RSS FeedReview – The Absolute Violation: Why Torture Must be Prohibited
Of interest to law students, from Western News:
The Absolute Violation: Why Torture Must be Prohibited
by Richard Matthews
Is torture ever a justifiable means to an end? Richard Matthews tackles that question at a time when we are faced with controversy over numerous reports of state-sponsored torture, even involving our own government.
Drawing from a variety of disciplines such as philosophy, medicine, psychiatry, history, feminism and anthropology, as well as survivor and torturer narratives, Matthews sets out to show how public perception has been skewed, and why there is no moral justification for torture.
“If you study torture closely and carefully, you encounter a sordid mess of personal and institutional corruption, wrongdoing as well as the terrible suffering of the victims and their communities. The medical and psychological literature on the subject is hard to read, but survivor narratives offer a rich and essential but extremely painful set
of insights into what torture is and how it works,” says Matthews.
“One of the merits of informing people about its true horror is that it enables them to avoid the facile and false portrayals of torture that we receive from propagandists and from scholars who, all too often, do not seem to carefully study these sources. Consequently, in public debates the subject is a caricature of torture and has nothing to do with its reality.”
Matthews goes after the heart of the argument, challenging the idea that torture is of any benefit to its users whatsoever. This book is important reading for anyone wanting to better understand the recent trend towards the public acceptance of torture, and those interested in actively countering that trend.
Richard Matthews is an Assistant Professor of Social Justice and Peace Studies program at King’s University College.
Wikileaks considered a “threat” by US Army
WikiLeaks logo (via Wikipedia)
WikiLeaks, the whistle-blowing website that provides confidential and sensitive documents for free to the media, human rights groups and the public, has been deemed a threat by the US Army.
WikiLeaks has been responsible in the past for providing a copy of the Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta, the contents of Sarah Palin’s Yahoo account, and a membership list of the far-right British National Party which got at least one police officer dismissed, among many other significant stories.
A 2008 document recently posted there, entitled U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks, states,
The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing
sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out.
Plans included trying to shut down the website using a variety of techniques, including exposing their sources to embarrass and intimidate them, and even litigation.
Considering that this document was considered “secret,” and presumably came from someone who had access to confidential files, the concerns may be valid. But the appropriateness of the response by the military towards a media channel providing a significant and overwhelmingly positive contribution to issues of public interest is also suspect.
The editors of WikiLeaks note that 2 years have passed without any exposure of their sources, indicating that this response may also be particularly ineffectual. They also point to inaccuracies regarding the editorial control of the site.
Even if the Army was able to shut down WikiLeaks, they concede that the problem is not limited to a single site,
Web sites similar to Wikileaks.org will continue to proliferate and will continue to represent a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army for the foreseeable future.
Although security interests are pressing and substantial, when a democratic government administration is known to participate in systematic abuses of human rights and widespread violations of international norms, the balance of favour should continue to support sites like WikiLeaks.
Two AIG Subsidiaries Agree To Settle Racial Discrimination Case
This is part of the Middle Passage Law Series and is cross posted on Commercial Law International .
American International Group, better know by its acronym AIG, it seems these days can rarely catch a break. It just seems negative news follows negative news for this company. This time the negative news for this too big to fail company – deeply wounded by the global credit crunch and later recession – has two of its units being accused of racial discrimination in their lending practices.
It is important to note that AIG has not been found guilty of anything; in fact it wasn’t even accused of any wrong doing.
WHAT?
I know, I know, it seem like I am saying that AIG is involved yet not involved in this case. And yes that is exactly what I am saying.
All of this may seem totally contradictory but let me assure you it is not. What we have here is a classic illustration of legal reality vs. public perception of a company’s brand. In order to be successful companies have to be mindful of the differences between these two concepts and effectively manage their interrelation.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) allegations were never directed at AIG, the parent company, but were instead directed at two of its subsidiaries –AIG Federal Savings Bank (FSB) and Willmington Finance Incorporated (WFI). Both banks were accused of not sufficiently monitoring the activities of mortgage brokers who sold mortgages that they funded. The brokers were, according to the DOJ, offered African-American borrowers less favorably borrowing terms than similarly financially situated whites. The two have agreed to settle the case with the DOJ and have agreed to pay at least $US6.1 million without admitting liability as part of the terms of settlement.
