November 22, 2011
Debate on Bill C-304 – Canadian Human Rights Act
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the notion implied in the private member’s bill seeks to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act on the grounds that the sanctioning of hate speech dilutes and diminishes freedom of expression, which as I said elsewhere, is the lifeblood of democracy. I agree with the hon. member that this is a bedrock principle and I have always so affirmed.
However, the premise underlying the bill, while well intentioned, is misinformed and misleading. It seems to suggest that freedom of speech is an absolute right, but it does not admit to any limitation, ignoring that all free and democratic societies have recognized certain limitations on freedom of expression. The United States, for instance, is the home of the most robust protection of freedom of speech under the first amendment doctrine. As well, my mentor and professor, the then dean of Yale Law School, Abraham Goldstein, said that freedom of speech is not an absolute right, although people continue to persist that it is.
All free and democratic societies, including the U.S., have recognized certain limitations on freedom of expression in the interest of protecting certain fundamental human values. For example, there are prohibitions against perjury, to protect the right to a fair trial; prohibitions against treasonable speech, to protect national security; prohibitions against pornography, to protect the human dignity of women and children; prohibitions respecting libellous and defamatory speech, to protect privacy and reputation; prohibitions against misleading advertising, to protect consumers. I could go on. Simply put, the provisions against hate speech partake in this genre of limitations to protect the rights of individuals and minorities against group vilifying speech, to protect against those discriminatory hate practices that reduce the standing and status of individuals and groups in society thereby constituting an inequality, and this may surprise the member who sponsored the bill, to protect the very values underlying free speech itself.
I will cite the Supreme Court of Canada cases of Keegstra, Smith and Andrews, and Taylor. In full disclosure, I appeared as counsel in these cases and did so as a proponent of freedom of expression, as one who has advocated for this bedrock principle before the courts. I have written extensively upon it. Hate speech itself constitutes an assault on the very values that underlie freedom of expression.
This promotion of hate speech actually constitutes an assault on that bedrock principle of freedom of expression. Moreover, this is of particular relevance respecting any proposal to repeal section 13. I made this point before the Supreme Court of Canada in the trilogy of cases I referenced earlier.
Hate speech is an equality issue as well as a free speech issue. The promotion of hatred and contempt against an identifiable group results in prejudicial harm to the individual and group targets of that hate speech. This harm-based rationale, as the Supreme Court characterized it, supports the sanction of hate propaganda as protective of equality. As the court put it, the concern resulting from racism and hate mongering is not simply the product of its offensiveness, but from the very real harm it causes. The member for Gatineau illustrated this in her remarks this evening.
Further, referencing international law, these anti-hate provisions were themselves implemented as a domestic implementation of our undertakings under international law, under international treaty provisions, to combat hate speech. Again, I cite the Supreme Court, which said that the protection provided for freedom of expression in international law does not extend to cover communications that advocate racial or religious hatred.
Similarly, the court invoked section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to argue that hate messaging as well constituted an assault on our multicultural heritage and normative principle.
(1905)
Accordingly, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-304. The bill would repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Its effect would be to prevent claims from being brought before human rights commissions, such claims as might protect against group vilifying speech while upholding the freedom of speech and the values that underlie it as well.
I understand that the government has concerns with section 13, but the response should be not to repeal the legislation on the alleged ground that it constitutes an assault on freedom of expression, a principle which I and many members in the House are long-standing advocates, while ignoring the countervailing protective need to protect against group vilifying speech.
Simply put, the solution is not through repeal of the legislation whose constitutional validity has been upheld by the Supreme Court, but to address the concerns and to offer proposals to modify the regime that is now in place. I would urge the government to consider the possible reforms to address any valid concerns which I will outline in my remarks as preferable to outright appeal.
As members may be aware, this very section of the Canadian Human Rights Act is now under review by the Supreme Court of Canada. This debate therefore, if I may say parenthetically, is somewhat premature. We should wait for guidance from this nation’s highest court on the scope and ambit of freedom of expression before entering into this debate.
That said, the Supreme Court has already provided much guidance in this area. It has ruled that as a matter of constitutional law, hate speech constitutes an assault on the very underlying principles respecting freedom of expression. The search for truth, the protection of individual autonomy, democratic debate and stability, while protecting vulnerable groups from hate messages, it promotes and protects the fundamental principle of equality.
Even if it should be found to prima facie infringe on freedom of speech, as former Chief Justice Dickson put it in these cases, the infringement may be characterized as a reasonable limit prescribed by law demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. It is in that context and spirit that I offer the following recommendations.
First, the Criminal Code to which reference has been made with regard to its hate speech derivatives, has a built-in filtering mechanism through the requirement of the consent of the Attorney General of Canada for launching the prosecution. I would recommend a similar filtering provision with regard to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Second, procedural protection could be put in place to limited complainants to one jurisdiction at a time, rather than having as we now do a barrage of federal and provincial complaints that are instituted against the same individual or group, thereby serving as what has been called a strategic lawsuit against public participation, SLAPP, that can understandably serve to chill speech.
