First Nations chemo case ruling amended to include child’s well-being

A welcome development:

The clarification of a controversial court ruling that allowed the mother of an 11-year-old First Nations girl to pull her out of chemotherapy says the best interests of the child are “paramount,” but traditional medicine must be respected.

It is a “significant qualification” of Ontario court Judge Gethin Edward’s November 2014 ruling, according to one legal expert, which means the child’s well-being has to be balanced against rights to traditional medicine.

Nick Bala, a law professor at Queen’s University, says the clarification “walks back” the original ruling that put First Nations constitutional rights as the major factor to be considered in the care of the child.

The clarification, read in a Brantford, Ont. court Friday afternoon, comes with news the child restarted chemotherapy in March when the cancer returned after a period of remission.

The family’s lawyer, Paul Williams, said the clarification prevents the previous ruling regarding aboriginal rights as being interpreted as an ‘absolute.’ The child’s best interests must also be considered. (Jeff Green/CBC)

The joint submission from the auditor general of Ontario, as well as counsel for the Six Nations, the child’s family and McMaster Children’s Hospital, was celebrated as a collaborative conversation rather than a confrontation among the parties involved.

First Nations chemo case ruling amended to include child’s well-being – Latest Hamilton news – CBC Hamilton.

Chris Selley: Want to be atheist? Be coherent first

Chris Selley on Webber Academy losing its case against no prayer allowed on its premises:

But it’s not hard to see why they lost. Webber claims visible religious practice is a direct affront to its central ethos, but its ethos doesn’t seem to be very coherent: It allows students to wear turbans and hijabs, for example. The school tried to distinguish between garments as “a state of ‘being’” and prayer as “a visible activity,” which the tribunal kiboshed on principle; but in any event the activity wouldn’t have been “visible” had the school provided a private space. And Neil Webber, the school’s president, certainly did himself no favours by suggesting a student quickly crossing himself might not be a problem.

There was confusion as to what was allowed and what wasn’t: At the time they were enrolled, the students’ parents say they were assured prayer space could be made available; the school claims the exact opposite. In fact various teachers were happy to find them prayer space at first. And the confusion is understandable, considering it all rests on an interpretation of the term “non-denominational institution” that precludes prayer. That simply isn’t what “non-denominational” means. Per Oxford, it means “not restricted as regards religious denomination” (my italics).

A school that was more coherently dedicated to a religion-free environment might fare better

Webber is appealing. Sarah Burton, a lawyer at the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, told CBC she wouldn’t be surprised if it wound up at the Supreme Court. But Richard Moon, a University of Windsor law professor who has written extensively on religious freedom, thinks the tribunal got it right. “The school purports to be open to students from all backgrounds,” he notes — indeed its statement of “beliefs and values” promises “an atmosphere where young people of many faiths and cultures feel equally at home” — “and so [it] must accommodate the students’ religious practices … if [it] can do so without great hardship.”

A school that was more coherently dedicated to a religion-free environment might fare better, however. “There is no reason to think that a strong, sincere and sufficiently comprehensive secular belief would not merit protection,” says Victor Muñiz-Fraticelli, a law and political science professor at McGill University: “a strong and principled atheism,” for example; or the French laïcité model promoted by the Agence pour l’Enseignement Français à l’Étranger — a French government agency that accredits francophone schools abroad, including several in Canada. Moon agrees, suggesting a “Bertrand Russell School” or “Richard Dawkins Academy” would also have better luck in the courts.

That’s cold comfort for Webber Academy. But the good news is that any school clearly articulating a “no prayer” policy is very unlikely to attract students for whom prayer is a daily obligation. And if it did, I’d like to think most people would consider any complainers far more unreasonable than the policy.

Chris Selley: Want to be atheist? Be coherent first

Public prayer debate doesn’t need to create winners and losers: John Milloy

Former Ontario cabinet minister John Milloy on public prayer:

In 2008, the legislature reviewed its policy concerning its practice of opening prayers. Although a decision was made to maintain the Lord’s Prayer as part of the daily routine, a rotation of prayers from other religions was added. Each day members begin by also hearing a recitation from one of Ontario’s other faith traditions — Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and many others. Recognizing many Ontarians hold no religious views, a moment of silence is also included in the rotation.

