Part three in a series
Updated to include comments from a member of the Alberta Teachers Association
by Bobbie Saga
A theo-conservative sub-culture – spawned by our southern neighbours, financed by well-heeled devotees, fuelled by teary-eyed, indefatigable devotion and linked through heavyweight think tanks, evangelical churches, charter schools and the Internet – has flourished largely ignored or unnoticed within Canada for the better part of 30 years.
For the already initiated and enlightened, whose numbers have dramatically increased, they believe they are called on to be saviors for a higher purpose – "called to be salt and light in all the world."
Their aim is "God blessed" reformation of Canada’s multicultural and civil nature, an anachronism of driving Canada back into the Biblical dark ages with an exclusionary theo-conservative agenda running counter to our inclusive culture.
And they’ve taken aim for over a quarter of a century by parachuting people into key positions within the Canadian establishment, elevating those showing promise and adherence to a theocratic worldview by giving both financial and other support in the background. Many of the chosen have a cult-like following few truly understand.
Theocracy echoes throughout this sub-culture’s chamber. At the same time, carefully crafted and controlled messaging – designed to be palatable to the less enlightened, designed to garner public support, designed to score political points – is unquestionably picked up by the mainstream press that has an affection for shifting views, votes and ultimately, public policy.
Canada’s corporate media uncritically echoes the messages of this sub-culture to the masses, chanting its requiems and chattering about a families first, libertarian agenda – aiding and abetting in a process to capture and maintain political power.
But for those paying close attention, they knew something was up dating back to the mid-1980s when politics took on a new and decidedly different tone, when people like Stockwell Day began arriving on the political scene with his creationist tendencies.
Shortly thereafter, self-righteous silhouettes emerged more prominently on Alberta’s landscape with the most extreme elements of the movement showing a penchant for intelligent design.
It all seems so strikingly familiar with attempts made to influence both education and human rights policies during Alberta’s provincial election today and under the guise of standing up for human rights. And it’s déjà vu with politicians such as Rob Anderson, Wildrose Party education critic, pandering to this same and much expanded constituency, while counting on the media not to take notice of the repackaged rhetoric.
Back to the light
But long forgotten stories relegated to the annals of history and buried in morgues of Alberta’s press chronicle events that influenced policies and ultimately threatened to split Alberta’s mighty PC party.
One such story took place in March of 1994, a time when book banning was alive and well, when one defender of morality stepped from the shadows of the Legislature’s back-benches to denounce John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men.
Victor Doerksen, former Tory MLA for Red Deer South, stepped into the spotlight brandishing the book as one example of literary works he wanted removed from schools in the province. Doerksen referred to the passage "…too goddammed lazy…" as offensive, and said the book contained 197 other profanities – yes, someone actually went through it and counted! He also introduced a petition from 881 Albertans wanting all educational literature intolerant of religion removed from curricula and school library shelves.
Following a brief encounter with disbelief, it was pointed out that John Stienbeck won the 1962 Nobel Prize for literature and that in the presentation address, Anders Osterling, the then Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, called Of Mice and Men "the little masterpiece". Osterling went on to praise Steinbeck, "With your most distinctive works you have become a teacher of goodwill and charity, a defender of human values, which can be said to correspond to the proper idea of the Nobel Prize."
Shortly thereafter, Doerksen admitted he had never read Of Mice and Men and within a week he was removed from two government education committees.
Yet playing in the shadows of education debates was another important issue: sexual orientation as protected grounds for discrimination. Canada repatriated its Constitution over a decade earlier that included the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And following its 1982 implementation, federal, provincial and territorial governments brought in human rights legislation mirroring the Charter that today still govern human rights complaints and the processes throughout Canada. But Alberta, unlike other jurisdictions, refused steadfastly to include sexual orientation in its human rights legislation. It was, after all, a time when the once fringe of the PC Party and gay bashing articles in the Alberta Report held sway. The Alberta Report was published by current Wildrose candidate Link Byfield.
Then in 1991, Delwin Vriend, a lab coordinator at Edmonton’s King’s College, was fired from his job because of his sexual orientation. Vriend, when it was disclosed to his employer that he was in a same-sex relationship, displayed a "lifestyle choice" deemed incompatible with a newly created statement of religious belief adopted by the private religious college.
Yet when Vriend attempted to file a discrimination complaint with Alberta’s Human Rights Commission, he was refused on the grounds that sexual orientation was not protected grounds under the province's human rights code.