Third, we could add a statutory definition of hatred and contempt in accordance with the definitions offered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Taylor case itself.
Fourth, we could include a provision under section 41 to allow for the early dismissal of section 13 complaints when messages do not meet the narrow definition of hatred or contempt.
Fifth, we could repeal the provision that allows for the assessment of a punitive sanction.
Sixth, we could implement better procedural safeguards in terms of the trial process and evidentiary standard.
Finally, other reforms the government might consider include allowing commissions to award costs, thereby dissuading persons from bringing forth frivolous matters. As well, the commission could also remove the possibility of an anonymous submission so that the right to face one’s accuser is better respected.
In closing, we should be awaiting the Supreme Court decision before debating this. Nonetheless, given the Supreme Court decisions that we do have, the debate we should be having tonight should be regarding how we might reform and structure the human rights commissions to protect freedom of expression while protecting vulnerable individuals and minorities from hate and group vilifying speech rather than committing ourselves to abolishing the entire regime because it has produced results which can be addressed through positive reforms, as I have indicated this evening, which would address the member’s concerns.
I would urge the government to rethink its approach and consider some of the reforms I have outlined in my remarks that are intended to protect the bedrock principle of freedom of expression and the values that underlie it, as well as to protect individuals and groups and vulnerable minorities from group vilifying speech.
Sunday, 27 November, 2011
Irwin Cotler, hate speech, and Bill C-304. Part two.
To continue my brief series on Liberal MP Irwin Cotler's position on Bill C-304, here is Irwin Cotler speaking directly to Brian Storseth's bill last week:
Irwin Cotler, hate speech, and Bill C-304. Part one.
A little while back, in the comments to this post, regular commenter Paul suggested that I should try to get an interview with Mount Royal Liberal MP Irwin Cotler - whose interest in combating hate speech and anti-semitism has been a fixture of his career, as far as I can tell - about his thoughts on Brian Storseth's private member's motion to strike Section 13(1) from the Canadian Human Rights Act ( Bill C-304 ).
This seemed like a good idea, and I intend to do so when I can. But I thought I'd start by going over a few things first. To start with, here is Irwin Cotler's recent speech for the Free Thinking Film Festival on the film "Unmasked: Judeophobia and the Threat to Civilization," which was screened at that event.
More to come.
Quote of the day
Colby Cosh at Macleans.ca:
So the courts, in order to preserve the state’s power to regulate unobtrusive and victimless personal behaviour, are forced to introduce a practical distinction between legitimate or authentic, and thus protected, religious practices—those that are part of a “particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship”—and those that simply follow from the convictions of an individual. Such a distinction ought to be outrageous to anybody who is not religious.
Sunday links
A few things.
- There's gotta be a way to tax those things.
- Drunk driving isn't stopped by harsher sentences, according to Canada's Justice Dept.
- Ian Robinson in the Calgary Sun on why Rob Anders is a shining example for other politicians.
- More on those former Vancouver mayors who want an end to marijuana prohibition.
- In the UK, parliamentary police got busted trying to stop protesters from bringing political material into the House of Commons.
- Frosty the Snowman turns vicious.
- Radley Balko gets some fan-mail.
Saturday, 26 November, 2011
More nails in Section 13(1)'s coffin II
More establishment support for Conservative MP Brian Storseth's private member's motion to strike Section 13(1) from the Canadian Human Rights Act, this time from Immigration Minister Jason Kenney. He joins the Catholic Civil Rights League, PEN Canada, Wild Rose MP Blake Richards, and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, among others.
H/t to Blazing Cat Fur. Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn reminisce. Peter Worthington and Alan Shanoff weigh in ( h/t BCF again ).
Saturday links
A few things.
1) Harper will never decriminalize marijuana. Ever.
3) The latest for the "cops behaving badly" file.
4) Interesting reader comment for Radley Balko.
5) US Bank gets its ass kicked by a judge.
6) In local news, Vaughn Palmer interviews the premier of British Columbia.
Friday, 25 November, 2011
On polygamy
The other day, the BC Supreme Court upheld Canada's ban on polygamy, ruling that it does not constitute a violation of religious freedom under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sarah Kramer at The Hook reports:
Meanwhile: the rise of polyamory?
In a 300+ page judgment, Chief Justice Robert Bauman wrote that while Section 293 of the Criminal Code -- which prohibits polygamy -- "offends" religious freedom, the infringement is justified on the basis of polygamy's harm to women, children and the "institution of monogamous marriage."
[...]
Bauman's decision also includes an important exception for underage participants in polygamous unions, strongly suggesting children aged 12-17 be excluded from future prosecution. At 18, the exemption no longer applies.
More from the Globe and Mail. The ruling is non-binding, and an appeal wouldn't be surprising.
A couple of points.