The Ontario system is far from perfect. The continuing presence of the Lord’s Prayer troubles some, but within the Ontario practice may be the seeds of a different approach to the present situation.

A city council meeting that began each meeting with a prayer or reading from a different faith community would send a powerful message of respect for our many religious traditions. Including a moment of silence or a non-religious reading or meditation would give non-believers an equal and important voice. An approach such as this has been successfully used by the City of Edmonton. Each municipal meeting begins with a prayer or reflection, some non-religious in nature, chosen from a roster suggested by community members.

Politics is a rough-and-tumble game. It is easy in this hyper-partisan political world to lose sight of your immense responsibility as well as the seriousness of the issues before you. Taking a moment before the opening of a session and thinking about the gravity of the situation through prayer or reflection can be beneficial. Anything that reminds politicians that there is something beyond their own self-interests and the need to win re-election can only lead to better decision-making.

Whether approaching this ritual along the lines suggested would comply with the Supreme Court ruling is a question for legal experts and ultimately the courts themselves. But we have to find a way to make our diverse society work. Religious faith has much to offer. Religious traditions have often been at the forefront of progressive change, they are not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom and call on all of us to focus on something that transcends our immediate selfish needs. A society where no effort is made to accommodate and celebrate these beliefs and relegate them to merely a “private matter” is one that is greatly diminished.

Public prayer debate doesn’t need to create winners and losers | Toronto Star.

Why Mark Saunders is a ‘bittersweet’ appointment for Toronto’s black community

More on the appointment of Mark Saunders as the new police chief of Toronto:

Winnipeg Police Chief Devon Clunis, who became Canada’s first black police chief in 2012, disagrees. The Jamaican-born police-chaplain-turned-chief says his black identity features prominently in his leadership, and is a significant asset in a racially divided city.

Winnipeg is often the focus of national criticism for the high level of violence involving the city’s First Nations population; earlier this year, Maclean’s magazine said Winnipeg was “arguably Canada’s most racist city.”

Clunis believes his heritage allows him to identify with some of the challenges facing aboriginal residents.

“Cultural understanding is what you can help to build into your community as a chief of police, because you do have that perspective,” he said in an interview this week. “Sometimes it’s very difficult to understand something unless you’ve actually experienced or walked in that particular shoe yourself.”

Clunis, who knows Saunders well and calls him a “fantastic guy,” said he will bring to the job a greater understanding of the black community and what its members experience — “he understands what it means to walk in that skin as he goes up and down the street.”

Asked in 2011 if the homicide squad needed more black officers to help solve the high number of shooting deaths among black men, Saunders — then head of homicide and the only black officer in the unit — said it was not necessary. The colour of his skin did not give him an advantage, he said.

“When I walk into the room, I am a police officer first,” he said at the time.

Asked this week if he felt there was a heightened expectation he would be able to ease racial tensions in the city because he is black, Saunders gave an honest response. It is also one that should be promising, considering that his legion of supporters within the force all point to one major strength: the man listens.

“Being black is fantastic. It doesn’t give me superpowers,” he said. “What will happen is there will be lots of open dialogue, lots of talking. More so than ever before.”

Why Mark Saunders is a ‘bittersweet’ appointment for Toronto’s black community | Toronto Star.

Bill Blair wants to run for Liberals in fall election

Quite a coup, and interesting the public reasons for Blair choosing the Liberals over the Conservatives.

So while the Conservatives have Julian Fantino (also a former Toronto police chief) of veteran abuse fame , the Liberals have Bill Blair who, while not without controversies, talks the language of inclusion. Advantage Liberal:

The recruitment of Blair is a coup for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and a boost for the Liberals in Toronto and across the country, given the profile of the former police chief, a senior party official told the Star.

“He’s an excellent community leader. He’s got a depth of experience I don’t think you would find anywhere else in the country,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“We’re thrilled,” the official said.

