Archive for the ‘Courts’ Category

Guess who’s coming to dinner

- May 27th, 2013

Back in 2005 in Ezra Levant’s Western Standard magazine I wrote a piece on polygamy that began:

Guess who’s coming to dinner? Looks like Bob and Carol and Alice, but not Ted. Ideas matter, and polygamy is a bad one whose time has come.

Why? Simple. We recently switched quite abruptly from regarding marriage as something that existed independently of our wishes to one defined by them. In the case of gay marriage we said “If two adults love one another, it should not matter that they are of the same sex.” Well, what if three adults love one another?

People tend immediately to dismiss this line of reasoning as absurd… probably because it’s just about their only defence against it.  At any rate, the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association (CPAA) is about to host its first ever national conference full of practical advice on managing the emotional and financial aspects of “polyamory” in Canada. Meaning it’s already here and not just in breakaway Mormon communities or among some recent Muslim immigrants. As the National Post notes, the CPAA regards the recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling as a victory because it banned formally marrying more than one person but let you live as if you had; in fact on its web site the CPAA calls the ruling “the legalization of polyamory”.

Now, remind me again why we can redefine marriage when it comes to the gender of participants, but it’s absurd to suggest we could do it respecting the number.

Oh right. Because we don’t want to think about it.

Simple response to a complex suggestion

- April 24th, 2013

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who it is safe to say comes from the paternalistic wing of the Republican party, just told a press conference Americans’ interpretation of their Constitution will “have to change” because of the threat of terrorism.

The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry. But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.

He could not be more wrong. Starting with his belief that his suggestion is itself up-to-date.

Read more…

Child molester house arrest bill deemed ‘votable’

- April 23rd, 2013

RE_2013_03_27T201939Z_01_OTW10_RTRMDNP_3_CANADA_POLITICS

The same parliamentary sub-committee that killed Mark Warawa’s motion against “gendercide” has given the Conservative MP the thumbs-up for a private member’s bill on a completely different issue.

Warawa’s bill to prevent sexual abusers of children from serving house arrest within two kilometres of their victims’ homes got the go-ahead to proceed Tuesday after Conservative, NDP and Liberal MPs deemed it votable.

Read more…

In the moderate middle… of the fringe

- March 7th, 2013

One of the ways in which Canadians are persuaded not only to accept bad public policy but to admire it is we are told we are moderate people who embrace a “middle way” between radical and irresponsible extremes. I do not know that it would be a sign of wisdom if it were true, a mark of our capacity to adhere to Aristotle’s golden mean rather than proof of an indecisive tendency to mix incompatible alternatives; one of the few remarks by Woodrow Wilson I endorse is that there is a case for coffee and a case for tea but no case for mixing them together. But in any case it is not true that moderation is a hallmark of Canadian governments.

Read more…

I’m disappointed

- February 27th, 2013

I am a free-speech near-absolutist. I believe people should have the right to say what they want with two limitations: 1) you cannot advocate actual violence against actual people (that’s a crime) and 2) you can’t libel others.

Other than that, I say, we shouldn’t have hate-speech legislation. Hatred is ugly, and many people’s opinions are ugly. But in a free society we should have the right to be ugly and bigoted.

The Supreme Court mostly upheld hate-speech legislation. Here’s the gist of the ruling:

Is the expression likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others? The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not, in itself, sufficient to justify restricting the expression. The prohibition of hate speech is not designed to censor ideas or to compel anyone to think “correctly”. Similarly, it is irrelevant whether the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment or other harmful conduct towards the protected group. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination.

So basically we’re pretty much where we were, except that the Court invalidated the part of hate-speech legislation that made it illegal to simply ridicule others and hurt their feelings.