a woman and her doctor. Third world women deserve no less than what Canadian women take as a given. And its time for Mr. Angry to take a time-out in the corner..

How much do you want to bet this would be the one certain thing the Harperite Conservatives won’t want to learn from the Israelis to do? Ynet News:

China has sent a special delegation to Israel to learn about the aid provided by the Foreign Ministry to Israelis traveling abroad in times of distress. The reason for the trip was the growth in Chinese tourism across the world in the past few years.

The delegation was headed by the Chinese deputy foreign minister for legislation affairs and head of the Chinese foreign ministry’s consular department. They met with senior Foreign Ministry officials, including Deputy Director-General Rafi Barak and Yigal Tzarfati, head of the consular division.

The Chinese were interested in the nature of the cases in which Israel helps its citizens across the world, including incidents in which hikers are rescued and the steps taken in cases of missing people, road accidents, illnesses, the need to evacuate bodies, natural disasters, political instability and drug offenses. The Chinese also expressed their interest in the treatment of Israeli prisoners abroad.

Sigh.. All of which means there are now two things the Harperites won’t learn to do from the Israelis – care for our citizens abroad and airport security.

The rage of the month for the Harperites is pardons. The thingie you can get after you have served your time for a criminal offence and prove you have lived a life free of crime for at least 5 years. Toronto Star:

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Stephen Harper drew mixed reviews Monday for bemoaning the fact convicted killer Karla Homolka will be able to apply for a pardon later this year.
The prime minister cited Homolka’s looming eligibility for pardon as one of a series of frustrations he has felt in the last few weeks about the weaknesses in Canada’s justice system.

Bringing up Karla Homolka makes great political theatre and gives the Harperite base the match to stroke the flames of outrage over the pardon process in this country but let me carry the water on this one.

The Prime Minister can table legislation from now to the cows come home but whatever legislation he drafts will never exempt Homolka from the pardon process for one simple fact. Homolka plead guilty to manslaughter and manslaughter is the unintentional unlawful killing of another person without malice, either express or implied and the unlawful killing may be either voluntary by virtue of acting upon a sudden impulse, or involuntary.”
Let me give you a typical example. Two 19 year olds get drunk in a bar. Drunk A takes offence at something Drunk B says. Drunk A throws a punch at Drunk B who blocks it and pushes Drunk A away from him. In the act of pushing Drunk A away Drunk A hits his head on the edge of the bar and dies.

Now you can argue that Homolka’s plea for manslaughter didn’t fall within the perimeters of manslaughter but give the current circumstances which were known at that time; her ‘crime’ fell within the boundaries of the legal definition of manslaughter. If you wouldn’t pardon Homolka then you cannot pardon Drunk B even if he served out his time, kept the peace and was of good behaviour which is why I maintain good intentions always make for bad law.

The pardon process was designed to be the carrot to induce an criminal to rehabilitate and reform himself and if you take away the inducement to seek rehabilitation and reform there isn’t any carrot left if you insist on punishing an offender long after his sentence ends. Sure that means all kinds of unsavory people who you wouldn’t knowingly invite into your family could potentially get a pardon but life is filled with all kinds of unsavory people…and most of them never have a criminal record.

Pardons are designed to make it easier for a reformed criminal with a proven track record of good behaviour to make a legal living easier after their debt to society is paid off in full. While some would argue that the low rejection rate of applications is a sign of the innate flaw in pardon system but I would counter that its actually a success since the vast majority of people who apply to receive a pardon have a proven track record of living ‘crime-free’ lives.

Everyone should be asking themselves why the Tories, who already took a look at reforming pardon legislation back in 2007 decided there wasn’t a fundamental flaw within the current system and now, three years later – arbitrarily decide it is time to re-examine the process and rise the bar on pardons. Some will think I have suddenly become ’soft’ on crime but really I am just soft on bad political theatre masking as ‘tough on crime’ stances.

No where is this more evident than in this bit of proposed legislation. The National Post:

OTTAWA – Insisting his proposal doesn’t violate Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s stated opposition to reopening the abortion debate, a Conservative backbencher has introduced a private member’s bill that would make it illegal to “coerce” a woman to have an abortion.

Winnipeg MP Rod Bruinooge told a news conference Thursday he doesn’t believe his bill will reignite a debate on abortion because it doesn’t affect the right to abortion in Canada. Mr. Bruinooge said the bill would only make it a crime to “coerce or attempt to coerce” a woman to have an abortion against her will.

Hopefully, this piece of legislation will die a quick death, and can I say thank G-d, the conservatives don’t have a majority. Herein lies the problem – once the courts interrupt ‘coerce’ it can really mean anything and a whole host of other facts come into play. For example, to be found guilty of an assault in this country does not mean one has to physically strike another person. A reasonable belief by the victim that your intention is to cause physically harm is enough. So coerce or attempt to coerce a female into having an abortion could eventually come to mean a parent’s refusal to support a pregnant daughter or a pregnancy counsellor suggesting abortion is a valid option and how to procure one could come to mean ‘coercion’.

I may have a limited imagination but I can come with a number of scary situations without overtly taxing my brain with this legislation. MP Bruinooge claims his motives are pure for this piece of legislative gibberish:

Mr. Bruinooge said the bill was inspired by Roxanne Fernando, a woman in Winnipeg whose murder in 2007 was arranged by her boyfriend after he failed to force her to have an abortion.
The Criminal Code already makes it a crime to threaten violence against another individual. But Mr. Bruinooge said he wants to send a clearer message that forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will is “wrong and unacceptable in a nation that values human rights.”

