The Charter of Rights and Freedoms: who needs it?

I confess. I, more often than not, am a diatribe spewing, left-wing idealist. I frequently struggle with my inability to understand the directions that my government takes based on my ideology. Rigid? Yes, sometimes. Despite this, I have always managed to find justification in the fact that these directions have been guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The one thing that I believed stood as the bedrock foundation of our political and legal systems were the rights that were provided me with the passage of this document . A Canadian icon, this document has stood for almost 30 years and has directly influenced every piece of legislation that has been written in that period. However, what I saw today made me wonder if I can continue to place my faith in this document.

With the recent suspension of our democratic rights as Canadian citizens as a result of the prorogation of parliament, I don’t feel ashamed to suspect the value of my human rights. Although there has been a limited response to this undemocratic act, the prorogation stands as one of the most partisan suspensions of our rights in recent (if not all of) Canadian history. This act has made me truly consider how important my rights are in this country. What happened today, in the case of Omar Khadr, has only served to advance this concern.

Omar Khadr

Today, the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that they could not enforce a lower-court ruling to force the federal government to request the repatriation of Mr. Khadr, but that his present detention stands as a violation of his Charter rights. The Court decided that because they would intervene in Canadian foreign policy, which stands within the jurisdiction of the legislative arm of the government, they would not issue a direct legal ruling on the case. Despite refraining from this action, they actively affirmed that Mr. Khadr’s rights are being denied during his detainment at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Let me start by saying that I do not necessarily prescribe guilt to Mr. Khadr. With that in mind, I do believe that his detainment holds some merit but that his innocence should remain intact until he is proven otherwise. I do not know all the facts of the situation which led to his imprisonment but this is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand in this case, is simply that Mr. Khadr is a Canadian citizen and that his rights are protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I was trolling the message boards on CBC.ca last night, I became quickly aware that there are a number of Canadians who are willing to simply write off Mr. Khadr as a terrorist without any appreciation of the conditions he has lived in or the evidence of the case.

Mr. Khadr stands as the last remaining inmate to hold citizenship in an occidental nation. The remaining citizens have been actively repatriated, tried, and imprisoned or released in their respective countries. Yet, Mr. Khadr remains. I can partially understand the American standpoint on this case. They say that he killed one of their soldiers and they are attempting to try him for that crime. But that does not excuse the inaction of the Canadian government in its response to his situation.

A simple question should be raised here. If Mr. Khadr is to be defended by the same rights that apply to all Canadian citizens equally, then why has the federal government of this country (through successive Liberal and Conservative administrations) been so adamantly opposed to extending this protection to him? I’d like to believe that should I be imprisoned in a foreign jail that my government would at least make some attempt to protect my rights, especially after the highest court in that country had confirmed that this detention stood as contradictory to those personal rights. Yet, we still see so little action.

Rights are the fundamental infrastructure to our nation. By their very nature, they come to the forefront most often when they are being violated. Yet, if we cannot extend these rights to a man (who was, not long ago, a boy) then what purpose do they hold? If we can’t even pretend that our rights are to be applied to our citizens, then why do we even pretend to stand for them? Unless my government finally stands up and protects the rights that we are entitled to (even those who are subject of such harsh punishment), I get the undeniable feeling that this cynicism that I am allaying will not be mollified. Unless they do that, I don’t even know if I can believe in the Charter anymore.

~ Drew

A Study in Hypocrisy

From Canoe.ca

Once again, Stephen Harper has reneged on his campaign promises of reforming the Canadian Senate. I believe that most people recall the PM’s grand plans to reform the senate into an elected body, with Senators sitting for 6-year terms; a plan that was driven by his promises of accountability. Despite these grand overtures, Harper has once again named a number of partisan Conservatives to the country’s higher house in favour of developing (some form of) a majority. Claiming the upper house stood as a bulwark to the progress of his government (making no mention of his legislative minority in the House of Commons), Harper has re-affirmed his commitment to promoting accountability only when it suits his political interests.

If Harper is so determined to increase accountability and democracy in this country, as he claimed in his last two campaigns, should he be so apt to embrace patronage when it becomes available to him (as is the case with Senate appointments)? His theme here is that these five senators are “crime and punishment” conservatives. They are people who stand tough on crime and will provide moral leadership (as well as numeric superiority) in the upper house. He believes that since his government’s crime bills have been blocked on several occasions, he needs to develop a majority in one house which will allow them to push through this legislation. He seems to be oblivious to the fact that the majority of the House of Commons (the elected representatives of Canadians) have steadfastly denied this legislation because it is not the will of the majority of Canadians. So not only is he going against his campaign promises to reform an undemocratic institution, he is actively pushing through legislation which is widely viewed as being against the political will of the elected representatives of Canadians.

