Denying Women Canadian Citizenship Does Nothing to Fight Opression

Are Stephen Harper and the Conservatives actually trying to argue that denying a woman citizenship for wearing the niqab is somehow promoting equal rights?  It would seem to me that by denying a woman citizenship, the government is actually contributing to oppression rather than fighting it. 

Ironically, many of the same people that are so offended by the niqab are the same people that are also offended by topless women sunbathing on the beach.  One thing it would seem that all cultures and societies have in common is that to varying degrees they all feel justified in imposing a standard of modesty on women.  If a woman breaks the established standard she may subjected to harassment and potentially physical assault.  One only has to look at how often what a woman was wearing is discussed in sexual assault trials to find evidence of this.

If Mr. Harper wants to challenge the oppression of women, he should re-establish funding to Status of Women Canada rather than stand in judgment on women wearing a niqab.




Mulcair, Harper spar over niqab controversy at leaders' debate

Tories cut off funding to women's lobby groups

Torries want ability to Jail Canadians without Cause

The Senate Bill S-7 being debated at third reading today will give authorities the ability to detain people for up to 12 months even if they are not suspected of any crimes or potential crimes.  Mr. Sullivan MP for York-South Weston describes this best.

He said:

" [The] individual is not a person suspected of being a terrorist, by the way. That is a person who is maybe a relative, maybe a friend. That person, then, would be subject, under the bill, to serious, preventative detention measures.

    As it turns out, this kind of preventative detention was there in the previous act and was never used. Police have managed without this kind of measure to stop terrorism. So, what would its effect be?

    I would like to refer to good, old Uncle Albert, in Moose Jaw, whose nephew, for whatever reason, is suspected of some kind of terrorist act. And so, because they cannot find the nephew, the police come to Uncle Albert's door, put him in jail for a day, then take him before a judge and argue that Uncle Albert might know where the nephew is, so we cannot let Uncle Albert have any more guns. We cannot let Uncle Albert leave the country because we have to be able to interrogate Uncle Albert, Uncle Albert in Moose Jaw, who has done nothing. The police do not suspect him of any terrorism. He just happens to be the uncle of the nephew they do suspect.

    What happens? Uncle Albert says, because he is from Moose Jaw and because he is a farmer and has to keep the varmints off his property, "I can't give up my firearms. I'm not giving up my firearms. I refuse." There would be no choice, then, but to put him in jail for up to 12 months.

    That is the kind of thing that could happen to Uncle Albert in Moose Jaw, who has absolutely no terrorist inclination whatsoever. However, because he is related to somebody the police are only investigating because they suspect there might be some kind of terrorist activity, Uncle Albert would be put in jail for up to 12 months.

    That is not the Canada that I want to be part of. That is not the Canada that Canadians have come to expect, to have as part of their rights and freedoms the right and freedom not to be imprisoned without conviction, without a trial, without a judge.

    That is exactly what the Conservatives are suggesting should happen. That is one of the things to which the NDP said, "Whoa, that goes too far", and the Conservatives said, "Too bad. This is the way we like it. We want this preventative detention to apply to anybody, not just people we suspect of being terrorists, but people who are peripherally related." That would take the bill way too far."

The NDP proposed an amendment to the bill that would make it clear that anybody not suspected of being involved in terrorist activity could not be subject to 'preventative detention' and here was the government response:

"   The recognizance with conditions in its present form would provide the potential for a recognizance with conditions to be imposed...[on a] person who would be subject to the recognizance with conditions [who] is not necessarily the person carrying out a terrorist activity. The proposed amendment [from the NDP] would seek to restrict the application of this measure....

Because that is inconsistent with the policy intent underpinning the provision, we are opposed to it."

The Liberal Party of Canada has also indicated that they will support this bill.  The debate continues in the house today.

Vic Toews Gives RCMP Okay to Violate UN Anti-Torture Convention

Vic Toews, Public Safety Minister issues a directive to RCMP, CSIS and Canada Border Services to use information obtained through torture.

In 1985, Canada led by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture .

Article 2.2 of the UN Convention Against Torture:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 15 of the UN Convention Against Torture:

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Canada And Torture: Feds Give RCMP And Border Guards Green Light To Use Tainted Info:

Technorati Tag: Canadian politics

Harper Conservatives - Cutting off Old-Age Security

The Harper Conservatives are making a move to cut off Old-Age Security.  Their internal communications are framing Old-Age Security as a burden on ordinary Canadians.  I don't see many Canadians complaining that a small portion of their tax money goes into ensuring that low-income seniors have enough money to keep a roof over their heads and food in their bellies.  There was no mention of this in their campaign during the most recent elections maybe because picking on seniors is not the best vote getting strategy.

