Release: OCLA Calls on Minister Goodale to End Expulsion Procedures Against Mohamed Harkat

Posted on January 29, 2016 by admin

(Ottawa, January 29, 2016) – The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, The Hon. Ralph Goodale, to permanently stay any expulsion of refugee Mohamed Harkat, and to make a public announcement confirming an end to the expulsion procedures. Mr. Harkat was served with deportation papers in the midst of the 2015 federal election.

The OCLA’s reasons are explained in its letter to Minister Goodale. The letter is at the following URL and is reproduced below: https://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-29-Letter-OCLA-to-Hon-R-Goodale.pdf

By Email

January 29, 2016

The Honourable Ralph Goodale
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada, K1A 0A6
ralph.goodale@parl.gc.ca

Re: Canada’s threatened expulsion of refugee Mohamed Harkat

Honourable Minister Goodale:

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) requests that Canada permanently stay any expulsion of refugee Mohamed Harkat, and that a public announcement be made confirming an end to the expulsion procedures.

While we note that Article 32 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Convention”) allows expulsion under the exceptional “grounds of national security”, the OCLA is of the opinion that Canada has not satisfied its obligation to demonstrate valid grounds of national security because, as we understand the matter:

(a)  The particulars of the said grounds have never been disclosed to the Canadian public, to the international community, or to the refugee himself.

(b)  The evidence in support of the said grounds has not been disclosed in open court, has not been disclosed to the refugee himself, and no particulars of the reasons for such non-disclosure have been disclosed to the public.

(c)  The said evidence has not been tested in open court, which is the universal standard for the type of penal charges involved, which have led to lengthy imprisonment in Canada, contrary to international law (fair trial provisions), and which could lead to consequences including torture and death in Algeria.

Furthermore, there is no police evidence whatsoever of any crimes committed in Canada, and no nation has claimed crimes committed elsewhere. On the contrary, Mr. Harkat is integrated and is married to a Canadian citizen, his dedicated wife of many years, Sophie.

More importantly, Canada is barred from actuating expulsion, by virtue of Article 33(1) of the Covenant:

No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Canada’s protracted judicial and penal attacks against Mr. Harkat materially increase the risk to him in Algeria, in addition to his original reasons for seeking asylum.

There can be little doubt that Canada’s said judicial and penal attacks on alleged grounds of “national security”, which have included many years of imprisonment and extreme bail conditions, put Mr. Harkat at great risk to his life and liberty in Algeria, a country that has suffered terrorist attacks, that is an ally of the US, and that is not a model of human rights.

In the words of Human Rights Watch:

Despite the Algerian government’s promises in 2011 to introduce reforms, Algeria has made little progress since then on improving human rights. Authorities curtail free speech and the rights to freedom of association, assembly, and peaceful protest. They also arbitrarily arrest and prosecute political and trade union activists. Perpetrators of torture, enforced disappearances, unlawful killings, and other serious rights abuses committed during the civil war enjoy impunity. The Algerian government blocks the registration of Algerian nongovernmental human rights organizations and has maintained its non-cooperation with UN human rights experts. [Emphasis added]

Canada has been shown in the recent past to have transferred individuals to torturers and to have been indifferent to extracting citizens from jurisdictions that practice torture. We respectfully submit that this negative record must not be repeated, nor appear to be condoned.

It is clear on the face of it that the risk of danger to the life and liberty of Mr. Harkat is far greater than any risk to “national security” that would result from not destroying the Harkat family by allowing Mr. Harkat to stay.

Finally, the OCLA is of the opinion, from direct contact with Mr. Harkat and his family, and from the known circumstances of his Canadian detentions, that Mr. Harkat has suffered significant harm at the hands of Canada. We hold that enough is enough, and we plead that The Honourable Minister exercise his authority to stay the expulsion.[1]

Yours sincerely,

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) https://ocla.ca

About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) is an organization formed to defend civil liberties at a time when fundamental freedoms are subjected to a real and palpable systemic erosion in all spheres of social life. OCLA opposes institutional policies and decisions that remove from the individual his or her personal liberty or exclude the individual from participation in the democratic functions of society.