This man never ceases to amaze me with his smug and megalomaniac behaviour.  He has been a study in saying one thing and doing the opposite. By filling the Senate with men and women who have long bought into his “cult of personality” (Kool-Aid anyone?), Harper has managed to once again stomp on Canadian democracy. Add this to the most recent prorogation of parliament and I begin to worry that our PM has become exactly what he railed against during the years of Liberal government that he sat in opposition: a tyrant. He has become so comfortable in power that he neglects his responsibilities to Canadians. He neglects that we have a constitutional right to elect representatives, who in turn vote to do what we please. He neglects the checks on his power and acts as if it is absolute. Mr. Harper’s hyocrisy in claiming that he stands for accountability while pursuing these avenues is, to date, one of the most vile and devious acts of his time as PM.

~ Drew

(Note: What makes this entire situation even more devastating to me is the appointment of Bob Runciman, who has stood as the MPP in my riding since before my birth. The rest of Ontario (as he acted as leader of the Ontario opposition), and even Canadians, have probably heard of him through some of his “finer” moments, most notably his reference to Belinda Stronach as a Dipstick, and for his noted views on race and responsibility for crime in Toronto. I implore you to take a look at your newest Senator)

I wish I had Peter Mackay’s job security….

The House of Empty Suits

Truth be told, any job in the current cabinet seems to be a winner in terms of job security. Peter MacKay just happens to be the last in a growing list of cabinet ministers who have committed some sort of misstep that would have left them canned in virtually any other profession. This lack of professionalism begs the question: why does the Prime Minister consistently allow these particular Ministers to keep their jobs despite committing such egregious offences in their posts?

Let us quickly run down the list:

• Maxime Bernier, Minister of Foreign Affairs (not that it is an important position while involved in an international war on terror), left classified state documents at his girlfriend’s house. (Note: Yes, she did go on to sign a book deal so her reputability is questionable. Nevertheless, a pretty big mistake). Resigned his position.
• Lisa Raitt, Minister of Natural Resources (handling a crisis at one of our nuclear power plants; no, not important), left confidential ministerial briefings at the CTV News office in Ottawa for a week. Remained in her position, although a 26-year old aide did find a pink slip in her mailbox shortly thereafter. Not more than a week later, it was revealed that she had called the crisis ‘sexy’ because of its political significance. Still remained in her position.
• Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (during which a Listeriosis outbreak at a meat packing plant was killing Canadians), managed to find humour in the deaths that this outbreak had caused. He even went as far as joking that he hoped it was a member of the opposition upon hearing of a death in PEI. Remained in his position.
• Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence (conducting a war which has seen 133 Canadians killed in-theatre), had his claims that Afghan detainees transferred from Canadian to Afghan control publicly repudiated by his own Chief of Defence Staff (despite claims previously made that these rumours were all fiction). Remaining in position.

While this is not an extensive list, it paints a disturbing picture of the present cabinet running our government. With the exception of Mr. Bernier, these Ministers have been allowed to keep their jobs despite their particular offences. With this in mind, I repeat: why are these Ministers being allowed to continue in their posts despite committing such errors in judgment?

In my opinion, it has a great deal to do with the lack of an effective opposition in the House of Commons. I posit this theory based on the fact that nearly every time one of these Ministers makes a misstep, we begin to hear grumblings from the government benches about a news story from half a decade ago. That’s right, the Sponsorship Scandal. It seems that every time the Liberals go on the attack, the Conservative government brings these past errors back to the forefront to lord over their opponents. Not surprisingly (considering the level of spinelessness we have seen from our Official Opposition), the Liberals become mired in their own history and lose any of the cohesiveness necessary to effectively question these mistakes. Liberal politicians trying to separate themselves from a past filled with a myriad of their own scandals are cowering when they need to be taking an aggressive role in questioning this government. If they can’t do the job, perhaps they need to overhaul their party. This seems attractive to some considering their prolonged implosion.

Let’s not stop at the Liberal party. No, this is a team effort. The NDP, despite their continuous jabs at the government benches, have an opposition presence akin to a gnat aggravating an elephant. While Jack Layton (a.k.a Captain Moustache) continues to rail against the government, his omnipresent calls to be the next Prime Minister (despite polling in the teens) makes him sound more like a street preacher prophesizing the end of the world than a true leader of the opposition.

Finally, we have the Bloc. Not that it matters much however. Given their lurid history of trying to break the country up in favour of a sovereign Quebec, this party has settled comfortably into their opposition benches and only chooses to pipe up when it stands in the better interests of Quebec. It’s too bad Gilles Duceppe is such a die-hard sovereigntist though; he does a pretty good job getting under Harper’s skin.

What does this all say? It’s hard to tell really. I find it difficult most of the time to decide what bothers me more. Is it a cabinet which has consistently conducted itself in an unprofessional manner unbecoming of their stature, or is it an opposition that is too weak to actively engage these situations and create solutions for the benefit of Canadian citizens? Sometimes, it is just too hard to tell.

~Drew