Voir Dire - Issue 2 (2013-2014)
Content
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
PRE-LAW SOCIETY
THE PANEL ISSUE
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
WHAT’S INSIDE ?
SHOULD ROB FORD RESIGN? TRANSGRESSIONS MIKE DUFFY’S
4
8
THE LEGALITY OF NSA WIRETAPPING
2
ON QUEBEC’S VALUE CHARTER: AN ETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS HEIRARCHY?
10
Voir Dire means “to speak the truth” in Old French.
Launched in April 2004 as the brainchild of Andrea Wong, Voir Dire serves as a medium for promoting the knowledge, interest, and involvement of U of T students considering a future in the field of law. Voir Dire is published in print and online on academic quarterly basis.
PAGE 1
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
voir dire
[Cover Page Image from http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/rob-ford-court.jpg ]
THE LEGALITY OF NSA WIRETAPPING
Ali Aun
Ever since the program was first started by the Bush administration in 2001, the National Security Agency’s (NSA) wireless interception program has drawn scrutiny from skeptics who have raised concerns over the legality of the program. Allowed to intercept calls anywhere around the world, concerns have regularly surfaced over whether the program adheres to the American and International legal frameworks. However, the fiercest criticism to date has come forth ever since Edward Snowden’s revelation of the extent of wiretapping first became public back in June 2013. As Snowden opened the Pandora’s Box on the surveillance activities of the NSA, numerous questions were raised about the legitimacy of what seemed like a blatant violation of fundamental human rights. Amidst the uproar and criticism directed towards the organization and its PRISM program, high-ranking government officials have had to come to the defense of wiretapping as they seek to restore the trust of the international community in the United States. Officials, including President Obama, have argued in the face of unsparing criticism that the program remains within the boundaries of US Constitution and that the process of wiretapping remains rather transparent and aimed only at foreign elements considered a threat to American national security and interests. The NSA’s powers very first vastly expanded shortly after 9/11 when President George W. Bush’s executive order allowed them to conduct warrantless surveillance on certain telephone calls. Citing national security as the driving factor behind the move, it was incorporated within the US legal framework. The program was further crystallized with the passing of the FISA Amendments Act in 2008 (and extension in 2012 by the Obama administration), and expanded the scope of the warrantless wiretapping program to international communications. The problem has however risen as Americans view the law as encroachment of the rights granted to them through the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution (Freedom of Speech and Right to
Privacy respectively). Whilst defenders of the program have failed to remove the cloud of secrecy around the program, the FISC has snubbed claims of the wiretaps being illegal. Government lawyers, such as Stuart Delery, have cited a 1979 Supreme Court ruling as precedent for the defense of the program arguing that Americans are not in a position to bring cases against the laws. Justice Alito took a similar stance in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, arguing that Americans’ fears of wiretapping were “highly speculative.” Snowden’s revelations, on the contrary, further make the legal status of the program unclear as confidential documents have shown repeated violations of law. In an article, the Washington Post revealed that an internal audit found 2,776 incidents of unauthorized collection of metadata in the 12 months preceding May 2012. The questionable status of the law relative to the Constitution is another cause for concern for the American general public. The questions over the legality have further intensified by the aggressive nature of international wiretaps that the NSA has embarked upon. While Obama and co. have made attempts to alleviate the feelings of mistrust and skepticism within the United States, few efforts have been made to hide the revelations of surveillance around the world. Snowden revealed the extent of the foreign wiretaps and how countries like France and Germany, who retain strong ties with the United States, were amongst the several countries which became victim to NSA program. Revelations about German
PAGE 2
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
Chancellor Angela Merkel being one of the victims of the wiretaps caused uproar in Europe. Questions have also been raised as a result whether the program is violating EU laws and whether the NSA can be held accountable for the violation of these laws. However, the process has been rather complex due to the program being run from the United States and ostensibly through legal means. A new study into EU wiretaps following the Snowden revelations has declared the NSA, the GCHQ of the United Kingdom, as well as agencies from France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands guilty of breaching “basic articles of the EU treaty” which deal with “sincere cooperation” as well as matters of privacy. Spanish jurist, Sergio Carrerra, and Lieden University professor, Francesco Ragazzi, declare the US and EU espionage programs involved in the scandal as “systematically breaching the fundamental rights of people” and have called for full disclosure of the surveillance programs. U.S. spy chief, James Clapper, has vehemently defended against such demands declaring that foreign wiretaps are “entirely normal” and being done for decades. Furthermore, he has dismissed claims that the program over-steps its legal limits imposed by the Congress and boasts that such instances were “rare, inadvertent and usually minor” and that the NSA remains cognizant of people’s fundamental rights. Nevertheless, as detailed investigation of the program is ongoing and the United States continues to resist full disclosure of its espionage program, a lack of clarity over the legal framework binding the NSA wiretap program prevails. The revelations have created a firestorm of international criticism against the US and the “Five Eyes” (US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and turned the issue into a major PR scandal for the US as the program is seen as violating a plethora of laws in the United States and internationally. However, claims that the NSA remains within its legal boundaries makes the situation surrounding the issue rather complex and one that demands time and extensive scrutiny before any decision is forthcoming. Whatever the decision, the growing consensus is that the law is intrusive and pervasive and that failure to provide the public with more may be detrimental to the already tarnished image of the United States around the world following the debacle.
References
"A short history of warrantless wiretapping in the US." Circa News. N.p., 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http://cir.ca/ news/history-of-nsa-wiretapping>. "Government gives AT&T special immunity from wiretapping lawsuits."Circa News. N.p., 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http://cir.ca/news/att-granted-wiretap-immunity>. Greenwald, Glenn. "Fisa court oversight: a look inside a secret and empty process." theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http:// www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-courtoversight-process-secrecy>. Hanly, Ken. "US lawyers claim Americans cannot challenge NSA spying legality." US lawyers claim Americans cannot challenge NSA spying legality. N.p., 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. http://digitaljournal.com/article/362710 Koring, Paul. "U.S. spy chief says foreign wiretap operations are entirely normalAdd to ...." The Globe and Mail. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ us-spy-chief-says-foreign-wiretap-operations-are-entirelynormal/article15151923/>. Lantier, Alex. "World Socialist Web Site."Scandal grows over NSA wiretapping of German Chancellor Merkel -. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/28/ scan-o28.html>. Rettman, Andrew. "NSA and GCHQ mass surveillance is violation of European law, report finds." theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http:// www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/07/nsa-gchqsurveillance-european-law-report>. Strohm, Chris. "NSA Phone-Records Spying Said to Violate Rules for Years."Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-10/nsa -phone-records-spying-violated-court-rules-for-years.html>.
Image Credits
"GameInformer." Www..com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2013.
PAGE 3
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
voir dire
SHOULD ROB FORD RESIGN?
This is the question on the mind’s of many Torontonians. With the situation in Toronto garnering international attention, some of our writers wanted to weigh in on whether In addition to his violations of the City of Toronto Act, or not Rob Ford should step down.
Author: Malcolm Peck-McQueen
interest. Mayor Ford's actions, instead, send the message that breaking criminal law is acceptable conduct. Therefore, he cannot claim to provide respectable leadership to city council. Due to his flagrant disregard for his statutory responsibilities as mayor, Ford should step down immediately.