Contact:

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) https://ocla.ca

[1] The OCLA also notes that there is at least an appearance that the Canadian securities certificates, with their egregious non-conformity to principles of natural justice and international law, are used as an instrument to manipulate public opinion into accepting the so-called “war on terror” and Canada’s participation in that US project of “regime changes” in the Middle East and beyond, for the purpose of US-allied dominance in World affairs and the global economy. There are too many factors giving an appearance of Canada’s possible geopolitical motives for Canada not to take a strong principled approach anchored in human rights and international law in all its domestic decisions.

Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off on Release: OCLA Calls on Minister Goodale to End Expulsion Procedures Against Mohamed Harkat

OCLA letter: Canada’s threatened expulsion of refugee Mohamed Harkat

Posted on January 29, 2016 by admin

Update: Response from Minister Goodale dated March 2, 2016.

The OCLA has written to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Hon. Ralph Goodale, asking him to stay deportation proceedings against Mohamed Harkat.

The letter is posted at the URL here, and on Scribd (see below):

Posted in Letters | Comments Off on OCLA letter: Canada’s threatened expulsion of refugee Mohamed Harkat

Release: OCLA intervenes in the Topham constitutional challenge of the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code

Posted on January 13, 2016 by Joseph Hickey

(Quesnel, BC, January 13, 2016) – The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has intervened in the on-going constitutional challenge of the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. The constitutional challenge was separated from the criminal trial in the case of R. v. Arthur Topham, and is occurring following the jury verdict, which was released in November 2015.

The OCLA’s intervention by letter is posted at the following link: https://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-13-Letter-OCLA-re-R-v-Topham.pdf

The text of the letter is:

By Mail and Fax

January 13, 2016

The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Your Honour:

Re: Unconstitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry)

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) wishes to make this intervention, in letter form, to assist the Court in its hearing of the defendant’s constitutional challenge of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (“Code”), to be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The defendant submits that s. 319(2) of the Code infringes on the s. 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, and is not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.[1]

The Supreme Court of Canada has determined and reaffirmed that the Charter must provide at least as much protection for basic freedoms as is found in the international human rights documents adopted by Canada:[2]

And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”. [Emphasis added.]

Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”). Article 19, para. 2 of the Covenant protects freedom of expression:[3]

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

Further, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment dated 12 September 2011, has specified that any restrictions[4] to the protection of freedom of expression “must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality”:[5]

35. When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat. [Emphasis added.][6]

The impugned provision in the Code does not require the Crown to prove any actual harm, and no evidence of actual harm to any individual or group was presented in the trial of R. v. Topham. There is no “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Topham’s expression on his blog and any threat that would permit restriction of his expression.

The OCLA submits that the current jurisprudence of the Covenant, including the 2011 General Comment No. 34, represents both Canada’s obligation and the current status of reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, in relation to state-enforced limits on expression. The process and the jury-conviction to date in the instant case establish that s. 319(2) of the Code exceeds these limits, and is therefore not constitutional.

Furthermore, s. 319(2) of the Code allows a maximum punishment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. The Code punishment of imprisonment exceeds the “strict tests of necessity and proportionality” prescribed by the Covenant.

In addition, in paragraph 47 of General Comment No. 34, it is specified that: “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” [Emphasis added.] In the penal defamation envisaged in the Covenant, unlike in s. 319(2) in the Code, the state has an onus to prove actual harm.

And in relation to state concerns or prohibitions about so-called “Holocaust denial”, paragraph 49 of the said General Comment has:

Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.

Finally, the OCLA submits that the feature of s. 319(2) that gives the Attorney General direct say regarding proceeding to prosecution (the requirement for the Attorney General’s “consent”)[7] is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, wherein provisions in a statute cannot be subject to arbitrary application or be politically motivated or appear as such. The fundamental principle of the rule of law underlies the constitution.[8]

For these reasons, the OCLA is of the opinion that s. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society.

If the Court requests it, the OCLA will be pleased to make itself available to provide any further assistance in relation to the instant submission.