In going with the Liberals, Blair rejected strong arm-twisting by the Conservatives to run with them, including personal overtures by senior cabinet ministers, a source said. Blair declined to comment, saying only that he had “respectful discussions” with a “number of people.”

“I was asked to consider a number of different options for the future,” he said. “I’ve made my choice and for me, it’s a values-based choice.”

Blair says his decision was cemented in personal discussions with Trudeau. It was influenced, too, by a major speech the Liberal leader gave in March that laid out a vision for liberty and diversity in Canada while condemning the Tories for a “corrosive” style of politics.

“It really for me articulated some of the things I really believe in and the things that I think make communities safer and more livable,” Blair said.

“In my conversations with Mr. Trudeau, I felt there was a tremendous alignment in our values,” Blair said.

In his speech, Trudeau accused the Conservatives of deliberately stoking terror worries among Canadians, warning “fear is a dangerous thing.”

Blair picked up on the theme saying that the “great threat to public safety is fear.”

“I understand the very real threat that terrorism presents to Canadian society and I think we’ve got to do everything we can to fight extremism and violence,” he said.

But he said that the communities impacted by radicalization cannot be further isolated as part of that terror fight.

“Their help is critically important. I would not in any way further alienate them or isolate them. I would want to include them in the solution,” he said.

Bill Blair wants to run for Liberals in fall election | Toronto Star.

The real reasons why migrants risk everything for a new life elsewhere: Saunders

Good in-depth piece by Doug Saunders, putting the current situation in context:

Even in its worst years, the Mediterranean boat-people flow is only a small part of the migration picture: tens of thousands of entrants in a continent of half a billion people that receives three million immigrants a year. Most Africans living in Europe are fully legal, visa-carrying immigrants who arrive at airports. Even the majority of illegal African immigrants in Europe aren’t boat people: They’re legal visitors who’ve overstayed their visas.

What has compounded the matter during the past 24 months has been the conflict in Syria. While only a fraction of people fleeing that country have attempted to go to Europe – the vast majority are encamped in Turkey, Jordan or Lebanon – that fraction has multiplied the numbers of boat people dramatically in 2014 and 2015. It now accounts for perhaps half of Mediterranean boat migrants (though the boat that was the subject of last weekend’s tragedy carried passengers almost entirely from sub-Saharan Africa).

Refugees tend to be temporary (the much larger exodus of asylum seekers that confronted Western Europe during the Balkan wars of the 1990s – a population shift that seemed even more intractable – mostly returned to their countries after the conflicts ended), and are dealt with through different policies than are migrants. In Europe, those policies are deeply dysfunctional, with little agreement among the 28 EU countries about how to handle refugee claimants or how to deport illegitimate ones – which has contributed to the death toll.

“There should be no reason for Syrian refugees to be getting on these boats, except that there has been no proper pathway for safe refugee acceptance opened up,” Dr. de Haas says. If Western countries would take their United Nations refugee responsibilities more seriously, Syrians wouldn’t be dying at sea.

The most insidious notion is the one that holds that the Africans on the boats are starving villagers escaping famine and death. In fact, every boat person I’ve met has been ambitious, urban, educated, and, if not middle-class (though a surprising number are, as are an even larger number of Syrian refugees), then far from subsistence peasantry. They are very poor by European standards, but often comfortable by African and Middle Eastern ones. And no wonder: The boats cost upward of $2,000 to board (and you need more money to make a start in Europe). That’s a year’s income in many African countries.

Why would somebody risk their life, and their comfort, for a journey that at best would promise a marginal life in the underground economies of Europe?

Linguère Mously Mbaye, a scholar at the Bonn-based Institute for the Study of Labour, conducted a study of hundreds of people in Dakar, Senegal, who were planning to make the crossing to Europe.

The migrants tended not to be very poor. And they tended to be well-connected in Europe: They knew large numbers of people from their home country already living in Europe and working in similar occupations. In other words, they were tied into “migration networks” that communicated information about employment, small-business, housing and migration opportunities. Migrants tend to choose their European destinations not according to culture, language or history, but according to the number of people from their network who are living there – and also according to the economic success of their destination country.

