Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘supreme court’

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada limited special interest spending in election campaigns by third-parties.

The blogosphere is up in arms about this. Damian Penny thinks that the decision will “come back to haunt” us. He links to Colby Cosh, who claims this law turns special interests into “second-class citizens”. David Janes says that “Freedom died today in Canada”. And so on. And so forth.

I’m going to take a flying departure from all of them and say that I think this ruling is actually a very good idea. And here’s why:

“Freedom of expression” does not mean the same thing as “freedom to buy politicians and drown out everyone else’s expression”. There may be nobody much to vote for at the polls, but at least my choices are still between the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, or Bloc… and not between the gun lobby, the anti-abortion lobby, the union lobby, or the environmental lobby. We need only to glance towards our neighbours to the south, who are stuck between voting for the ACLU or the NRA in each and every election.

Lobbying as a political activity in itself is all very well and good. But sadly, it has the effect of so heavily mortgaging political parties to special interests, that they no longer have the freedom to govern effectively.

This law doesn’t restrict third-party spending outside of an election period. It doesn’t stop people from expressing their opinions, or from organizing to do so in a concerted fashion. If anything, this will allow a wider variety of opinions to be heard, because the ones with the most money can’t drown out the rest.

The next step, in my opinion, is rigorous campaign spending laws for candidates and parties. People should win on the strength of their ideas, not on how frequently they can plaster their face on prime-time.

But, as Dennis Miller would say, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

OK kids, today’s lesson is that violence is always wrong… except when we’re spanking you:

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the so-called spanking law that allows parents to use physical force to discipline children, but has set legal guidelines aimed at ensuring reasonable limits.

[ . . . ]

The court indicated, for example, that it would not be reasonable to use corporal punishment for children under age two or over the age of 13. Nor would it be reasonable to use objects suchs as rulers or belts, or to strike a child on the face or head.

The general rule, set out by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, is that corporal punishment should be legally acceptable and must involve only “minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature.”

Excuse me, but what exactly is “minor” or “trifling” about hitting a child?

This is a complete outrage. The spanking law on the books is an anachronism and a disgrace, and deserves to be struck down. I was encouraged to see the Supreme Court considering a challenge, but I’m disheartened by the result.

How do we teach our children to solve their disputes using words, not fists? How do we teach them that domestic violence is wrong? That hitting a child is tantamount to child abuse? How, when a teacher is allowed to spank a child in class, do we teach them respect for one another and to play games that don’t involve hitting each other?

Children copy what they see and experience. Psychologists have shown in studies that, for example, it is common for a child who is spanked to play at spanking dolls or other toys.

There is absolutely no reason for spanking. None. It solves nothing, it teaches kids nothing good. Even well-intentioned parents and teachers have plenty of better options for dealing with their children when they get out of hand. Non-physical, non-violent ones. Time-outs, grounding, taking away allowance, adding extra chores, restricting TV or computer usage… there are no shortage of ways for parents to punish kids without resorting to violence.

Government lawyers said parents need some leeway in raising their children and should not be threatened with criminal charges unless discipline crosses the line to abuse.

There’s no line there. At least there shouldn’t be. Discipline of a physical nature is abuse. And, outdated laws or not, I hope that most parents out there are enlightened enough to know that. It’s time to stop hitting kids.

This tidbit comes, rather appropriately, via Balagan:

The Interior Ministry has a list of 137 nationalities, including Abkhazi, Assyrian and Samaritan – but you won’t find “Israeli” among them. The State of Israel doesn’t recognize the existence of “Israeli” as a nationality.

[ . . . ]

Among the petitioners are those categorized on the identity cards as “Jew,” “Druze,” “Georgian,” “Russian,” and even one “Hebrew.” Not one of them is “Israeli,” and the reason is simple – the Israeli state does not recognize any Israeli nationality that isn’t Jewish. Even the Supreme Court ruled in 1970 that there was no such thing as Israeli nationality.

Must be part of that Israeli plot for world domination… convince ‘em that they don’t exist.

Looks like dumblaws.com will have one less law to make fun of. The U.S. Supreme Court finally did something right after its idiotic ruling on race in university admissions:

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Thursday sodomy laws that make it a crime for people of the same sex to engage in “deviate sexual intercourse,” a ruling that gives gay rights advocates a major victory.