The unprecedented turmoil surrounding Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has raised some important questions regarding municipal government in Ontario. Since his admission to purchasing and smoking crack cocaine, and impaired driving, city council and Torontonians have been debating whether or not Ford should resign or remain in his position as mayor. Ford's supporters claim that the mayor should not resign because of the legitimacy of his election. It is argued that, because the citizens of Toronto elected him democratically, voters in the 2014 election must determine Ford’s future. Although we should not dismiss the importance of democratic legitimacy in municipal governance, additional factors lead to the conclusion that Ford should resign immediately. Firstly, the Mayor of Toronto has certain statutory responsibilities as the head of city council and chief executive officer of the city. Section 133 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 states that “it is the role of the mayor of the City, as the head of council, to provide leadership to council and to represent the City at official functions.” With respect to both of these statutory provisions, Ford has failed to fulfill his obligations as mayor. As for the latter, Ford has not represented the city in a responsible manner at official functions. It is now a well-established fact that Ford was intoxicated earlier this year while attending the Garrison Ball. This does not represent the city’s administration in a positive light for the citizens of Toronto. And as for the former, the mayor should set an example for council as to what conduct strengthens the public good in Toronto. Purchasing and consuming crack cocaine violates criminal law and constitutes an offence against public
Mayor Ford should resign for ethical reasons. After his confessions, Ford has said he has no reason to resign because there are no pending criminal charges against him by Toronto Police Services. However, it would be a disservice to the city to disregard his confession simply due to a lack of criminal charges. It is an unfortunate consequence of strict judicial rules that not all criminals can be brought to justice, but it does not take away from the fact that a crime was committed. Ford himself admitted that, during his term as mayor, he has purchased and consumed illicit drugs. Breaking such serious laws should require an immediate resignation of public officials given that they are charged with law-making in the first place. It is also incredibly hypocritical of Ford to argue that he does not need to resign because, in the wake of the Eaton Centre and Danzig Street shootings in 2012, he publicly denounced gangs, drug violence, and supported harsher penalties for criminals. Ford's position on the consequences of his own behaviour undermines the basic rationale behind the rule of law. Claiming that apologizing for his actions is all that he
PAGE 4
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
can do to rectify the situation suggests that harsh penalties need not apply to elected officials who are not engaged in criminal activity on a full-time basis. Yet, purchasing and consuming illicit drugs even once contributes to the gang culture that Ford publicly condemns. Ford should accept that he conducts business with drug dealers. However insignificant it may seem to him, it is a serious harm to the public good and violates his espoused principles. Therefore, although the police may not have enough evidence to charge him with a crime, as the law and order conservative that he claims to be, Mayor Ford should resign. Nonetheless, even if Ford resigns, the recent controversy in Toronto has brought up the broader issue of electoral reform in municipal governance. Toronto City Council has voted to limit Ford's powers as mayor, citizens have protested repeatedly in front of City Hall, and polling has shown majority support for his resignation but Ford remains the Mayor of Toronto. With the introduction of recall election laws in Ontario, the question of legitimately removing an elected official could be easily solved. In Toronto's case, Mayor Ford claims that his removal from office would be a coup d'état. A recall election, however, would be completely democratic and an entirely legal method of removing the mayor. To trigger the recall of an elected official, voters would cast their ballots in free and fair elections. The elected official would have the opportunity to campaign to remain in office. Ultimately, the public would decide whether or not the official loses their position and democratic legitimacy is maintained throughout the process. Thus, it is clear that Rob Ford should resign as Mayor of Toronto because of both his failure to execute the statutory responsibilities of the office and his moral failing as a civic leader. And while Torontonians should rightly hope that a similar situation never arises, we should appreciate that the Rob Ford cracksmoking incident has stimulated the discussion of much-needed electoral reform in municipal government. Image Credits
"Rob Ford and Race: Redskins Comments Continue Troubling Trend." Www.canada.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2013.
Author: Jenny Du The political disaster of Robert Bruce “Rob” Ford, the sixty-fourth and current Mayor of Toronto, has been embarrassing to witness. For Torontonians, the fact that their city’s Mayor smoked crack cocaine is the least of their concerns. They are more troubled by Mayor Ford’s lack of integrity – at first denying the allegations against him. The media has attributed many shameful labels to Mayor Ford, describing him as a crack addict, a liar, and one that is perpetually impaired on the job. Prior to his mayoral election, Ford’s lying, violence, and drunken stupors were publicly recognized. Yet, despite a history of reported moral failings, Ford declared and won his mayoral candidacy in 2010, taking on the highest-ranking role in our municipal government. Ford’s history of substance abuse dates back to February 1999, when he was arrested in Miami, Florida for marijuana possession, and driving under the influence (DUI). True to form, Ford initially denied the charges, but later admitted to both.1 His reckless behaviour was documented during his term as a city councillor in 2006 when he was forcefully removed by security from the Air Canada Centre for berating and verbally abusing a married couple. He told the wife to “go over to Iran and get raped and shot”. When confronted, Ford refuted the allegations, denying he was ever there. However, Air Canada Centre’s security staff revealed Councillor Rob Ford’s business card, to which he later recanted his refutation.2 A pattern in his behaviour, in early 2008, Councillor Rob Ford was also arrested for domestic assault against his wife.3 As mayor, Rob Ford has lied, denied, and evaded confrontations about his drug use for months. The mayor finally admitted to smoking crack when Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair revealed the police were in possession of a video exposing Ford’s possession of a crack pipe and his intoxication. Ford shamelessly asked for Toronto’s forgiveness during numerous interviews.4 Ford’s dishonesty and misconduct has rightfully portrayed him as ultimately unfit of his role as Toronto’s mayor. Furthermore, his participation in suspected criminal activity has filled nearly 500 pages of evidence gathered by the Toronto Police. Among the evidence
PAGE 5
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
voir dire
is a photo of Mayor Ford and three alleged drug dealers. When asked about the photo by Councillor Michael Thompson, Ford claimed to never having met the three men and that “they came out and asked *him+ to take a picture with them and that’s the Godhonest truth”. 5 As a man possessing a top municipal role in Toronto, Ford’s inappropriate use of language has been a hot topic, especially when interacting with reporters. On November 7, 2013, a video of Ford revealed him in a tirade yelling, “I need fuckin' ten minutes to make sure he’s dead!” along with other threats.6 Ford’s inappropriate oral sex comment about Olivia Gondek is his most recent use of slander. Councillor Janet Davis told reporters that Ford’s comments are “degrading to a former staff person and his own wife”, and that Ford should “go away and let this city get on with repairing its reputation.”7 After admitting to the Toronto city council that he has smoked crack cocaine and purchased illegal drugs since his election, the city council voted 37-5 in favour of a motion requesting Mayor Ford to consider a leave of absence. Throughout the debate, Ford maintained that he is not a drug addict or an alcoholic, while physically threatening Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, the councillor currently pushing forward a motion that asks Ford to step down. The Mayor’s brother, Councillor Doug Ford, who grabbed Ford’s arm during the incident, had to physically intercept the threat.8 Currently, Ford remains adamant about staying in office and running for reelection in October 2014. While Ford does not deserve compassion or understanding, his supporters do. They put their faith in him and his “Ford Agenda”, only to see their aspirations betrayed. Ford Nation was an eager bunch, willing to look beyond his personal problems as they wanted to support his slate of policies that including “contracting out of non-essential public services, minimizing tax increases or freezing taxes entirely, and halting the constant rise in city spending.”9 Ford has disappointed his supporters by his inappropriate actions, which have impaired his ability to uphold his promises to Torontonians. The majority of municipal councillors agree that Ford needs to leave office. Recent polls suggest that
Torontonians agree with city council. A November 2013 survey by Ipsos-Reid for CTV, CP24, and Newstalk 1010 reveals that almost 70% of Toronto residents view his plan to stay in office and run for the 2014 re-election as intolerable. 75% feel the mayor should step down, either temporarily or permanently. Ford Nation is also increasingly opposing the mayor, with a majority of residents in each of the boroughs saying they disapprove of Ford’s behaviour. 41 percent said that Ford should step down and never return to politics. Furthermore, recent polls reveal Ford’s unlikely chance of winning a re-election. Ford pales against potential and declared candidates such as Karen Stintz, John Tory, and Olivia Chow.10 Clearly, the people of Toronto no longer rely on Ford to represent them. In this critic's opinion, a man under active police, and in connection to criminal activities, should not act as the leading voice of Toronto. To this Torontonian, Rob Ford is a failing politician and failing human being, and has shamed
PAGE 6
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
Toronto long enough. The right thing for Ford to do is to step down from his duties and allow Toronto to elect a new candidate befitting the role as mayor of Canada’s largest city. References
1. Grant, Kelly. August 19, 2010. "Ford forgot marijuana charge,
confuses impaired driving charge". Toronto, Ontario: The Globe and Mail. 2. CBC News. May 3, 2006. "Ford admits lying to media about drunken outburst". Toronto, Ontario: CBC News. 3. Topping, David. March 26, 2008. “Rob Ford Arrested and Charged in Domestic Dispute”. The Torontoist. 4. The Globe and Mail. November 5, 2013. “Rod Ford must resign.” Globe Editorial. 5. Commisso, Christina. November 13, 2013. “Toronto council passes non-binding motion asking Rob Ford to step down.” CTVNews.ca. 6. Warmington, Joe. November 16, 2013. “I need f-in 10 minutes to make sure he's dead: New Rob Ford video surfaces.” Toronto & GTA News, Toronto Sun. 7. Gerster, Jane. November 24, 2013. “Rob Ford vows to sue, stuns city with oral sex comment.” The Star. 8. Alcoba, N. & Visser, J. November 13, 2013. “Rob Ford admits to buying illegal drugs while mayor, loses humiliating council vote 37 to 5.” National Post: Toronto. 9. National Post. October 31, 2013. “For the good of Toronto, Rob Ford must step down.” National Post editorial board. 10. Grenier, E. November 14, 2013. “Poll suggests most Torontonians want Rob Ford to step down.” The Huffington Post Canada.