1) Kirk Makin points out in the Globe and Mail that Bauman's ruling is vulnerable on appeal, according to some "legal experts":
They say that, while the judgment is on safe ground in rejecting some polygamous relationships as vile and exploitive, it runs into trouble by tarring all polygamists with the same brush and describing monogamy as a near-sacrosanct aspect of Canadian society.
2) I've written before in defense of polygamous marriages, and I don't see any reason to change my opinion in light of Bauman's ruling. Yes, polygamy has given certain people - like Warren Jeffs or Winston Blackmore - the ability to do a lot of vile things, but:
Unhappy with polygamous Muslim marriages dodging loopholes in Ontario? Fully legalize the practice and bring it out in the open instead of driving it underground.
Don't think the polygamists in Bountiful, BC, should be able to force their underage cousins to get married? Legalize the practice, remove the legal issue of polygamy itself, and voila: all of a sudden we're focusing on child abuse instead of Charter marriage rights.
This is a far cry from saying that we should condone polygamy (or prostitution and drug-peddling for that matter). I'll admit these things don't keep me up at night, but there are plenty of moral and ethical issues to consider, and that's fine.
Let's consider them. But there's a big difference between being morally right and having rights. We can condemn legal activity just as easily as we can condone illegal activity.
I believe the same applies to the argument that legal polygamy will lead to more polygamous ( Muslim families - with the violence this implies - immigrating to Canada. Again, the thought of more Muslim immigration doesn't particularly keep me up at night anyways, but if there is violence or coercion involved in any of these marriages, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on those issues as crimes instead of punishing polygamy for merely existing when such abuses are inflicted?
More nails in Section 13(1)'s coffin
PEN Canada and the Catholic Civil Rights League have both come out in support of Conservative MP Brian Storseth's Private Member's Motion to remove Section 13(1) from the Canadian Human Rights Act. Scary Fundamentalist at The Lynch Mob documents a few other endorsements for Storseth's motion.
Hint: when PEN Canada and Rob Nicholson have decided to start kicking you in the ribs, you know you're done.
If you don't document it, it must be true
Critics and supporters alike of Canada's post-recession stimulus spending might find some reason for pause in this:
Interim Auditor-General John Wiersema released his findings as the Conservative government is planning its final report on the effectiveness of its Economic Action Plan, the $47-billion stimulus effort that focused on “shovel-ready” construction projects and temporary changes to employment insurance benefits.
[...]
The Auditor-General’s report noted that instead of counting how many jobs each program created, Ottawa uses a broad economic model to determine the number.
What do you want to bet the odds are that Tony Clement will take this one on the chin too?
Friday links
A few things.
1) Ronald Bailey in Reason Magazine on why China isn't the emerging economic superpower some are making it out to be.
2) Radley Balko at the Huffington Post on the costs of the war on drugs to victims of violent crimes, and at The Agitator on the resurgence of "digital drugs" hysteria.
4) William L. Anderson at LewRockwell.com on government immunity from the law.
5) The latest from Simon's Cat.
6) Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic on what George Orwell can teach us about police brutality.
7) Spencer Ackerman at Wired's Danger Room on the Pentagon's mercenary drug war.
Wednesday, 23 November, 2011
Chronicling the war on drugs, one day at a time
A few items of interest.
1) This is what a relatively proper drug raid looks like.
3) Glenn Greenwald debates drug legalization with former Bush drug czar John Walters.
4) Chris Cobb in the Ottawa Citizen on turning teens into "organized criminals." H/t Aaron Wherry.
5) Jacob Sullum at Reason's Hit & Run on damned-if-you do, damned-if-you don't drug paraphernalia laws.
6) Doctor at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center prescribes medical marijuana to patient with inoperable liver cancer. Cedars-Sinai then takes patient off of liver-transplant candidates' list for drug use.
7) Radley Balko at The Agitator with another isolated incident and Newt Gingrich's downright scary drug war record: "If you sell it, we're going to kill you."
8) Four former Vancouver mayors have called for an end to marijuana prohibition in British Columbia.
Quote of the day
Jacob Sullum at Reason's Hit & Run:
Nice save, NBC Connecticut! A slippery slope and a gateway: I-dosing is no big deal by itself, but it might lead to pot smoking, which also is no big deal by itself but might lead to heroin addiction. Here are some other things that should be discouraged because they might stimulate a desire to use drugs: dreaming, meditation, religious ecstasy, spinning in a circle, vigorous exercise, and local news coverage.
Wednesday links
A few things.
2) Harry Siegal at The New Republic on the NYPD's fall from grace.
4) Peter Suderman at Reason's Hit & Run on how stimulus spending works if you want it to succeed.
6) Jacob Sullum at Reason's Hit & Run on shaky anti-online gambling logic and vodka-soaked tampons ( yes, that's something that people worry about ).
