In the case of Warman v. Lemire, Marc Lemire was found to have violated the Canadian Human rights Code for Internet postings that were discriminatory against blacks and homosexuals, but no action was taken against him because adjudicator Athanasios Hadjis wrote. "However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression."
Lawyer, blogger and free speech advocate Ezra Levant sees this as a victory in his campaign to end the practice of having government bureaucrats police what Canadians say and think. Macleans columnist Mark Steyn calls this the beginning of the end of section 13 and their provincial equivalents. I'm not so sure.
When I contacted the Canadian Human Rights Commission on Wednesday to ask them how this ruling from the Tribunal would affect them, I was told, they didn't know. The decision was still being studied on Wednesday afternoon.
We have already seen Jennifer Lynch who heads up the Commission ignore the Moon report which she herself commissioned. Professor Richard Moon studied what was happening in Canada and recommended doing away with section 13. With that Lynch launched her own public consultation and began defending section 13.
What of the government? They will be under pressure from groups like the Canadian Jewish Congress, which is already calling on the Justice Department to appeal the decision. Then there is the matter of the election looming straight ahead.
A while back I asked a senior minister in the Conservative government why, when newspapers across the country and across the political spectrum, would not seek to eliminate or reform Canada's human rights laws to deal with section 13. The reason I was given, fear of being painted as a social conservative who doesn't care about minorities.
Now with Liberal MP Keith Martin, a self-described "brown guy," leading the charge in Parliament to do away with section 13, yes, this line of reasoning is laughable. Yet, and yet, it is not. When Martin initiated his motion to do away with section 13 the first wire story on the subject said something to the effect of "Liberal MP backs neo-Nazis."
Martin is not alone in the Liberal caucus in wanting section 13 done away with or reformed so that Canadians are not prosecuted for simply saying rude or offensive things online. Irwin Cotler, a legal scholar and former minister of justice told me last spring that he has some serious concerns about the way the law was being applied and the broad nature of the language. Cotler wants the law reformed.
Still even with Martin, Cotler and other Liberals on the side of reforming Canada's human rights laws, it is doubtful the Liberals would embrace the issue just before an election, not when they are busy trying to brand the Conservatives as racist and no friend of minorities, see Ujjal Dosanjh's comments at the Liberal caucus in Sudbury. Former Liberal Leader Stephane Dion wanted to keep section 13 as it is and while Michael Ignatieff may be more sympathetic to reform, one of his key advisors is not.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is on the record saying he thinks the Canadian Human Rights Commission is getting the message that they may have strayed too far from their original intention. Beyond his response to my question last winter, I don't think he's said much since and I don't expect him to say much in the future. At least not until the Liberals make this an election issue.
If Stephen Harper really believes what he said earlier this summer, that there are no good taxes, then I’m not sure what to make of this. As of today, Canadians will be paying $100,000,000 more in taxes each year; today is the first day of the new TV tax.
Now to be fair, this tax was not proposed or passed by the Harper government but there is the problem, a government agency is about to scoop tens of millions of dollars out of the pockets of Canadians and Parliament has not voted on it. The very idea goes against everything Parliamentary democracy stands for and should have been stopped by Heritage Minister James Moore, failing that by the Prime Minister. They have remained silent.
Those behind the tax, the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) call this not a tax but a contribution to local Canadian television and have mandated that all cable and satellite companies contribute 1.5% of their revenue, not their profits but revenue, to this fund. The money collected will then be used to fund programming in local television markets of less than 1 million people.
The CRTC argues this is not a tax but it clearly is. We have a government agency forcing an entity, the broadcasters, to pay money, which is then used for objectives established by the government agency, local programming. Government demands money, government spends money, ergo, it is a tax.
Now an argument can be made that such a fund should exist, that local television programming deserves support and if the argument was successful enough to convince Canadians to support such a fund and MPs saw it as a wise thing to do, then Parliament could pass a bill establishing such a fund and require cable and satellite companies to cough up. That hasn’t happened. Instead the CRTC announced the money was due, Parliament has not voted.
Most Canadians my age would remember watching School House Rock on Saturday morning cartoons. The American short cartoons taught American children the fundamentals of their form of government in a fun way with far out music, things like no taxation without representation.
Well in Canada, as in other countries that sprang from British style parliamentary systems, we have this tradition as well; it dates back to the Magna Carta and the idea that taxation by the King could not happen without consent. I would hardly say Canadians have consented to this new TV tax given that MPs have not voted.
If MPs want to support local TV, and judging by all the names collected by CTV at their self-serving “save local TV” web site, many members do want to support it, then those same MPs should stand and be counted in the House and tell Canadians why they are raising their taxes and what the money will be used for. That is how our system is supposed to work.
