RSS FeedSo We’re Still Undergrads?
Undergrad degree, check. LSAT, check. Fourteen thousand three hundred and twenty-six dollar tuition, check. Still considered an undergraduate, check. WHAT??!! Still considered an undergrad?
Welcome to The University of Western Ontario, where law, dental, medical, and business students in professional programs are all lumped in with undergraduate students. Knowing where we stand is easy part, finding out why and how to change it becomes much like a Tom & Jerry (wow did I just date myself?) cartoon of pointing fingers.
This article has been brewing (or perhaps festering) in my brain since the first week of my 1L year. Never before had I needed a parking pass during my undergrad days of the 90’s, however, entering school as a “mature” student, I now have a car. I went and purchased my parking pass only to find out that my tuition, nearly three times the undergrad rate, got me exactly nothing.
I attempted to fill out my parking pass, but stopped when it asked if I was an undergrad or graduate student. Hmm, no professional student designation? Figuring that I am in law school, I checked “graduate.” When I handed my form in I was met with a lovely lady who politely handed my application back and told me that law students are considered undergrads. As such I would have to fight to obtain a parking position in Springett.
“Don’t worry we’re adding a bunch of spots” I was told. So I carried on my merry way, drove to classes the next day, circled the parking lot like a buzzard, only to realize that ALL of the added spots were taken as well. I was late for class that day as I had a choice of parking behind Althouse (Teacher’s College) or at TD Waterhouse Stadium. I choice Althouse.
I asked around and never really received a satisfactory answer last year, and I resolved my parking situation like many law student’s do. But I’ll leave that out of print.
Fast forward to this year. I gave it another try, went and purchased my parking pass and asked again why we are considered undergraduates. The same lovely lady said “that’s the way it’s always been.” Hmm, quite unacceptable.
I said that most of my classes start at 2 o’clock, and she looked at me with a sorry face and said the undergrad lot is usually full by noon.
Now as I write this, we just finished our third week of class, and while the undergrad lot at Springett is full by noon, I would estimate there are AT LEAST 100 vacant spots in the Graduate/Faculty lot on ANY given day.
So again, why are we considered undergraduates? I decided to put my old detective hat on and hit the pavement to find out.
However, I’ve come up with another question in the meantime. Not only do we have a parking disadvantage, but also we have a health plan disadvantage.
If anybody has compared our undergraduate health plan to the graduate health plan, you will note that they have benefits for dental and vision. Two benefits that the undergraduate plan does not accommodate for.
While this may not be an issue to some, it is an issue for me. A quick insurance lesson: Many plans that your parents have provide coverage to you if you are in school fulltime and under 25. For student’s like me, that leaves no dental or vision coverage, both of which I would take advantage of.
For now, I will just role this secondary issue into with the first
As I set out to answer these questions my first stop USC office. I was met with “I don’t know, go and talk to the people at Info Source.”
Down the stairs I went, waited in line, and spoke with an employee who said they do not make the decisions go to the Registrar’s office, “they’re the ones who classify the students.”
Down the hall and into the nice shiny new Student Services building I proceeded.
Here, there was a compilation of three employees, who provided equally weak answers:
- “You are not considered a graduate because your program is an undergraduate degree.” Perhaps with law (but is that not why we just changed to J.D.? Again another article for another day), but not to so with medicine and dental.
- “The University Senate made that decision, go talk to them.” Which was probably the best answer out of the four.
- “Go and speak with the Society of Graduate Student’s to see if they will make an exception to let you in.” Riiiight, like that will happen.
- And the best, “because that’s what other universities classify law students as.” Oh, so we’re just followers now. Is that what higher education has amounted to? Herd mentality?
In the end, I still do not know why professional schools within The University of Western Ontario are considered undergraduates, and equally it does not sit well with me.
I raise this question, not because I think law students (or any professional school) are better than undergraduates. But if the answers above are any indication, how can you justify charging almost 15 000 per year in tuition when university officials see this program as an undergraduate program?
As a strike vote looms between faculty and the university, I can surely guarantee the UWO Faculty Association (UWOFA) will not accept such arguments as “the Provincial government said no raises this year, so no raises,” as a bargaining position in the upcoming contract negotiations, so why should we?
Ontario Prostitution Laws Struck
I have to admit that when I first heard on AM980 that Justice Susan Himel stuck the prostitution laws for Ontario, I was a bit dismayed. Many people who think of prostitution think of the typical “street-walker” on the corner soliciting “john’s” for a quickie in the back of a pickup, and (hopefully) getting arrested in a COPS style raid.
Now that I’ve had a little opportunity to digest the news, here is what I think. Although a quick caveat, I have not read the actual decision.