Yours sincerely,

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) https://ocla.ca
joseph.hickey@ocla.ca

The OCLA’s opinion is amply supported by a continuous international legal consensus that any allowed limit to expression must adhere to the principles of necessity and proportionality. Canada has an obligation to respect its ratified adherence to that consensus.

In the OCLA’s opinion, a statutory scheme for a crime of “inciting hatred” must respect both: (1) an onus on the Crown to prove intent to incite hatred, and (2) an onus on the Crown to prove causation of actual harm (discrimination, hostility, or violence) to one or more actual victim(s).

The OCLA rejects victimless crimes of expression, especially those “perpetrated” merely through public internet diffusion from a personal website or blog or social media account, and in the absence of any actual (not perceived) power relationship. Canada should not enforce “crimes” that consist in publicly publishing words arbitrarily judged to induce hypothetical emotional responses.

Prior efforts of the OCLA
The OCLA became aware of the Crown’s intent to use the hate crime provisions prior to the trial. In September 2014, the OCLA launched a petition to the Attorney General of BC asking that she retract her consent for the criminal proceedings against Mr. Topham. The petition, which is now closed, can be viewed online at the following link: https://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham

About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association
The OCLA vigorously advocates for authentic and unqualified freedom of expression of individuals, on all topics and in every form, in accordance with the right to free expression enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The OCLA also advocates for unimpeded civil liberties and civil rights of all persons, in dealings with public and private institutions and corporations.

Contact:

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) https://ocla.ca
joseph.hickey@ocla.ca

[1] Defendant’s “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Charter Issues”, R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry.

[2] Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan [2015 SCC 4], at para. 64.

[3] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19, at para. 2.

[4] Ibid., Article 19, at para. 3, and Article 20.

[5] General Comment No. 34, UN Human Rights Committee [CCPR/C/GC/34], at para. 22.

[6] Ibid., at para. 35.

[7] Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), s. 319(6).

[8] For a recent example where unconstitutionality arising from the rule of law was the main issue before the court, see: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 (CanLII); and see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 SCR 139, 1991 CanLII 119 (SCC), p. 210 (i).

Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off on Release: OCLA intervenes in the Topham constitutional challenge of the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code

OCLA letter: Unconstitutionality of Canada’s “Hate Speech” Criminal Code Provisions

Posted on January 13, 2016 by admin

The OCLA’s intervention letter to the Honourable Mr. Justice Butler of the Supreme Court of British Columbia was sent today.

The letter is posted at the URL here, and on Scribd (see below):

Posted in Letters | Comments Off on OCLA letter: Unconstitutionality of Canada’s “Hate Speech” Criminal Code Provisions

OCLA’s 2015 Year in Review

Posted on December 29, 2015 by admin

Dear OCLA Supporter,

This email is to give you a recap of the OCLA’s work in 2015.

Connie Fournier Receives 2015 OCLA Civil Liberties Award

Mrs. Connie Fournier received the 2015 OCLA Civil Liberties Award at an event held in Kingston, Ontario, on Friday, November 13, 2015.

Connie is a brave defender of freedom of expression who has represented herself in numerous lawsuits and tribunal proceedings attacking her online discussion forum Free Dominion. Connie is also an active opponent of the attack on civil liberties represented by Bill C-51, and author of the 2015 book Betrayed: Stephen Harper’s War on Principled Conservatism.

Video from the 2015 OCLA Civil Liberties Award event, including video of Connie’s acceptance speech, is available on YouTube at the following link: https://youtu.be/YgBJhhYBs2Y?t=1295

The text of Connie’s acceptance speech is available at the following link: https://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CF-speech-13November2015.pdf

Free Speech for Party Candidates

On August 20, during the 2015 federal election campaign, the OCLA sent a letter to NDP leader Thomas Mulcair protesting the party’s decision to summarily revoke the candidacy of Morgan Wheeldon due to past Facebook comments about Israel that Mr. Wheeldon had made in the context of political discourse. Another candidate, Jerry Natanine, suffered the same fate. The OCLA’s letter is posted online at the following link: https://ocla.ca/letter-to-ndp-leader-thomas-muclair/