transit plan for the GTA simply because he did not agree with TTC chair Kren Stintz. This alone reveals his lack of understanding towards the Downtown Relief Program, which would have better served the public. 1 However, some issues are of more concern to Toronto as a whole. According to MP Jason Kenney, Toronto has become “an international laughing stock.”2 This is not the kind of reputation we want for our city and what Rob Ford needs to do now, for the sake of Toronto, is to be civil and take responsibility for his actions by stepping down. With Ford’s resignation being impossible at the moment, the media will only continue to hound him. In addition, Vancouver Mayor Greg Robertson asserts; “The sooner that the issue is resolved and Mr. Ford steps out of the limelight, the better for Toronto and the better for Canadian cities.”3 Citizens of Toronto, as well as politicians, have turned their backs in disapproval of Ford. At this point, it is quite evident that Toronto needs to move on from this scandal and city council should be able to move on to more pressing issues currently affecting Toronto. Another issue that arises from the Ford scandal is that city councillors should be more focused on doing their jobs rather than spending time and money on Ford’s removal i.e. conducting interviews and debating motions on Ford. Toronto has and will continue to embrace a dysfunctional governing system because of Ford’s allegations and negative impacts towards the city as of late. Essentially, Ford needs to work on his personal issues until he is suitable to run a political agenda for this city. In the case of Ford’s duration as mayor, the cons outweigh the pros and it seems to be necessary that Ford ends this turmoil he has brought upon Toronto by resigning as mayor. References
Author: Sarah Karim Mayor Rob Ford has sparked much controversy among the city of Toronto since his alleged illegal drug use of crack cocaine, among other criminal offences such as drunk driving. The “crack scandal” has created nothing but bad publicity for Toronto and its citizens and brings forth the question: should Rob Ford resign? While city council has already stripped the mayor of his powers, a majority of Torontonians believe that Ford should step down considering the negative image he has created for the city of Toronto. Looking through a political and economic standpoint, Ford has done some good towards reducing debt as compared to former mayor David Miller. Yes, he has saved taxpayer dollars by terminating vehicle registration fees and implementing budget cuts. However, it should not be forgotten that he has disused millions of dollars by disregarding a potential
1. O'Toole, Megan. "Downtown Toronto Has ‘enough Subways Already,’ Mayor Rob Ford says." National Post. 10 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/11/downtowntoronto-has-enough-subways-already-mayor-rob-ford-says/>.
2. Campion-Smith, Bruce, and Susan Delacourt. "Rob Ford: Jason Kenney Says Mayor Must Resign." Thestar.com. 19 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/11/19/
rob_ford_scandal_jason_kenney_says_mayor_must_step_aside.html>.
3 Bailey, Ian. "'Do the Right Thing' and Step Down, Vancouver's Robertson Tells Rob Ford." The Globe and Mail. 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-
columbia/do-the-right-thing-and-step-down-vancouvers-robertson-tells-rob-ford/ article15534423/>.
PAGE 7
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
voir dire
MIKE DUFFY’S TRANSGRESSIONS
Karishma Prasanna
ongoing debate surrounding Senate reform. According to the evidence, Duffy charged the Senate for travel and housing expenses during the 2011 federal election campaign – expenses that had nothing to do with his job as a Senator, but with his personal political aspirations.2 Further claims also suggest that Duffy purposely misled the Senate regarding the whereabouts of his permanent residence, in order to claim housing expenses for lodging in Ottawa. Duffy “changed the address on his personal bank account to his address in Prince Edward Island just days after the Senate said it was conducting an internal audit of all primary and secondary housing allowance claims.”3 The convention is that “senators who live more than 100 kilometers outside the national capital region can claim up to $21,000 a year in living expenses to cover their Ottawa-area home.”4 Duffy claimed the living expenses for his Ottawa residence, even though Ottawa is where he primarily resided.
Recently, Mike Duffy has been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. An ex-conservative (now independent) Senator from Prince Edward Island, Duffy was embroiled in the Senate expense scandal that took place earlier this year, and has consequently been suspended from his position for two years. Although three other Senators (Mac Harb, Pamela Wallin, and Patrick Brazeau) faced similar accusations regarding the misuse of Senate funds, Duffy’s misconduct went a step further in that he received money from Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, to cover the cost of his legal expenses and pay back the misused funds.1 Not surprisingly, the scandal has captured the Canadian public’s attention, and has brought new light to the
PAGE 8
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
When the scandal first came to the public’s attention, Duffy agreed to pay back approximately $90,000 to the Senate, and claimed that he and his wife planned to take out a loan from the bank to do so. Unfortunately, this is not what happened, as the Prime Minister’s Office got involved with Duffy’s financial mishaps. The PM’s chief of staff at the time, Nigel Wright, allegedly wrote a personal cheque to Duffy for the exact amount that he owed to the Senate. According to The Conflict of Interest Code, Senators can only receive “compensation authorized by law…and gifts that are within the customary standards of hospitality.”5 The Code also requires Senators to disclose any gift worth more than $500. The PM has vehemently denied knowing anything about this and has worked hard to distance himself from the affair. However, Duffy has made ardent claims that the PM was in on the situation all along.6 Recently, he even went so far as to say that “the Prime Minister wasn't interested in explanations or the truth. It's not about what you did, it's about the perception of what you did that's been created in the media.”7 Ultimately, after the months of hearings that followed the RCMP’s investigation into the scandal, it was determined that Duffy will be suspended from the Senate for two years, without pay. The scandal has been followed closely by the Canadian public and has reopened the debate on the legitimacy and necessity of the Canadian Senate. How much power should an unelected house of Parliament really have? What does the institution contribute to the democratic processes of our government? These questions have led many to not only push for Senate reform, but for the abolishment of the Senate all together. For example, Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty has been one member of the Conservative government to openly claim that having “a non-elected legislative body is an anachronism.”8 Others, such as Ontario Premier, Kathleen Wynne, have taken a softer stance, stating that a couple of bad Senators do not mean the end of the game for the whole house.9 However, as we move forward, and continue to push for a more effective and efficient government, it has become abundantly clear that there is no room for the Senate within our political system, as it stands today.
