RSS FeedIslamophobia in Canada: A Primer
by Fathima Cader and Sumayya Kassamali
Ten years after September 11, 2001, the term “Islamophobia,” once largely obscure, has become all but inevitable when discussing contemporary politics. As Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden became household names, Western fear of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims has also grown. Canada has been no stranger to this phenomenon. Despite its reputation as a haven of multicultural tolerance, one 2011 poll showed that 56% of Canadians believe Western societies are in “irreconcilable conflict” with Muslim societies. 40% of the 1500 respondents approved the profiling of airplane passengers who appear Muslim. As Canada enters its seventh year of Conservative rule, how are progressives to understand and respond to this trend?
Islamophobia relies on characterizations of Islam and its adherents as uniquely prone to certain things, such as violence and sexism, and uniquely hostile to others, such as democracy and secular government. It includes discrimination based on perceived religious identity, such that non-Muslims, including Sikhs and Arab Christians, have also been targets of anti-Muslim violence in cases of “mistaken identity.” Meanwhile, Muslims in North America who do not appear to come from the Middle East or South Asia, such as Muslims of European or East Asian descent, have been less centrally targeted in this blurry overlap of religious and racial discrimination.
In this primer, we do not attempt to cover every instance of Islamophobia in Canada in the past decade. Rather, we provide an overview of its broad assumptions, particularly focusing on two themes that have proven central to discussions about Muslims: sexism and violence.
In offering this analysis, we stress that responses to Islamophobia must be placed within the context of Canada’s ongoing conservative political shift — from its increased military engagements around the world to its anti-immigrant policies at home, and from its vast cuts in social service funding to its ever-increasing levels of state surveillance. While numerous civil liberties and human rights organizations have reported on the rise of anti-Muslim hate crimes in Canada, we emphasize that Islamophobia is not just interpersonal: it is systemic. In fighting it, therefore, we must engage with the many other forms of oppression that also organize Canadian society.
Supremacy of God and the Canadian Charter
Did you know that the “supremacy of God” is Canada’s founding principle? Read the Canadian constitution, if you don’t believe me. This is the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law …” Recently, a Quebec Superior Court Judge Gérard Dugré relied on these words to stop the Quebec government from blocking one private school’s religious curriculum. This caused secular activists to call for removing the reference to God from our Charter.
Secular Canadians took offence. To them, Judge Dugré’s novel use of the preamble appears to make non-religious Canadians second-class citizens. His ruling may also look like an attempt to cut the ancient Gordian Knot of whether God exists in one judicial stroke. Of course, this cannot be the meaning of the preamble to the Charter. But the words about God do not have to be empty rhetoric ignored by the courts either. A reasonable interpretation of the preamble treats “God” as a power that is superior to the state and that have endowed Canadians with rights and freedoms secure from the state.
I do not know if judge Dugré’s decision is correct. Nor am I trying to answer this question here. But regardless of his ruling, there is a reasonable interpretation of the entire preamble to the Charter.
First of all, the purpose of the Charter is to protect rights and freedoms of the people against the government. This principle should imbue every interpretation of this constitutional document.
One of the fundamental methods of testing legality is tracing claimed powers and freedoms to their source. Many state agents’ powers come from or are allowed by the sovereign—the federal parliament or provincial legislatures. Police powers, for example, come from statute or are allowed by statute because they pre-existed legislative intervention. No state power can exist without parliamentary consent or an explicit constitutional grant. Even “Crown prerogatives” such as international relations powers exist only until legislatures wish to withdraw them.
But people are not agents or creatures of the state. We pre-date the state.
To reserve some freedoms to the people, to protect them from the overarching sovereign, and to ensure the legality of freedoms, you need a source other than the sovereign itself. Otherwise, the sovereign would be free to take freedoms back from the people. This source cannot be the state, it cannot be a person, and it cannot be a corporation. The humanity have always imagined a source of power and freedom completely independent of the state. It’s been called different names but a common one in English is God. Why not? It’s good enough to symbolize the idea that fundamental human rights and freedoms are not a gift from the sovereign. We have them by birth or naturalization, or symbolically as a gift from “God.”