Vriend sued the Government of Alberta and its Human Rights Commission, seeking a declaration from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, arguing the omission breached Section 15 of the Charter. But when the Court of Queen's Bench found in his favour, the Government of Alberta, under political pressure from religious groups, appealed the decision. Then the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the trial decision, and that decision was, in turn, appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Vriend’s favour. The SCC ruled (excerpt):
Far from being rationally connected to the objective of the impugned provisions, the exclusion of sexual orientation from the Act is antithetical to that goal. With respect to minimal impairment, the Alberta government has failed to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for excluding sexual orientation from the IRPA [Individual’s Rights Protection Act]. Gay men and lesbians do not have any, much less equal, protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under the IRPA. The exclusion constitutes total, not minimal, impairment of the Charter guarantee of equality. Finally, since the Alberta government has failed to demonstrate any salutary effect of the exclusion in promoting and protecting human rights, there is no proportionality between the attainment of the legislative goal and the infringement of the appellants’ equality rights.
It did not take any time following the April 2, 1998 ruling before the Alberta Government announced it was considering invoking the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to opt out of the ruling. A backroom brawl ensued principally between Ralph Klein duking it out with Stockwell Day, who was pushing for usage of the notwithstanding clause.
But in the wake of the government’s announcement, a group calling itself the Alberta Human Rights Coalition that supported the SCC ruling went into high gear lobbying every single MLA in the province, plus staged a celebration on the steps of McDougall Centre in Calgary in an effort to put a spotlight on the issue. Religious groups, however, pushed back, taking out full page ads in most of Alberta’s daily newspapers that were deemed by some legal experts to be "one word shy of hate speech" against gays and lesbians. Their publication touched off a bitter firestorm of controversy that soon led to an announcement by the government that it was allowing the SCC ruling to stand. Klein had won the brawl, but paid a political price.
The case was not against King's College, and Vriend never pursued a human rights complaint against his former employer. The case strictly involved whether provincial Human Rights Commissions could, under provincial legislation, investigate claims on the basis of sexual orientation. Nor did the ruling set any legal precedent for the resolution of such claims. That was left to the Human Rights Commissions, independent from government bodies mandated by legislation and supported by case law to mediate resolution to thousands of disputes arising each year throughout Canada (more on that in my next post).
Vriend vs. Alberta still stands as one of the most important rulings by the Supreme Court with the decision since being used to argue provincial cases against bans on same-sex marriage. In addition, the decision has greater ramifications within Canadian law outside of sexual orientation issues. It helped shape legal precedent concerning provincial and federal government relationships as well as labour and other civil rights and constitutional laws.
Old arguments die hard
As far as the issues being raised in Alberta’s current education debate over the now defunct Bill 2, it is not freedom of religion itself that is at issue but whether exclusionary forms of education can or should be in the bailiwick of publicly funded education. The Supreme Court says no, but both home-schooling parents and candidates from the Wildrose Party say yes as does Bill 44 that was brought in by the old guard of Alberta's PC Party who have mostly jumped ship or changed political allegiance.
The groups wading into the debate cut and paste from each other, filling boards and blogs alike with their self-regarding opinions that are smugly self-righteous and tinged in no small way by self-interest. All are endorsing one another’s deeply flawed conclusions.
And as Jonathan Teghtmeyer from the Alberta Teachers Association points out, the arguments being put forward by those representing home-schoolers are "illogical."
"Many home-schooling parents suggest that the lines between class time and home time are blurred, and since their home is defined (according to the act) as a school, any conversation in their home would be subject to the Alberta Human Rights Act and, under Bill 2, discussions around the kitchen table could be governed by legislation. Some believe that Bill 2 would, for example, prevent parents from teaching their particular views on homosexuality or abortion," Teghtmeyer said.
"These complaints are unfounded and ridiculous," he continued.
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of our constitution and applies to legislation and programs of study regardless of whether a provincial education act refers to it or not. As for the Alberta Human Rights Act, it also expressly applies to all legislation in Alberta."
Part One (more postings to follow)
by Bobbie Saga
What appears to be a small group of several hundred homeschooling parents framing the debate on Alberta’s education policy succeeded in delaying a key bill Thursday. And the group, which is embedded with the religious right and backed by the Wildrose Party, vow to make it an election issue.
The Alberta Education Act (Bill 2) went into limbo March 22, leading some media pundits to speculate opposition to it may cost Alberta Premier Alison Redford an important platform piece as the provincial election looms.