References
1.
"Mike Duffy Claims Harper Told Him to Repay Expense
Money." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
"Mike Duffy Double Dipped during 2011 Election, RCMP alleges." National Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. "Mike Duffy Double Dipped during 2011 Election, RCMP alleges." National Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. "Mike Duffy Under Attack In House Of Commons." The Huffington Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. "Ethics Commissioner Reviewing Mike Duffy Affair." Global News. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. Mike Duffy Complies with RCMP Senate Probe for PMO Emails." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. "Mike Duffy Claims Harper Told Him to Repay Expense Money." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. "Senate 'disruptive' Economically, and 'anachronism' That Needs to Be 'abolished,' Flaherty says." National Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. "Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne Wants to Reform Senate, Not Abolish it." National Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.
8.
9.
Image Credits
"Sen. Mike Duffy Takes Medical Leave." Toronto Sun. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2013.
PAGE 9
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
ON QUEBEC’S VALUE CHARTER: AN ETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS HIERARCHY?
Tiffany Huynh
Minister Bernard Drainville presents Quebec’s values charter as a way to guarantee equality in a secular state. He states that since Quebec is “increasingly a multiethnic, multireligious society…the time has come to unite us around clear values and common rules” (“Quebec Unveils 'Values Charter'"). However, in this essay, I argue that Quebec’s values charter utilizes the logic of neutrality as a source of equality and fairness to create an oppressive ethnic and religious hierarchy that limits who gets to enjoy the full privileges of citizenship in Quebec. First, I will discuss how the values charter obscures the colonial violence entrenched in Quebec nationalism. Then, I will explain how existing inequalities embedded in the foundation of Quebec are perpetuated through the values charter. Finally, I will address the implications of the fact that the values charter conflicts with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The values charter may seem important for Quebec nationalism, but ultimately it is incompatible with notions of human rights because it perpetuates violence and inequality. As a historical concept that has shaped the modern
world, nationalism cannot be dismissed; however, it is a fact that Quebec, as well as many nations, were formed from colonial violence that was justified by reducing Indigenous people to savages that needed to be civilized by European culture. I argue that the values charter’s attempt to be religiously neutral by banning all public workers from wearing “conspicuous” religious symbols (including hijabs, turbans, yarmulkes and larger -than-average crucifixes) perpetuates the inequalities entrenched in the formation of Quebec. First, it is a mode of assimilation that flattens out social differences and historical specificities so that all ethnic and religious groups become “‘interest groups whose claims must be measured against the needs of other ‘groups’ of citizens” (Lawrence and Dua 124-5). Since there are numerous ‘interest groups’ in Quebec, being religiously neutral in public spaces is supposed to prevent ethnic and religious conflicts so that individuals with different backgrounds can live peacefully together. However, this ultimately obscures existing inequalities in society. For instance, one must address the overt anti-Islamism of many prominent Quebecois figures. Amir Khadir, a member of the provincial government, had promoted the boycotting of the shoe store, Le Marcheur, because the store carried some items made in Israel (Bybelezer). Thus the values charter’s avocation of ethnic and religious blindness in public spaces cannot recognize racism, and instead, enacts a kind of systemic violence against victims of discrimination by offering no forms of legal recourse.
PAGE 10
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
Furthermore, the values charter also perpetuates inequalities by reaffirming the privileges of white Catholics. Since Roman Catholic, white Europeans were the founders of Quebec, the values charter serves to protect their interests. For example, the crucifix above Montreal’s Mount Royal will not be removed since it is deemed an important part of Quebec’s history and heritage (Bybelezer). In addition, minister Drainville was caught off guard when asked if courtroom witnesses and elected politicians had to swear an oath on the Bible (Bybelezer). These examples illuminate the formation of an ethnic and religious hierarchy that perpetuates inequality. If all humans are supposed to be equal, then it makes no sense for the interests of certain minority groups to be sacrificed for the sake of Quebec’s culture. After all, ethnicity and religion are not simply pieces of clothing that people can take off when it is convenient to do so. They are crucial to people’s identities and they are linked to sacred histories and ways of life. Hence, the right to wear religious symbols cannot be easily compromised. The values charter’s failure to acknowledge the importance of these identities, while simultaneously stressing the importance of Quebec’s traditional culture, implies that some citizens are more important than others. Finally, it is clear that the values charter is also incompatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, in that it distinguishes who gets to be full Quebecois citizen with rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom guarantees the freedom of expression of religion and it is designed to protect citizens from xenophobia. However, Quebec did not support the charter and it never formally signed it. This is important to note since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom was created to celebrate and protect multiculturalism. On the other hand, Quebec’s values charter seems to be an attempt to control multiculturalism under the pretense of creating a neutral and peaceful environment. This distinction between the charters makes a difference in how citizens in Quebec are treated as opposed to how Canadian citizens should be treated. The values charter implies that there are citizens of traditional Quebec culture, namely white Roman Catholic individuals, who deserve full protection of their rights. Although the values charter prohibits the wearing of larger-thanaverage crucifixes, I argue that this is not much of a loss to Roman Catholics since larger-than-average means
that they can wear crucifixes as they usually would since most crucifixes worn are designed to be relatively small anyway. In contrast, hijabs and turbans are naturally more noticeable. Hence it seems the values charter is only using neutrality as an excuse to control the right to freedom of religious expression. For whole communities whose ethnic and religious identities must be compromised under the values charter, they are essentially denied full citizen rights. Therefore, the values charter is inherently dangerous because even though law is supposed to protect citizens, the legal system in Quebec will have no mechanism to identify the racism enacted through the charter, and thus fail to protect certain citizens by offering legal recourse. In conclusion, Quebec’s values charter appears to be an attempt at assimilation that sacrifices the rights of various ethnic and religious groups for the sake of Roman Catholics who represent Quebec’s traditional heritage. It uses the idea that religious neutrality results in equality, and by doing so, perpetuates oppression but preserves the privilege of white Roman Catholics. Hence, the values charter contradicts the very values of Canada, namely freedom and equality. If the values charter is officially put into effect, it will strip away the freedom and equality of entire groups of people, and go against Canada’s proud multicultural identity. References
Bybelezer, Charles."Quebec's Disgraceful 'Values Charter'." Jerusalem Post: 15. Oct 10 2013. ProQuest. Web. 2 Dec. 2013 . Lawrence, Bonita, and Dua. "Decolonizing Antiracism." Trans. Array Social Justice. 32.4. Crime and Social Justice Associates, 2005. Print. "Quebec Unveils 'Values Charter'." Trail Times: 5. Sep 11 2013. ProQuest. Web. 2 Dec. 2013 .
Image Credits
"Open Letter: Madeleine Parent Would Have Never Supported the Quebec Charter of Values." News for the Rest of Us. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Dec. 2013.
PAGE 11
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
PRE-LAW SOCIETY
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
MARIA-CHRISTINA CHRISTODOULOU
ASSISTANT EDITORS
ALEXANDRIA MATIC NINA MODARESI
LAYOUT DESIGNER
TIRTHAK PATEL
WRITERS
ALI AUN SYED JENNY DU KARISHMA PRASANNA MALCOLM PECK-MCQUEEN SAHAR ROSTAMI SARAH KARIM TIFFANY HUYNH
PRE-LAW SOCIETY
THE PANEL ISSUE
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
WHAT’S INSIDE ?