Friday, 18 November, 2011
Even the Tory establishment wants Section 13 abolished
Tory MP Brian Storseth's private member's motion to repeal Section 13 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is an incredible piece of legislation, and it's been a long time coming. Fortunately, Storseth's motion seems to be getting support from the Tory establishment, something which was somewhat in doubt before.
But here's Justice Minister Rob Nicholson in Question Period the other day, according to the London Free Press:
“Our government believes Section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combating hate propaganda. We believe the Criminal Code is the best vehicle to prosecute these crimes,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told the House of Commons during question period.
That Rob Nicholson - someone with a long history of political cowardice on this file - is endorsing Storseth's motion is a good sign for its future.
H/t BCF. Also, this:
Wild Rose MP Blake Richards: Section 13 "has to go"
From the office of Wild Rose MP Blake Richards:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOVEMBER 11, 2011FLAWED ‘SECTION 13’ A DANGER TO EXPRESSION AND HAS TO GOA section of Trudeau-era legislation that purports to defend human rights but which actually undermines one of those basic liberties – the freedom of expression – could be repealed under a Private Member’s Bill that’s now before Parliament.I support the bill by my Conservative colleague Brian Storseth, the M.P. for Westlock-St. Paul, to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13 is as flawed as it is subjective on the very issue of hate that it claims to combat, and it needs to go.Originally conceived in response to a spate of recorded hate messages that circulated in Toronto, Section 13 has since been identified by many experts – including the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) itself – as problematic on several fronts.For one thing, it targets the dissemination of hate messages without ever clearly defining what constitutes hatred or contempt. It considers acts of hate or contempt as “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”. That is so vague that it would be laughable if not for the fact that it carries real consequences.Section 13 subjects citizens’ Charter freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression to the whims of those who want to suppress ideas they disagree with or find personally distasteful or offensive, but which do not necessarily constitute hate. The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that Section 13 does not target expression that some may find offensive, but that hasn’t stopped Human Rights tribunals from accepting aggrieved persons’ sense of being offended as a basis for convictions.Hate speech is already prohibited under the Criminal Code of Canada. And a court of law is where such matters should be tried. In a courtroom, rules of procedure, the defence of truth, and evidence of intent or willfulness on the part of the accused apply. But no such provisions are afforded the accused in the quasi-judicial process set out by Human Rights Tribunals, where Section 13 cases most often land.It is widely acknowledged that Section 13 conflicts with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantees to freedoms of expression and beliefs.An independent review of the CRHC in 2008 called for the repealing of Section 13. The CRHC itself, in a September 2009 ruling, was forced to find the Section 13 hate speech provision unconstitutional.For all of these reasons, Section 13 of the CHRA needs to be done away with and I will be voting in favour of repeal
More on this from the Cochrane Eagle. H/t to BCF.
Quote of the day
Jacob Sullum at Reason's Hit & Run:
Which is more absurd: the verifiably true fact that someone can consume four or five drinks over the course of an evening without dying of alcohol poisoning, or the notion that the necessity of opening a second container will stop him from doing so? And if even resealable containers of Four Loko are still objectionable because drinking the entire contents would be overdoing it, doesn't the FTC need to ban 750-milliliter wine bottles, which contain more alcohol than a can of Four Loko? Do Tom Miller and his busybody buddies know that vodka, whiskey, and tequila are also sold in such bottles, each of which contains the equivalent of about 17 FTC beers?
Friday links
A few things.
1) Margaret Somerville in the Globe and Mail on the Charter of Rights as applied ethics.
2) Matt Chambers in The Dependent with the latest in his awesome Getting Elected is Easy series.
3) How could this go wrong?
4) New Zealand's Prime Minister is, offically, a dick.
7) Bradley Gardner in Reason Magazine on why Wenzhou, China, won't be unraveled by an unstable market.
8) Radley Balko at The Agitator on e-cigarettes, "oxy babies," and what should be an intolerable situation.
10) Byronne Sonne's trial continues.
11) Who is Old Holborn?
Monday, 14 November, 2011
A brief update on Andrew Dolan
I've written before about Victoria bylaw officer Andrew Dolan, who was charged with assault by the Victoria Police Department this April after he allegedly straddled a homeless man on the ground and punched him repeatedly in the back of the head. You can read a brief history of his career here.
I still haven't run across anything to indicate the outcome of his assault case ( his first court date was this June ), but I'll certainly do my best to keep on top of that. However, I wanted to follow up on this anonymous tip that I received in the comments to one of my posts about Dolan:
Thank you!, great insight about these agreesive fool's Not sure if you are aware but the fool supervisor that Victoria Police layed most of the blame on is now the manager of by-law department in west vancouver, im sure mayor and councel would not approve of this fool being a manager now.
I've been meaning to follow up on this for a while, so here goes.
Steve Simmonds was Andrew Dolan's supervising officer at the time of the alleged assault. Simmonds was appointed as a bylaw officer in Victoria in 2006. According to this listing, Simmonds is currently the Manager of Bylaws and Licensing for West Vancouver ( under Planning, Lands and Permits ). He is also listed here.