The Syrian refugees are less tactical – and not as well linked into existing economies – than the Africans, but they, too, tend to come because they have connections to people or organizations in Europe. Concludes Dr. Mbaye, “Illegal migration starts first in thoughts, based upon the belief that success is only possible abroad.”

Both major studies found that the Africans who get onto the boats are not running from something awful, but running toward a specific, chosen opportunity, in employment or small business.

That’s a big reason that the boat-people flows have gone up and down so dramatically: Dr. de Haas’s studies found that the main driver of cross-Mediterranean migration is not any economic or political factor in Africa but “sustained demand [in Europe] for cheap labour in agriculture, services, and other informal sectors.” Even those who are fleeing – the Syrians, some Eritreans – are choosing where they flee based on a sense of opportunity.

The real reasons why migrants risk everything for a new life elsewhere – The Globe and Mail.

Racism fuels terrorism recruiting, says visiting French justice minister

Hopefully, Canadian ministers will listen to her words with an open mind and recognize that radicalization has also to be considered from a socio-economic, not just a security perspective:

The marginalization caused by racism has an alienating effect that makes people more vulnerable to terrorist recruiters, says France’s visiting justice minister.

Christiane Taubira knows of what she speaks: as France’s most prominent black politician, she has faced repeated public racist slurs in her country.

Taubira made it clear that she doesn’t see being discriminated against as an explanation or excuse for terrorism.

“I’m not sure I want to understand the causes of terrorism,” she said in an exclusive interview Thursday at the French Embassy in Ottawa. “Terror is terror, just absolute.”

But Taubira said there is a link between a young person being pushed to the margins of society and “how easy” that makes it for a terrorist to recruit them, especially using the Internet.

“Because it’s so easy for (terrorists) to say, ‘You will be very important because you will be very powerful, you will be able to kill, and afterwards you will be happy,’” she said.

“The link is there. It’s easy to convince young people that there is a better life in terrorism than in hoping in the society.”

Taubira said being on the receiving end of some vicious racist slurs has only made her stronger.

“It keeps me vigilant because I realize how violent a society is against so many people who are not as strong as I am. I’m strong because I’ve been fighting for a long time.”

She said this week’s appointment of Toronto’s first black police chief, Mark Saunders, carries the sort of symbolism that can give some young people a sense of hope. But she was quick to add: “I don’t want just one person on TV, one person in the government … I want equality for all.”

Taubira was on a visit to meet her federal counterparts in Ottawa, Justice Minister Peter MacKay and Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, and will travel to Montreal on Friday.

Racism fuels terrorism recruiting, says visiting French justice minister (paywall)

Blair urges officers to reach across cultural divisions in parting words as police chief

Despite all the controversies (G20, carding etc), good parting words on inclusion:

In his parting words as police chief, Bill Blair asked officers to reach across cultural divisions – including, perhaps, those that separate them from civilians.

“More than half the citizens of our city have chosen to come here,” Chief Blair, two days before ending his 10-year term, told hundreds of top-ranking Toronto Police Service officers at his retirement gala dinner on Thursday.

“The reason they’ve chosen to come here is because this is a place of inclusion,” he said. “It’s more than merely tolerance… it is an example to the world.”

Chief Blair was appointed in April 2005, the youngest-ever Toronto police chief at the time. After a career partly spent walking a beat in Regent Park, his term was marked by breaks with tradition. On the day of his appointment, he acknowledged publicly that racial profiling existed within the force. He went on to heavily recruit women and members of ethnic minorities.

Ten years later, Chief Blair is ending his policing career amid criticism related to racial profiling, as well as much praise over his wider work as chief. One of his last acts as chief was to negotiate future terms for a policy that has long angered Toronto’s black communities–“carding,” in which officers stop and question people who aren’t suspected of a crime.

He has said repeatedly that the practice, which many critics would like to see abolished, is a useful public safety tool.

But in Thursday’s speech, he also asked officers in general terms to understand others’ perspectives.

“Let us all be careful,” he said. “Let us be careful that we do not succumb to…those forces, that would divide us, those forces which would separate us, those forces that would make us afraid of each other.