Second, to emphasize the idea that the state and our legislative sovereigns cannot expropriate the independent rights and freedoms of the people, a concept of supremacy is necessary. Not only is the source of our freedoms and rights independent from the state, it is also supreme to the state. This concept leaves not a shred of doubt about any ability of the government to repossess our freedoms.
For these two reasons, “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God.” It is to protect our freedoms and rights from state intrusion, which is exactly the purpose of the Charter. The rule-of-law part is equally critical, because unless there is an institution that deeply believes in these principles and holds the state in check, the words alone are not worth much. Thank God for the independent judiciary and the independent legal profession. Yes, essentially: thank God for lawyers.
According to the Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed.), a preamble may help interpreting its enclosing document. The dictionary cites Den v. Urison, 2 N.J.L. 212 (1807), a New Jersey case: “… in case any doubt arises on the enacting part, the preamble may be resorted to to explain it, and show the intention of the law maker.” If our courts turn to the preamble of the Charter to inform their interpretation of that document, they should treat the words “supremacy of God” not in a religious sense but as an affirmation of Canadians’ rights and freedoms secure from and independent of the government.
(Post sponsored by AdviceScene)
Civil liberties suspended in Toronto during G20?
The G20 summit in Toronto has come and gone, but not before leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. I’m not just referring to all the shattered glass and burned out husks of police cars; I’m talking about Torontonians’ faith in the rule of law.
Our Ontario police forces, particularly the Toronto Police Service, are some of the finest and most professional in the world. They have worked hard to build community relations and win the respect of the public. Just as we rely on the police to keep us secure, the police rely on public cooperation to effectively do their jobs.
When the public trust in police is diminished, and people begin to see the police as an enemy, it puts our safety in jeopardy. That is precisely what is happening. The police are coming under heavy criticism for the perceived overzealous tactics they used this weekend. I have heard of many strong supporters of the police, some of whom were caught up in the mass detentions, beginning to question whether their support was misplaced.
The front page of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director’s website has been changed to add a special notice about G20-related complaints. I suspect the new bureaucratic agency will have to expand just to handle all of them.
Preliminary reports of apparent civil rights violations are coming in from all over the city. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says that these were not isolated incidents.
I saw many with my own eyes. I was in downtown Toronto to take photos of this once-in-a-lifetime event. What I saw terrified me and broke my heart.
The disgraceful actions of a relatively small, hardcore group of criminals running amok in the city have been used to justify the biggest suspension of civil liberties in Toronto’s history.
Peaceful protesters and onlookers at the designated “free speech zone” in Queen’s Park were attacked with batons, pepper spray, and rubber bullets with little or no warning (I was there; I heard none). Nine hundred people were rounded up and arrested, including credentialed journalists, pedestrians walking their dogs, and even a TTC worker in full uniform. Ordinary people at Queen and Spadina were surrounded on all sides by riot police. One by one, seemingly for no reason at all, people were snatched from the trap by force and then disappeared behind a wall of riot police. The fear is vividly captured in this video (watch the whole thing or just skip ahead to 7:30).
Those arrested were taken to the Eastern Ave. Detention Centre, a specially constructed temporary facility. What happened inside that facility is not yet fully known. Openly homosexual and transgendered people allege that they were segregated into separate cells by homophobic police. Women have made shocking accusations of being threatened by their jailors with rape. The unconfirmed allegations made by Amy Miller in this video are so terrifying that they defy belief. At the very least, corroborated reports describe the conditions inside as deplorable:
Cramped and filthy cells, mismanagement and disorganized paperwork, lack of food, water and toilet paper, and denial of legal aid and access to lawyers.
Taylor Flook said she spent almost 24 hours in detention before being released without charge and witnessed strip searches of women by male officers, as well as sexist remarks made by several officers.
Hundreds of people have since been released without charge; the vast majority of those arrested weren’t doing anything illegal in the first place!