After doing a cursory search for information I don't know when he was appointed to this position, but I do know that he was in West Vancouver Council reports as Manager of Bylaws and Licensing Services as of this May, and the North Shore News was describing him as manager of bylaw and licensing services as early as this February.
Simmonds also sits on the Executive of the License Inspectors and Bylaw Officers Association of British Columbia, whose mission statement is as follows:
The Association strives to promote a high standard of inspection and enforcement services throughout British Columbia and to promote close co-operation by Licence Inspectors and Bylaw Enforcement Officers with other regulatory organizations in the Provincial and Federal governments as well as close co-operation by the Association with relevant departments of the Federal and Provincial governments and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.
Make of this, and Simmonds' partial involvement in an alleged assault case, what you will.
So here's what we know: Andrew Dolan was charged for assault on April 19th, 2011, and the incident that he was charged for occurred on October 20th, 2010. Steve Simmonds was a Victoria bylaw supervisor in October and was physically present when Dolan allegedly assaulted a homeless man, but was a Manager of Bylaw and Licensing Services in West Vancouver long before Dolan was charged with anything. In the meantime, Dolan continued to be in the employ of the City of Victoria up until one month before he was charged - no leave, paid or unpaid, even though his superiors had to be aware of the incident that he was involved in.
Make of this, as well, what you will.
Unintentional fiscal conservatism
According to this Global News report by Amy Minsky for Tom Clark's The West Block, the government has massive amounts of backed-up stimulus money that isn't being spent:
OTTAWA -- The federal government held on to more than $11 billion it was expected to spend in 2010-11, according to its financial statements.
This is money that Parliament had approved and earmarked to benefit Canadians through green infrastructure, defence, salaries and a slew of programs.
Ottawa has been leaving increasing amounts of money on the table -- $6.2 billion in 2008-09, $9.4 billion the following year, and more than $11.2 billion in 2010-11, audited statements show.
Almost half of this year’s lapse came from two departments: Infrastructure Canada, which stalled on getting nearly $3 billion out the door, and National Defence, which lapsed almost $2.5 billion.
In an interview, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty noted that National Defence has had trouble using its budget as expected.
“We have a very large program going on to rebuild our Canadian armed forces, and they’ve found -- repeatedly, actually -- that they can’t get as much done in a given year as they perhaps thought they were going to,” he said.
H/t Aaron Wherry.
Aim high, spend low?
Quote of the day
Colby Cosh at Macleans.ca:
There are lessons in this history for the leftist protester. The Occupy movement is bristling with changes it wants made (I’m told we’re not supposed to call them “demands”); these changes won’t, and shouldn’t, happen outside the ballot box. The goal of protest in a liberal-democratic society must therefore be to advance one’s pet issue further ahead on the agenda of the sympathetic, for when they do attain power, and to weaken the morale of moderates on the other side. One must locate specific injustices rather than nebulous cosmic ones, confronting them and defying their perpetrators directly. Deeds will accomplish more than any amount of eloquence. And it should not be necessary to claim to be a majority (let alone a majority of 99-to-one); one individual suffices, where he has a true claim to our attention.
Monday links
A few things.
1) Colby Cosh at Macleans.ca on the problems that federal NDPers have with resource extraction.
2) The latest for the "cops behaving badly" file.
3) Veronique du Rugy in Reason magazine on why stimulus spending doesn't work.
4) Zero Hedge and Patrick Calahan at The League on this 60 Minutes report on the huge amount of money that US Congress members make from insider trading, IPO's, and information-selling.
5) Jacob Sullum at Reason's Hit & Run on the vodka-soaked tampons phenomenon.
6) Goldman Sachs runs the world.
7) What exactly is the Federal Reserve? Well, now you'll know.
Sunday, 13 November, 2011
Quote of the day
John Robson at the Ottawa Sun:
If you want to know the Tories’ real ideology, watch their flood of press releases boasting of new ways they’ve found to spend public money currying favour with carefully identified groups of voters. The day the news broke that they would violate their deficit pledge, they sent me 31. To be sure most were for small amounts … to them. Half a million here, $300 grand there, $204,750 to Gestion J.M. Labonte over in Saint-Honore-de-Shenley. And $10 million a day or $3.65 billion a year is peanuts to a government borrowing 10 times and spending 75 times that much. But it’s still ominous, for several reasons.
First, it tells you the real ideology of these allegedly heartless right-wingers is that almost nothing worthwhile can happen in Canada without state subsidy. It’s why they can’t cut and won’t try.
Even the “repayable” handouts they repeatedly highlight in press releases assume our modern private banking system, supposedly the best in the world, is too stupid to make the loans that would fuel our success in the 21st century so Big Banker must step in. If Bob Rae or Nycole Turmel said it I would sneer. When Jim Flaherty says it, I cringe.
Second, it reveals their conviction that if they give us money from the public treasury we will vote for them. Another reason they won’t cut.
