The lesson of Charlie Hebdo? We need more free speech, not less – Globe Editorial

2015/02/04 Leave a comment

Globe editorial nails it:

In Canada, it appears a growing list of objectionable ideas and beliefs are to be hunted down and subjected to the full weight of the state. And so it was that, on Monday, the borough council presided over by Mr. Ménard amended its definition of a community centre to specifically forbid religious teaching, effectively shutting down Mr. Chaoui’s aspirations.

More rule-tightening will presumably follow; Mr. Coderre has gone so far as to say, “I oppose radicalism in all its forms.”

Otherwise sane provincial lawmakers in Quebec have been involved in a multi-partisan argument, now in its second year, around how to legislate against religious fundamentalism. There hasn’t been much of an argument over whether that’s a good thing to do; it seems to be a given.

In Ottawa, meanwhile, the expansion of the police state continues apace, fuelled by the irrational Islamic State fears ginned up by the Conservative government.

What if the solution to all of this were as simple as more free speech?

In the marketplace of ideas, hateful, offensive and small-minded beliefs can and should be vigorously confronted. But instead of using the law to shut them down, fight back with speech that shows them up. Incitement to violence is a crime, and always has been. But some of the speech politicians are talking about shutting down falls well short of that long-standing legal line.

Opinions can be changed. Bad ideas can be shunted aside. People can stop listening to nonsense, or they can never start in the first place. That is essentially what happened to Mr. Chaoui’s reactionary spiel in Anjou.

The process was working swimmingly. And then the politicians got involved.

The lesson of Charlie Hebdo? We need more free speech, not less – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Government Tagged with , , ,

Information watchdog says cash crunch endangers Canadians access rights

2014/11/12 Leave a comment

All too true. My experience with CIC ATIP confirms the delays and obfuscation:

“This growth in workload occurs in the context of significant financial restraint measures that have had a large impact on my budget,” Legault says in the report.

“With the incoming complaints volume showing no sign of abating, and with no financial flexibility, it is increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to keep ahead of demand and respond to complainants in as timely a manner as possible.”

It means a gap of about six months between the time a complaint about lack of access to records is received and the time it is assigned to an investigator.

The commissioners budget must absorb salary increases next year, leaving her concerned “we have been stretched to the limit.”

“It is my responsibility to alert the government and Parliament to the risks that the organization is facing,” Legault adds in the report.

“Without additional funding, I will no longer be able to carry out my mandate responsibly and ensure full respect of Canadians rights of access to information. As such, I intend to seek the support of the Treasury Board to obtain the necessary financing.”

Information watchdog says cash crunch endangers Canadians access rights – Politics – CBC News.

Globe editorial in favour of more resources and better compliance with ATIP:

Response times have dropped disastrously as a consequence. Ms. Legault, in going public this week about the impact of the cutbacks, said the wait time between the filing of a complaint and the assigning of an investigator has reached six months. Her next move will be to make a formal request to the Treasury Board for more money. Treasury Board President Tony Clement has had no comment, so far.

Mr. Clement should give the Information Commissioner the resources she needs. Since taking power, the Harper government has focused on putting more information online and on launching its Open Government web portal. But those efforts, however worthwhile, will mean little if the government simultaneously makes it harder for Canadians to get information that has been classified or held back for political reasons – arguably the most important information of all in a free society. The Conservatives knew this in 2006; why don’t they know it now?

 Harper government cutbacks hurting access to info 

Filed under Government Tagged with , , ,

Was it ‘terrorism’? We need answers, not labels – Globe Editorial

2014/11/01 Leave a comment

Good editorial in the Globe on the need to avoid simplistic labels:

The debate – terrorism or not? – isn’t particularly useful. It takes a complex issue and tries to reduce it to a label. It short-circuits an honest inquiry into questions that demand answers: Why did these men do what they did? And what can be done to reduce the likelihood of future attacks? Invoking the threat of terrorism may also lower public resistance to new security measures that wouldn’t otherwise be acceptable, such as making it easier for police to detain people suspected of being sympathetic to terrorist groups or ideas. Or, as Justice Minister Peter MacKay mused publicly this week, making it a criminal offence to “glorify” terrorist groups or activities, a law adopted by the British that has been highly controversial and almost never used.

Everyone can agree that the Ottawa attack was criminal. And leaving it at that leaves the door open to deeper thought: How do we monitor people before they suddenly commit a crime? Should we monitor some people more closely? How much evidence should be required to monitor or detain? And was Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau’s attack driven above all by long-standing mental health issues rather than a long-held ideology? If so, why wasn’t he able to get help? How did he get his hands on a rifle? Are guns properly secured in Canada?

Canadians need to ask every imaginable question about what happened in Ottawa. A fight over labels gets in the way of an honest search for answers and solutions.

Was it ‘terrorism’? We need answers, not labels – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Radicalization Tagged with

Bill C-24 is wrong: There is only one kind of Canadian citizen – Globe Editorial

2014/07/02 Leave a comment

Globe’s Canada Day editorial:

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander has defended his bill by arguing citizenship is a privilege, not a right. He is wrong. It may come with responsibilities, but it is a right. And once legitimately acquired, by birth or naturalization, it cannot be taken away. Bill C-24 gives the government the kind of sweeping power that is common in dictatorships, not in a democracy built upon the rule of law, where all citizens are equal. The changes to the Citizenship Act erode those basic principles, creating a two-tier citizenship that dilutes what it means to be Canadian.

Bill C-24 is wrong: There is only one kind of Canadian citizen – The Globe and Mail.

Rick Salutin in the Star:

Why did they do it? Here’s my guess: It’s not enough for them to merely run Canada. They want to define it, and they don’t want any backchat. Some people need to be right, not just powerful. So they’ve turned citizenship into a privilege, not a right, and since someone has to grant a privilege, it’ll be them.

But here’s my biggest problem. I don’t think loyalty — in any particular version — should have a thing to do with citizenship. The democratic core of citizenship is you get to challenge the values of the moment and can’t be shut up. It’s a license to disagree and debate which direction your nation takes, no matter what the majority thinks. Is that unpatriotic? It depends on how you see things. For many patriots, not going along has been the essence of patriotism. I’d say put people in jail for life if you insist — but don’t touch their citizenship.

Hello, you must be going: government waters down Canadian citizenship: Salutin

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , , ,

Newer posts →