And then there was the controversial G20 security law. A regulation, quietly passed by the Ontario cabinet under the Public Works Protection Act, empowered police to stop and search anyone attempting to enter the G20 security perimeter. Police Chief Blair now admits that he deliberately misled the media and public as to the scope of the law. He claimed (and the media reported) that it covered a 5-meter area outside of the fence. In fact there were only a few areas outside of the fence which were covered by the regulation. I was misled too (hey, I can admit a mistake).
Trouble is, apparently the Chief failed to tell his own officers about the limited scope of the law. They were enforcing that law all over Toronto, even though it didn’t apply there. When pedestrians far from the security zone were stopped by police, and demanded to know the source of the police authority, they were told: “Public Works Protection Act, you can look it up.” I myself saw people stopped and searched in this manner.
Closer to the security zone, people who were just cycling by, with no intention of trying to enter, were stopped and told they had to surrender their bags for a search or be arrested. Despite the Chief’s claims that “if they refuse and they have the right to refuse, then they leave and they will leave without being arrested,” these people had no option to leave.
Elsewhere, people were stopped on the street and subjected to searches without reasonable suspicion that they were involved in a criminal offence. They were told they were under investigative detention. In the video below, a woman is stopped at King and University (a fair distance from the security zone) and told she must submit to a search of her bags or face arrest. While the officer was polite and respectful, I’ll let you decide whether he violated ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter (hint: see R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52 and R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33).
After what I saw this weekend, I believe that the government must call a public inquiry into what happened. I fear we will discover that civil liberties throughout Toronto were effectively suspended — the most troubling encroachment on civil rights in Canada since the FLQ crisis. There are lessons to be learned. The police have admitted that mistakes were made. We must have a full accounting of those mistakes to ensure that they are not repeated.
Secret Laws and Extraordinary Police Powers: G20
Normally, Canadians have the right to be left alone by police. Pedestrians generally don’t have to answer police questions and don’t have to identify themselves. They certainly don’t have to submit to searches by police. Not so this weekend in Toronto!
Following up on Pulat’s post regarding the legality of G20 police cordons in Toronto, if you’re going to be down near the G20 security zone in Toronto, you should be on notice. This weekend, police will have extraordinary powers to stop, search, and arrest anyone who comes within 5 meters of the zone.
The source of this power is the Public Works Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55. The Act allows the government to designate areas as “public works.” Once an area has been designated as a public work, police and appointed “guards” have special powers to secure the area. Police and appointed guards can:
- require anyone approaching the zone to identify themselves (s. 3(a));
- search, without a warrant, anyone who is approaching the zone (s. 3(b));
- search, without a warrant, any cars whose driver or passenger attempts (or is suspected of having attempted) to enter the zone (s. 3(b));
- use as much force as is necessary to prevent a person from entering the zone (s. 3(c));
- arrest anyone who refuses to comply with their directions (s. 5(2)).
But failure to comply with directions doesn’t just get you arrested. It is a provincial offence punishable by a maximum $500 fine and/or 2 months in jail (s. 5(1))!
So where does the “Secret Laws” part of my title fit into all this?
Well, as it turns out, the Ontario cabinet quietly designated a 5-meter radius around the G20 security area as a “public work” without really telling anyone.
The regulation authorizing these powers in relation to the G20 zone was filed on June 14, 2010 and went into force a week later. But to my knowledge, the government made no announcement of the regulation. Worse yet, it has not been published in the Ontario Gazette (it will only be published in July, after it is no longer in force). Since the regulation is not yet part of Ontario’s consolidated law, the only way to access the regulation is to look it up in the “source law” section of the e-Laws website here.
For all practical purposes, this is a “secret law,” because of the failure of the government to publicize it.
This law authorizes extraordinary police powers, and it significantly derogates from our ordinary civil rights. There is a real risk of people being arrested and charged when exercising the same rights to refuse to answer questions and submit to searches that apply everywhere else. In my opinion, the government should have been more forthcoming about the law to minimize that risk.