Ms. Redford, who casts herself as a health-and-education premier, inherited the bill from the previous provincial Tory government. Now, however, she could go into the campaign without the law that was years in the making, and one supported by major stakeholders like teachers and school boards.
Bill 2, intended to get tough on bullying, pulls together outdated and pre-Internet legislation. It also aims to improve graduation rates by raising the dropout age to 17 from 16, plus allows students to stay in school for free until age 21, up from age 19. And if passed, the act would allow for local decision making by granting broader powers to school boards, including the power to direct how education is provided, close schools, set the school calendar and dismiss trustees who breach codes of conduct.
But Section 16 of the bill ties the legislation to Canadian human rights laws, a move that riled a small number of people engaging in vitriolic discourse, including death threats against Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk, which promptly pushed the issue into the pre-election spotlight.
Ms. Redford’s Progressive Conservatives, who hold a majority, didn’t invoke closure on the bill but criticized chief rival, the Wildrose Party, for tabling amendments that delayed its passage. The PCs, under political pressure, then delayed it further by canceling a legislative session Wednesday evening, returning Thursday afternoon with four amendments. Wildrose, with four MLAs, to the PCs’ 66, balked at the move, equating it to a filibuster and an attempt to "railroad four last-minute omnibus amendments through the Legislature." As such, they refused unanimous consent to extend the session past a 4:30 p.m. deadline. Time ran out, with the Legislature adjourning until April 2.
Meanwhile, and according to comments published in the National Post, the Wildrose Party will take the issue to Alberta voters.
"This is definitely going to be an election issue," said Wildrose House leader and education critic Rob Anderson. "The PCs have failed to listen to Albertans on this issue," he continued, adding the party supports passage of the act, but if elected, Wildrose would restore its original language. "There are conflicts between people’s personal beliefs and the interpretation of the Charter of Rights," he said. "What we’re saying is, let’s let those parents teach their children according to their personal beliefs."
Optics v. Reality
But in the midst of political posturing and finger pointing, scratch the surface of the debate and something more insidious emerges. Indeed, the brouhaha over the proposed education act – and Alberta’s education policy – is a lesson in hypocrisy. Moreover, the optics and the arguments being put forward by spokespeople for some parents – and carefully crafted remarks by the Wildrose – are deceitful.
The optics shows a vocal group of homeschooling parents taking issue with a section of the proposed Alberta Education Act (The actual head count is subject to dispute). Paul van den Bosch, a spokesperson for the protesting parents and treasurer of a group calling itself the Alberta Home Education Association (AHEA – an innocuous sounding name) says the proposed legislation amounts to "social engineering." That sounds rather nasty, at least if the term is used in a negative context!
Peeling back layers of the protest, however, one finds an echo chamber with deep theo-conservative roots and fundamentalist Christian social values. All are sporting the same talking points in various incantations and for similar reasons. Most notably, they take exception to the secularization of Canadian society. It’s the latest fiasco playing out over human rights in Canada and in a chain of events dating back a few years (more on that in my next post).
Not by coincidence, the AHEA limits itself to only taking issue with the Alberta Human Rights Act. Conveniently, they leave out details that can put a negative twist on their spin.
In a statement posted on the AHEA’s site, for example, "The focal point of the peaceful rally was the last six words of Section 16 of Bill 2 – ‘and the Alberta Human Rights Act’ – which need to be removed in order to protect the rights and freedoms of all parents, all home educators, and indeed all Albertans."
It went further by advising members, "There is a provincial election coming soon. While AHEA and HSLDA won’t tell you how to vote in that election, we would ask that you carefully consider who to vote for. If your elected representative – or a candidate for that position – won’t stand up for parental freedoms and your human rights, then [sic] why would you vote for them?"
To put this in perspective, spokespeople for the AHEA say parents worry they’ll face complaints that they’re not necessarily teaching their children according to what’s in the human rights code. More specifically, this group is concerned with Section 16 of the education act (under the heading ‘Diversity’), which says all academic materials must respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act.
But Alberta’s Human Rights Act was amended in 2009 via the highly controversial and arguably unconstitutional Bill 44, enshrining parental rights into that legislation. It gives all parents a right to exempt their children from any instruction relating to sexuality, sexual orientation or religion. This is what the PCs want to change. Last summer Ms. Redford committed to repealing Section 3 but the issue was stalled pending a review.