Third, they’re right since we keep electing them. So forget about cuts.
Sunday links
A few things.
1) At Boing Boing, Jasmina Tesanovic bids farewell to Silvio Berlusconi.
2) Shawn Gude at The League on technocrats and the EU.
3) The latest for the "cops behaving badly" file.
5) An opossum eating stuff. You're welcome.
Mark and Connie Fournier in court: an update
Last month, my friends Mark and Connie Fournier of Free Dominion, whose legal troubles I've mentioned off and on at this site for the past while, won a very important victory in one of their legal battles with serial litigant Richard Warman:
Richard Warman has lost a motion in federal court in which he tried to have evidence excluded from the defence of a copyright claim he initiated against Mark and Connie Fournier, operators of the Free Dominion website. The evidence included Richard Warman’s association with the violent ARA (Anti-Racist Action) and the content of his “Maximum Disruption” speech, even though the speech itself is part of his copyright claim.
H/t Xanthippa, who adds:
Small victory, but victory none-the-less. Especially since Connie Fournier – a non-lawyer – went up against the smooth and charismatic Mr. Katz (without whose extraordinary lawyer skills most of Mr. Warman’s lawsuits would have been summarily dismissed as frivolous – in my never-humble-opinion) and won!!!
In that sense, it is big personal victory for the Fourniers.
Indeed.
Fannie, Freddie, and who's to blame
A little while back, I posted a link to this Political Correction article, which claims that Fannie and Freddie are not to blame for the collapse of the United States housing/mortgage bubble that led to the global financial crisis of '08 - the article suggested that it was private companies instead who should take the lion's share of the blame.
Two rebuttals. The first, courtesy of commenter Cytotoxic, is from Reason magazine earlier this year:
The federal government’s role in the housing market goes back at least to 1938, but that role changed fundamentally in the 1990s when the government made a push to increase homeownership in the United States. At that time, the federal government pursued several policies that were meant to encourage banks to lend money to lower income earners and to give incentives to low income earners to buy houses. The result, as we now know, was a gigantic amount of subprime mortgages at a time when house prices were starting to go down.
The second rebuttal is from reader JohnR, who emailed me with the following:
Your link to Political Correction is interesting but in no way is it definitive for me. By more or less absolving the two mortgage houses, they remove entities that had over 50% of America's mortgages, inordinately underwater mortgages.
In some sub-prime instruments they may be correct in that, lack of regulation was the inherent problem but in my view and experience, people/reviewers at the SEC had celebrity worship of the worst hollywood kind. The most sophisticated instruments simply sailed through with little review and less understanding.
Having filed massive SEC documents routinely for 20 years on behalf on Canadain and US public companies, the world of regulation started to really tip in the latter days of GHW Bush and more so under Bill Clinton. Once the new SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Regulations was levied on the filings of public companies, costs soared...for the benefit of law firms.
Smaller Canadian companies seeking a wider shareholder base in the USA are obligated to fully register their companies at the SEC in order to subsequently seek trading status on a exchange. This process went from costing ten to fifteen to maybe $30,000 maximum in total, to hundreds and hundreds of thousands....oftentimes millions per company! What do you think that did to effect Canadians from registering there. It killed it completely except for the larger Encana's of the world.
Not too long ago a company's financial statements were signed off by the big Auditing Firms. Now in addition, all the directors have to sign their lives away as well. So now everyone has to be at minimum, a lawyer. How's that well balanced board of directors working out for people? Finance has become extremely more difficult and remote for smaller growing companies. 2008 is not the sole reason.
And media matters by the way, will vilify just about anything that has been embraced or stated by conservatives. Raison d'etre indeed.
JohnR
Saturday, 12 November, 2011
Is SUN TV run by a bunch of pansies?*
According to Mark Bourrie, yes, it is:
So a few months back when Sun TV’s Brian Lilley went after a friend of mine, Glen McGregor, in a commentary that mocked his recently-deceased mother, I’d had enough. I trashed the Sun TV gang on social media.
Last summer, my PhD thesis, translated into English, was published by a respected Canadian house. Reviews have been great, and the book made the Maclean’s best-seller list. Because the book has military overtones, there’s been some new media interest as Remembrance Day approaches.
My publicist booked me on Michael Coren’s show a couple of weeks ago. Last Wednesday, I got an e-mail saying the interview had been cancelled by Sun TV. It wasn’t Coren or Coren’s producer who made the decision.Someone higher up had killed the booking and banned me from Sun TV.
This says everything that you will ever need to know about Canadian television.
*I almost said pussies, but I thought calling the management of SUN TV a bunch of pussies would be a tad rude.
...oh, wait.
Quote of the day
Today's quote is from Lance at Small Dead Animals:
I have a better suggestion. Fire Flaherty.
Here's a quick number for the idiot. Total 2011 Budget Expenditures: $276.6 billion, Total 2011 Budget Deficit: $29.6 billion. An across the board cut of 10.7% eliminates the deficit. Hey spend-thrift, find the cuts. No 'bbbbuuutttts', no nothing. Get it done yesterday.