SHOULD ROB FORD RESIGN? TRANSGRESSIONS MIKE DUFFY’S
4
8
THE LEGALITY OF NSA WIRETAPPING
2
ON QUEBEC’S VALUE CHARTER: AN ETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS HEIRARCHY?
10
Voir Dire means “to speak the truth” in Old French.
Launched in April 2004 as the brainchild of Andrea Wong, Voir Dire serves as a medium for promoting the knowledge, interest, and involvement of U of T students considering a future in the field of law. Voir Dire is published in print and online on academic quarterly basis.
PAGE 1
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
voir dire
[Cover Page Image from http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/rob-ford-court.jpg ]
THE LEGALITY OF NSA WIRETAPPING
Ali Aun
Ever since the program was first started by the Bush administration in 2001, the National Security Agency’s (NSA) wireless interception program has drawn scrutiny from skeptics who have raised concerns over the legality of the program. Allowed to intercept calls anywhere around the world, concerns have regularly surfaced over whether the program adheres to the American and International legal frameworks. However, the fiercest criticism to date has come forth ever since Edward Snowden’s revelation of the extent of wiretapping first became public back in June 2013. As Snowden opened the Pandora’s Box on the surveillance activities of the NSA, numerous questions were raised about the legitimacy of what seemed like a blatant violation of fundamental human rights. Amidst the uproar and criticism directed towards the organization and its PRISM program, high-ranking government officials have had to come to the defense of wiretapping as they seek to restore the trust of the international community in the United States. Officials, including President Obama, have argued in the face of unsparing criticism that the program remains within the boundaries of US Constitution and that the process of wiretapping remains rather transparent and aimed only at foreign elements considered a threat to American national security and interests. The NSA’s powers very first vastly expanded shortly after 9/11 when President George W. Bush’s executive order allowed them to conduct warrantless surveillance on certain telephone calls. Citing national security as the driving factor behind the move, it was incorporated within the US legal framework. The program was further crystallized with the passing of the FISA Amendments Act in 2008 (and extension in 2012 by the Obama administration), and expanded the scope of the warrantless wiretapping program to international communications. The problem has however risen as Americans view the law as encroachment of the rights granted to them through the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution (Freedom of Speech and Right to
Privacy respectively). Whilst defenders of the program have failed to remove the cloud of secrecy around the program, the FISC has snubbed claims of the wiretaps being illegal. Government lawyers, such as Stuart Delery, have cited a 1979 Supreme Court ruling as precedent for the defense of the program arguing that Americans are not in a position to bring cases against the laws. Justice Alito took a similar stance in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, arguing that Americans’ fears of wiretapping were “highly speculative.” Snowden’s revelations, on the contrary, further make the legal status of the program unclear as confidential documents have shown repeated violations of law. In an article, the Washington Post revealed that an internal audit found 2,776 incidents of unauthorized collection of metadata in the 12 months preceding May 2012. The questionable status of the law relative to the Constitution is another cause for concern for the American general public. The questions over the legality have further intensified by the aggressive nature of international wiretaps that the NSA has embarked upon. While Obama and co. have made attempts to alleviate the feelings of mistrust and skepticism within the United States, few efforts have been made to hide the revelations of surveillance around the world. Snowden revealed the extent of the foreign wiretaps and how countries like France and Germany, who retain strong ties with the United States, were amongst the several countries which became victim to NSA program. Revelations about German
PAGE 2
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
Chancellor Angela Merkel being one of the victims of the wiretaps caused uproar in Europe. Questions have also been raised as a result whether the program is violating EU laws and whether the NSA can be held accountable for the violation of these laws. However, the process has been rather complex due to the program being run from the United States and ostensibly through legal means. A new study into EU wiretaps following the Snowden revelations has declared the NSA, the GCHQ of the United Kingdom, as well as agencies from France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands guilty of breaching “basic articles of the EU treaty” which deal with “sincere cooperation” as well as matters of privacy. Spanish jurist, Sergio Carrerra, and Lieden University professor, Francesco Ragazzi, declare the US and EU espionage programs involved in the scandal as “systematically breaching the fundamental rights of people” and have called for full disclosure of the surveillance programs. U.S. spy chief, James Clapper, has vehemently defended against such demands declaring that foreign wiretaps are “entirely normal” and being done for decades. Furthermore, he has dismissed claims that the program over-steps its legal limits imposed by the Congress and boasts that such instances were “rare, inadvertent and usually minor” and that the NSA remains cognizant of people’s fundamental rights. Nevertheless, as detailed investigation of the program is ongoing and the United States continues to resist full disclosure of its espionage program, a lack of clarity over the legal framework binding the NSA wiretap program prevails. The revelations have created a firestorm of international criticism against the US and the “Five Eyes” (US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and turned the issue into a major PR scandal for the US as the program is seen as violating a plethora of laws in the United States and internationally. However, claims that the NSA remains within its legal boundaries makes the situation surrounding the issue rather complex and one that demands time and extensive scrutiny before any decision is forthcoming. Whatever the decision, the growing consensus is that the law is intrusive and pervasive and that failure to provide the public with more may be detrimental to the already tarnished image of the United States around the world following the debacle.
References
"A short history of warrantless wiretapping in the US." Circa News. N.p., 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http://cir.ca/ news/history-of-nsa-wiretapping>. "Government gives AT&T special immunity from wiretapping lawsuits."Circa News. N.p., 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http://cir.ca/news/att-granted-wiretap-immunity>. Greenwald, Glenn. "Fisa court oversight: a look inside a secret and empty process." theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http:// www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-courtoversight-process-secrecy>. Hanly, Ken. "US lawyers claim Americans cannot challenge NSA spying legality." US lawyers claim Americans cannot challenge NSA spying legality. N.p., 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. http://digitaljournal.com/article/362710 Koring, Paul. "U.S. spy chief says foreign wiretap operations are entirely normalAdd to ...." The Globe and Mail. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ us-spy-chief-says-foreign-wiretap-operations-are-entirelynormal/article15151923/>. Lantier, Alex. "World Socialist Web Site."Scandal grows over NSA wiretapping of German Chancellor Merkel -. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/28/ scan-o28.html>. Rettman, Andrew. "NSA and GCHQ mass surveillance is violation of European law, report finds." theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http:// www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/07/nsa-gchqsurveillance-european-law-report>. Strohm, Chris. "NSA Phone-Records Spying Said to Violate Rules for Years."Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-10/nsa -phone-records-spying-violated-court-rules-for-years.html>.
Image Credits
"GameInformer." Www..com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2013.
PAGE 3
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
voir dire
SHOULD ROB FORD RESIGN?
This is the question on the mind’s of many Torontonians. With the situation in Toronto garnering international attention, some of our writers wanted to weigh in on whether In addition to his violations of the City of Toronto Act, or not Rob Ford should step down.
Author: Malcolm Peck-McQueen
interest. Mayor Ford's actions, instead, send the message that breaking criminal law is acceptable conduct. Therefore, he cannot claim to provide respectable leadership to city council. Due to his flagrant disregard for his statutory responsibilities as mayor, Ford should step down immediately.