The legality of G20 police cordons in Toronto
Toronto is a changed city this weekend. Various police forces have cordoned off a big part of downtown searching and checking IDs of those wishing to enter. We in Canada are not used to ID checks and car searches on public streets. Canadians are usually free to walk in public areas, and the police cannot stop people and force them to show ID or even answer questions without a good reason to suspect them of a crime. When a big part of a crowded and bustling city becomes off limits, many people will probably wonder if G20 is worth it. Many lawyers will perhaps ask a different question: does the police have the power to cordon off downtown Toronto. The answer is yes.
The simplest and shortest explanation is in s. 10.1(2) of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act (FMIOA), which charges the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) with the security of “intergovernmental conferences” in Canada. Section 10.1(2) of the act expressly grants the RCMP the power “to take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.” The Integrated Security Unit that includes the RCMP is responsible for securing G8/G20 events. The RCMP’s role is “the Summit site and surrounding areas,” so presumably it is the RCMP that has cordoned off a part of downtown Toronto. It has a statutory power to do so.
An Act of Parliament grants the RCMP this power to cordon off streets. That ends the real-life analysis. But imagine there was no law like that or imagine the Toronto Police tried to cordon off a few blocks in Toronto. Would the police still have the cordon-off power? This is an interesting theoretical question because many police powers do not come from statute, and it’s important to know when the police exceed their authority. The FMIOA doesn’t apply to Toronto police, and Ontario’s Police Services Act and City of Toronto Act don’t grant the cordon-off power to the Toronto Police Service. (The FMIOA presumably allows the federal government to delegate RCMP’s cordon-off power to other police services (s. 10.1(4)), but let’s pretend it’s not the case.)
In Ontario, police powers come not only from statute (express acts of the provincial legislature or the federal parliament) but also from common law (courts’ judgements). Police existed before any act of parliament incorporated it, and during that period courts had the final word on police powers. When legislatures recognized police powers under statute, sometimes they continued police powers that existed at common law. Under s. 42(3) of the Police Services Act, “[a] police officer has the powers and duties ascribed to a constable at common law.” This provision allows the courts to continue to adjudicate police powers not expressly granted by the legislature.
When Canadian courts resolve a dispute in which a complainant questions the existence of a police power, they apply the Waterfield test, named after an English case that explained police powers at common law (also known as the ancillary police powers). A court applying this test would see first if a police action interfered with personal liberty or property without statutory authority. If yes, the court would see if “(a) such conduct falls within the general scope of any duty imposed by statute or recognised at common law and (b) whether such conduct, albeit within the general scope of such a duty, involved an unjustifiable use of powers associated with the duty.” (R. v. Waterfield [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.C.A.) at 661). Basically, at common law the police can do anything necessary to discharge their lawful duties as long as the use of their powers is justified.
Judicial precedents guide us as to what is justified. For example, in Knowlton v. R., a 1975 Supreme Court decision, the court held that cordoning off the sidewalk in front of a hotel hosting a foreign leader is justified. A photographer who tried to break through the cordon was arrested and charged with obstruction of police. Part of the reason for closing the sidewalk was a previous assault on this foreign leader in another Canadian town. This and the fact that everyone knew about the widely publicized assault helped the court conclude that the cordoning off was justified even if the police didn’t explain their legal authority to the photographer. The court held that the photographer should have known the police had a duty to protect the foreign dignitary in these circumstances. The photographer also had a chance to get his pass but missed it.
I haven’t heard of a court case that looked at something on the scale of G20 events in Toronto, but Knowlton gives us some idea what a court would say. It would emphasize the history of violence at such events and the massive publicity reaching probably every resident of Canada. Closing off the downtown core is not the same as blocking a sidewalk but the number of dignitaries is many times higher and it’s common to believe that the world is less secure today than 35 years ago. The courts would likely defer to police judgement on the size of the cordoned area given the courts’ relative ignorance of operational security issues. The reasoning will be similar to the rationale behind s. 10.1(2) of the FMIOA. The police would tell the courts that cordoning off a chunk of downtown Toronto is necessary to protect foreign leaders and keep order and the way they do it is justified. The court would likely accept that.
Presumably, if cordoning off passes the Waterfield test, it will also be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. (I am not going into detail on this, but see R. v. Clayton, 2007 SCC 32 for a related discussion.) Of course, unless a court finds that we have a Charter right to freely go downtown, s. 1 won’t even come up.
