RSS FeedRichard Dawkins’ “Root of All Evil.” Divide and Conquer 101: Separating Children Based on Religion
The divisive forces in this world constantly bombard us with messages that allow them to conquer our hearts and minds. It is important to be mindful of these “divide and conquer” strategies. As a critical thinker I suggest acting in a way that is inclusive. To form the most multicultured-multireligious-multilingual identity in the self. To always seek out those that are “different” and to engage them and to interact with them. The first of a few segments that can be found one after the other if you happen to find the material mind stimulating.
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.
Omar Khadr Video Round-up
Early yesterday morning, the Canadian government, in compliance with court orders, released a video of Omar Khadr’s interrogation by Canadian Security and Intelligence Service agents at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The video, which is the first ever seen of CSIS agents in action, is already making waves internationally. Within hours of the release, front-page headlines were sparked everywhere from The New York Times to the BBC to Al Jazeera.
I can only hope that all of this international coverage will bring more pressure to bear on the Canadian government to step up and do something to protect this young man from the torture he faces in Guantanamo Bay. Canada must request Omar Khadr’s repatriation so that he can face trial in this country.
Below I have collected a number of videos relating to Omar Khadr:
The Interrogation Video
“Before the rage, the resignation and the tears, came the trust. Teenaged prisoner Omar Khadr seemed sure that his countrymen from Canada had come to Cuba to help him and spoke freely when they asked questions. On the second day, the reality almost visibly dawned on his face.
… Much of the material released shows Mr. Khadr — who is wearing an orange uniform — sobbing and repeatedly saying, in a moan, “Help me, help me.”
Here is a short segment of the 8-minute interrogation video that has been released to the public so far. The full 7-hour video of the interrogation is scheduled for later release by the Canadian government. The audio quality is quite poor, but if you click the link to view the video at YouTube, you will find captions of the exchange.
There is no evidence of torture on the videotape, but it is reported that:
“Documents made public last week show that Mr. Khadr was subjected to weeks of sleep deprivation by U.S. military officials before being interviewed by Canadian officials, and that the Canadians were aware of the sleep deprivation.” (The Globe and Mail)
Opposition Parties Demand Action
On May 26, 2008, the NDP MP from Windsor-Tecumseh, Joe Comartin, challenged the government to respect the findings of torture by the Supreme Courts of Canada and the United States and to demand Khadr’s return:
On June 13, 2008, the Liberal MP from Davenport, Mario Silva, questioned the government as to how much longer it would sit on its hands and do nothing to repatriate Khadr:
Romeo Dallaire Weighs In
Arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada
In May of this year, the Supreme Court ruled on the (il)legality of withholding disclosure from Khadr’s defence team. The SCC’s ruling in Khadr is what precipitated the release of the interrogation video above.
In Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, 2008 SCC 28, the court ruled that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has some limited application outside the borders of this country. A thorough analysis of the judgment can be found at The Court, Osgoode Hall’s blawg.
Below is a video (unfortunately, quite short) of some of the arguments made before the Supreme Court in that case:
Letter to Harper regarding Omar Khadr
Below is a letter that I have written to Mr. Harper to protest the Canadian government’s treatment of Omar Khadr, one of its citizens. If you are not familiar with the story, you can find some excellent background at The Globe and Mail.
credit where credit is due: I received assistance from the staff of this blawg, but because this letter does not necessarily reflect their views, I have respected their wishes and not added their names.
A Letter to the Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa K1A 0A2
Dear Mr. Prime Minister Harper:
Re: Repatriation of Omar Khadr
I am writing to you to ask that you immediately issue a request to the relevant American authorities to have Omar Khadr repatriated to Canada.
Facts bearing on the problem:
- Omar Khadr holds Canadian citizenship;
- he was a minor at the time of his detention by American authorities;
- he has been detained at Guantanamo Bay since 2002;
- during his six years in custody, Omar Khadr has been denied habeas corpus and the due process of law; and,
- he has been subjected to, at the very least, psychological abuse amounting to torture.
The right of any person to be presumed innocent until proved guilty is fundamental to our justice system and is a principle embodied in our constitution. Thus, Mr. Khadr is an innocent Canadian citizen being tortured at the hands of the American authorities.
In addition, a number of incidents have exacerbated the situation further. Military interrogators have been caught destroying important evidence. And alternative reports have indicated that Khadr was not alone at the time of his capture, undermining the assumption that he was directly responsible for any deaths.
Ultimately however, the question of Mr. Khadr’s guilt or innocence is not relevant to whether Canada should request his repatriation. This is a question of Canada’s prestige and credibility on the international stage. Canada remains the only industrialized nation that has failed to intervene on behalf of its citizens.