The case broke no new ground as far as banks in the US being accused of racial against minorities, namely African-American and Latino-Americans, in fact similar settlements or even full blown litigation involving other US banks will surely be making the headlines in the near future. The case however did break new legal ground in that for the first time US authorities held a lender directly responsible for the racial discriminatory acts of brokers. As a consequence, from now on banks will have a positive duty to monitor the activities/policies of brokers that they fund, to the best of their ability, in order to ensure that they are not using race to determine borrowing terms. This duty also of course carries with the co-duty to take positive action whenever a bank believes that a broker is using race.
From a strict legal perspective AIG, the parent, hands remain totally clean is this matter. It is important to reiterate that AIG was never accused of anything; the allegations were solely directed at the two subsidiaries. And no this is not a simple matter of splitting hairs, while related all three companies are separate. The legal concept of the corporate veil - the independent legal identity of companies, even if related – is a fundamental one in corporate law. The corporate veil is best understood as a shield that is used to protect all the right that come with incorporation. This is not to say that it can never be lifted/pierced, for it can, but this is only done in rear and specific instances where for example fraud is alleged or where for some reason the directing/controlling mind of a corporation needs to be identified.
However, these allegations go beyond strictures of the corporate veil and this is where public perception of the brand and effective management of that brand become important. AIG and its army of brand management specialists both know that the general public are often not so discerning as to make the distinction between parent and subsidiary; as far as the public is concerned AIG is AIG. This is the reason I believe that there was such a quick settlement – the last thing AIG, the parent, needs is a protracted legal battle involving accusations of racial discrimination, albeit involving subsidiaries. This would be a public relations nightmare.
Former NHL’er Ramage Has Appeal
Former St. Louis Blue and Toronto Maple Leaf has had his second day in court. This time to appeal a conviction that led to a four year sentence for Impaired Driving Causing Death in connection with the accident that claimed another former NHL’er, Keith Magnuson.
The appeal will focus around two specific issues:
1. Was Ramage’s Charter rights violated through the collection of his urine at the hospital?
2. Should the court find that they were not violated, is the four-year sentence imposed by the Ontario Superior Court too harsh?
The court appears to be already leaning toward reducing the sentence through the words of Justice David Doherty who indicated
I think it’s fair to say we’re all concerned about the length of sentence.
To me this is an interesting case and one that affects me personally. I worked with many (if not all) of the officers involved in this case, however, this specific incident was before my time. No police officer likes losing a case because of an error that they committed (i.e. Charter breach), however, although the defence has suggested the officer wilfully breached Mr. Ramage’s rights. It is more likely the officer was acting in good faith with respect to the investigation.
But this begs the question. If an officer, who acting in good faith, breaches an accused person or suspect’s rights, in situations such as this, is justice better served in upholding a conviction or upholding a what would ultimately be a minor Charter violation.
You may wonder why I say minor? Because ultimately, although a breach may have occurred, a warrant surely would have been granted to obtain bodily fluids.
Discuss.
Cross-Burning in Nova Scotia
Read the full story at The Gazette.
Are there inalienable rights in Canada?
We in Canada like to think of ourselves as free. We also like to think we have rights. The police can’t throw us in jail for our political views. And if they do throw us in jail for any reason, the police must let us call a lawyer. A part of Canada’s constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees our rights and freedoms. But the constitutional rights and freedoms such as freedom of expression, a right against arbitrary detention or imprisonment, and even our right to life, liberty and security, are not absolute. The Charter leaves loopholes for the federal Parliament, provincial legislatures, or even judges to limit or take away any rights or freedoms. There are no inalienable rights in Canada.
A legal right is a claim to a benefit. The law sets legal rights, and the courts will enforce them if no one else will. When you sign a contract to lease an apartment in exchange for rent, your tenant has a right to use the apartment, and you have a right to some of the tenant’s money. Your right is always someone else’s duty, which is either to give up the benefit you claim or to let you claim the benefit freely. You can also have rights against the government. For example, habeas corpus is a right to see a judge if the police arrest you. Freedoms are like rights but they are more about enjoying benefits you already have, such as speech or movement. Still, the flip side of every freedom is someone’s duty to respect it. For example, if you have a freedom of religion, the government may not ban your faith.