The unprecedented turmoil surrounding Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has raised some important questions regarding municipal government in Ontario. Since his admission to purchasing and smoking crack cocaine, and impaired driving, city council and Torontonians have been debating whether or not Ford should resign or remain in his position as mayor. Ford's supporters claim that the mayor should not resign because of the legitimacy of his election. It is argued that, because the citizens of Toronto elected him democratically, voters in the 2014 election must determine Ford’s future. Although we should not dismiss the importance of democratic legitimacy in municipal governance, additional factors lead to the conclusion that Ford should resign immediately. Firstly, the Mayor of Toronto has certain statutory responsibilities as the head of city council and chief executive officer of the city. Section 133 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 states that “it is the role of the mayor of the City, as the head of council, to provide leadership to council and to represent the City at official functions.” With respect to both of these statutory provisions, Ford has failed to fulfill his obligations as mayor. As for the latter, Ford has not represented the city in a responsible manner at official functions. It is now a well-established fact that Ford was intoxicated earlier this year while attending the Garrison Ball. This does not represent the city’s administration in a positive light for the citizens of Toronto. And as for the former, the mayor should set an example for council as to what conduct strengthens the public good in Toronto. Purchasing and consuming crack cocaine violates criminal law and constitutes an offence against public
Mayor Ford should resign for ethical reasons. After his confessions, Ford has said he has no reason to resign because there are no pending criminal charges against him by Toronto Police Services. However, it would be a disservice to the city to disregard his confession simply due to a lack of criminal charges. It is an unfortunate consequence of strict judicial rules that not all criminals can be brought to justice, but it does not take away from the fact that a crime was committed. Ford himself admitted that, during his term as mayor, he has purchased and consumed illicit drugs. Breaking such serious laws should require an immediate resignation of public officials given that they are charged with law-making in the first place. It is also incredibly hypocritical of Ford to argue that he does not need to resign because, in the wake of the Eaton Centre and Danzig Street shootings in 2012, he publicly denounced gangs, drug violence, and supported harsher penalties for criminals. Ford's position on the consequences of his own behaviour undermines the basic rationale behind the rule of law. Claiming that apologizing for his actions is all that he
PAGE 4
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
can do to rectify the situation suggests that harsh penalties need not apply to elected officials who are not engaged in criminal activity on a full-time basis. Yet, purchasing and consuming illicit drugs even once contributes to the gang culture that Ford publicly condemns. Ford should accept that he conducts business with drug dealers. However insignificant it may seem to him, it is a serious harm to the public good and violates his espoused principles. Therefore, although the police may not have enough evidence to charge him with a crime, as the law and order conservative that he claims to be, Mayor Ford should resign. Nonetheless, even if Ford resigns, the recent controversy in Toronto has brought up the broader issue of electoral reform in municipal governance. Toronto City Council has voted to limit Ford's powers as mayor, citizens have protested repeatedly in front of City Hall, and polling has shown majority support for his resignation but Ford remains the Mayor of Toronto. With the introduction of recall election laws in Ontario, the question of legitimately removing an elected official could be easily solved. In Toronto's case, Mayor Ford claims that his removal from office would be a coup d'état. A recall election, however, would be completely democratic and an entirely legal method of removing the mayor. To trigger the recall of an elected official, voters would cast their ballots in free and fair elections. The elected official would have the opportunity to campaign to remain in office. Ultimately, the public would decide whether or not the official loses their position and democratic legitimacy is maintained throughout the process. Thus, it is clear that Rob Ford should resign as Mayor of Toronto because of both his failure to execute the statutory responsibilities of the office and his moral failing as a civic leader. And while Torontonians should rightly hope that a similar situation never arises, we should appreciate that the Rob Ford cracksmoking incident has stimulated the discussion of much-needed electoral reform in municipal government. Image Credits
"Rob Ford and Race: Redskins Comments Continue Troubling Trend." Www.canada.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2013.
Author: Jenny Du The political disaster of Robert Bruce “Rob” Ford, the sixty-fourth and current Mayor of Toronto, has been embarrassing to witness. For Torontonians, the fact that their city’s Mayor smoked crack cocaine is the least of their concerns. They are more troubled by Mayor Ford’s lack of integrity – at first denying the allegations against him. The media has attributed many shameful labels to Mayor Ford, describing him as a crack addict, a liar, and one that is perpetually impaired on the job. Prior to his mayoral election, Ford’s lying, violence, and drunken stupors were publicly recognized. Yet, despite a history of reported moral failings, Ford declared and won his mayoral candidacy in 2010, taking on the highest-ranking role in our municipal government. Ford’s history of substance abuse dates back to February 1999, when he was arrested in Miami, Florida for marijuana possession, and driving under the influence (DUI). True to form, Ford initially denied the charges, but later admitted to both.1 His reckless behaviour was documented during his term as a city councillor in 2006 when he was forcefully removed by security from the Air Canada Centre for berating and verbally abusing a married couple. He told the wife to “go over to Iran and get raped and shot”. When confronted, Ford refuted the allegations, denying he was ever there. However, Air Canada Centre’s security staff revealed Councillor Rob Ford’s business card, to which he later recanted his refutation.2 A pattern in his behaviour, in early 2008, Councillor Rob Ford was also arrested for domestic assault against his wife.3 As mayor, Rob Ford has lied, denied, and evaded confrontations about his drug use for months. The mayor finally admitted to smoking crack when Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair revealed the police were in possession of a video exposing Ford’s possession of a crack pipe and his intoxication. Ford shamelessly asked for Toronto’s forgiveness during numerous interviews.4 Ford’s dishonesty and misconduct has rightfully portrayed him as ultimately unfit of his role as Toronto’s mayor. Furthermore, his participation in suspected criminal activity has filled nearly 500 pages of evidence gathered by the Toronto Police. Among the evidence
PAGE 5
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
voir dire
is a photo of Mayor Ford and three alleged drug dealers. When asked about the photo by Councillor Michael Thompson, Ford claimed to never having met the three men and that “they came out and asked *him+ to take a picture with them and that’s the Godhonest truth”. 5 As a man possessing a top municipal role in Toronto, Ford’s inappropriate use of language has been a hot topic, especially when interacting with reporters. On November 7, 2013, a video of Ford revealed him in a tirade yelling, “I need fuckin' ten minutes to make sure he’s dead!” along with other threats.6 Ford’s inappropriate oral sex comment about Olivia Gondek is his most recent use of slander. Councillor Janet Davis told reporters that Ford’s comments are “degrading to a former staff person and his own wife”, and that Ford should “go away and let this city get on with repairing its reputation.”7 After admitting to the Toronto city council that he has smoked crack cocaine and purchased illegal drugs since his election, the city council voted 37-5 in favour of a motion requesting Mayor Ford to consider a leave of absence. Throughout the debate, Ford maintained that he is not a drug addict or an alcoholic, while physically threatening Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, the councillor currently pushing forward a motion that asks Ford to step down. The Mayor’s brother, Councillor Doug Ford, who grabbed Ford’s arm during the incident, had to physically intercept the threat.8 Currently, Ford remains adamant about staying in office and running for reelection in October 2014. While Ford does not deserve compassion or understanding, his supporters do. They put their faith in him and his “Ford Agenda”, only to see their aspirations betrayed. Ford Nation was an eager bunch, willing to look beyond his personal problems as they wanted to support his slate of policies that including “contracting out of non-essential public services, minimizing tax increases or freezing taxes entirely, and halting the constant rise in city spending.”9 Ford has disappointed his supporters by his inappropriate actions, which have impaired his ability to uphold his promises to Torontonians. The majority of municipal councillors agree that Ford needs to leave office. Recent polls suggest that
Torontonians agree with city council. A November 2013 survey by Ipsos-Reid for CTV, CP24, and Newstalk 1010 reveals that almost 70% of Toronto residents view his plan to stay in office and run for the 2014 re-election as intolerable. 75% feel the mayor should step down, either temporarily or permanently. Ford Nation is also increasingly opposing the mayor, with a majority of residents in each of the boroughs saying they disapprove of Ford’s behaviour. 41 percent said that Ford should step down and never return to politics. Furthermore, recent polls reveal Ford’s unlikely chance of winning a re-election. Ford pales against potential and declared candidates such as Karen Stintz, John Tory, and Olivia Chow.10 Clearly, the people of Toronto no longer rely on Ford to represent them. In this critic's opinion, a man under active police, and in connection to criminal activities, should not act as the leading voice of Toronto. To this Torontonian, Rob Ford is a failing politician and failing human being, and has shamed
PAGE 6
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
Toronto long enough. The right thing for Ford to do is to step down from his duties and allow Toronto to elect a new candidate befitting the role as mayor of Canada’s largest city. References
1. Grant, Kelly. August 19, 2010. "Ford forgot marijuana charge,
confuses impaired driving charge". Toronto, Ontario: The Globe and Mail. 2. CBC News. May 3, 2006. "Ford admits lying to media about drunken outburst". Toronto, Ontario: CBC News. 3. Topping, David. March 26, 2008. “Rob Ford Arrested and Charged in Domestic Dispute”. The Torontoist. 4. The Globe and Mail. November 5, 2013. “Rod Ford must resign.” Globe Editorial. 5. Commisso, Christina. November 13, 2013. “Toronto council passes non-binding motion asking Rob Ford to step down.” CTVNews.ca. 6. Warmington, Joe. November 16, 2013. “I need f-in 10 minutes to make sure he's dead: New Rob Ford video surfaces.” Toronto & GTA News, Toronto Sun. 7. Gerster, Jane. November 24, 2013. “Rob Ford vows to sue, stuns city with oral sex comment.” The Star. 8. Alcoba, N. & Visser, J. November 13, 2013. “Rob Ford admits to buying illegal drugs while mayor, loses humiliating council vote 37 to 5.” National Post: Toronto. 9. National Post. October 31, 2013. “For the good of Toronto, Rob Ford must step down.” National Post editorial board. 10. Grenier, E. November 14, 2013. “Poll suggests most Torontonians want Rob Ford to step down.” The Huffington Post Canada.
