Checked the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, after all the talk of the last few days. Of particular interest, I believe, are Sections 8, 9, and 10. For your perusing pleasure:

SEARCH OR SEIZURE. 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT. 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

ARREST OR DETENTION. 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

The question becomes, I believe, if you are exercising your FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM (Sections 2c and 2d) to freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association do the police have the right to search your belongings and/or person, or haul you away and throw you in a detention centre?

Here’s the text of the amendment filed with e-laws earlier this month, designating “the area, within the area described in Schedule 1, that is within five metres…” So, it sounds like the five-metre security zone was actually inside the fence, not outside, as we were led to believe.

So, what’s up with our Chief and Police telling us that the five-metre zone was outside the fence? According to the Chief earlier today, he was “trying to keep the criminals out.”

Nice.

What does the Public Works Protection Act, actually say? Here is the full text, but, the gist is that any person “entering or attempting to enter any public work or any approach thereto” can be required “to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise” and that the guard “may search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter a public work.”

If the person refuses, they are guilty, because “the statement under oath of an officer or employee of the government, board, commission, municipal or other corporation or other person owning, operating or having control of a public work, as to the boundaries of the public work is conclusive evidence thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 4.”

I guess it doesn’t matter, then, whether the five-metres was inside or outside the fence, you could still be arrested for ‘approach’ to the fence, and you would be guilty based on the word of the person who arrested you.

Sigh. I’m going to have a nap. Maybe it’s all a dream.

Or, then again, maybe what we need to do is look at where else this Act has been applied (airports?) and question whether we are cool with forfeiting our civil liberties in the name of ‘security’.

Continuing from my last post, I have to say that this weekend’s G8 and G20 protests and police responses both demonstrated a distinct lack of reverence. Where was the reverence by the protesters for the near-impossible task that our police were asked to do as protectors of the peace? And by the police towards the democratic expression of views by the protesters? That almost 900 people were arrested in the days leading up to and including the Summits is ridiculous. That there are people still being held in improvised and unlawful conditions is unacceptable.

First, I am horrified at the arrest, abuse, and detention of media representatives – a free and open media is essential to a healthy democracy. While I appreciate that throwing them in jail is one way to ensure that they get an excellent story, I believe it sets a horrible precedent and must be dealt with immediately.

Second, the policing does not appear to have been organized well. Of particular concern to me was the elimination of the ‘safe’ protest zone at Queen’s Park. Far removed from the actual Summit area, I am still having trouble understanding why the police would (seemingly on a whim) decide to clear this area and send protesters scuttling through the downtown. It seems to me that keeping protesters contained in one safe area would have been a better idea. If the priority was the fenced-in area, why were they harassing protesters on the Esplanade?

I am also disappointed in the organizers who seemed to abandon the protesters after the planned walk during the day, leaving them in disarray and at the mercy of the more-prepared police forces who decided to start arresting later in the evening, after the vivid images of destruction were obtained (and played over and over and over).

But I am most disturbed by the ease with which our leaders surrendered our democratic rights in the name of ‘security’. When I posted my concerns on Facebook the response was, generally, ‘Oh yes, that Harper is so horrible,’ followed by silence when I pointed out that my biggest concern was with McGuinty and the Liberal Party of Ontario’s move to enact secret police powers under the Public Works Protection Act. Though temporary, the arbitrary right to detain, search, and arrest civilians is a terrifying glimpse of just how fragile our civil liberties are. Rights that have been won through blood and struggle over the past several hundred years. To see them wiped away for the sake of a political summit is unforgivable. I look forward to the Charter challenges, and class actions suits, should they proceed, and to the explanation by our Leaders as to how they justify forfeiting my rights for their convenience.

It is the Police Chief’s job to recommend over-the-top security measures, he’s a cop. To be cliché, when your tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I get that. I have little problem with Blair’s strategy this weekend, though some of his tactics were very questionable. But it is the job of a politician, a strong political leader (and this goes for the Mayor, the Premier, and the PM!) to say, “NO! The rights of our citizens are more important than that. We need to find a way to protect both the fence and the people of Toronto, including those who are protesting.” That is the job of a Leader, and if our leaders are too weak, or too uncaring to do that, then it is time to start looking for new ones. Right now.