On October 16, in the last days before the election, OCLA Executive Director Joseph Hickey was interviewed on Ontario Today (CBC Radio) about this and other decisions by party leaders to expel candidates for controversial comments or behaviour. Joseph was the in-studio guest for the one-hour call-in show. A recording of the show is available at the following link: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/ontariotoday_20151015_72849.mp3

Joseph’s blog post about the topics discussed on the radio show is available at the following link: https://ocla.ca/free-speech-for-candidates/

“Hate Speech” Criminal Prosecution of Arthur Topham

Arthur Topham was found guilty on one charge and not-guilty on a separate charge under the “Hate Speech” provisions of the Criminal Code following a jury trial held in October and November 2015. Mr. Gilad Atzmon, who was called by the defendant as an expert witness at trial, published an analysis of the trial and verdict on his website at the following link: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/11/13/arthur-topham-vs-theodore-nathan-kaufman

The OCLA’s work in relation to R. v. Topham, has included an online petition (1,439 signatures) and letters to the Attorney General of B.C. calling on her to drop the charges, a TV interview by Ezra Levant, a letter criticizing PEN Canada’s improper use of the “Censorship Tracker” website, and a press release denouncing the criminal prosecution. Links to these items are collected under the “Public Campaigns” section of the OCLA’s website, at the following link: https://ocla.ca/our-work/public-campaigns/#anchor-Topham

Mr. Topham and his lawyer are now appealing the trial verdict on grounds that the “Hate Speech” Criminal Code provisions violate the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Their Memorandum of Argument Regarding Charter Issues, submitted to the Supreme Court of B.C., is available at the following link: http://www.radicalpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Memorandum-of-Argument-Regarding-Charter-Issues.pdf

National Defence Implements Policy on Searches in Cadet Summer Camps

In 2014, the OCLA raised concerns, brought by anonymous sources, about sweeping searches of youth participants at cadet summer camps. The sources informed the OCLA that National Defence has now implemented a policy (dated May 28, 2015) regarding the searches, and that the practice of blanket searching lockers for stolen or missing items appears to have been stopped. More information and links are available at: https://ocla.ca/update-national-defence-policy-on-searches-in-cadet-summer-camps/

Complaint Regarding Ottawa Police Association President

In 2014, the OCLA filed a complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Directorate (OIPRD) about a letter sent by the president of the Ottawa Police Association to the president of Carleton University demanding that a criminology professor apologize for making statements that were critical of policing in Ontario.

A brief report and links to background information, including the OCLA’s complaint, the OIPRD Investigative Report (released in March 2015), and media coverage about the complaint can be read at the following link: https://ocla.ca/oclas-complaint-regarding-ottawa-police-association-president-matt-skof/

Position Paper on the Institutional Bias Against Pro-life Campaigners in Ontario

The OCLA is opposed to the evident statutory and institutional bias that exists in Ontario against the free-expression rights of pro-life campaigners. Read the position paper at the following link: https://ocla.ca/our-work/reports/ocla-position-paper-on-institutional-bias-against-pro-life-campaigners-in-ontario/

Media coverage:  “Civil liberties association says withholding abortion stats an affront to democracy”, The Catholic Register, April 29, 2015.

How to Stay Connected and Donate to the OCLA

Twitter: @oncivlib
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/110883345731728/

The OCLA is an independent, volunteer-run organization. Donations help cover operating costs such as booking rooms for public events, printing promotional material for campaigns and events, and paying for court filing fees and court document production costs (copies and binding) regarding court and tribunal interventions on civil liberties issues.

Donations can be made in two ways:

1) Through Paypal, by clicking the “Donate” button in the top-right corner of https://ocla.ca; or
2) By sending a cheque to “Ontario Civil Liberties Association” to our mailing address: 

Ontario Civil Liberties Association
180 Metcalfe Street, Suite 20
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K2P 1P5

Thank you for supporting the OCLA and all the best for the New Year!