But rights and freedoms in our relations with the government are tricky because the government is a sovereign. It means that within its geographic borders the government writes the law. What good is a right if the government can scrap it? That’s where a constitution comes into play. It’s a superlaw that tells the government what laws it can and cannot write. And it’s very difficult for the government to change the constitution. The Canadian Charter is the part of our constitution that orders the government to respect certain human rights. If a provincial or the federal legislature passes a law infringing on our Charter right, the courts can strike that law from the books. It will have no force and effect. That way the Charter protects us from the government.
Even democracies need this protection to stop majorities from oppressing minorities. For example, our legal tradition has very good reasons for protecting some rights of the criminally accused. Only a minority of the total population will ever need these rights. Whether justified or baseless, a fear of crime can bring a party that wants to do away with these rights to power. In theory, our Charter will always stop the Parliament from touching the rights of the criminally accused. Before the Charter, the Parliament could throw out the presumption of innocence or the law against self-incrimination. A constitution can also protect racial, gender, or other minorities from discrimination. We can be sure of our human rights only when they are safe from the majority and the government it elects.
The Charter promises us this safety, but it doesn’t really deliver. There are several loopholes in the Charter that let the federal parliament, provincial legislatures, or the courts take away rights. First, the notwithstanding clause in s. 33 empowers legislatures to suspend fundamental freedoms (s. 2) and legal (ss. 7-14) and equality (s. 15) rights. Perhaps for fear of the ballot box, legislatures tried it for real only very few times. But if the government can suspend the rights, they are not inalienable.
Second, the most obvious limitation on all rights and freedoms in the Charter is in s. 1. It basically says that sometimes the Charter will not protect our rights. Suppose the Parliament passes a law that bans newspapers in a certain language. If the government can justify this law as reasonable “in a free and democratic society,” it can get away with it under s. 1. Who decides what’s reasonable and what’s free and democratic? Ultimately, it’s the nine people on the Supreme Court of Canada. Sometimes a s. 1 justification is a very hard task, but a right or freedom is guaranteed only if it’s legally certain, not if it’s probable or very likely. So the government can strip anyone of any Charter right with the consent of the Supreme Court.
Third, the courts decide what each right and freedom in Canada actually means. For example, s. 7 allows the government to deprive anyone of “the right to life, liberty, and security of the person” only in accordance with “the principles of fundamental justice.” The Supreme Court decides what these principles are. Next, the Charter often defines rights using the principle of “reasonableness,” which is really a code word for letting the courts fill in the details. See, for example, the right against “unreasonable search” (s. 8), the right to be tried within a “reasonable time” (s. 11(b)), etc. When the police breach our Charter rights to obtain evidence against us in a criminal investigation, we have a right to have it excluded from our trial—but only if “the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute” (s. 24(2)). Again, the courts decide what that means by applying factors laid down by the Supreme Court.
Finally, if the government breaches your Charter rights, the courts decide what compensation you get if any. It is little comfort to you and little deterrent to the government if the courts merely declare government action unconstitutional. Denied or insufficient remedies gut Charter rights and freedoms. As the recent case of Omar Khadr has shown, the Supreme Court can deny a meaningful remedy even for breaches of the most basic rights such as a right to fundamental justice in s. 7. Most Canadians don’t seem to like Omar Khadr or his family, so the majority is clearly not on his side. The Supreme Court didn’t say that it let the government off the legal hook because of the views of the majority of Canadians. But these views possibly encouraged the government when it violated Khadr’s Charter rights or denied him the requested remedy. What is the value of rights that depend on politics?
One can argue that these cases are extreme and that limits on our Charter rights are fine because we trust our government. After all we elect it. But consider this. First, majorities elect the government, and how certain are you what the majority will be like 20 years from now? Are you going to be in that majority? Do you want to entrust your most basic human rights to a majority? Second, even election rights in the Charter are not inalienable. Mix a national emergency with the right people on the Supreme Court (appointed by the Prime Minister; no Parliament’s consent required), and the words “reasonable,” “free,” and “democratic” in section 1 of the Canadian Charter can have a very different meaning.
The word “inalienable” expresses the idea of rights that the law can never let anyone take. An inalienable right is yours by the fact of your membership in the human species. No government or person gave you this right, so they can never take it away. It is yours by birth. It recognizes your inherent value as a human being regardless of who you are, what you did, or what you think. Very few rights can be inalienable but those that can are truly fundamental: a right to a fair trial, freedom of speech, habeas corpus. The US Declaration of Independence speaks of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” as inalienable rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.”