First off. What is a common bawdy-house?
s. 197
“common bawdy-house” means a place that is (a) kept or occupied, or (b) resorted to by one or more persons
for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency;
Second, what are the relevant prostitution laws in for Canada?
s. 210. (1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
(2) Every one who
- is an inmate of a common bawdy-house,
- is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house, or
- as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction
212. (1) Every one who
(a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada,
(b) inveigles or entices a person who is not a prostitute to a common bawdy-house for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse or prosti- tution,
(c) knowingly conceals a person in a com- mon bawdy-house,
(d) procures or attempts to procure a person to become, whether in or out of Canada, a prostitute,
(e) procures or attempts to procure a person to leave the usual place of abode of that per- son in Canada, if that place is not a common bawdy-house, with intent that the person may become an inmate or frequenter of a common bawdy-house, whether in or out of Canada,
(f) on the arrival of a person in Canada, di- rects or causes that person to be directed or takes or causes that person to be taken, to a common bawdy-house,
(g) procures a person to enter or leave Cana- da, for the purpose of prostitution,
(h) for the purposes of gain, exercises con- trol, direction or influence over the move- ments of a person in such manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting or compelling that person to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally,
(i) applies or administers to a person or cau- ses that person to take any drug, intoxicating liquor, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower that person in order thereby to enable any person to have illicit sexual inter- course with that person, or
(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view
(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehi- cle,
(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or
(c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person
for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) In this section, “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.
Okay, with the logistics out of the way, lets look at my opinion. I am glad to see that Justice Himel reserved judgement for 30 days to allow for an opportunity for the Provincial Crown to appeal, which is what they did the very next day. From my understanding Justice Himel’s reasoning, in agreement with the litigants Terri-Lynn Bedford, Valerie Scott, and Amy Lebovitch, indicated that the laws needed to be struck from the Canadian Criminal Code because they created real safety concerns for current sex-trade workers. The Globe and Mail article indicated “in her [Justice Himel] 131-page ruling which took her a year to produce, Judge Himel found that laws set up to protect prostitutes actually endanger their safety, forcing them to furtively engage in hasty transactions conducted in shady locations.” The rationale behind this is now sex-trade workers will be able to get off of the street and into what was “formerly” known as a common bawdy-house which in their opinion would be a controlled environment that would allow for protection from predators such as Robert Pickton.
Additionally, it is hoped (by the litigants) that this will also move the sex-trade indoors and remove some of the visible signs that are currently on display.
Well, I have to admit that in my policing career I did not have the opportunity to enforce Canada’s prostitution laws on any “street-walkers,” I can say that the trade is flourishing in illegal massage parlours and strip clubs. I do not agree with the rationale that this law will protect sex-trade workers from potential Robert Pickton’s for a couple simple reasons:
1. Massage Parlours and strip clubs have notoriously been areas were the solicitation of sex is an ongoing “problem” and striking these laws down does nothing to curb the problem. If anything, it can put the “girls” in more jeopardy as massage parlours and strip clubs are generally owned by individual members of organized crime factions – specifically Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs like the Hells Angels. As I see it if sex acts become legal and are able to be performed in strip clubs and massage parlours, we are feeding the “girls” to the MOST dangerous criminal elements in society.
2. It believed that girls who currently walk the streets will be able to obtain protection in the safety of massage clubs or other “brothel” type establishments. While this is laudable on its thought, in practicality it does not work. The girls who (again in my opinion) walk the street are generally addicted to drugs, have mental health concerns, and have turned to the streets because there is nowhere else for them to go. The people who would start up a potential brothel or massage parlour generally pass over the girls who are older, not “attractive” enough, and have drug and mental health issues. Where will the protection be for these sex-trade workers?
3. Where will the protection be against unfair labour practises? In all seriousness, will they unionize? How is this going to be monitored, will they be taxed? Will by-laws be involved?
Additionally, evidence presented urged Judge Himel to also reflect on the fact that prostitution is inherently degrading and unhealthy, and should not be encouraged as a “career choice” for young women through a slack legal regime. With all due respect to the learned Justice Himel, I do not think any 6 year old girl dreams about the nitty gritty of “Pretty Woman.”
One misleading inaccuracy in the article includes: Several cities – including Toronto, Victoria, Windsor, Calgary and Edmonton – charge fees to licence body-rub establishments despite the general understanding that many sell sexual services. While they do in fact license “body-rub” establishments, they are not (as the article would lead you to believe) licensing massage parlours for sexual services. What they are licensing is a massage establishment which begins and ends at the massage.