transit plan for the GTA simply because he did not agree with TTC chair Kren Stintz. This alone reveals his lack of understanding towards the Downtown Relief Program, which would have better served the public. 1 However, some issues are of more concern to Toronto as a whole. According to MP Jason Kenney, Toronto has become “an international laughing stock.”2 This is not the kind of reputation we want for our city and what Rob Ford needs to do now, for the sake of Toronto, is to be civil and take responsibility for his actions by stepping down. With Ford’s resignation being impossible at the moment, the media will only continue to hound him. In addition, Vancouver Mayor Greg Robertson asserts; “The sooner that the issue is resolved and Mr. Ford steps out of the limelight, the better for Toronto and the better for Canadian cities.”3 Citizens of Toronto, as well as politicians, have turned their backs in disapproval of Ford. At this point, it is quite evident that Toronto needs to move on from this scandal and city council should be able to move on to more pressing issues currently affecting Toronto. Another issue that arises from the Ford scandal is that city councillors should be more focused on doing their jobs rather than spending time and money on Ford’s removal i.e. conducting interviews and debating motions on Ford. Toronto has and will continue to embrace a dysfunctional governing system because of Ford’s allegations and negative impacts towards the city as of late. Essentially, Ford needs to work on his personal issues until he is suitable to run a political agenda for this city. In the case of Ford’s duration as mayor, the cons outweigh the pros and it seems to be necessary that Ford ends this turmoil he has brought upon Toronto by resigning as mayor. References
Author: Sarah Karim Mayor Rob Ford has sparked much controversy among the city of Toronto since his alleged illegal drug use of crack cocaine, among other criminal offences such as drunk driving. The “crack scandal” has created nothing but bad publicity for Toronto and its citizens and brings forth the question: should Rob Ford resign? While city council has already stripped the mayor of his powers, a majority of Torontonians believe that Ford should step down considering the negative image he has created for the city of Toronto. Looking through a political and economic standpoint, Ford has done some good towards reducing debt as compared to former mayor David Miller. Yes, he has saved taxpayer dollars by terminating vehicle registration fees and implementing budget cuts. However, it should not be forgotten that he has disused millions of dollars by disregarding a potential
1. O'Toole, Megan. "Downtown Toronto Has ‘enough Subways Already,’ Mayor Rob Ford says." National Post. 10 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/11/downtowntoronto-has-enough-subways-already-mayor-rob-ford-says/>.
2. Campion-Smith, Bruce, and Susan Delacourt. "Rob Ford: Jason Kenney Says Mayor Must Resign." Thestar.com. 19 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/11/19/
rob_ford_scandal_jason_kenney_says_mayor_must_step_aside.html>.
3 Bailey, Ian. "'Do the Right Thing' and Step Down, Vancouver's Robertson Tells Rob Ford." The Globe and Mail. 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-
columbia/do-the-right-thing-and-step-down-vancouvers-robertson-tells-rob-ford/ article15534423/>.
PAGE 7
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
voir dire
MIKE DUFFY’S TRANSGRESSIONS
Karishma Prasanna
ongoing debate surrounding Senate reform. According to the evidence, Duffy charged the Senate for travel and housing expenses during the 2011 federal election campaign – expenses that had nothing to do with his job as a Senator, but with his personal political aspirations.2 Further claims also suggest that Duffy purposely misled the Senate regarding the whereabouts of his permanent residence, in order to claim housing expenses for lodging in Ottawa. Duffy “changed the address on his personal bank account to his address in Prince Edward Island just days after the Senate said it was conducting an internal audit of all primary and secondary housing allowance claims.”3 The convention is that “senators who live more than 100 kilometers outside the national capital region can claim up to $21,000 a year in living expenses to cover their Ottawa-area home.”4 Duffy claimed the living expenses for his Ottawa residence, even though Ottawa is where he primarily resided.
Recently, Mike Duffy has been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. An ex-conservative (now independent) Senator from Prince Edward Island, Duffy was embroiled in the Senate expense scandal that took place earlier this year, and has consequently been suspended from his position for two years. Although three other Senators (Mac Harb, Pamela Wallin, and Patrick Brazeau) faced similar accusations regarding the misuse of Senate funds, Duffy’s misconduct went a step further in that he received money from Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, to cover the cost of his legal expenses and pay back the misused funds.1 Not surprisingly, the scandal has captured the Canadian public’s attention, and has brought new light to the
PAGE 8
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
When the scandal first came to the public’s attention, Duffy agreed to pay back approximately $90,000 to the Senate, and claimed that he and his wife planned to take out a loan from the bank to do so. Unfortunately, this is not what happened, as the Prime Minister’s Office got involved with Duffy’s financial mishaps. The PM’s chief of staff at the time, Nigel Wright, allegedly wrote a personal cheque to Duffy for the exact amount that he owed to the Senate. According to The Conflict of Interest Code, Senators can only receive “compensation authorized by law…and gifts that are within the customary standards of hospitality.”5 The Code also requires Senators to disclose any gift worth more than $500. The PM has vehemently denied knowing anything about this and has worked hard to distance himself from the affair. However, Duffy has made ardent claims that the PM was in on the situation all along.6 Recently, he even went so far as to say that “the Prime Minister wasn't interested in explanations or the truth. It's not about what you did, it's about the perception of what you did that's been created in the media.”7 Ultimately, after the months of hearings that followed the RCMP’s investigation into the scandal, it was determined that Duffy will be suspended from the Senate for two years, without pay. The scandal has been followed closely by the Canadian public and has reopened the debate on the legitimacy and necessity of the Canadian Senate. How much power should an unelected house of Parliament really have? What does the institution contribute to the democratic processes of our government? These questions have led many to not only push for Senate reform, but for the abolishment of the Senate all together. For example, Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty has been one member of the Conservative government to openly claim that having “a non-elected legislative body is an anachronism.”8 Others, such as Ontario Premier, Kathleen Wynne, have taken a softer stance, stating that a couple of bad Senators do not mean the end of the game for the whole house.9 However, as we move forward, and continue to push for a more effective and efficient government, it has become abundantly clear that there is no room for the Senate within our political system, as it stands today.