I am not happy with the G20 summit’s impact on Toronto. It will hurt downtown businesses (except hotels), cause traffic chaos, and bring clashes between the police and protesters. Having to show ID and submit to searches to move around your own city is a sacrifice of our liberties and it simply looks bad in a democracy. Walls separating city quarters are notorious in history, and we probably don’t want any resemblance here. But the police likely have full legal authority to cordon off streets for the G20 summit, and any challenge to such cordons should be not legal but political.
(Post sponsored by AdviceScene)
Considering the Constitutionality of Bill 94
May 18 is the national day of action against Bill 94, the proposed legislation in Quebec, which if approved, would deny essential government services, public employment, educational opportunities, and health care to Muslim women who wear niqab (face veil). A rally has been arranged in Toronto to take place at 1PM at 20 Queen Street W. Other actions, such as contacting MPs, are also urged for that day.
In her essay, Bill 94: Quebec’s Niqab Ban and Sex Equality, Beverley Baines, professor of Law and the head of the Gender Studies Department at Queen’s University, considers the Bill within Constitutional a framework that should, by now, be familiar to all the former first-years who’ll have written very similar case scenarios during their final exams lo these two weeks ago:
If Bill 94 becomes law, a constitutional challenge would begin with the two preliminary issues that are raised in any Charter challenge. First, does the Charter apply to the impugned action? Here the answer is yes because the impugned action is a statute and the Charter applies to legislation. Second, does the party bringing the Charter challenge have standing to proceed, that is, does the party have an interest that is harmed by the law? Again the answer is yes because the party bringing this hypothetical Charter challenge is a woman who has been or is about to be excluded from providing or receiving a government service in Quebec because her face is covered by the niqab. With these preliminaries satisfied, the next steps are to ask: (i) have one or more Charter rights been violated? And if so, (ii) can Quebec justify violating these Charter rights? What follows are two possible Charter scenarios, the first more conventional than the second.
She concludes:
Women seeking to challenge the niqab ban should invoke their right to sex equality to emphasize their belief in the consistency between this right and their reasons for wearing the niqab. Their challenge would force Quebec to fall back on its second or institutional justification – reasons of security, communication, identification – to justify denying reasonable accommodation. If Quebec has any evidence to sustain these reasons, why should it not be produced, contested and evaluated? The failure to manifest transparency suggests this evidence may not be as conclusive as Quebec asserts. Moreover, Quebec needs to explain why other more minimally rights-impairing processes would not be sufficiently responsive to its institutional concerns. Finally, Quebec should articulate how its institutional reasons could possibly trump sex equality, given everything this province claimed about the priority that should be given to sex equality during the drafting of s. 50.1? Does sex equality matter only when Quebec claims to be its primary exponent?
Why Québéc Cannot and Should not Ban the Niqab
An article jointly written by David Shulman and Lawrence Gridin
Last week the government of Québéc announced that it would restrict female Muslims from covering their faces with the niqab. This article is about the fundamental freedoms that we enjoy as Canadians and human beings, and the power of the government to encroach upon those freedoms.
The legislation proposed in Québéc will prevent a woman wearing a niqab from being able to access public services, including consulting doctors at a hospital or attending classes at university. It also prevents all government employees from wearing a niqab, including those employees who have no contact with the public. More details can be found here.
Prime Minister Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff have announced that they support the ban, and a large (if not overwhelming) majority of Canadians agree with them.
A Primer on Freedom
Let’s begin our discussion with a review of the Ann Coulter affair, which bears some analogues to the Québéc niqab issue.
We cannot think of another person whom we personally disagree with more on virtually every dimension than Ms. Coutler. We have difficulty thinking of anyone else who spews out as much vile hate, ignorance and prejudice as Ms. Coulter. We’re bothered by the fact that there is any demand — outside of perhaps morbid curiosity — for her wares at all.
Here are three pieces, taken from Ms. Coulter’s repertoire, that support our opinion:
“They’re [Democrats] always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let’s do it. Let’s repress them. Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment.”