For opponents, however, they now worry that due to Section 16 of the proposed education bill, decisions and interpretations of Alberta Human Rights Commission might become a mandatory part of the provincial curriculum, including for students educated in Catholic schools, faith-based private schools and for those students who are homeschooled. They, therefore, centre concern on the controversial Section 3 of human rights legislation, which has gained oxymoronic notoriety. They say it’s a clause used by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to "attack the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion."
Of course the AHEA does not want to openly discuss the Charter, and with very good reason. On one hand, they don’t want to be restricted by human rights legislation promoting diversity and tolerance within acceptable norms of a civil society, while on other hand, they take a very libertarian approach, wanting absolute rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion and their ‘God given’ parental rights. And they refer to them as if they are absolute rights, which they are not.
It can be a little confusing, but that’s exactly the point. Neither the AHEA, nor the Wildrose bring up pesky little facts like Section 1 of the Charter, or a recent Supreme Court challenge that failed. One can’t allow facts to get in the way of ideology!
Rather, they stick to provisions of the Alberta Human Rights Act (AHRA) that was subject to much scorn and negative media attention over the past few years. Incidentally, but not in any small way and in a legal sense, the AHRA – other than amendments made by Bill 44 – mirrors Section 1 and Section 2 of the Charter.
They don’t want clarity because, in essence, the protest is, in fact, part of a larger and complicated issue: a back-door attack against Canadian Charter rights and, in particular, a Christian fundamentalist war being waged on the secularization of our society.
Indeed, one omitted fact is a February 17th ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, (SCC) that was very specific on the issues being twisted in the Alberta debate (S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes).
The case began when in 2008 the Ethics and Religious Culture ("ERC") Program became mandatory in Quebec schools, replacing Catholic and Protestant programs of religious and moral instruction. The parents, (court documents refer to S.L.), requested the school board exempt their children from the ERC course putting forward the argument there was an existence of serious harm to the children. S.L. sought a declaration the ERC Program infringed on their and their children’s right to freedom of conscience and religion, claiming that decisions were made at the dictate of the Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport ("Ministère"). The case was appealed up to the SCC, which dismissed the parents’ case.
The SCC held that although the parents sincerely believe they have an obligation to pass on the precepts of the Catholic religion to their children (A.F., at para. 66), the sincerity of their belief in this practice is not challenged.[Ref 26]. The parents had alleged the ERC course was liable to cause the following harm [Ref 28]:
[translation]
1. Losing the right to choose an education consistent with one’s own moral and religious principles; interfering with the fundamental freedom of religion, conscience, opinion and expression of children and their parents by forcing children to take a course that does not reflect the religious and philosophical beliefs with which their parents have the right and duty to bring them up.
2. Being put in the situation of learning from a teacher who is not adequately trained in the subject matter and who has been deprived of freedom of conscience by being forced to perform this task.
3. Upsetting children by exposing them at too young an age to convictions and beliefs that differ from the ones favoured by their parents.
4. Dealing with the phenomenon of religion in a course that claims to be "neutral".
5. Being exposed, through this mandatory course, to the philosophical trend advocated by the state, namely relativism.
6. Interfering with children’s faith.With respect to the arguments put forward to the court, the judgement stated (highlights):
The principal argument that emerges from the reasons given by the appellants in their requests for an exemption is that the obligation they believe they have, namely to pass on their faith to their children, has been interfered with. In this regard, the freedom of religion asserted by the appellants is their own freedom, not that of the children. The common theme that runs through the appellants’ objections is that the ERC Program is not in fact neutral. According to the appellants, students following the ERC course would be exposed to a form of relativism, which would interfere with the appellants’ ability to pass their faith on to their children. Insofar as certain of the appellants’ complaints focus on the children’s freedom of religion by referring to the "disruption" that would result from exposing them to different religious facts, I will discuss this in my analysis of the alleged infringement of the appellants’ freedom of religion [Ref. 29].
We must also accept that, from a philosophical standpoint, absolute neutrality does not exist. Be that as it may, absolutes hardly have any place in the law. In administrative law, for example, the concept of impartiality calls for an assessment that takes account of the context and the intervention of human actors (Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at para. 47). Moreover, in analysing infringements of rights protected by the Charters, this Court has often repeated that no right is absolute (Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425, at p. 596). "This is so because we live in a society of individuals in which we must always take the rights of others into account" (Amselem, at para. 61) [Ref. 31].
Therefore, following a realistic and non-absolutist approach, state neutrality is assured when the state neither favours nor hinders any particular religious belief, that is, when it shows respect for all postures towards religion, including that of having no religious beliefs whatsoever, while taking into account the competing constitutional rights of the affected individuals affected [Ref. 32].