The criminal code already has penalties for murder and threatening bodily harm. If that was not enough of a deterrent to give pause to Roxanne Fernando’s estranged boyfriend; this legislative stupidity wouldn’t have stopped him either but what it will do is open up a whole new avenue of criminal prosecutions. Thanks, but no thanks.

I am pro-life but believe in absolute pro-choice. I don’t believe anyone has the right to decide for another woman whether she should have an abortion or not. No one is the keeper of another’s conscience. I have three teenagers and if my daughter (G-d forbid) came home from university and told me she was pregnant and wanted an abortion I would be taking her to the Scott clinic myself. Its her decision. And lucky for us – its just down the street.

If there is one thing which reminds me more than anything else about the Mulroney years, it is this; the overwhelming sense of having to pay and pay, over and over again, for all its sins.

Apparently, deja vu is contagious. The Harperite government is now refusing to pay diplomat Richard Colvin’s legal bills for answering a Parliamentary Commission’s subpeona and testifying under oath. Meanwhile the Harper government still refuses to release the unredacted emails. The article can be found here.

I have a confession to make. I only gave the article a fast once over. I meant to re-read it in depth to understand all the ins and outs of the pettiness which has come to be the hallmark Harperite governance.

I would have – if visions of Brian Mulroney’’s face didn’t start dancing before my eyes every single time I started to re-read the article. Now all I can think of is the potential lawsuit the Harperites have put the Canadian taxpayers on the hook for.

For the love of gawd, someone remind me of what Brian Mulrooney’s total legal fees cost the Canadian taxpayers. If you know the number – for gawd’s sake just whisper it very softly…I’m middle-aged.

The latest poll has the Tory lead evaporating and is now well within the margin of error. I spent Sunday reading the blogs; left, right and centre concerning the No to Prorogue rallies held across the country. Norman Spector has an interview up with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and asks him the question of the day – what does the no prorogue demonstrations mean to him?

Interviewer: Your staff tell me that we’ve only got a few minutes so I’ll get straight to the point.

What’s your reaction to the “hordes of protesters” we saw in the streets today — not far from where we are right now, as it happens — demanding that MPs get back to work?

PM: It’s always good to see Canadians actively engaged in politics, and I would hope that this level of engagement —particularly among young Canadians — will continue and be enhanced in the future, which — regrettably — appears not to be the case in the United States.

Interviewer: Prime Minister, I think we can all agree on that. But what do you say to the men and women of all ages demanding that MPs get back to work? Let me read you what a ten-year veteran of Parliament Hill who now co-owns a progressive media agency had to say about a demonstration that took place not far from where you and your family live: “I’ve had a front-row seat to all kinds of mass gatherings and rarely do you see one this co-ordinated, this large and this unified. It takes a lot to make Canadians take to the streets in numbers worth noting.”

PM: Well, I could cite other, more objective reports — including incredibly enough that of CBC, CBC French that is — that only 300 people turned out in Montréal and 100 in Halifax, but I’m not going to get into a numbers game with you. In a democracy, it’s unacceptable in my view to disparage in any way even one citizen exercising his or her fundamental freedoms and democratic rights.

As to getting back to work, I can only say to hard-working Canadians that most of our government have worked overtime along with our dedicated public servants during the Christmas holiday — one of several long breaks that MPs voted themselves years ago because of the particular nature of their jobs.

What Harper has in common with the bloggers of the so-called ‘right’ is this idea that the rallies and anger towards the prorogation of Parliament mean very little to conservative political fortunes. While it is all well and good to say that Tory MP’s are hard at work, the fact remains, sitting in the House of Commons just happens to be an important and large part of an MP’s job. Its not the only job requirement but it happens to be what makes being an MP different than being a federal bureaucrat. It’s the political equivalent of a surgeon refusing to perform surgeries. Sure, paperwork, and post-op supervision is part of the job of being a surgeon, but without the surgeries, well what’s the point?

What the political fortunes of the so-call conservative base is failing to comprehend is the people are not satisfied with their style of governance. I have lived in this country long enough that mostly Canadian are an apathetic lot politically. Anytime ordinary Canadians feel compelled to protest its your cue to stand up and pay attention – not sweep it under the rug with a wave of your hand and a stroke of the keyboard.

Go back to your keyboards and pretend its all screaming meany hippies and commie bastards and all significant of nothing much but when you loose natural conservatives like me from your base – your in trouble, big trouble and without big significant – ‘like on the road to Damascus’ style change your political aspirations will stall and sink. Tories are losing in Quebec and in Ontario. Hate us all you want but without Ontario and Quebec its ‘Hello, from the opposition benches’. So far, the Tories remain lucky that the Liberal leader remains a political lame duck but Fortune is a fickle mistress. Keep it you and I guarantee you we will all be saying Prime Minister Ignatieff.

But don’t you dare act surprised or say you weren’t warned.

And yes, because I am a such a cold-hearted bitch, I have to post this. And I don’t even really like Bob. He might be the King of Prorogue but he never prorogued the legislature to avoid a direct order from the provincial parliament. Oh, and Bob did have a clear majority I might add – something which remains elusive to our Prime Minister. Gee, I wonder why that is?

Uncle Bob at the Piano h/t Warren Kinsella.