So many pearls got clutched yesterday on a couple of topics that, while unrelated, actually have a lot more in common than one may think. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the legal definition of bestiality must include penetration (with only Justice Abella dissenting) based on its common law definitions going back years. It was a case that involved the sexual abuse of teen girls, but if you judged by the headlines and the reactions on social media, it was a number of bizarre over-readings of what the ruling was, as though they ruled it legal rather than saying that there is a hole in the law because MPs didn’t properly update it when they had a chance. And this is where this starts to overlap with what else is happening.
The Supreme Court of Canada did what? pic.twitter.com/IF3aHU4CaI
— Lorrie Goldstein (@sunlorrie) June 10, 2016
Part of the problem (as the ruling notes) is that squeamish politicians over the years never wanted to spell out/clarify the bestiality law.
— Paul McLeod (@pdmcleod) June 9, 2016
As you may have guessed, the pearl-clutching amongst the pundit class carries on over the Senate amending bill C-14 (I swear that Michael Den Tandt has clutched his pearls so tightly that he’s cut off the flow of oxygen to his brain) and the “suddenly assertive” Senate (it’s actually not, but rather it has a couple of genuinely problematic bills before it), and while I won’t repeat yesterday’s civics lesson, let me say that the Supreme Court decision around bestiality is exactly the kind of object lesson that the assisted dying legislation could easily become.
Changes that the elected Commons would still have to approve.
IS BASIC CIVICS THAT HARD? https://t.co/Tr0CA249l4— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 9, 2016
Let’s face it – MPs don’t like to deal with tough issues. When the abortion laws they tried to pass post-Morgentaler decision was defeated, they didn’t make a second attempt. When they passed “temporary” prostitution laws in the 1980s to deal with a specific public nuisance issue, they didn’t return to the issue as promised to deal with it until the Supreme Court struck them down in the Bedford decision. We saw yesterday morning with the bestiality case that where MPs should have dealt with the issue when they changed other laws around the issue in the 1980s, they didn’t until the Supreme Court had to render a decision that pointed out the loophole and a sexual offender had two charges against him dropped rather than the court make up a new law holus bolus. And now there’s doctor-assisted dying. The Court had very good reasons when they made the Carter decision to insist on a timeline, which MPs have been balking about because they don’t want to deal with it. When the Prime Minister defends the conservative nature of C-14 with the excuse that it’s the “first step” of a longer conversation, I don’t actually trust that there will be a second step because MPs are too squeamish to deal with tough problems. And that’s exactly why I think the Senate is right to rip the band-aid off right now and force the government to actually deal with the whole issue as the Supreme Court laid it out. And yes, the government is going to grumble and say they don’t want to accept the amendments, but I also think that it’s part of the narrative of reluctance, where they can then hide behind the Senate as having “forced” them to accept the changes, so that they have political cover when interest groups confront them during the next election. But we’ve seen this problem of MPs not wanting to do their jobs time and again and the problems that it eventually causes. And if it means that the Senate has to be the grown-ups and make them deal with it this time, so be it.
Good reads:
- The Conservatives denied the unanimous consent necessary to let Andrew Leslie present the national anthem bill in Mauril Bélanger’s stead.
- While the Conservatives grandstand about declaring ISIS to be committing genocide, here’s a look at why that designation comes with more problems.
- The Ethics Commissioner says she wants tighter rules around fundraising by MPs. She’s also reopened her investigation into Nigel Wright and the ClusterDuff affair.
- Stephen Harper is one of nine MPs who haven’t filed their conflict of interest declarations yet. Oops.
- The NDP are demanding pay equity legislation by the end of the year.
- The Liberals have restored feminist Therese Casgrain’s name to the Volunteer Awards after Harper’s government renamed them the “Prime Minister’s Volunteer Awards” (another presidentializing move that should be reversed).
- Legislation on the new parliamentary oversight committee for national security will be tabled within days.
- Chantal Hébert points to the ways in which problems with our referendum laws could overshadow the substance of an actual referendum.
Odds and ends:
The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld Michael Sona’s sentence.