The lying scum promised us...promised that we were going to eliminate the deficit on time and on target. Harper campaigned on it. Every conservative should be emailing their MP's and raising some holy heck about the Debt Minister's irresponsible failure to do his job.
People gave the PC's the benefit of the doubt with the stimulus. G20 agreement, "Everyone else was doing it.", minority gov't. Well, none...none of those variables are in play now. The only reason to dump more debt into the economy is because these idiots believe it works.
Stop it. Stop it, stop it, stop it and FIRE HIS ASS if he refuses.
If you go ahead with this budget update crap you owe Kevin Page and every conservative that voted for you an apology because you villified Page and you lied to us.
Andrew Phillips: The Enabling Act: Nanny Wants to Listen In
Occasional correspondent Andrew Phillips writes:
"Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed." - Enabling Act - Nazi Germany 1933Today in the National Post an article by the Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian was printed concerning the federal government and its surveillance bills, Bill C-50, C-51, and C-52. Bills that will give the police too much freedom without judicial oversight into the invasion of privacy of citizens. Bill C-50 would allow them to listen in on your IP address violating your personal privacy in your home. Bill C-51 would allow them to monitor your cell phone communications without your knowledge.
As of the end of the 1st quarter of 2006 16.8 million Canadians were wireless subscribers. Just about everyone, for the most part, has a cell phone, so this invasion will not be confined to your home. This legislation will have the latitude of being in effect wherever you are!
Bill C-52 would require that private companies literally become snitches for the Nanny State; and gives the police warrantless power to access subscriber information. Under this legislation any extension of wireless service by telecommunication companies would allow for the potential expansion of surveillance as well.
It is the potential that concerns me. After all the Human Rights Commissions don't have to go after everybody do they? They just have to pick an individual out and crush them to suppress freedom of speech. It also has a somewhat selective attitude about who they go after like this Radical Imam and what he said about just about everybody else in Canada. Which should make you pause and think about the government and its support for equality - and protection - under the law.
As Gerry Nichols writes Harper seems to have forgotten that he was once a staunch defender of free expression. So after effectively removing private property and the safeguards its accords citizens with Bill C-36 the Consumer Product Protection Act. Stephen Harper appears to be moving towards the direct invasion of the personal privacy of the individual in Canada.
One thing about Bill C-36. I'm no constitutional scholar nor am I a lawyer trained in property rights. But Bill C-36 seems to me, a layman whom the laws are supposed to be there to protect, has gone further towards shredding the constitutional protections against both search and seizure that form Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What can you do? You can go to openmedia.ca and educate yourself further in to the ongoing erosion of civil liberties in Canada. Then sign the petition for there is nothing "lawful" about the access they have already given themselves with Bill C-36.
These bills will allow further "unlawful" access - without the proper judicial oversight - both require. I call the Omnibus Crime Bill the Enabling Act for the simple reason that is exactly what it is. This is a bill that will create crime not fight it. Not only do these bills have to be defeated and not enacted Bill C-36 must be repealed as well
Unhappy Halloween the real monsters, the ones we should all be afraid of, are in Parliament.
Wall Street behaving badly
An irregular series.
1) Charles Hugh Smith at Of Two Minds on the intrinsic problems of our financial system.
2) Peter Martino at Hudson New York on the one thing Euro elites want to avoid.
3) Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone on one judge who's actually forcing the SEC to do its job, what Occupy Wall Street stands for, and why Mitt Romney's entitlement-privatization plan is crazy.
4) David McElroy and Shikha Dalmia on the orgy of corruption and greed that led to Jefferson County, Alabama's declaration of the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history.
5) The Irishman is back.
6) Starve the vampire squid.
7) Mark Steyn in the OC Register on the big joke that is the US Congress' supercommittee.
Saturday links
Took a few days off, but now I'm back, with a backlog of posts that I'm sure you're just dying to read.
Anyways, a few things.
2) Apparently you can't help people get off drugs without a license anymore.
3) Aaron Wherry at Macleans.ca on the use of time allocation in the House of Commons.
6) Aww.
8) Radley Balko at The Agitator on local news hysteria, distracted driving laws, and the latest in the Hank Skinner case.
10) Arthur Rizer and Joseph Hartman in The Atlantic on police militarization.
11) Jacob Sullum at Reason's Hit & Run on the TSA's belt vendetta and legal sports betting in New Jersey.
12) Mark Steyn on one particular Canadian "family."
Tuesday, 8 November, 2011
Steven Pinker on violence
Reason.tv interviews Harvard's Steven Pinker on what he sees as a decline in violence at this time in human history:
H/t Balko.
Update: Der. Video should actually be posted right now.
H/t Balko.
Update: Der. Video should actually be posted right now.
Wall Street behaving badly: a round-up
Some more links that I've run across that I thought were worth sharing.