There is no benefit to be gained from allowing Mr. Khadr to remain in American custody. There would be no diplomatic cost to requesting repatriation. The United States has explicitly indicated its willingness to hand over Mr. Khadr should Canada issue a request.
Conversely, the costs of failing to act are significant.
By failing to take action, when all that would be required to put an end to Mr. Khadr’s torture is a simple diplomatic request, Canada is being complicit in the gross violation of the basic human rights of one of its citizens.
In 1948, Canada became a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a source of great national pride that a Canadian, John P. Humphrey, was the principle drafter of the Declaration. Because of our extensive history of contributions to the field, Canada has been recognized as a worldwide leader in human rights.
Our policy with respect to Omar Khadr is a tarnish on this international reputation. Our inaction is interpreted by the international community as a silent endorsement of the activities at Guantanamo, including controversial acts of torture. Domestically, the faith of Canadians in this country’s commitment to human rights and the protection of its own citizens is undermined. History will judge us harshly for failing to act.
I therefore ask that Canada request repatriation of Omar Khadr and that he be tried for his alleged crimes in this country.
As a Canadian citizen and a strong believer in human rights and dignity, I cannot ignore what is happening to Mr. Khadr. Respectfully, I feel that a vote for the Conservative party in the next election would represent my own sanctioning of the policy towards Mr. Khadr. I refuse to condone the inaction of this government. Today, I am ashamed of the country I so dearly love.
Yours very truly,
[signed]
Lawrence A. Gridin,
Law Student
The Khadr Conundrum Raised at UofO
“Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen who was captured by U.S. forces in July 2002 when he was 15 years of age after allegedly throwing a grenade that fatally wounded a U.S. soldier. He is currently being detained and prosecuted by the U.S. at Guantánamo Bay.”
On May 28, 2008, six common law students from the University of Ottawa appeared before the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, to testify that there are a number of legal avenues that may be taken if Khadr is returned to Canada and the evidence against him is found to be admissible.
“Canadian courts are fully able to administer justice in the Omar Khadr matter in a manner that complies with international law and the rule of law.” said the group.
Catherine Archibald, Clare Crummey, Andrew Harrington, Miguel Mendes, Ajmal Pashtoonyar, and Sean Richmond based their argument on a 150 page brief prepared for the Foreign Policy Practicum class of Prof. Craig Forcese.
The complete report is available here: 150-page brief.
Click here to see the team’s testimony before the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights.
Torwoli S. Dzuali
California becomes second U.S. state to legalize gay marriage
This morning the California Supreme Court ruled that the state’s laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples were unconstitutional. Following a close 4-3 decision, California has become just the second state in America (after Massachusetts) to legalize gay marriage .
The lengthy (174 page!) decision entitled “In re Marriage Cases” represented a consolidated appeal from six cases. You can read the full text of the decision here.
Californian homosexual couples were already entitled to virtually all of the same benefits available to straight married couples under the Domestic Partnership Act. The court, however, determined that the language and statutes governing “domestic partnerships” did not go far enough. The definition of marriage in California would no longer exclude homosexual couples.
At p. 120, George C.J. (Kennard, Werdegar, Moreno JJ. concurring) wrote:
… [W]e determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
In an interesting dissenting opinion (for fans of the “legitimacy of judicial review” debate), Baxter J. wrote that the majority had engaged in “legal jujitsu” and had been overzealous in interpreting the constitution. He was of the view that there was nothing implicit or explicit in the constitution which allowed the recognition of marriage between a same-sex couple. Therefore, he wrote, the majority had erred in viewing the progressive changes made by the legislatures in recognizing domestic unions as creating an implicit constitutional principle that marriage should extend to homosexual couples.
At p. 5 of the dissent, Baxter writes:
Recent years have seen the development of an intense debate about same-sex marriage. Advocates of this cause have had real success in the marketplace of ideas, gaining attention and considerable public support. Left to its own devices, the ordinary democratic process might well produce, ere long, a consensus among most Californians that the term “marriage” should, in civil parlance, include the legal unions of same-sex partners.
But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.
In any event, gays and lesbians in California have won a significant civil rights victory today in California. Following the 30 day suspension period, they will be legally allowed to marry in that state.
Conservative groups must now petition for an amendment to the state constitution if they wish to challenge the court’s decision. According to the New York Times, these conservative groups have already gathered over a million signatures supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The initiative will likely be put to the voters in November. Interestingly, despite vetoing two attempts by the legislature to recognize gay marriage, Gov. Schwarzenegger has said that he will not support the constitutional ban initiative.