Sincerely,

Joseph Hickey, Executive Director
Riana Colbert, Communications and Social Media Director
Matthew Fournier, Technical Director
Caroline Wang, Treasurer
https://ocla.ca

Posted in Newsletters, Year in Review | Comments Off on OCLA’s 2015 Year in Review

Connie Fournier Receives the 2015 OCLA Civil Liberties Award

Posted on November 15, 2015 by admin

Mrs. Connie Fournier received the 2015 OCLA Civil Liberties Award at an event held in Kingston, Ontario, on Friday, November 13, 2015.

Full details, including the video of the event and the text of Connie’s speech, are available here.

Posted in Events | Comments Off on Connie Fournier Receives the 2015 OCLA Civil Liberties Award

Release: OCLA Denounces the Hate Speech Criminal Prosecution of Arthur Topham

Posted on November 9, 2015 by admin

(Ottawa, November 9, 2015) – The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) denounces the criminal prosecution of Mr. Arthur Topham taking place in Quesnel, BC.

Mr. Topham is on trial for charges under the “hate speech” provisions of Canada’s Criminal Code (s. 319(2)). The Crown is expected to make its closing statements today.

These provisions criminalize belief, opinion, and expression of one’s beliefs and opinions, and are incompatible with the universal principle of free debate in a democracy.

No person should ever be subjected to a criminal prosecution without the state having the onus to show actual harm to a person and intent to produce the actual harm, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The “crime” in essence is in the abstract, regarding production of an emotional response “at large”. No actual effect or imminent danger need be demonstrated by the Crown. The Crown will not rely on showing actual harm or intent to harm.

Canada’s “hate crime” provisions require specific consent from the province’s Attorney General for a prosecution to proceed. This feature makes the state’s decision about whether or not to prosecute alleged “hate crimes” particularly susceptible to political influences. In the present political climate in Canada, cases where the expression can negatively impact public opinion about Canada’s diplomatic and military support for US and Israel policy and actions in the Middle East, or where state suppression of targeted expression supports the geopolitical goals of the US and Israel in the Middle East, are among those which are most at risk from being attacked using disproportionate means wielded by the state.

In September 2014, the OCLA launched a petition to the Attorney General of BC asking that she retract her consent for the criminal proceedings against Mr. Topham. The petition, which gathered over 1,400 signatures, can be viewed online at the following link: https://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham

All expression stems from the individual’s experience and perception, and is therefore of value to society, in that it reveals points of view for evaluation. Any individual’s expression of any view is needed content in the struggle for greater democracy and understanding. The OCLA defends Mr. Topham’s expression of his views, along with any other person’s expression of any view. The health of our democracy depends on freedom of speech.

The “hate speech” provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada are irreconcilable with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and should be repealed. They are an offence against decency and human rights.

About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association

The OCLA vigorously advocates for authentic and unqualified freedom of expression of individuals, on all topics and in every form, in accordance with the right to free expression enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The OCLA also advocates for unimpeded civil liberties and civil rights of all persons, in dealings with public and private institutions and corporations.

Contact:

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) https://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)
joseph.hickey@ocla.ca

Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off on Release: OCLA Denounces the Hate Speech Criminal Prosecution of Arthur Topham

Report from the Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (CELS) 2015

Posted on November 3, 2015 by Joseph Hickey

I had the good fortune of attending the CELS 2015 in St. Louis, MO last week (Oct. 29-31). This was for my PhD research, not for the OCLA. However, as the research presented at the conference is of interest to the OCLA, below I list a few highlights from the conference:

Data for all criminal cases in Russia

  • Russian researchers at the Institute for the Rule of Law in St. Petersburg have been given access to detailed data about every criminal proceeding completed in Russia from 2009-2013, a total of 5 million cases. The researchers have found correlations between social status and sentence length (low status correlates with longer sentences) as well as correlations between sentence length and defendant characteristics such as sex, citizenship, and marital status. In their interpretation of their results, the researchers attempt to distinguish between which observations can be justified as having legal origins, and which cannot and must be considered to have extra-legal origins (bias). An example of the latter is the observation that college students appear to be consistently treated more leniently in criminal sentencing than non-students.

