Kady O’Malley looks at how sex workers were treated as hostile witnesses at the Justice Committee, in particular by Conservative MP Stella Ambler – who, it should be noted, isn’t even a regular member of that committee. Any of their experiences in which they stated that they weren’t victims were often dismissed or challenged as being somehow untrue, which is unfortunate but not surprising given that the government has a narrative around this bill that they intend to push.
Tag Archives: Dean Del Mastro
Roundup: Information sharing concerns
The Commissioner for the Communications Security Establishment has concerns that the information we share with our allies may be used improperly, and that they may not be properly protecting information about Canadians. Not coincidentally, there are serious concerns (paywall) that the American government won’t protect information on tax filings with those they deem “American persons” to comply with FATCA also aren’t going to be properly protected, and their Congress is already tabling laws that would ensure that said tax information on ostensible Canadians isn’t protected either. It underscores the dangers and uncertainties with information sharing – particularly when the Americans seem to feel that the rules that others abide by don’t apply to them.
Roundup: Missing the point about parties
In a piece that bothers me immensely, Susan Delacourt puts forward the notion of abolishing political parties, and then applies a bunch of marginal reasons like branding and narrowing voter pools. The problem is that she ignored the whole point of political parties under Responsible Government – to have a group that can maintain the confidence of the Chamber in the formation of government. Which is actually a pretty big deal and why coalition governments don’t really work as well in our system as they might in others. “Oh, but Nunavut doesn’t have parties” or “most municipalities don’t have parties” people – including Delacourt – will cry, but it’s a nonsense argument because they have a small handful of members, and it doesn’t scale up to 308 MPs on any practical basis. You could not adequately run a government or maintain confidence with 308 “loose fish.” Also, the notion that brokerage is “antiquated” is false – otherwise we’d see all kinds of “bridges to nowhere” riders in government bills to get MPs onside to win support – again something that would be endemic with trying to get the support of a chamber of independents. That’s not to say that there aren’t problems with parties right now, because there are, but the solution is to have more people engaging with them so that the power doesn’t remain concentrated – not to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry, but Delacourt’s argument has no merit.
Roundup: Conflating sex work with trafficking
The hearings into the prostitution bill wrapped up yesterday, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, along with amendments, will take place on Tuesday. Yesterday’s testimony included warnings not to confuse prostitution with human trafficking, which are different and human trafficking already has laws in place to combat it (though there have not yet been many charges). Of course, Conservative MP and booster of the bill, Joy Smith, says that the two are “symbiotically linked,” but again, separate regimes – just like talking about child sexual exploitation has nothing to do with adult sex work, and is a separate provision in the Criminal Code. Amongst the other nonsense that Smith went on Power & Politics to talk about included her assertion that maybe there are “one or two or three” sex workers who do it willingly, despite that being in complete contravention to testimony heard. It just didn’t fit with her established narrative, and as she often does, she rejects it outright. Surprisingly, a group of Anglican clergy have come out against the bill because of the effect it will have on those sex workers when it forces the trade further underground. And then, once the hearings wrapped, Conservative MP Stella Ambler sent out this gem, which pretty much shows you her belief that there is apparently only one side to this whole debate:
Apparently Stella Ambler thinks there's only one side to the debate on #C36. Cripes. pic.twitter.com/pkhcSJGt6m
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 10, 2014
Roundup: Defending Goguen, unbelievably
The former trafficked prostitute that Robert Goguen asked that braindead question to the other day at committee was out defending him and his awful, aren’t-I-clever straw man of a question to the press, saying that she refused to let him apologise, and accused the media of basically inventing a controversy. It’s utterly unbelievable. Meanwhile, one of the architects of the Sweden’s “Nordic model” has said that the proposed Canadian law won’t stand up to the Charter, in particular because of the portions that still criminalise the sex workers, such as if they are working at a place where children could be present. (And on a side note, there are no credible studies that show there to be a real decline in prostitution in Sweden, as the figures that show a decline are mostly police stats, which don’t capture how it’s been pushed further underground). Here’s a look at seven of the voices we’ve heard so far in the prostitution bill hearings at the Commons justice committee, from all ends of the spectrum. Of course, there has been plenty of testimony from women who have been victimized terribly, but little of it seems relevant to the bill because what they suffered is already illegal and not actually the scope of what the bill is supposed to be achieving, thus further muddying the waters.
