Our Charter rights under threat?

Just in case you don't read this blog yourselves, I thought I'd share. thecourt.ca is run by Osgoode Hall students to keep track of what is happening with the Supreme Court of Canada - it's funky cool (well, for a law junkie).

This post is about section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is the one that protects us from illegal search and seizure - the procurement of evidence in court by means that violate our rights. The author, D. Silva, contends that a couple of recent rulings by the Ontario Court of Appeals totally negate 24(2) in cases where a gun was found.

I realize that there is a gun problem, and yes, it would be nice if something could be done about it. However, I'm not sure I'm ready to sacrifice my Charter rights in order to be 'safer'. Actually, I'm pretty positive about that.

Of course, I feel pretty much the same way about a lot of the 'security measures' put in place to combat terrorism. For me, it boils down to the question of security - and what that means. It seems that we are trying to create a society where everyone is always safe all the time. The image I get in my head is of a society of people in bubbles - totally protected but totally isolated and looking pretty stupid with no real freedom.

Here is my own personal version of security:

There is no way that the state is ever going to be able to protect me from every nutjob out there who wants to hurt me. If someone wants to kill people, they will find a way. Harm done to a person that way is a violation of their rights, no question, and needs to be dealt with by the justice system - but we will never have a totally safe society. You can't produce a society with no risk if people are to have any freedoms.

BUT when the risk to my personal rights and liberty is posed by the state itself and has been made a part of the system - now that's scary.

The willingness of citizens to give up their rights and freedoms because they are scared is the biggest threat to my sense of security.

Section 24

Enforcement

1. Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
2. Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

More on Afghanistan...

Excellent point raised yesterday that perhaps we are getting the truth and not the Europeans. However, it seems that the truth is changing.

Here is an article from two days ago describing Karzai's recent comments to a German newspaper.

Here is another one, from a British newspaper on the 25th, detailing the souring relations between Karzai and Britain.

Finally, I am including this article, which I cannot find substantiated in western newspapers (on an admittedly cursory investigation) though ReliefWeb is administered by the UN which I generally consider to be pretty credible. It details a night-time raid by "foreign" and Afghan troops where civilians were killed in Helmand province. I am totally not saying that it is true but there are two aspects I want to draw attention to.

The first is that one of the article tags when reposted to this blog is "Imperialism" which supports the views of many commentators that this war is seen by many as an attempt by the West to enforce their worldview globally. Second, is the very existence of this article. If true, this attack represents an abominable breach of just war principles and should be investigated and punished to the full extent of both international and domestic law. Whether true or not, the existence of stories such as this cannot help but raise hatred against Western troops from the very people that we think we are helping.

One final, historical example of exclusion

Again from Hopgood's article, a few quotes on the project to assimilate 'the Indian' in the U.S. back in the 1800s and early 1900s.

The native peoples of America were considered to be like children by the governments in the U.S. during this time period. They were deemed incapable of taking care of their own land and behaving in a civilized manner, therefore, their lands were held in trust until they showed their capacity. Those who could pass the competency test were given "fee-simple titles to the land and thus citizenship during elaborate and heavily symbolic ceremonies conducted by the Indian Office:"

"The crowd would look on while their 'competent' brethren were summoned individually from inside the lodge. The candidates for land titles were dressed in traditional costume and armed with a bow and arrow. After ordering a candidate to shoot his arrow into the distance, the presiding officer... would announce 'You have shot your last arrow'. The arrowless archer would then return to the tipi and reemerge a few minutes later in 'civilized' dress. 'Take the handle of this plow', the government's man would say, 'this act means that you have chosen to live the life of the white man - and the white man lives by work' " (from Frederick E. Hoxie, A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880-1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989: 180).

This process of "cultural suicide" was continued through institutional schooling which in the words of Captain Richard Henry Pratt aimed to "Kill the Indian in him and save the man" (David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1995: 212, 52).

"Education serves to both clean the slate and replace it with a new lesson" (Hopgood, 18). The trick is that back in the 1800s, the elites were open and proud of this mission - to replace the savage with the civilized, to create an individual who would be worthy of citizenship and participation in civil society. Today, this intention has had to remain part of the subtle background, elite members of a society can no longer openly proclaim their project to erase the savage and preserve the man but, instead, attempt this aim through the promotion of supposedly universal human rights.