References
1.
"Mike Duffy Claims Harper Told Him to Repay Expense
Money." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
"Mike Duffy Double Dipped during 2011 Election, RCMP alleges." National Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. "Mike Duffy Double Dipped during 2011 Election, RCMP alleges." National Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. "Mike Duffy Under Attack In House Of Commons." The Huffington Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. "Ethics Commissioner Reviewing Mike Duffy Affair." Global News. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. Mike Duffy Complies with RCMP Senate Probe for PMO Emails." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. "Mike Duffy Claims Harper Told Him to Repay Expense Money." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. "Senate 'disruptive' Economically, and 'anachronism' That Needs to Be 'abolished,' Flaherty says." National Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. "Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne Wants to Reform Senate, Not Abolish it." National Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.
8.
9.
Image Credits
"Sen. Mike Duffy Takes Medical Leave." Toronto Sun. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2013.
PAGE 9
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
ON QUEBEC’S VALUE CHARTER: AN ETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS HIERARCHY?
Tiffany Huynh
Minister Bernard Drainville presents Quebec’s values charter as a way to guarantee equality in a secular state. He states that since Quebec is “increasingly a multiethnic, multireligious society…the time has come to unite us around clear values and common rules” (“Quebec Unveils 'Values Charter'"). However, in this essay, I argue that Quebec’s values charter utilizes the logic of neutrality as a source of equality and fairness to create an oppressive ethnic and religious hierarchy that limits who gets to enjoy the full privileges of citizenship in Quebec. First, I will discuss how the values charter obscures the colonial violence entrenched in Quebec nationalism. Then, I will explain how existing inequalities embedded in the foundation of Quebec are perpetuated through the values charter. Finally, I will address the implications of the fact that the values charter conflicts with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The values charter may seem important for Quebec nationalism, but ultimately it is incompatible with notions of human rights because it perpetuates violence and inequality. As a historical concept that has shaped the modern
world, nationalism cannot be dismissed; however, it is a fact that Quebec, as well as many nations, were formed from colonial violence that was justified by reducing Indigenous people to savages that needed to be civilized by European culture. I argue that the values charter’s attempt to be religiously neutral by banning all public workers from wearing “conspicuous” religious symbols (including hijabs, turbans, yarmulkes and larger -than-average crucifixes) perpetuates the inequalities entrenched in the formation of Quebec. First, it is a mode of assimilation that flattens out social differences and historical specificities so that all ethnic and religious groups become “‘interest groups whose claims must be measured against the needs of other ‘groups’ of citizens” (Lawrence and Dua 124-5). Since there are numerous ‘interest groups’ in Quebec, being religiously neutral in public spaces is supposed to prevent ethnic and religious conflicts so that individuals with different backgrounds can live peacefully together. However, this ultimately obscures existing inequalities in society. For instance, one must address the overt anti-Islamism of many prominent Quebecois figures. Amir Khadir, a member of the provincial government, had promoted the boycotting of the shoe store, Le Marcheur, because the store carried some items made in Israel (Bybelezer). Thus the values charter’s avocation of ethnic and religious blindness in public spaces cannot recognize racism, and instead, enacts a kind of systemic violence against victims of discrimination by offering no forms of legal recourse.
PAGE 10
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
Furthermore, the values charter also perpetuates inequalities by reaffirming the privileges of white Catholics. Since Roman Catholic, white Europeans were the founders of Quebec, the values charter serves to protect their interests. For example, the crucifix above Montreal’s Mount Royal will not be removed since it is deemed an important part of Quebec’s history and heritage (Bybelezer). In addition, minister Drainville was caught off guard when asked if courtroom witnesses and elected politicians had to swear an oath on the Bible (Bybelezer). These examples illuminate the formation of an ethnic and religious hierarchy that perpetuates inequality. If all humans are supposed to be equal, then it makes no sense for the interests of certain minority groups to be sacrificed for the sake of Quebec’s culture. After all, ethnicity and religion are not simply pieces of clothing that people can take off when it is convenient to do so. They are crucial to people’s identities and they are linked to sacred histories and ways of life. Hence, the right to wear religious symbols cannot be easily compromised. The values charter’s failure to acknowledge the importance of these identities, while simultaneously stressing the importance of Quebec’s traditional culture, implies that some citizens are more important than others. Finally, it is clear that the values charter is also incompatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, in that it distinguishes who gets to be full Quebecois citizen with rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom guarantees the freedom of expression of religion and it is designed to protect citizens from xenophobia. However, Quebec did not support the charter and it never formally signed it. This is important to note since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom was created to celebrate and protect multiculturalism. On the other hand, Quebec’s values charter seems to be an attempt to control multiculturalism under the pretense of creating a neutral and peaceful environment. This distinction between the charters makes a difference in how citizens in Quebec are treated as opposed to how Canadian citizens should be treated. The values charter implies that there are citizens of traditional Quebec culture, namely white Roman Catholic individuals, who deserve full protection of their rights. Although the values charter prohibits the wearing of larger-thanaverage crucifixes, I argue that this is not much of a loss to Roman Catholics since larger-than-average means
that they can wear crucifixes as they usually would since most crucifixes worn are designed to be relatively small anyway. In contrast, hijabs and turbans are naturally more noticeable. Hence it seems the values charter is only using neutrality as an excuse to control the right to freedom of religious expression. For whole communities whose ethnic and religious identities must be compromised under the values charter, they are essentially denied full citizen rights. Therefore, the values charter is inherently dangerous because even though law is supposed to protect citizens, the legal system in Quebec will have no mechanism to identify the racism enacted through the charter, and thus fail to protect certain citizens by offering legal recourse. In conclusion, Quebec’s values charter appears to be an attempt at assimilation that sacrifices the rights of various ethnic and religious groups for the sake of Roman Catholics who represent Quebec’s traditional heritage. It uses the idea that religious neutrality results in equality, and by doing so, perpetuates oppression but preserves the privilege of white Roman Catholics. Hence, the values charter contradicts the very values of Canada, namely freedom and equality. If the values charter is officially put into effect, it will strip away the freedom and equality of entire groups of people, and go against Canada’s proud multicultural identity. References
Bybelezer, Charles."Quebec's Disgraceful 'Values Charter'." Jerusalem Post: 15. Oct 10 2013. ProQuest. Web. 2 Dec. 2013 . Lawrence, Bonita, and Dua. "Decolonizing Antiracism." Trans. Array Social Justice. 32.4. Crime and Social Justice Associates, 2005. Print. "Quebec Unveils 'Values Charter'." Trail Times: 5. Sep 11 2013. ProQuest. Web. 2 Dec. 2013 .
Image Credits
"Open Letter: Madeleine Parent Would Have Never Supported the Quebec Charter of Values." News for the Rest of Us. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Dec. 2013.
PAGE 11
VOLUMEIX ISSUEII DECEMBER2013
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
PRE-LAW SOCIETY
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
MARIA-CHRISTINA CHRISTODOULOU
ASSISTANT EDITORS
ALEXANDRIA MATIC NINA MODARESI
LAYOUT DESIGNER
TIRTHAK PATEL
WRITERS
ALI AUN SYED JENNY DU KARISHMA PRASANNA MALCOLM PECK-MCQUEEN SAHAR ROSTAMI SARAH KARIM TIFFANY HUYNH