1) Political Correction lays out why the sub-prime mortgage crisis wasn't the fault of Fannie and Freddie Mae.
2) "Tyler Durden" at Zero Hedge on why what happens in Europe will also have such an impact on US banks and investment firms.
3) Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism on the hubris of US Banks' CEO Richard Davies.
4) Mark Mackinnon in the Globe and Mail on increasingly-problematic money troubles in China.
5) Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone online on Mike Bloomberg's Marie Antoinette moment and MF Global's collapse.
6) Matthew Yglesias at ThinkProgress on Frederic Bastiat's case for stimulus.
7) Charles Hugh Smith at Of Two Minds on why the collapse of the financial system as we know it is a good thing, and how easy it would be for that to happen.
8) Jeff Snider at Zero Hedge on the difference between Capitalism and Monetarism.
1) Political Correction lays out why the sub-prime mortgage crisis wasn't the fault of Fannie and Freddie Mae.
2) "Tyler Durden" at Zero Hedge on why what happens in Europe will also have such an impact on US banks and investment firms.
3) Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism on the hubris of US Banks' CEO Richard Davies.
4) Mark Mackinnon in the Globe and Mail on increasingly-problematic money troubles in China.
5) Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone online on Mike Bloomberg's Marie Antoinette moment and MF Global's collapse.
6) Matthew Yglesias at ThinkProgress on Frederic Bastiat's case for stimulus.
7) Charles Hugh Smith at Of Two Minds on why the collapse of the financial system as we know it is a good thing, and how easy it would be for that to happen.
8) Jeff Snider at Zero Hedge on the difference between Capitalism and Monetarism.
An update on Kelly Thomas and the Fullerton Six
A quick update on the Kelly Thomas beating story. Reason.tv interviews the bloggers behind Friends For Fullerton's Future, which broke the story of Thomas's beating:
Monday, 7 November, 2011
Monday links
A few things.
1) Judges behaving very badly...
2) ...but on the plus side, one good DA.
3) The latest in the war on drugs.
4) Radley Balko with the latest in the "Hank" Skinner case.
5) More on Anonymous vs. the Zetas cartel.
6) Whoops.
7) Seth McElvey at Reason's Hit & Run on Riverside County, California's dumb "prison hotels" idea.
8) Radley Balko in the Future of Freedom Foundation's Freedom Daily with part two of a two-part series on the war on drugs. Good stuff.
1) Judges behaving very badly...
2) ...but on the plus side, one good DA.
3) The latest in the war on drugs.
4) Radley Balko with the latest in the "Hank" Skinner case.
5) More on Anonymous vs. the Zetas cartel.
6) Whoops.
7) Seth McElvey at Reason's Hit & Run on Riverside County, California's dumb "prison hotels" idea.
8) Radley Balko in the Future of Freedom Foundation's Freedom Daily with part two of a two-part series on the war on drugs. Good stuff.
Cops behaving badly: a quick round-up
1) More on that German spyware scandal.
2) The future of suburban law enforcement?
3) All this over an iPhone.
4) Stupid stuff that cops with common sense wouldn't do.
5) The latest in the war on cameras.
6) The latest from New York's finest.
Update: A few more.
7) Just a little lying.
8) Why police unions are so helpful.
9) Where's your badge?
10) Two Oregon cops who shot and killed a suicidal teenager are still on the hook for excessive force. Good.
11) Oakland PD strikes again.
2) The future of suburban law enforcement?
3) All this over an iPhone.
4) Stupid stuff that cops with common sense wouldn't do.
5) The latest in the war on cameras.
6) The latest from New York's finest.
Update: A few more.
7) Just a little lying.
8) Why police unions are so helpful.
9) Where's your badge?
10) Two Oregon cops who shot and killed a suicidal teenager are still on the hook for excessive force. Good.
11) Oakland PD strikes again.
Quote of the day
Today's quote comes courtesy of Connie Woodcock in the Toronto Sun:
“When people get up on their feet and they say that no crimes have been prevented by the registry, that is just absolute crap,” Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae told reporters. “Lives have been saved.”
Which lives, he didn’t mention. They never do.
And so it dragged on – the same old tired arguments, the same old empty rhetoric backed by no evidence at all. There was even one last new argument dragged through Parliament: Destroying the data itself is somehow wrong. Archivists claim it will set “a dangerous precedent.”
How? By preserving information that was wrongly collected in the first place and is known to be full of errors and omissions? Meanwhile, Quebec wants to use the data to establish its own long gun registry.
Back in the saddle
I've been away from the site for a few days, and I might be away again soon. But in the meantime I've got a whole bunch of links and posts and things that I've been meaning to put together for a while. Forgive me if it all seems somewhat sporadic. We'll be back to our regularly-scheduled program soon.
Tuesday, 1 November, 2011
Tom Palmer on libertarian foreign policy
Some cool stuff in this Reason.tv interview with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation's Tom Palmer:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)