Sigh.

Bombing Civilian Media Targets

According to yesterday's UN News Service, "Sri Lankan army planes struck the Voice of Tigers radio station near Kilinochchi in the north of the country on the afternoon of 27 November, killing five of the station's staff and reportedly more than five other people". “Regardless of the content of the broadcasts aired by the Voice of Tigers, there can be no excuse for military strikes on civilian media,” said Koïchiro Matsuura (head of UNESCO). “Such action contravenes the Geneva Convention which requires the military to treat media workers as civilians.” Mr. Matsuura stressed that “killing media personnel is not going to help reconciliation” and urged urge the authorities “to ensure respect for the basic human right of freedom of expression".

[deep breath]

So I was wondering - what type of content do they broadcast? Because my first thought was of the radio station in Rwanda that worked so hard to incite and direct the genocide in 1994, including providing locations of weapons and Hutu and Tutsi targets. Literally, broadcasts would provide addresses and license plates and encourage the militia to pay them a visit. I remember reading Shake Hands with the Devil and Dallaire's agony that he could not stop the hate spewing from RTLM. (Check out the first link in this paragraph for a quick introductory article to the conflict around press freedom v. hate crimes from the Columbia Journalism Review.)

In class, we've been examining how all institutions and ideas that seem 'natural' or rock-solid are actually constructions of humanity and history. The idea that we create our own reality has got me questioning some pretty fundamental features of modern society. That idea, combined with the Sri Lankan bombing got me thinking. If a radio station was partaking directly in activities that compromised the safety of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of people would it be just to bomb it? Or is it always wrong?

Matsuura argues that the bombing contravenes the Geneva Convention because media workers are to be treated as civilians. But do media workers negate that protection when they act as conduits for government or militia information that results in other civilians being killed? To put it bluntly: If you could save 10,000 people by killing 2 would it be just? Which I guess comes down a question of the ends justifying the means.

Just wondering.

(This post is in way meant to condone the actions of the Sri Lankan government. I have no information as to why the government decided to bomb the radio station and I will assume until shown otherwise that it was an incredibly wrong thing to do. Murder is wrong. Especially state-sponsored murder. Which is what bombing civilians is - murder. Plus, it turns out that this is not the first time the Sri Lankan government has bombed a Tamil radio station, they also did it last year. Here is the press release from Reporters Without Borders on the bombing with an emphasis on the importance of protecting the freedom of the press. This post is merely a very brief inquiry into the limits of protection afforded to media personnel in the extreme case where they are promoting crimes against humanity.)

The U.S. is no safe haven for refugees

Last week a Canadian judge ruled in favour of the Canadian Council on Refugees, the Canadian Council of Churches and Amnesty International in a case brought against the Canadian government regarding the Canadian-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) that forces refugees to apply for status in the first country they arrive in. According to the Globe and Mail, the judge has ruled that this agreement puts Canada in breach of our international obligations (because of course Canada has signed the refugee convention, we sign everything). Specifically, it violates our commitments under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the UN Convention Against Torture.

According to the decision the judge decided against the STCA because the U.S. treats refugees so abysmally that we can not legally force refugees to stay there. There was also the whole shipping people off to countries for torture aspect of the U.S. system as well. (BTW, if there are any legal wonks out there reading, the link above will take you to the federal court decision in its entirety which is nicer than relying on the newspaper reports. If you just want to read the outcome, skip down to Section IX. Conclusions.)

Justice Michael Phelan also criticized the Canadian government for not fulfilling its commitment to review the agreement "despite both the significant passage of time since the commencement of the STCA and the evidence as to U.S. practices currently available". Once again, our government is letting things slip through the cracks while they act like a bunch of dilettantes (see any post relating to Kyoto or Schreiber).

Who does this affect most? For Canada, it will have the greatest impact on refuge seekers from Latin America who travel overland - since 2004, we have been able to turn them away at the border but if the STCA is overturned we will have to let them in.

If this ruling destroys the agreement (and opinions seem to be leaning that way) then they will be allowed through the U.S. and into Canada. Both parties have until 14 Jan 2008 to file their appeals.

Thought you might like to know.

It will be interesting to watch the international fall-out from Canada declaring again (through the proxy of its court system, of course) that the U.S. is a human rights violator.

