Roundup: Politicizing the suspensions

Talk of the two Liberal suspensions continues to swirl and take on a darker and more political tone as Thomas Mulcair accused Justin Trudeau of “re-victimising” the two accusers as they asked him not to go public and he didn’t inform them ahead of time that he would suspend his MPs. Trudeau noted that he didn’t reveal the gender or party of the alleged victims, and that he had a duty to act when confronted with the allegations, and one can certainly imagine the accusations that would be levelled against Trudeau if it became public knowledge that he knew of the incidents and didn’t take action. It is also not really a helpful suggestion from those like Megan Leslie to say that he could have disciplined his MPs quietly, which is part of the problem that his public suspensions are trying to address – that there shouldn’t be any tolerance for this kind of behaviour, and that it comes with consequences. I also don’t think there’s any small amount of irony in Leslie saying that it should have been done quietly, when that just feeds the “old boy’s club” mentality that she seems eager to undermine. We also have learnt that one of the incidents took place more than a year ago and another Liberal MP, Scott Simms, know of it but didn’t say anything at the request of the alleged victim, whom he described as a “dear friend.” CBC has six questions in the wake of what has gone on, which help frame what we know and don’t know. In the wake of Wednesday’s suspensions, Leslie talks about some of the more subtle forms of harassment that goes on – not so much aggressive as unwanted touching of hair or lower backs, while former staffers have also opened up about their experiences, including Jordan Owens. She made a very good point about the value of staffers being their discretion, which is true and necessary for the kind of work that is being done, and it makes the situation that much more complicated.

Continue reading

Roundup: Warnings about changes to the CSIS Act

Stephen Blaney has confirmed that the government will table a bill next week to enhance CSIS’ powers to better combat terrorism, in order to enhance cooperation with our Five Eyes allies, and to enhance the anonymity for CSIS informants. Never mind that the Supreme Court ruled that those sources already have adequate protections, and the fact that the lawyer for Mohamed Harkat warns that the inability to cross-examine this kind of testimony is dangerous. Former Privacy Commissioner Chantal Bernier also warns that rushing into these kinds of changes could have longer-term human rights consequences. But terrorists!

Continue reading

Roundup: All about Eve

The tale of Eve Adams and her nomination race got even more sordid yesterday as all kinds of other allegations started appearing out of the woodwork, now that attention is being paid to her. First came word that the riding association was appealing directly to Harper to investigate her activities, with regard to things like her access to the party database, her purchasing the colour-coded maps, that she was door-knocking and telling people that she had been asked by Harper to run in that particular riding, and generally trying to bigfoot the nomination race. (Letter here). Harper in turn asked the party to investigate. After this was made public, the owner of an Ottawa gas station called the media to let them know that he had also asked the PMO to investigate Adams’ behaviour after she had a meltdown tantrum over a $6 carwash that she was unsatisfied with. It has been suggested that all of these leaks are being made public in order to have her discredited and lose the nomination race that way, rather than have Harper or the party disqualify her from afar. It’s not such an outlandish theory either.

Continue reading

Roundup: A hero’s welcome

Apparently Stephen Harper is getting a “hero’s welcome” in Israel for being such a “great friend” of that country. David Akin notes that the oversized entourage that Harper is bringing with him to Israel includes not only six cabinet ministers, as well as MPs and Senators, but also a handful of business executives, 21 rabbis and priest. And as was pointed out, you don’t take rabbis on a “trade mission.” (Also, if anyone brings up Adrienne Clarkson, her infamous delegation was at the behest of Foreign Affairs).

Chris Alexander says that Canada won’t get involved in resettling Palestinian refugees because most of them would want to go home once a two-state solution has been reached and they have a state of their own.

Continue reading

Roundup: In the wake of the Bedford decision

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has struck down the laws around prostitution that related to keeping a bawdy house, living off the avails, and communication for the purposes of prostitution (ruling here). They have given Parliament a year to come up with a new legislative regime before the laws are struck down entirely. Justice Minister Peter MacKay said that he’s disappointed by the finding that the existing laws were unconstitutional, while other Conservatives like Shelly Glover continue to say that these women are now without the “protection” that those laws offered – though the whole point of the ruling was that the laws were not protecting them, but were rather putting them in harm’s way. Part of the debate now moves to the question of how this will affect First Nations women in the sex trade in particular, but it would seem that harm reduction is a good step, particularly if the criminalization made them afraid to go to the police. Emmett Macfarlane writes about the significance of the finding and the way in which the Justices framed their concerns. David Akin looks at how the ruling will affect the various factions of the Conservative base, though it is likely to be more wailing and gnashing of teeth around supposed “judicial activism.” Brenda Cossman worries that the discussion will move toward how to criminalise prostitution rather than how to best regulate a decriminalised environment. Carissima Mathen points out that this court decision is in part because Parliament was negligent over the past three decades when they left these laws in place when they knew that a more comprehensive framework was needed. Andrew Coyne writes about just how very reasonable the decisions is, and how regulation and licensing may be the best choice going forward.

Continue reading