Finally, this weekend has added more strength to my belief that voting Liberal or Conservative doesn’t make a bit of difference – they both care little about democracy. We need electoral reform so that every vote counts equally, and we need it now. We have leaders who have no reverence for democracy, or for the rights of their citizens, and that needs to change.

Thanks to Carter for sharing this link with me. Tyler Hamilton at CleanBreak.ca discusses a couple of solar co-ops that are popping up around southern Ontario.

One is Countryside, partnering with ARISE Technologies to start photovoltaic (PV) projects on commercial/industrial rooftops. People who are interested in participating in PV but do not have adequate sites can buy shares in the projects and participate in revenues from the Ontario Power Authority’s (OPA) feed-in tariff program.

Another, on a much smaller scale is the Neighbourhood Unitarian Universalist (NUU) congregation in Toronto installing a PV system on their church roof. Again, they are selling shares.

I think I’ve already mentioned that I have a wee crush on Cathy MacLellan, one of the partners of ARISE (she started it with her husband after they graduated from Waterloo). She is also the Green Party of Canada candidate for K/W and a totally inspiring entrepreneur.

I also happen to love the UUs, my church of choice and one I would love to see in Aurora and/or Newmarket. Social justice is one of their core principles, just as it is for the Green Party.

As for the province’s feed-in tariff program – the Liberals almost got it right. If they can overcome their issues with back-end red tape it could be a really great program and encourage small-scale renewable energy projects all over the province – including here at home.

Anybody feel like starting an energy co-op in Newmarket? Count me in.

Just in case you don’t read this blog yourselves, I thought I’d share. thecourt.ca is run by Osgoode Hall students to keep track of what is happening with the Supreme Court of Canada – it’s funky cool (well, for a law junkie).

This post is about section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is the one that protects us from illegal search and seizure – the procurement of evidence in court by means that violate our rights. The author, D. Silva, contends that a couple of recent rulings by the Ontario Court of Appeals totally negate 24(2) in cases where a gun was found.

I realize that there is a gun problem, and yes, it would be nice if something could be done about it. However, I’m not sure I’m ready to sacrifice my Charter rights in order to be ‘safer’. Actually, I’m pretty positive about that.

Of course, I feel pretty much the same way about a lot of the ‘security measures’ put in place to combat terrorism. For me, it boils down to the question of security – and what that means. It seems that we are trying to create a society where everyone is always safe all the time. The image I get in my head is of a society of people in bubbles – totally protected but totally isolated and looking pretty stupid with no real freedom.

Here is my own personal version of security:

There is no way that the state is ever going to be able to protect me from every nutjob out there who wants to hurt me. If someone wants to kill people, they will find a way. Harm done to a person that way is a violation of their rights, no question, and needs to be dealt with by the justice system – but we will never have a totally safe society. You can’t produce a society with no risk if people are to have any freedoms.

BUT when the risk to my personal rights and liberty is posed by the state itself and has been made a part of the system – now that’s scary.

The willingness of citizens to give up their rights and freedoms because they are scared is the biggest threat to my sense of security.

Section 24

Enforcement

1. Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
2. Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Sigh. They even banned distribution of the Scholastic flyer that had an ad for the book.

Support Catholic school funding, support banning books. Fun. I’d like to point out once again that we are only committed to fund separate school up to Grade 9, Ontario continues the funding through high school voluntarily.

I just discovered that one of my dearest friends has a blog – and he never told me! Or he did and I wasn’t listening. So I am totally outing him.

This post is interesting… apparently the funding proposal for faith-based schools is from our very own Frank Klees. Ahhh… the pride of Newmarket-Aurora.

{begin quote}

I’ve read an awful lot of commentaries wondering why on earth John Tory would ever have decided to make Faith-Based School Funding an issue in the upcoming election. On the surface it seems like a sure fire way to lose party support given, that the majority opinion of Ontarians are against the move. Well, it turns out that we have Oak Ridges MPP, Frank Klees to thank.