Our Charter does not have the word “inalienable,” neither in letter nor in spirit. It uses other words. But social conditions change, and what’s not “reasonable,” “free,” or “democratic” today can become such in the future. There is a fully legal path to breaches of any rights in Canada. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s possible politically, socially, or economically, but legally our rights are uncertain. A constitution that fails to protect minorities from the majority’s changing moods does not guarantee rights. The loopholes in the Charter show that we have rights and freedoms only as long as the government and the Supreme Court let us. Rights and freedoms in Canada do not inherently belong to us as human beings but are revocable gifts from the government and the courts. And if we can’t change our Charter, we must at least hold our government to account especially strictly when it comes to human rights.
The Invisible History of Slavery in Canada
This is an interesting project in works that sheds light on the other side of Canada’s role in African slavery:
Today in North America, the use of African slave labour is seen as a uniquely American institution. Canada is reputed as being the promised land to the North to where slaves could escape and live as free men and women. The Underground Railroad is our claim to fame, and we toot that horn proudly. Our history textbooks—and much less, our national historical narrative—rarely, if ever mention the two centuries of institutionalized slavery and its role in the founding of Canada…
The film will show the connections between the practice of slavery in the past with racial disparity, tensions, and racism in the present. It will illustrate why telling history in a neutral, accurate and more complete manner is vital to understanding the causal relationship between past, present and future. The overarching point being more than just “history matters,” but rather honest history matters.
ICLMG Report Shows Border Guards Using Profiling
The report by International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group released today shows that racial and religious profiling at the US/Canada border is becoming a reality.
As expected, those presumed to be of Muslim or Arab backgrounds have borne the brunt. But others who may have a name that is relatively common have been mistaken for others and caught up in the dragnet.
Read more at The Globe.
ICLMG Watch Lists Report – February 10, 2010
“Bleeding hearts in law school”
On Friday, Kory Teneycke, a former top adviser to PM Stephen Harper, was interviewed on CTV’s Power Play about the Khadr decision:
Here’s a transcript of the best parts:
Aside from showcasing the Harper government’s ideological approach to human rights, Teneycke’s dialogue serves to remind us of the importance of the Charter with respect to individual rights. As eloquently stated by then-Chief Justice Dickson, the Charter safeguards minorities from the “tyranny of the majority” (R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] S.C.J. No. 17 at para. 96).
I personally hope that most Canadians would prefer to see an alleged terrorist brought before our functional justice system, rather than lower our justice system to a terrorist-like level of disregard for human rights. But even if the Harper government, and the majority of Canadians, wouldn’t care to see Khadr treated as a human being, there is still Charter-based justification for the judiciary (and the “bleeding hearts in law school”) to seek protection of his fundamental rights.
UWO Student’s Charges Stayed…
In an interesting twist, the Crown has decided to stay all charges against fourth year UWO student Irnes Zeljkovic.
Zeljkovic’s incident involving UWO Campus and London Police made national headlines late last year when he was arrested in what some described as nothing more than police brutality. I qualified the arrest both here and on CFRB 1010’s Jim Richard’s Show by saying that I thought all aspects minus the baton strikes were acceptable.
Although no details were released about what transpired in court, Zeljkovic’s lawyer, Phillip Millar of Cohen Highley plans on talking with UWO officials first about his client’s reinstatement and then one can only assume about a potential settlement regarding the arrest.
Also last year, UWO officials hired former OPP Commissioner Gwen Boniface to investigate the incident. To date, no information has been release with respect to her independent investigation.
LSAT Accomodation
A would-be law student has filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in Arenson v. Law School Admission Council. She was requesting accommodations for the LSAT exam due to her disability.
See a summary of the case at Doorey.
Insite Victory
The InSite facility in Vancouver won its most recent hearing at the B.C. S.C.
See more at Junkie Life
Podcast Feeds
Awards
Partners
- Advertise Here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Whiners - The Elusive Fish Creative Services
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- no win no fee solicitors
- Compensation Claims
- personal injury lawyer toronto
- no win no fee
- Pardons Canada Accident Claim Medical Negligence Whiplash Claim
- No win No fee Claims
- Venue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