I know many people want their local station to stay on the air, I’m from Hamilton where CHCH is still not out of the woods and recently faced closure, I understand not wanting to lose an important part of the community. That’s not the problem here. The CRTC, a government body where our representatives do not get to vote raising taxes is the problem.
There is also the problem of whether the CRTC is even allowed to raise these types of funds. I called the regulatory and asked under what authority they could demand this $100 million be paid. The Broadcasting Act that governs the CRTC has a section that speaks of licence fees but not of fees for funding Canadian programming. A helpful spokesperson pointed me to section 3 (e) specifically as being the authority for raising this money, it states, “(e) each element of the Canadian broadcasting system shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming;”
Now I don’t see any mention of taxing powers, any surrender of Parliamentary authority there. The statement that “contribute in an appropriate manner” could be interpreted many ways, but I don’t think taxing powers is one of them. Without proper authority, this tax would not only be wrong but also illegal.
Given that this new 1.5% TV tax comes on top of an existing (dating back to 1995) tax of 5%, Canadians could be paying close to half a billion dollars in illegal tax and MPs, including the tax cutting Conservatives have looked the other way.
It is time for Canadians to demand that, if we are to be taxed for TV, the government do it the right way and not have bureaucrats do their dirty work. Shaw Cable has started a campaign to have these fees and other proposed fee increases by the CRTC stopped, the deadline for submissions to the CRTC can be found here.
Canada’s TV networks and their newscasts likely won’t be telling you much about this story, not because the journalists won’t see value in the story but because their editors and corporate owners would likely kill such stories. Same with Canada’s daily newspapers, all of the CanWest papers including National Post and Ottawa Citizen are owned by Global, The Globe and Mail is owned by CTV and even The Toronto Star owns a 20% stake in CTV. Why would any of these companies tell you what was happening and kill their millions of dollars? Why encourage MPs to do the right thing and risk a taxpayer revolt?
Consumers stopped Rogers from their scheme of negative option billing back in 1995, they can stop this illegal tax by letting their MPs and the CRTC know where they stand.
It was just 75 days ago that MPs left Ottawa for the summer, heading home to their ridings to hit the BBQ circuit, hear from the voters that sent them to the capital, just 76 days since Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff announced that they had struck a deal to avoid a summer election.
That deal was to form a working group that would look into the issue of Employment Insurance over the summer although the substance of the deal hardly matters, after a summer recess, Canadians are back to where they were just over two months ago, facing the possibility of another election, the last one less than a year ago.
This is perhaps the maddening thing for most people I’ve spoken with, whether they be Conservatives, Liberals or NDP supporters, I hear exasperation when the possibility of an election is mentioned. Yet here we are.
Liberals are meeting Monday through Wednesday in Sudbury, the plan ostensibly is to plan for the upcoming session of Parliament which begins on September 14th, the more likely scenario is that they are planning for the next election, to be triggered with a confidence vote the week of September 28th, a vote is guaranteed for that week under the agreement that avoided an election.
Now last week Ignatieff was in Yellowknife telling reporters he did not want an election, he wants Parliament to work, but earlier in the same week he was in Quebec speaking with my press gallery colleague Alec Castonguay of Le Devoirwhen he said, “I am in front of a government that does not work. What should I do? Keep it alive because people do not want elections? Or bring it down and say what I think the merits of myself, that is to say that we deserve better than that.”
Now I’ll grant to Ignatieff that Parliament has often failed to work over these past five years of minority Parliament but this is hardly a one way street and there is blame a plenty to go around. Where Mr. Ignatieff runs into trouble is in saying, even before Parliament resumes, that the institution is not working. He sounds much like Stephen Harper of a year ago, spending the summer telling Canadians that Parliament was not working so that he could soften the ground for his own September election call.
We just avoided an election in June, MPs have not even held a session in more than two months, and here we are debating the merits of the fourth election in five years. I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.
Canadians are tiring of minority government and the constant threat of an election, that is something Liberal MPs in Sudbury should consider as they hold their meetings, it is something the government should consider as they plot how to deal with opposition parties. A Harris-Decima poll this past July found that 64 percent of Canadians would prefer a majority government; the most recent Ipsos-Reid poll found that 14 percent of Canadians would vote strategically to get one.
I’m willing to bet that right now there are enough people fed up with perpetual election threats that if the Liberals or Conservatives force an early election the party that puts Canadians back to the polls will be rewarded with seeing the other side score four years in power with a majority government.
That’s how I see it, but maybe I’m just cranky after leaving for the summer just to come back to the same spot we left in June: election, will they or won’t they.
Bill Murray, living the same day over and over again……kinda like me.
The fight over health care in the U.S. has been on my mind, what with the constant headlines and more than a few relatives in the U.K. asking me to explain a bit about a fight that is tough for them to fully grasp when they are so far away.