“Let us always be careful to return to each other, to support each other, and to be that place of social cohesion and inclusion that we should all aspire to be,” he said. “Because that’s what makes the city of Toronto, the country of Canada, an extraordinary place.”

More should follow this example.

Blair urges officers to reach across cultural divisions in parting words as police chief – The Globe and Mail.

To suggest Ottawa targets charities violates a vital public trust – Griffiths’ Apologetics

Griffiths might have a case if the Government and CRA were transparent about the audits underway and the charities targeted. But without even acknowledging this lack of transparency on the Government’s part, his defence has no credibility and ironically mirrors those who only see a conspiracy by not seeing any cause for concern.

It is the Government’s rhetoric and handling of the audits that has damaged the public trust. Groups are simply exercising their democratic rights in raising legitimate concerns regarding the apparent selective choice of charities for audit. Sad:

Yet this we all know: some charities spend far more than 10 per cent of their revenues on political activities and do so flagrantly. This abuse of the public trust by a small group of charities is what Revenue Canada’s “political” audits is cracking down on, and rightly so. The assertion that groups with a “left,” or for that matter, a “right” political orientation are being disproportionally singled out by the Charities Directorate is nonsense. What Revenue Canada is doing is focusing its audits on charities that publicly engage in advocacy (on their websites, in publications, through events, etc.) to determine if they are violating the 10 per cent cap and/or are involved in prohibited activities. Don’t just take my word on it. The director-general of the Charities Directorate, a career public servant, has gone on the record to rule out ideological biases in the audit process: “We are not targeting charities that have particular political leanings.”

And now we get to the deeply damaging part of this debate. The inference, repeated over and over in the media, that Revenue Canada officials are following the political direction of Stephen Harper’s cabinet, right down to the specific charities being selected for “political” audits. Such a contention is oblivious to how the federal civil service actually operates vis-à-vis its political masters.

As is the case thousands of times every day across the government, public servants in the Charities Directorate are setting about interpreting and acting on how best to bring about a specific policy outcome set out by Parliament. In this instance, nothing more and nothing less than ensuring that political activities by the charitable sector are in line with the current law and policy. To obviate the public’s trust in this basic process of governance – especially on the part of a department whose work is as sensitive as Revenue Canada’s – through wild speculation is the height of civic irresponsibility. If there are facts to back up the allegation that Revenue Canada is being partisan or ideological in its auditing of charities then we do indeed have a serious problem; one worthy of a vigorous national debate. But absent such a bombshell we are harming the public’s legitimate belief in the independence and competency of the federal civil service.

The debate we should be having is how charities could be more active participants in public policy discussion and formation. Should we be raising the 10 per cent cap on political activities? Can “think tanks” by virtue of what they do be charities? Are the legal definitions of what is or is not a legitimate charitable purpose too prescriptive for 21st-century Canada? All important questions, the answers to which will most certainly not be found in more conspiratorial parsing of Revenue Canada’s audit of political activities in the charitable sector.

To suggest Ottawa targets charities violates a vital public trust – The Globe and Mail.

Minister Kenney issues statement on the passage of the Journey to Freedom Day Act – Vietnamese Diaspora Politics

More neutral and positive messaging than much of the anti-Communist focus of the Bill (Is the Divisive Bill on Vietnamese Refugees All About the Election?):

“The Journey to Freedom Day Act, which was introduced in the Senate in April 2014 by the Honourable Senator Thanh Hai Ngo, designates April 30 as a day to commemorate the thousands of Vietnamese ‘boat people’ Canada has welcomed since the end of the Vietnam War.

“Designating April 30 as an annual day of commemoration will give Canadians the opportunity to reflect on the journey of more than 60,000 Vietnamese refugees to Canada, to recognize the remarkable role Canadians played in helping them settle in their new home through the Private Sponsorship of Refugees program, and to celebrate the contributions of Canadians of Vietnamese origin to our country.

“I encourage all Canadians to reflect on the heartbreaking and inspiring voyage of the Vietnamese boat people, which is an important part of our country’s history.”

Minister Kenney issues statement on the passage of the Journey to Freedom Day Act – Canada News Centre.