According to Susanna Kelley of TVO’s The Agenda Mr. Klees ambushed newly crowned PC leader John Tory with a meeting between himself and a group of Jewish supporters from Thornhill.

Suddenly, … the media message coming out of the conference was funding for faith-based schools, not at all what Tory and his supporters had originally planned.

Mr. Klees lobbied continually for this to become part of the party platform over the next two years.

If Newmarket-Aurora is looking for someone to be held accountable for this particular Conservative policy… Frenk Klees is your man.

Read the entire article “Frank Klees’ Ambush and Funding for Faith-Based Schools

{end quote}

–Vanessa

I think it’s possible that John Tory is trying to lose this election. Or that he has had some sort of seizure of conscience and is actually speaking his truth instead of trying to win the election. Wacky.

As for funding private religious schools, let me add my voice to the chorus that think it is a very bad idea and will do nothing to make Ontario and Canada a healthier and more inclusive nation. Here are my responses to the two main arguments that I’ve been hearing for religious school funding:

1. The argument that this will bring more students into the Ontario School System and ensure that they follow curriculum and can be inspected. Holey moley does this piss me off. What a load of bullshit (excuse my language). I can’t believe that he hasn’t been smacked down in public for making such an asinine statement. And every single one of those people who are arguing for private-religious-school funding ought to be ashamed of themselves. Let me make this very clear:

I know this because I worked in a private school and we were inspected every… single… year.

2. The argument is that this will make the system *fair*.

My response is: Since when has what is *fair* determined what the government does or does not do? I agree it isn’t fair but the deal with the Catholic schools was part of the very thorny negotiations to make this country come into being 140 years ago. It is a piece of endemic unfairness that is enshrined in the very fabric of our nation. It turns out that only schooling up to Grade 8 was part of the deal and it was only through the 1900s that the agreement was gradually expanded, not reaching OAC until 1984. Let’s can this sucker.

To be truly *fair* we could hold a referendum, like Newfoundland did, and hopefully get rid of anything other than a secular school system with education in tolerance and world religions, ethics and critical thinking.

Religious education, if done at all, can be done at home, at church, and after school.

You all know I’m big on the UN, and Ontario has been censured for “discriminating against non-Catholics by funding Catholic separate schools, but not funding other separate schools.”

I guess… in the end… I applaud John Tory for having the courage to bring up a difficult issue that should be addressed, I just come down on the opposite side.

My beloved friend sbd has issued her own little polemic and since she has said it with more conviction that I could myself (and first hand knowledge) I wanted to share (with her permission of course):

{begin quote}

23 September 2007

does this mean I’m going to have to vote Liberal?

Tory.

Seriously.

What the hell are you thinking with the ‘funding for all private religious schools’ bullshit?

(Obviously you have never seen the product of a private Christian school.*)

If parents are afraid that their children are not receiving the education they would like them to have, those same parents should take it upon themselves to join the PTA (or whatever it’s called [what? my first's only in JK - I'm not really in the loop yet.]) and make a positive change in their local public school. (Added bonus: their children will see their parents actually making a difference in the world and possibly grow up not afraid to try to make a difference in their own world.)

Or (and here’s a really revolutionary thought) perhaps they could, you know, model what they want their children to learn at home.

And if parents are concerned that their children are receiving an education that involves the teaching of ‘evolution’ or some other so-called anti-(evangelical) Christian viewpoint, perhaps those same parents could teach their children to be critical thinkers (some people would agree: a very handy little skill to have) by offering them the opportunity to read about other schools of thought and then discuss it around the dinner table.

And do you really think most Ontarians will be thrilled to have their tax dollars going to fund schools teaching young Muslims how to continue the ‘Holy War’**?

*No doubt there are some good private Christian schools out there. No doubt. Sadly, I’ve never seen a student come out of a private Christian school who wasn’t either a) terrified of anyone who wasn’t a Christian or b) hell-bent.

** Hey, if I’m going to make sweeping generalizations about Christian schools …

{end quote}

I love my friends.