Canada's Integrity = My Integrity

Here's the thing - I am passionate about Canada, I love being Canadian and I proudly identify myself as Canadian wherever I go.

Here's the problem - if Canada is my country (and as a democracy there is no way I can get out of taking responsibility for it and ownership of it) then when Canada does something that violates its integrity, it violates my integrity.

Well, I'm pretty partial to my integrity and I don't like having it screwed up by my government. (Shockingly, this is not a Kyoto tirade.)

And it is being screwed up, has been messed up and is increasingly being lost. Canada has the interesting distinction of being the country who has signed the most international agreements and is part of the most international organizations - that means that we are the world's most committed country to international relations.

So when we break our commitments, we lose integrity. Today I'm a little upset about our arms trade - did you know that we are in the Top 10 and possibly in the Top 5 of the world's largest arms suppliers. I say possibly because Canada has not kept accurate records and reporting for the last several years. Our transparency rating on arms sales is now placing us just above Iran. Seriously, how embarrassing.

The worst part is that the arms we do produce quite often end up being used by states against their own civilian populations. So now, not only do I live in a country that is a major arms supplier, I am also complicit in egregious state-committed human rights violations. Fabulous. That is a definite compromise of my integrity.

I am so not voting Liberal or Conservative.

Schreiber

Okay, I just had to put my two cents in on this one.

Please, please, please extradite him to Germany. Please, for our country's sake. The man has played our legal system like a pro and made us look like a bunch of chumps.

Just send him away.

I don't care whether there were unscrupulous business dealings. I really don't. I mean, $300,000? Our government wastes that much on letterhead, much more on fancy golf balls. Who cares what Mulroney did almost 20 years ago?

There was far more money wasted canceling the Airbus deal and the damage it did to our international reputation... how is this going to help?

And now, Schreiber says he won't co-operate if he gets extradited. He is issuing threats and attempting to hold my government and my justice system hostage to his rantings.

Send him home.

He has been fighting extradition for 8 years. Eight! It is so embarrassing.

Don't waste millions more on a public inquiry that is likely going to find - oh, what a shock! the guy was pulling out any desperate accusations he could to remain out of the reach of the German legal system...

where maybe there's a hope in hell he'll actually get convicted of something.

sigh.

The Genocide Olympics

Oh boy... it's been a long time since I've posted and I have very little time right now - I have to go grab lunch before the next session starts but I think I've found a new way to fight for something I care about. What do we know about a movement to have Canada boycott the 2008 Beijing Olympics which is lately receiving the moniker The Genocide Olympics. Mia Farrow has been super-active in this area and has done a great job raising awareness.

I'm at a Conference on the Prevention of Genocide this weekend - one of the speakers has already tried to chase me away from studying in this field - too depressing he says. I guess he won't be my PhD advisor. ;-P

Canada's 'No' Vote

Okay, I confess - I'm still steamed about Canada voting NO to the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the UN.

Here are some worthy quotes (snipped from September 13, 2007):

In a statement released by his spokesperson, Mr. Ban described the Declaration’s adoption as “a historic moment when UN Member States and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories and are resolved to move forward together on the path of human rights, justice and development for all.”

{But, obviously Canada is not yet ready to reconcile our painful history which has become our disgraceful present.}

He called on governments and civil society to ensure that the Declaration’s vision becomes a reality by working to integrate indigenous rights into their policies and programmes.

{This is where we, as citizens, can make a huge difference - more to come, I promise.}

Ms. Arbour noted that the Declaration has been “a long time coming. But the hard work and perseverance of indigenous peoples and their friends and supporters in the international community has finally borne fruit in the most comprehensive statement to date of indigenous peoples’ rights.”

{How cool is she?! Yeah for Louise Arbour, the coolest Canadian at the UN, especially when Stephen Lewis is on vacation. For those who don't know, she is the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN.}

Ambassador John McNee of Canada said his country was disappointed to have to vote against the Declaration, but it had “significant concerns” about the language in the document.

The provisions on lands, territories and resources “are overly broad, unclear and capable of a wide variety of interpretations” and could put into question matters that have been settled by treaty, he said.