The justification for this cut is that in the next 20 years the number of people over the age of 65 will dramatically increase.  With this knowledge it would make more sense (at least from the perspective social responsibility to our nations elderly) to make efforts to boost the funds in the budget by allocating more of our tax dollars too it.  Instead we are have a Prime Minister and cabinet that are coldly advocating the cutting off support of some of our societies more vulnerable members.

The NDP and the other opposition parties have vowed to fight these changes but will a majority government the Conservatives have the votes to ram through the changes.

Maybe the Conservative should change their slogan to Conservative Party of Canada- We think old people are too inconvenient.

blogs.windsorstar.com

'Drop the beer!' No? Zap!' – Tasers a Weapon of Convience

The BC Police Complaint Commissioner agrees with the earlier report of the RCMP Complaints Commissioner that Taser weapons should be reclassified as firearms.

B.C. Commissioner, Dirk Ryneveld, says “Unfortunately, the Taser has become a tool of convenience in some situations. Sort of a come along device. ‘Drop the beer!’ No? Zap!”

My question is how many of reports is it going to take before the Taser is reclassed? And come to think of it - How many people have to die from this so-called non-lethal weapon before something is done?

Police oblivious to pain Tasers inflict: RCMP complaints commissioner

One more reason NOT to Shop at Wal-mart

Just when you think Wal-Mart can't go any lower... it grabs a shovel and starts to dig. Wal-Mart is suing one of its now disabled employees for the money that the Wal-Mart health plan paid out for her care. Watch the full report here.

Bush Defends Pakistan's Gen. Musharraf

President General Pervez Musharraf suspends the Pakistani constitution three times, cancels/postpones elections, silences independent media, puts all of his political opposition in jail or places them under house arrest and President Bush says Musharraf "truly is somebody who believes in democracy"

Okay, what gives? Is it me or does this make no sense whatsoever? I am not normally a conspiracy theory buff but maybe ickypeople.com had it right after all and Musharraf is a test case for Bush.

According to the Washington Post:

Several outside analysts and a key Democratic lawmaker expressed incredulity over Bush's comments and called them a sign of how personally invested the president has become in the U.S. relationship with Musharraf.

"What exactly would it take for the president to conclude Musharraf has crossed the line? Suspend the constitution? Impose emergency law? Beat and jail his political opponents and human rights activists?" asked Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential candidate. "He's already done all that. If the president sees Musharraf as a democrat, he must be wearing the same glasses he had on when he looked in Vladimir Putin's soul."

All I can say is good luck America, I know that Bush isn't the brightest bulb in the tree but he (or his handlers) were smart enough to get a law passed that enables the U.S. president the same powers that Musharraf is exercising right now.

Washington Post: Bush More Empathic In Backing Musharraf

Pakistani President Suspends Constitution for the Third Time

It seems that every time Pervez Musharraf gets close to having to face the electorate his country has a crisis and he has to suspend the constitution. General Musharraf came to power in the wake of a 1999 coup d'etat that ousted democratically elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Countries including the United States and Canada have often been very supportive of Musharraf's regime.

Since coming to power Musharraf has previously suspended the constitution twice and has now suspended it for a third time thereby blocking elections.

Hours after declaring this most recent state of emergency Saturday, November 3rd, Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf ordered troops to take a television station's equipment and put a popular opposition leader under house arrest.

The Pakistani government also issued a directive warning the media that any criticism of the president or prime minister would be punishable by three years in jail and a fine of up to $70,000.

When asked about the current situation, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said The United States doesn't support any extra-constitutional measures taken by Musharraf.
"The situation is just unfolding," Rice said. "But anything that takes Pakistan off the democratic path, off the path of civilian rule is a step backward, and it's highly regrettable."

The United States itself has recently passed a similar law giving the state the power to declare martial law and suspend elections in the event of a crisis. President Bush "jokingly" said last month saying that he might stay in power after is presidential term ends.

In Canada, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier called for all sides to refrain from violence and respect human rights in the troubled country. Although until very recently Prime Minister Harper has referred to Musharraf as a close ally, Ottawa was quick to condemn the General's most recent actions and urged Pakistan to reinstate judges and allow free elections.

Watch Video

Should hanging a noose in public be considered a hate crime?

By P.J. Burns

The answer to the question, "is this a hate crime," is so obviously yes I am finding myself at a loss of words.

The object for all who look at it symbolizes death and there are few that would argue that fact. For some people it represents suicide. For others it represents execution or capital punishment. But for African Americans it symbolizes so much more than death. A noose hanging in a...

Click her for full text.