Roundup: Conservative senators see looming crisis
Wouldn’t you know it, but Conservative senators are pressuring Stephen Harper to start making some new Senate appointments as the current number of vacancies is at eleven, and will be at 17 by the end of the year – almost a fifth of the Chamber. The lack of membership means committees are starting to be affected, and provinces are losing a good portion of their representation, which is a problem. And despite what Hugh Segal says, the Prime Minister actually does have a constitutional obligation to make appointments, and if he doesn’t, he risks triggering a constitutional crisis because he would be in breach of his duties. He certainly has options when it comes to how he makes appointments, especially because of the cloud he’s put himself under by making irresponsible choices in the past (because he was petulant and refused to make appointments until his hand was forced, it should be said), but they need to be made, sooner than later. I did hear from some sources that with the Supreme Court appointment issue out of the way, he could spend the summer making Senate appointments, but I guess we’ll see if that bears fruit. I recently wrote about this very looming crisis here.
Roundup: Goguen makes everything worse
The first of the witnesses with the prostitution bill appeared before the Commons justice committee in its special summer session yesterday, starting with Peter MacKay, who admitted that they got no outside legal advice as to the bill’s constitutionality, and everything has a chance of being sent before the Supreme Court, so he’s just shrugging it all off. Um, okay. Way to go doing the responsible thing in crafting sound laws that will pass constitutional muster, and all of that, guys. Well done. As for MacKay’s assertion that yes, the intent is to criminalize prostitution, the bill pretty much goes about doing that in the most backward and arbitrary way possible rather than just outright criminalizing it, thus setting it up for yet another defeat by the Supreme Court. Oh, but don’t forget – we’re on a deadline of mid-December, so MPs need to hurry it up. And amidst all of the other testimony around the bill, both for and against, Robert Goguen, the parliamentary secretary, decided to be clever at one point and ask one of the government-friendly witnesses, who had been trafficked into prostitution from Hungary, whether the police bursting in while she was being gang-raped would violate her freedom of expression, since someone said that the bill contravenes that Charter right. And then the nation’s collective heads exploded. Apparently Goguen confuses prostitution with rape (it’s not), trafficking with prostitution (they are not the same and trafficking remains illegal), and because sections around communication and advertising have anything to do with the illegality of rape? It’s so stunningly brain dead that it defies logic how he possibly thought he could have been scoring any points with it. Manitoba’s Attorney General thinks that the Nordic Model is great, but the current bill has problems and he doesn’t want to see any sex workers criminalised, not that criminalising their clients actually makes them any safer since it drives them underground regardless.
Roundup: Cruel and unusual cuts
The Federal Court has ruled against the government’s healthcare cuts for refugees, and given them four months to make changes before they are struck down on the basis of being cruel and unusual, and the fact that the government hasn’t offered a good Section 1 defence (reasonable limits within a free and democratic society) for their cuts. The “cruel and unusual” is a fairly novel reading of the Charter, but there does seem to be some possible basis for it. Of course, it will all come out in the appeals, since the government announced immediately that it would be appealing, before trotting out the usual canards that refugee claimants were somehow getting better healthcare coverage than average Canadians (something the judgement itself noted was a falsehood). The judgement also noted that there was no proof that the changes saved taxpayers any money, since these claimants with health conditions would generally wind up in a hospital when their problems became acute, which costs the system even more. Kate Heartfield notes that legal or not, those refugee health changes are still bad policy. And in case you need a refresher, here are some of the other losses the government has had at the courts lately, which will all be the subjects of fundraising pleas. Activist courts! OH NOES!
Roundup: Four new workers!
It’s a special kind of desperation for a good news story when the government holds a press conference to announce four new jobs being filled. Specifically, four jobs on the Irving shipyard refurbishment in Halifax, which will be filled by Aboriginals. I’m still not sure the point of the announcement other than Peter MacKay saying “Look, we’re being diverse!” only they’re not even government positions (though they are getting a lot of government money). Sure, it’s nice that Irving has an Aboriginal employment strategy as part of its contracting procedures, but this was worthy of a government press conference? Sorry, but the news cycle isn’t that slow.
Roundup: About those single-engine fighters…
US and UK officials are preparing a joint order to inspect all of the engines on the current F-35 fleet after one of them caught fire in Florida earlier this week, which prompted the fleet to be grounded. Why is this significant – other than the constant assurances that this is the most technologically advanced fighter but it can’t seem to get anything right? Well, it’s only got one engine. And when asked why this would be suitable for Canada, with its vast Arctic and coastal patrol ranges, where having a second engine is a pretty useful thing in case one fails, Peter MacKay bluntly said that the F-35 engine wouldn’t fail, and left it at that. Well, now it looks like they indeed have failed. Oops. Perhaps cabinet should take this fact into consider as they weigh the options analysis.