[ . . . ]

The 30-year-old Texas “homosexual conduct” law makes it a crime for same-sex couples to engage in “deviate sexual intercourse,” defined as oral and anal sex, even if it is consensual and occurs in the privacy of a person’s bedroom. Violators face a maximum punishment of a $500 fine.

The ruling will invalidate sodomy laws that exist in 13 states. Besides Texas, the other states are Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

This only a mere 35 years after Pierre Trudeau made his famous statement that “the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation” and got Canada’s nose out of people’s private business.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favour of racism:

In upholding the law school’s policy, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said for the majority in the 5-4 ruling that student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify use of race in admissions decisions.

Sad.

The Federal Government has announced legislation to legalize same-sex marriages by redefining the term “marriage”:

The landmark legislation will be drafted within weeks, then sent to the Supreme Court of Canada for fine-tuning and put before the House of Commons in a free vote by MPs months from now. But the prime minister made it clear Ottawa would not impose the new law on religious groups, who can still refuse to perform same-sex weddings. Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands as the only countries allowing gay and lesbian weddings.

“What we’re doing at this moment might put Canada at the forefront of any solutions that exist,” Chretien said.

I guess I should join other bloggers such as Damian Penny on weighing in with my opinion on the subject, which is that this is one of the best pieces of legislation tabled by the Liberal government since . . . well, in a long time, anyway. And it’s long overdue.

I’ve heard a lot of BS arguments against allowing gay people to marry, usually by thinly-veiled homophobes who spout a lot of claptrap about “definitions” and whatnot. Some argue that it’s a slippery slope to allowing other forms of marriage, such as marriages involving more than one person. Others seem to be perfectly happy to restrict the right to marry to heterosexuals, perhaps afraid that if gays can marry, we’ll no longer be allowed to. I don’t know. I’ve thought long and hard trying to come up with some rational explanation for their objections, and came up with nothing. It’s not as though granting basic rights to someone else means that we have to give up any ourselves.

Especially considering no religious institution will be compelled to marry a same-sex couple, in much the same way that the Catholic Church won’t recognize or remarry divorced people. If you want to follow the tenets of a faith that discriminates, nobody’s stopping you, and there are plenty to choose from. Even Judaism discriminates broadly in who can be married in an Orthodox synagogue. But there are plenty of ministers (and even rabbis) out there who will gladly marry a same-sex couple, or else gay couples can be married in a civil ceremony. So why should the Federal Government be allowed to get in the way?

Marriage is essentially a contract. Sure, a religious marriage is considered holy, and any marriage is an affirmation of love and commitment. But why shouldn’t same-sex couples be allowed to have that love or make that commitment? And why shouldn’t they be granted the same privileges as heterosexual married couples?

I’m reminded of some of the arguments that were put forth before black people had the right to vote in the United States. “Voting is just for whites” or “Why would they even want to vote anyway?” or other ridiculous assertions like that one. Well, here we are again, in a time when we can no longer deny basic rights to 10% of our populations. Let’s end discrimination once and for all.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that racketeering laws cannot be used against anti-abortion groups using violence and intimidation as tactics.

By an 8-1 vote, the high court said in an opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist the judgment that the anti-abortion activists had violated the racketeering laws must be reversed.

The civil lawsuit against Operation Rescue, the Pro-Life Action League and three of the league’s leaders was brought by the National Organization for Women and others. At issue were tactics that included violent demonstrations to block access to clinics.

This is yet another miserable example of the courts engaging in social engineering. What does it say about the U.S. judicial system, whereby judges are appointed by the administration in power and make decisions in line with the party who appointed them?

If violence and intimidation are being used on a case-by-case basis, the perpetrators should be prosecuted for those crimes. But when these tactics are being used on an organized, planned basis across a country, then individual prosecutions are no longer sufficient. That was the intention of racketeering laws (usually used against organized crime organizations such as the Mafia) – to prevent wide-scale use of threats and intimidation to coerce people or businesses into closing or committing illegalities.

Apparently, women seeking abortions – or doctors performing the service – aren’t seen as deserving of these protections, according to the Supreme Court. Disgusting.