But this week, the story of Whole Foods facing a boycott from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party because their CEO, a man who runs a company that does everything those same liberals ask companies to do, disagrees with the president on health care. It is a sad day when our entire lives have become so partisan. Anyway, you can read my analysis @ Mercatornet here.
In the meantime enjoy a great song from a great band that this song reminds me of the whole situation, Political by Spirit of the West
There’s been plenty of good commentary on why President Obama’s health care reform plan is running into trouble and no, it is not just because of “mobs” whipped up by Fox News and driven around from townhall to townhall to protest.
Earlier this week Ross Douhat argued in the New York Timesthat health care reform is losing support among Americans over 65 because they worry about losing the health care they already get from government through Medicare:
That’s because they’re the ones whose benefits are on the chopping block. At present, Medicare gives its recipients all the benefits of socialized medicine, with few of the drawbacks. Once you hit 65, the system pays and pays, without regard for efficiency or cost-effectiveness.
For liberals trying to find the money to make health insurance universal, these inefficiencies make Medicare an obvious place to wring out savings. But you can’t blame the elderly if “savings” sound a lot like “cuts.” When the president talks about shearing waste from Medicare, and empowering an independent panel to reduce the program’s long-term costs — well, he isn’t envisioning a world where seniors get worse care, but he’s certainly envisioning a world in which they receive less of it.
This is politically perilous, to say the least — and Republicans have noticed.
Today in the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan says that the Obama administration tried to learn from the mistakes of President Clinton’s failed health care plan and they tried a different strategy. Noonan says this strategy has failed, she thinks the plan is now dead, because the whole thing was put in a way that is just too complex for everyday people to understand.
Every big idea that works is marked by simplicity, by clarity. You can understand it when you hear it, and you can explain it to people. Social Security: Retired workers receive a public pension to help them through old age. Medicare: People over 65 can receive taxpayer-funded health care. Welfare: If you have no money and cannot support yourself, we will help as you get back on your feet.
These things are clear. I understand them. You understand them. The president’s health-care plan is not clear, and I mean that not only in the sense of “he hasn’t told us his plan.” I mean it in terms of the voodoo phrases, this gobbledygook, this secret language of government that no one understands—”single payer,” “public option,” “insurance marketplace exchange.” No one understands what this stuff means, nobody normal.
It’s not just columnists on the right that see problems with how the fight for Obama’s health care is going. Arianna Huffington, of the liberal Huffington Post, appeared on The Charlie Rose Show and critiqued Obama for not fighting hard enough, “He is demonstrating a preference for compromise and reconciliation even before the fight has been fought.” You can watch the clip here.
President Obama is promising that he will get health reform through, even as Congress argues over what that plan will be and public support for the president drops while fears of health reform rise, this according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Liberal economist and columnist Paul Krugman says in his Times piece today that Obama has lost the trust of his base, “So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.”
Here’s Obama appearing on a left-leaning talk show trying to win back that base, stating clearly he will push for a public health care option, meaning a government run plan.
The public pension system appears to be getting it from both ends in some countries.
Public pensions were designed on the pretence that those working would pay for the benefits of those retired, the population would keep growing, paying for pensions in the future would not be a problem, or so they thought.
Of course the spectre of falling birth rates and higher competition for high-skilled immigrants has long put politicians on notice that things in future would not turn out as originally planned. Now it seems, longer life expectancy and family breakdown are also taking an effect on the pensions of at least one country, Brazil.
A story on the wires tells of how older, divorced men in Brazil are not only remarrying but also choosing women much younger, it’s called the “Viagra effect.”
According to the INSS report, two out of three men who are separated remarry; while only one out of three separated women find a new husband.
Of the separated men, 64 per cent of those aged over 50 remarry women younger than them. In the 60-64 age range, the proportion is 69 per cent.
And the marked preference is for women aged 30 years and younger.
So how does this challenge the pension system? Widows pensions. The bureaucrats that designed the system expected wives of deceased men to get their late husband’s pension for maybe 15 years. With some men marrying women 30 years their junior, the “Viagra effect” is costing Brazil’s pension system plenty.
My press gallery colleague Chris Rands from CBC suggests the place will be covered in red as the fans from Little Portugal can easily move down the street to BM Field to catch the game. As he talks the politics of it all, Rands also questions where “Little Glasgow” is in Toronto and whether there will be Celtic fans in attendance.
Let’s show my friend Chris, and the Benefica supporters what Celtic supporters are made of and paint the place green, white and gold.
I’m calling out one CSC in particular to be there.
Novak was for much of his career the type of journalist other journalists look to for insight, an insight only gained through years and years of covering the same beat. I’ve been fortunate enough to know a few journalists like this in my own career although they are becoming fewer and further between.