Parents are free to pass their personal beliefs on to their children if they so wish. However, the early exposure of children to realities that differ from those in their immediate family environment is a fact of life in society. The suggestion that exposing children to a variety of religious facts in itself infringes their religious freedom or that of their parents amounts to a rejection of the multicultural reality of Canadian society and ignores the Quebec government’s obligations with regard to public education. Although such exposure can be a source of friction, it does not in itself constitute an infringement of s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter and of s. 3 of the Quebec Charter [Ref. 40].
by Bobbie Saga
Women across the globe are using the power of social media to call for equality this International Women's Day.
And what’s being said is that International Women’s Day is much more than just another day of celebration. Online women are using Twitter, facebook, YouTube and LinkedIn to focus global attention on areas where inequalities still prevail.
For a vast majority of those who can, and much more important to many, is that today is an opportunity to connect on very important issues. Overwhelmingly, girls and women are using the world-wide web to say this is an occasion to reflect on past struggles, as well as to engage, to inspire, to learn and to discuss what more needs to be done for the sake of future generations of girls and women.
Unfortunately, part of that dialogue is the horrifying fact that some people think women already have equality. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Across the globe, and for a sobering example, gender-based violence causes more deaths and disabilities among women of childbearing age than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war combined.
Feminism shouldn’t be an F-word
As an ambassador for Oxfam, and working to raise awareness about Aids and women’s issues, singer songwriter Annie Lennox put it into perspective during last year’s International Woman’s day celebration and 100th anniversary.
"Despite the fact that half of the world’s population is female, women’s rights have become marginalized as a ‘minority issue’. Many young women feel that the label of ‘feminist’ is, at best, irrelevant to their lives and, at worst, a stigma to be avoided at all costs," Lennox said.
"Sullied by stereotypes of hairy arm-pitted man haters, the concept of feminism and its principles of equality and anti-sexism need to be refreshed and reclaimed by a new generation. Feminism shouldn’t be an F-word. We should embrace it."
Lennox went on to say, "From Milwaukee to Malawi, women are being short-changed on life chances. From India to Illinois, women face violence just for being female. Of the 1.3 billion people living in extreme poverty worldwide, the vast majority are female. For many, just getting an education is a real struggle, major decisions such as who to marry and when to have children are made for them by others, and without economic independence or a say in their own future the chances of women escaping the poverty trap are virtually non-existent."
The result of her work, along with many other very dedicated people, is the EQUALS coalition, a group of 30 leading charities and arts organizations that together, aim to re-open debate and discussion about equality, plus act as a catalyst for positive change.
A global hub for sharing International Women's Day
As such, and this year, there is much more information available online. Of particular note is the global online hub for sharing International Women’s Day news, events and resources. And the site’s theme says it all – Connecting Girls, Inspiring Futures.
The IWD site highlights the power of women on a global scale. It recognizes achievements, regardless of divisions, whether national, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, economic or political. And it is a place to go for looking back on past struggles, or for looking ahead to the unrealized potential for all girls and women.
A Little Herstory
In 1910, Clara Zetkin, the leader of the Women’s Office for the Social Democratic Party in Germany tabled the idea of an International Women’s Day at the second International Conference of Working Women in Copenhagen. The proposal received unanimous assent from over one hundred women representing seventeen countries.
The first International Women’s day was held March 19 the following year. Meetings and protests were held across Europe, with the largest street demonstration attracting 30,000 women. The day sparked great public debate, and advocates drew attention to the absolute necessity of extending the right of women to vote and to make governments more accountable and democratic. In 1913, IWD was changed to March 8th, and has been held on this day ever since.
The Canadian Connection
In Canada, this year's theme for International Women's Day and International Women's Week celebrates women's roles in the economic prosperity of rural, remote and Northern regions.
Canada is home to 17.4 million women and girls and contains more than 5,400 communities —of which, approximately 5,200 are rural, remote or Northern.
During the week of March 8, 2012, Canadians are celebrating the three million women and girls across every province and territory that are integral to life in these rural, remote and Northern communities.
In rural and remote areas, women make up approximately 45 per cent of the labour force, but significant gaps still exist between women and men in labour participation rates, employment rates and income. These trends are more pronounced for Aboriginal women, who make up a large part of the rural, remote and Northern population.