In the end, SHOULD these laws be struck, I suspect it will be many years before this makes its way through the Ontario Court of Appeal and then on to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, once this legal drama makes its way through its appeal process, in the end if it is struck from our laws (which for the record, I do not believe it should be – see above) there are other issues and areas of law (Administrative Law, Employment/Labour Law, Municipal Law…etc) that will need immediate addressing.
LEAF Intervenes in R. v. L.B. at Ontario Court of Appeal
On September 23 and 24, 2010 LEAF will be intervening at the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding the offence of infanticide in the Criminal Code. LEAF aims to offer the court a perspective that will shed light on infanticide as a homicide offence that is distinct from murder.
Moreover, according to LEAF’s press release, they will argue that “where the elements of infanticide are present, the infanticide offence should be available to women regardless of whether the Crown charges murder. This approach is consistent with the clear intention of Parliament to include the offence of infanticide in the Criminal Code.”
LEAF’s Legal Director, Joanna Birenbaum, stated that “infanticide is treated differently in law than murder because of the many overlapping social, cultural, psychological and medical factors which may affect the state of mind of accused women following childbirth. It is a very serious crime, but it is a crime which recognizes the reduced culpability of women [who have recently given birth] whose minds are “disturbed” due to the interaction of these complex factors related to childbirth.”
Do Your Driving Convictions Really Disappear After 3 Years?
Records of Convictions for Provincial Charges in Ontario
Do your driving convictions really disappear after 3 years? Simon says, “No!” Keep reading to find out more about how the government keeps provincial offence records and what happens to them after three years.
Background Information on Provincial Offence Records
First some background information on provincial records. The Ministry of the Attorney General in Ontario keeps records of individuals’ convictions for all provincial charges, the most common Acts being the Highway Traffic Act (HTA), the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act (CAIA), and the Liquor Licence Act (LLA). However these records are kept on an antiquated system, known as ICON, and are not easily searchable by police officers in the course of their regular duties. These records are primarily for the courts to maintain and use. ICON records are kept longer than three years.
This means that police officers aren’t likely to know about your underage drinking or public intoxication tickets when they run your name, unless you are dealing with the service that issued you the ticket, then they will probably have record of it on their own computer system.
MTO Records of HTA and CAIA Charges
The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) also keeps a records system, known as PARIS (Plate and Registration Information System). PARIS is accessed through the CPIC (Canadian Police Information Center) software, which is readily available to all police officers.
PARIS keeps track of individuals through their driver’s licence number and only deals with driving related provincial offences, namely Highway Traffic Act and Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act charges. It also keeps records of any driver’s licence suspensions, regardless of what they were from (i.e. medical, unpaid fines, racing, criminal conviction, etc). The PARIS record is what people are referring to when they speak of their “driving record”.
When a police officer runs (checks) your driver’s licence number, they will see your licence status and your convictions on PARIS, as well as any points you have accumulated from those convictions. Police services in Ontario (with the exception of the OPP and MTO enforcement officers) only have access on PARIS to the last three years worth of convictions and demerit points (although points actually regenerate after only two years).
The Three Year Myth
The fact that most officers can only see the last three years worth of convictions, coupled with the fact that insurance companies usually only ask about your last three years, has led to the myth that driving convictions are wiped off your record after three years. This is not the case! PARIS keeps records of your convictions indefinitely, it’s just that most officers can’t see them. The OPP and the MTO, however, can. So remember this the next time you are asked if you’ve had any tickets in the past!
From my blog: Simon Says, Category: Police Myths
Rocking the Boat: A Brief History of Anti-Migrant Hysteria in Canada
They’re at it again.
In November, 76 Tamil refugees escaped Sri Lanka on a rusty freighter. They arrived in Victoria, where they were met by RCMP and Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) officials, who promptly jailed them for three months on allegations of terrorism. It would be fully half a year before the CBSA would admit that it had never had any evidence.
By then, however, it was too late: anti-Tamil and anti-refugee hysteria had spread like wildfire. Now, mere weeks after that most tepid of mea culpas from the CBSA, the hysteria greeting the Tamil MV Sun Sea passengers is worse. As with the Ocean Lady, these migrants will be detained in Maple Ridge jails before their refugee claims are considered. The Conservatives have begun to create new rules to treat refugees who arrive by boat differently from others. Meanwhile, Paul Fromm, the infamous neo-Nazi, has been receiving uncritical coverage in mainstream media with his demands that the migrants be sent back.
As the paranoia grows ever more heightened, it becomes increasingly important that we resist it. The universal rights of safety and mobility must be upheld, not only for the Sun Sea migrants, but for all people fleeing violence.