From the CNN obituray:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Novak had “the kind of keen insight that can only be gained through years and years of dedication to a craft.”
“He was a Washington institution who could turn an idea into the most discussed story around kitchen tables, congressional offices, the White House and everywhere in between,” McConnell said in a written statement.
Kenneth Tomlinson, a former colleague and one time boss of Novak’s has a very personal remembrance here.
Novak, in addition to his long journalistic career, is marked in Washington as part of a number of high profile conversions to the Catholic Church, an event he spoke of as life transforming.
I have to admire the brilliance of ABC and the people behind Dancing with the Stars, they have once again struck casting gold. Aaron Carter, he of boy pop fame; Michael Irvin the former Dallas Cowboy wide receiver; Chuck Liddell, a mixed martial arts and UFC Champ; and Tom Delay the former Republican politician. But for me, and many men my age, the real reason to watch will likely be Kathy Ireland, the swimsuit super-model turned business woman.
Kathy Ireland - Swimsuit model turned mother, business woman and pro-life spokesperson
Now when I say ABC is brilliant, I’m not talking about here about how much I may love the new celebrity dancers, not that we don’t all love Kathy Ireland, rather I’m talking about how each dancer appeals to a different demographic sure to drive up ratings.
Dallas Cowboy - now dancer - Michael Irvin
Boy singer - now boy dancer - Aaron Carter
The inclusion of Irvin, a 3 time Super Bowl champ is no surprise, a football player seems to be in the cast as a matter of course now. Aaron Carter will surely bring in young women of a certain age (early to late 20s) just as Kathy Ireland will surely bring in men of a certain age, mine.
The cast also includes Donny Osmond, who has been able to keep his following going with stage shows and appearances on Entertainment Tonight over the years, a couple of Olympic athletes, Kelly Osbourne (who with her hair died looks more like Mrs. Partridge than the daughter of Iron Man), Mya and Macy Gray.
Tom Delay - will he two-step his way into winning the Mirrorball Trophy?
The inclusion of Tom Delay, the former House Majority Leader who was indicted but not convicted or even tried for campaign finance violations is causing some controversy. Delay, who is taking it all in stride and with a sense of humour, was long a lightning rod for Democrat anger while he was still in elected office. His inclusion here will likely see Republican die-hards watch the show to vote for him while liberal Democrats might end up watching to vote for anyone but Delay.
Anyway, should prove to be a good season for my guilty pleasure.
Yale University whose motto is Lux et Veritas or in English, Light and Truth, is deciding it needs neither, at least not at its own press.
Yale University Press is about to publish a book on the 2006 Danish Muhammad cartoons called The Cartoons That Shook the World but the school has decided not to include any graphic depictions of the cartoons in a book that examines what happened after they were originally published. The university is also removing older, uncontroversial images of Muhammad from the book based on a consultants report.
Will Yale's Sterling library start censoring books too or simply carry the books the Yale Press has already censored?
The New York Times has the full story, Ezra Levant whose Western Standard Magazine published the cartoons alongside his story of the aftermath of the original publication has a good rant.
While the focus here in North America continues to be that the cartoons may cause offence to Muslims, very little attention is paid to the violence wrought by those offended by the cartoons, not in a way that condemns the violence anyway. Embassies were burned, more than 100 people were killed including Andrea Santoro a Catholic priest in Turkey, shot from behind as he knelt in prayer inside his church. The actions of Yale Press demonstrate that the only lesson North Americans have taken from the violence is cowardice.
John Donatich, director of Yale Press admits to The Times that he doesn’t back down from controversy in the books he publishes, except in this case, “when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question.”
While a handful of American and European publications originally published the cartoons, Ezra was alone among major publishers (a couple of rather small Canadian presses may have put them out). There has been no violence here, there have been complaints, debates about free speech and human rights commissions inquiries but no violence.
Yale’s decision is a lesson for militant Islam on this continent, your complaints will be heard, your demands will be met. Moderate Muslim, your lesson is, you will be ignored by officialdom.
If Stephen Harper really believes what he said earlier this summer, that there are no good taxes, then I’m not sure what to make of this. As of today, Canadians will be paying $100,000,000 more in taxes each year; today is the first day of the new TV tax.
But this week, the story of Whole Foods facing a boycott from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party because their CEO, a man who runs a company that does everything those same liberals ask companies to do, disagrees with the president on health care. It is a sad day when our entire lives have become so partisan. Anyway, you can read my analysis @ 
Of course the spectre of falling birth rates and higher competition for high-skilled immigrants has long put politicians on notice that things in future would not turn out as originally planned. Now it seems, longer life expectancy and family breakdown are also taking an effect on the pensions of at least one country, Brazil.
Washington journalist Robert Novak is dead.