{grrrrr... Maybe if we had paid any attention to the promises we made in our treaties we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. Maybe if we hadn't lied to our treaty partners, almost right from the beginning and treated them as less than human, right from the beginning we wouldn't be here. Maybe if we hadn't tried to force them to assimilate this Declaration wouldn't be necessary. Maybe if our government had finally grown the courage necessary to rectify past mistakes this wouldn't be needed. But, of course, we still suck and that is why this Declaration is so important.}

Boo Canada.

Quick Notes

The CBC is so much fun early in the morning.

I must, must, must own music by this man, Marcel Kahlife, he is fantastic. Excellent grooving music. The song was Aqasim. Thank you Metro Morning.

Also, the theme music for RadioPrague is super-cool. If only I knew how to find it.

Poor, poor OJ Simpson - the man is obviously not right.

Oh, it is so about time: Blackwater is booted from Iraq. But who will act as the fists in Bush's war now.

Finally, Microsoft has been slapped by the European courts and is deciding whether or not to appeal the ruling - it may mean that you won't get Media Player next time you buy a new computer. Will Microsoft have to revamp their entire software packaging operations?

Yeah for Indigenous Rights, Boo for Canada

Have I mentioned that Harper makes me feel kindof sick to my stomach. Here then we have a hooray! for human rights trumping the invested corporate interests of big business in Canada, which Harper so devotedly represents.

THE DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES WAS OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED TODAY BY THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Yeah! Here is a report by the CBC. Notice that there were 4 countries who voted against the declaration: Canada (I am so embarrassed), Australia, the United States and New Zealand. Hmmm... I wonder what could have happened to make them vote 'No!'

You may or may not know (but now you will) that I am taking a Seminar on Indigenous Peoples in IR this semester. Here is my favourite quote so far from the textbook: "Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian department." This was said by Deputy Superintendent-General Duncan Campbell Scott in 1920 (Leslie and Haguire 1978:115 in Niezen "The Origins of Indigenism" 2003:31).

No, I guess we don't have anything to apologize for. Nothing at all.

Excuse me while I go curl up in a ball and weep.

Clearing up that whole treason thing... a little

Not that I regret my morning post or anything, but I thought it might be a good idea to actually look up what it means to be treasonous in Canada. From our legal description (included below), the only treasonous way to overthrow the government is through force - nothing is written about undermining Canada's sovereignty until the country crumbles. So, our PMs are off the hook.

There is also a lovely prohibition about attempting to kill the Queen. Fabulous. We are *so* 21st century. Of course, that means that there is nothing treasonous about attempting to kill the PM. Which I would never advocate - I'm just trying to make blatantly obvious that this law is stupidly out-of-date.

or is it...

Here's the problem: I love Canada. I love Canada a lot. I love being Canadian and I am proud to be Canadian.

or at least I used to be. Now I'm wondering what it means to be Canadian. Is there a Canada at all? Are we still just a silly little dominion in the crumbled British Empire, asserting loyalty to a royal family an ocean away while neglecting our own citizenry and sovereignty?

or was there a brief period mid-twentieth century where maybe we did have an independent identity, where Canada built its reputation and stood for something.

and then we became part of the American Empire. Maybe we should change the law to make it treasonous to plan to assassinate the President of the US.

BTW, I don't like using the word assassinate, its done enough damage already hasn't it?

Shouldn't it be treason to attempt to kill our own head of state, our own PM? If we were a real, independent country, free and proud, wouldn't that be treason?

--V

From the Canadian Criminal Code:
PART II
OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Title: Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person

High 46. treason

46. (1) Every one commits high 46. (1) treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

46. (2) Treason

(2) Every one commits 46. (2) treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high 46. (2) (c) treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high 46. (2) (d) treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Okay, one more Harper rant

I'm not sure exactly what constitutes treasonous behaviour but I'm taking a course called "Diplomacy" and while I was doing the first readings last night I started thinking about supreme interests. You see, the supreme interest of a nation is its survival as a sovereign state. To be sovereign means that a state is able to act in its own interests both internationally and domestically.