- University of Florida speech, October 20, 2005.
“I have to say I’m all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the ‘hood’ to be flogged publicly.”
- MSNBC, March 22, 1997.
“I think [women] should be armed but should not vote…women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it…it’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.”
- Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001.
Despite our profound disagreement with her views, we would fight vigorously to protect Ms. Coulter’s right to express them. The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We would proudly defend her right to freedom of expression in any court with every ounce of our ability and integrity, just as vigorously as we would defend our own right to criticize and disagree with her views.
Why?
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.
Canadian Charter vs. Olympic Charter
Vancouver Sun » “The IOC is accountable to no one — as female ski jumpers now know“:
When the B.C. Court of Appeal tossed out the complaint from the female ski jumpers last week, it also clarified who actually calls the shots regarding both the 2010 Winter Games and the Olympic movement.
Not the host governments of Canada, B.C. and Vancouver. Not the Vancouver Organizing Committee or Vanoc. Not the taxpayers who are helping to underwrite the Games to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
“The ultimate governing authority of the Olympic movement,” wrote the trio of appeal court judges, “is the International Olympic Committee (IOC), a non-governmental not-for-profit organization with headquarters in Switzerland.”
[...]
But no one should have any illusions about their role in the Olympic scheme of things. “All of these organizations are under the supreme authority of the IOC.”
Under the supreme authority of the IOC. Has an unmistakably autocratic ring, doesn’t it? The judges didn’t coin it. The phrase is right there in the Olympic charter.
In terms of what that authority means here in B.C., a lower court found earlier this year that notwithstanding the presence of a government-appointed board, Vanoc is under the “day-to-day control” of the IOC.
“Vanoc did not make the decision to exclude women’s ski jumping from the 2010 Games,” a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled. “Vanoc did not support that decision. Vanoc does not have the power to remedy it.”
[...]
That finding cleared the way for the judges to rule that the anti-discrimination provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not engaged by the circumstances in this case. The Charter applies to “all matters within the authority of parliament (and) to the legislature and government of each province.”
The court found that the “supreme” IOC is beyond the reach of either. “The decision of the IOC not to add women’s ski jumping as an event is not a policy that could be or was made by any Canadian government,” wrote the judges. “The charter cannot be so broadly construed as to include policies or practices that no Canadian government has jurisdiction to enact or change.”
Women Ski Jumpers Grounded…
The BC Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal filed on behalf of a number of a group of women ski jumpers attempting to get inclusion into next years olympics being held in Vancouver. Written statements were not given, but will be available next week.
Previously, the BC Superior Court ruled that although there are definite Charter breaches and discrimination is evident, they do not apply to the Swiss based International Olympic Committee. On behalf of the women ski jumpers, they argue because the women’s event is not yet a recognized sport, they are under the jurisdiction of VANOC (Vancouver Olympic Committee), which as a Canadian organization is bound by the Charter.
There is no word to whether this will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Should they continue to the SCC and win the IOC will be forced into one of three options:
1. Include them
2. Cancel the men’s event.
3. Hold the men’s event outside Canada, so the Charter does not apply, and they can hold only the men’s event.
As the eleventh hour of the games near, if they decide to go to the SCC, expect a quick turnaround.
Goblins crave to eat the Charter
The Abdelrazik affair exposed some of Canada’s poorly known but in-your-face draconian laws. James Yap of Osgoode Hall Law School wrote a fantastic post about the federal United Nations Act and the United Nations Al-Qaida and Taliban Regulations on TheCourt.ca. Go read it.
Ottawa abandons case against Charkaoui
Divisive terror law losing traction
Can we trust secret evidence, often borrowed from foreign countries, to throw people out of Canada?
Colin Freeze explains the security certificates:
… federal ministers sign off on a certificate after viewing secret CSIS information, which allows officials to immediately jail, and eventually deport, a non-citizen.
The “intelligence” used to do this is disclosed to judges but never fully revealed to the accused, drawn as it usually is from secret agents and wiretaps, sometimes placed within Canada but also frequently “loaned” from foreign governments on condition that the provenance be kept secret.