Women and girls are contributing to economic prosperity in these regions through innovative projects such as business networks and training in non-traditional occupations. Leadership initiatives for women and girls in rural and remote areas can also be found across the country.
February 18, 2012
Open Letter
To: Dave Wilks, MP Kootenay/Columbia
From: Bobbie Saga
This letter is to state my unequivocal opposition to the egregious lawful access legislation, now known as Bill C-30 or Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act, tabled in Parliament February 14.
First, I wish to point out that a recent United Nations report on the subject of lawful access is highly critical of such forms of legislation that, in short, invites abuse of power and chills free speech. Essentially, the UN denounced legislation passed since 9/11 in other jurisdictions, taking issue with "criminalization of personal data;" that is, the use of innocent sources of mundane personal information as databases for crime control. It specifically took issue with the excuse currently being touted by law enforcement agencies and governments as being required for the protection of children, as well as it being used as a guise for combating terrorism. The report is a condemnation of unconstitutional measures that are not only unjustified, but are also often abused, such as the UK model, and/or used to further the goals of authoritarian regimes like China. It makes for rather interesting reading.
With all due respect, it is well documented that in Canada law enforcement agencies already have significant powers of investigation. Thus, it would be prudent for them to actually substantiate a legitimate case for spying on all Canadians without warrants because to date, they have not done so. Plus, neither law enforcement agencies nor the federal government have given the public any indication of how they might safeguard law-abiding Canadians from abuse that is sure to occur with such sweeping new powers. Alone, the UK model highlights the dangers inherent with this type of legislation. Like the UK model, the current tabled legislation does include a review mechanism, but up-front procedures and harsh penalties for violations by authorities do not exist in C-30. Individuals having colour of right can use any justification, including mistakes, to defend what may in fact be abuse. Thus, an unfunded, after-the-fact audit by the privacy commissioner’s office is hardly comforting in the face of legislation that essentially trumps significant privacy rights as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At best, it is a slippery slope upon which other Charter rights could be eroded, such as freedom of association.
As well, I hold disdain for any government representative who would be so arrogant as to attempt to spin the facts concerning this legislation, or engages in disingenuous doublespeak, or makes statements that are the opposite of the truth.
In September, and following much criticism to the then pending legislation, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews stated on record the government had no plans to allow interception of private communications without a warrant. Then on Monday, Liberal public safety critic Francis Scarpaleggia alleged during question period the government is "preparing to read Canadians' emails and track their movements through cellphone signals, in both cases without a warrant." Toews responded by stating, again on record, that Scarpaleggia "can either stand with us or with the child pornographers."
The wording of the tabled legislation is clear enough to read and proves Toews misled Canadians back in September. Now, however, there is a blatant attempt by Toews and others to spin a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. Canadians can read, and many can interpret legislation right down to the legal difference between the words may and shall.
As such, I am outraged by Straw Man Toews going over the top by utilizing an utterly transparent tactic. His response to the opposition critic merely sets up a false dichotomy of the worst form. Toews words from September may now ring hollow, at best. But his response to Scarpaleggia is nothing short of reprehensible. Canadians might disagree with this legislation for legitimate reasons other than being aligned with child pornographers. It’s insulting.
Additionally, today’s news of Toews claiming he did not read C-30 is, to say the least, the most disturbing display of backpedaling I have ever witnessed. Give me a break! Here, is Toews telling the truth, or are Canadians witnessing a government in serious damage control with Toews coming forward as the sacrificial lamb? Or is he being thrown under the bus in the face of heavy opposition to a complete and utter fiasco that is growing by the day? Please state on record which member(s) of the Conservative caucus is/are responsible for this legislation. And please state on record which members of the Conservative caucus read and/or understood every word of the legislation prior to it being tabled.
Moreover, I love the title change of this dangerous piece of legislation –– whereby the only reference to children is in the title. I take extreme exception to a bill granting sweeping new powers to both the government and law enforcement that is NOT limited to the investigation of criminal offences, or for that matter, any offence whatsoever. What hypocrisy from a government that nixed both the long-form census and the gun registry under the guise of standing up for the rights of Canadians! This legislation is no more about child pornography than I am about staying silent. Indeed, the whole "going after the molesters" rhetoric is nothing but emotional drivel and fear mongering to allow monitoring of the general population without appropriate legal oversight. It is about invading the privacy and violating the privacy rights of every Canadian.
Neither governments nor law enforcement agencies are above the law. And in Canada, the law of this land is embedded in our constitution. Shame on the Conservatives.