So, I began to wonder if various prime ministers we have had over the last 20 or 30 years have compromised the integrity of Canada to the point that our continued existence as a *sovereign* state is jeopardized. Did Brian Mulroney compromise this ability with the signing of NAFTA and the inclusion of the proportionality clause that dooms us to be forever beholden to American needs instead of our own? I'm sure that Chretien and Martin furthered the process while in power, but not particular instance pops to mind. Certainly signing on to the Kyoto protocol and then doing nothing for several years was against our national interest and severely damaged our international reputation - the consequences of which are still to be seen.

But my mind drifted most to Harper and his affection for big business and especially big oil. I know that he loves Alberta - but does he love Canada? I'm sure his answer would be yes but how is that demonstrated? Does encouraging deep integration with the US and the actions of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives show a love of Canada? To me it is betraying our supreme interests, it threatens our very survival as a sovereign state. I think that that is treason.

Am I in so much trouble?

ahhhhh... Imperialism lives on

Harper - the man actually makes me nauseous. I hate that he represents the way a 'typical' Canadian thinks - I always pray that it isn't true but I am yet to be convinced.

You may wonder what I'm blabbing about today. Today, I love the hypocrisy of Canada. All over the world we trumpet the human rights of indigenous peoples - but when it comes time to stand up for them at the United Nations our country runs and hides. Harper/Howard are having a wonderful time in Australia, dreaming up ways to say that they want to help stop climate change but do nothing and that they respect human rights but are planning to actively oppose a tremendous opportunity to support those most in need of protection.

Why do we hide? My first thought would be that obviously we want to ensure that our own indigenous peoples to not receive any internationally recognized rights which would help to lift them out of the abhorrent situation in which they find themselves here at home. I guess the other is... wait, I can't think of any other reason to not support the General Assembly resolution that will come up for a vote at the United Nations on September 13, 2007. That's only two days away!

Oh, maybe it's this phrase from the preamble: "Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the rights and characteristics of indigenous peoples, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources, which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies,"

If the resolution passed, our own aboriginal populations might then have a better defense against large corporations walking in to their lands and developing them for royalties that amount to a pittance. Or maybe they would ask for Toronto back. It weighs on my conscience to know that our wealth was built on a genocide. Weighs heavily.

Here is a nice site to learn more. You may want to read the Amnesty International open letter to Howard and Harper. Maybe I'll write a letter to my MP (I haven't heard from Belinda for awhile), or maybe to the Foreign Affairs Minister (who's the new one again? oh right, the Industry guy.).

Don't even get me started on Harper participating and 'leading' at an APEC conference on climate change. ack.

The Amazing Ms. MacMillan

Thanks to Dr. K. for telling me about this little news nugget.

Page A1 of the Globe and Mail on August 29, 2007 has a story about a controversy at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.

The dispute is between historians and a veteran's group. The topic is the bombing and fire-bombing of Dresden and other German cities towards the end of World War II. Margaret MacMillan is one of the historians on the four-person panel assembled to review the wording.

'The fight over the 67-word panel, titled An Enduring Controversy, erupted shortly after the Canadian War Museum opened in May, 2005. A group of veterans objected to its saying that "the value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested," and to its contrasting 600,000 dead with the statement that "the raids resulted in only small reductions of German war production until late in the war." '

One of the bomber veterans responded by saying that, "I took offence that we were just helter-skelter bombers. We always had justified targets."

Yes, and the precision of the bombing runs is amply documented. bwahahahaha
Dresden burned to the ground. Firebombing is not something that can be targeted. It's a fire for heaven's sake. Total destruction. The same tactic was used in Japan, before the nuclear bombs were dropped. Firebombing is just about as effective when the city is made of wood - as cities tended to be in 1945. Estimates for the number of people killed in the firebombing of Dresden range from 35,000 to 100,000.

It's a war crime. Specifically, under Principle VI(b) of the Nuremberg Principles: "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" or maybe targeting civilians, item (c).

I got into a fight with my first IR prof earlier this summer over the topic of post-modernism. One of the other students asked if it was impossible for us to fairly judge the war crimes of others when we were imposing our own moral code on them and that in a post-modernist system their morality might well be completely different. I argued that "Yes, it is incorrect to assume that *our* morals are the correct morals and moreover that we are incredibly hypocritical because we will accuse others of war crimes but that if we the imperial, capitalist powers commit an act it is 'good' but that if someone else does it, it is 'bad'.

We may not be able to impose our moral standards on others but we should at least try to follow them ourselves.

