Law

The New York Times recently featured a story on the dilemma facing the United Kingdom with respect to private religious “courts” applying Sharia law in the UK’s Muslim communities. As is noted in the article, Ontario grappled with this issue in 2006 and decided to remove any possibility of legally binding arbitration based on religion. Ontario took this step because if it hadn’t it would be faced a dilemma: Give in to the public outcry against allowing “Islamic law” to be enforced in Ontario, or blatantly discriminate against Muslims (Christians and Jews were already permitted to use this type of arbitration in Ontario). 

Ontario’s decision was a fair one, but unnecessary. It is possible to allow this kind of arbitration while protecting Ontario law, Canadian values, and members of minority communities. However, doing so forces us to acknowledge that protecting personal freedom can mean allowing individuals to reject the rights offered by Canadian law.

Yesterday, in a desperate effort to stop worrying about the prospect of a Conservative majority, I went for run along the waterfront in Hoboken, New Jersey. Perhaps it was the foul odour of the Hudson River, or the intense rhythm of “Eye of the Tiger” blaring from my IPod, but I just couldn’t rid my mind of these thoughts. Harper was haunting me — what would he do with the power of a majority government?

As I ran some stairs at the Stevens Institute, my thoughts turned to the death penalty. Now I’m not going to argue that Harper will bring back the death penalty in Canada; he’s too savvy to do something so provocative.

Instead, Harper will exploit executive power to implement a pro-capital punishment policy, particularly in the context of foreign affairs. He’ll do it through the backdoor and most Canadians won’t even notice. By the time they do, Canada’s decades-old opposition to capital punishment will be reduced to hypocrisy. Let’s call this plan Death by Stealth.

If Stephen Harper gets a majority government, I’m seriously going to have to re-think my travel plans. I might get detained in a foreign country and the Conservatives might decide, after reading this blog, that I should rot in jail, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of whether my human rights are being violated.

That’s absurd, you say. All Canadians have fundamental rights and the federal government is prepared to go to the mattresses to make sure that they’re respected abroad. So I can relax and enjoy my pina colada. Well, that’s technically true, but the Harper Government has demonstrated that nothing — not even the human rights of Canadian citizens — is beyond politics, meaning that travelling abroad has become a risky propostion.  

Thank you, Elizabeth May. Thank you for being the only leader in last night’s debate to say unequivocally that overall crime rates — including violent crime rates — have been falling for decades and there’s absolutely no justification for adopting policies that violate the Charter rights of young offenders.

According to Statistics Canada, violent crime has been in decline since the mid-1970s. Violent crime rates in Canada’s biggest cities are also falling. And, on a per capita basis, Toronto had fewer homicides than Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Calgary.

But aren’t gun crimes going up? Nope. The rate of violent crime involving a firearm has been stable for the last 4 years. In fact, knives and clubs are more than three times as likely as guns to be used in the commission of a violent crime. 

I decided to cap off this past summer with a trip to Vancouver, BC to see a couple of recently graduated friends. If you have friends who live there, Vancouver is a great city to travel cheap. The best attractions — beaches, Grouse Mountain, Stanley Park — are accessible on foot and free of charge if you’re willing to walk. I did a lot of walking while I was in Vancouver.

One of the places I went isn’t your typical tourist destination. Insite is a facility where drug users can inject heroin using clean needles under the supervision of medical staff that can provide emergency care in cases of overdose. There is also a rehab center upstairs that addicts are encouraged to use. I wasn’t able to tour the entire facility while it was in use, but one of the doctors was kind enough to take a few minutes to explain the basics of the program to my friend and me.

I‘m starting to think that the leaders of Canada’s progressive federal parties want to be Premier of Canada. Either that, or they don’t understand how our Constitution is supposed to work, which completely disqualifies them for the job of Prime Minister.

Canada has a federal system of government, meaning that legislative powers are divided between federal and provincial governments. Generally speaking, provinces are responsible for some issues, and the federal government is responsible for others. Neither level of government is more important than the other — each has exclusive authority in its areas of jurisdiction.

Ever wonder if you can sue a politician for breaking a campaign promise? With all the promises being made this election season, it’s important for you to know your rights. As it turns out, in the eyes of the law, politicians go back on their word so often that the commitments they make during election campaigns aren’t binding. That’s probably a good thing.

Several Canadians have tried to enforce campaign promises through the courts. Generally, they’ve argued that a campaign promise is a contract between the candidate and the voters — the candidate agrees to make certain decisions in exchange for the voters’ support.