Funnily enough, this issue was first brought to my attention by The West Wing. Leo is trying to figure out why the U.S. does not agree to the jurisdiction of the World Court and one of his commanders from Vietnam explains that Leo himself committed war crimes as a bomber pilot. If the U.S. agreed to abide by international law, they could then be charged. So, while America insists that others are brought to justice, it neatly sidesteps any charges against itself.

We could do the same except that we have already ratified the International Criminal Code and acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. In fact, "Canada became the first country in the world to incorporate the obligations of the Rome Statute into its national laws when it adopted the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA) on June 24, 2000. Canada was then able to ratify the Rome Statute on July 9, 2000."

Our soldiers and leaders could be charged with war crimes.

Maybe we should remember that when we are following the U.S. into battle.

Malfeasance in Montebello

Last week at Montebello, near Ottawa in Quebec, the leaders of North America met for a '3 Amigos' summit. There were, of course, organized protests and massive amounts of counter-security. The democratically elected leaders were being protected from the demos who, theoretically at least, elected them. Check out this U-Tube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehubbers%2Eca%2F

These were SQ (Surete du Quebec) officers, in other words, they were cops. Or maybe they were RCMP.

I think there are legitimate arguments to be made for why cops should be undercover in a large demonstration. The best one for me is that there is always a small minority of any large group, especially at protests and demonstrations, who are unstable. These people pose a danger to themselves, to other people in the group and to the respectability of the group as a whole. I fully respect the right of the police to gather intelligence on these people and monitor the situation.

Unfortunately, at this demonstration, that small, unstable minority were the police. As I watched the video I was filled with admiration for the union leader, Dave Coles , who interceded on behalf of the peaceful protesters and forced the 'anarchists' back behind police lines. I seriously doubt whether I would have had even a small portion of that man's courage - those cops were scary and big. The crowd laughed as the 'rioters' were thrown to the ground by police, ripped, and marched away.

Here is a CBC article that covers a little bit more and actually manages to mention *why* the protestors and national leaders were in Montebello in the first place: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/08/22/ot-police-070822.html.

"The Security and Prosperity Partnership pact, signed in 2005, is intended to forge closer trade and security links between the countries."

Many people, and I am certainly one of them, feel that the SPP is the single largest threat to Canada's sovereignty and continued existence as an independent nation. While some might argue that our nationhood is merely a technicality at this point, I like to believe that we still have the ability to make our own decisions, especially on the international stage. That while we must always be mindful of our ginormously powerful neighbour to the south (yes, ginormous is the technical term) that we still have the potential to be a strong mid-power nation. The SPP threatens to rip that all away.

I encourage you to take a gander at Glenn's site: http://hubbers.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/threats-to-our-water.pdf for more information and links on SPP. Then maybe write a letter.

Steven Truscott almost innocent

Steven Truscott was acquitted by the Ontario Court of Appeals in a 5 judge unanimous decision on August 28, 2007.

It takes a very large stretch of my imagination to try and empathize with what it would be like to live your entire life as a convicted murderer - when you knew you were innocent. I can't imagine what it would be like to live the vast majority of your life under an assumed name, your identity taken from you by the court of public opinion.

I cannot imagine the strength and faith it would take to forgive the wrongs done and accept the course of fate. Mr. Truscott sounded humble and grateful for the verdict handed down yesterday; a lesser person could have easily been bitter.

Fascinating legal aspect, for me anyway, is that he was not found innocent, only not guilty. The Court of Appeals did not make the final step to a full exoneration. There was a discussion about this on CBC Metro Morning Tuesday morning before the verdict was read. Here is an in-depth article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/truscott/

Congratulations to the Truscott family, to all of his supporters who lobbied so vigourously for his appeal and to the lawyers from the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted who took the case back to the courts.

It is an ambivalent day for justice, a great defense for the abolition of the death penalty and a serious indictment of Canada's justice system. To paraphrase one CBC listener, while it is good to see this miscarriage of justice rectified there remain two crimes unsolved: one, the tragic murder of 13 year-old Lynne Harper and two, the tragic theft of Mr. Truscott's freedom and innocent potential.

More reasons to become a lawyer. While I have problems imagining a world where the system of law is practiced in a just and humane manner I will keep working for it.