Ontario Small Claims Court

  • Researchers at the University of Toronto have been given access to data pertaining to all claims filed in the Ontario Small Claims Court from 2006-2013. The data covers several years before and after the increase in cap amount for small claims lawsuits from $10,000 to $25,000, which occurred on January 1, 2010. The researchers’ analysis suggests that rather than increasing access to justice for the poorest plaintiffs, the cap increase resulted in a reduction in the number of claims filed by the lowest income plaintiffs and an increase in the number of claims filed by higher income plaintiffs. The court does not store the data on case outcomes. Under the contract they signed with the Ministry, the researchers are not permitted to share any of the data they were given.

Judicial recusal experiment

  • A group of researchers from several US universities are conducting an experiment regarding the relationship between lawyers’ campaign donations and judicial recusal. The researchers find lawsuits in which at least one of the lawyers has donated to the judge’s campaign, then send one (“treatment”) sub-group of those judges a letter informing them of the conflict and asking them to recuse themselves. The other (“control”) sub-group is not sent a letter, in order to evaluate the effect that sending the letter has on whether judges recuse themselves or not. The researchers only send letters in cases that are at the very early stages, for reasons related to the approval of their project by an ethical review board. So far, the researchers have observed some (very) preliminary suggestions that judges who receive the treatment letter may be more inclined to disclose the funding relationship, but not more inclined to recuse themselves from the lawsuit.

The program from the conference is here.

Posted in Blog posts | Comments Off on Report from the Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (CELS) 2015

Release: Mrs. Connie Fournier to Receive the 2015 OCLA Civil Liberties Award

Posted on November 2, 2015 by admin

Connie Fournier

(Ottawa, November 2, 2015) — The OCLA will present its 2015 Civil Liberties Award to Mrs. Connie Fournier at a public event in Kingston, Ontario, on November 13 (7 PM, The Side Room, Denny’s, 33 Benson Street, Kingston, Ontario).

In 2001, Mrs. Fournier co-founded Free Dominion, a pioneering internet discussion forum for principled conservatism. Mrs. Fournier and her husband Mark Fournier have valiantly defended the free expression of commentators to their venue and their right to provide the venue, against many defamation complaints and lawsuits that have been a significant burden on her family.

Mrs. Fournier was an organizer in the successful battle to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act — which was used to prosecute citizens for communication of “hate messages” telephonically or on the Internet, without needing to establish actual harm to any person.

Connie Fournier is the author of the 2015 book Betrayed: Stephen Harper’s war on principled conservatism, in which she argued that the Harper government needed to be defeated, by principled conservatives themselves:

When a leader that we have elected goes off the rails and begins to dismantle the very fabric of our democracy, we have a duty to send our own people into the political wilderness until they learn to handle the unfettered power of a majority government with the care and respect it deserves.

Past recipients of the OCLA award were Harry Kopyto (2013), and Terry Jean Bedford (2014).

OCLA’s Award page, updated regularly: https://ocla.ca/ocla-civil-liberties-award/
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/4014426498661639/

About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association
The OCLA vigorously advocates for authentic and unqualified freedom of expression of individuals, on all topics and in every form, in accordance with the right to free expression enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The OCLA also advocates for unimpeded civil liberties and civil rights of all persons, in dealings with public and private institutions and corporations.

Contact:

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) https://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)
joseph.hickey@ocla.ca

Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off on Release: Mrs. Connie Fournier to Receive the 2015 OCLA Civil Liberties Award

Free Speech for Candidates

Posted on October 16, 2015 by Joseph Hickey

I was an in-studio guest yesterday on CBC Radio’s call-in show “Ontario Today”, hosted by Rita Celli. The title of the show was “Canning candidates: Is it good for democracy?” and the topic was the expulsion of candidates by the major parties for gaffes made on social media and elsewhere. A recording of the show is available here. A review of 20 of the “gaffes” from this election was published in the Globe & Mail here.

Two of the main points I made on the show were:

  1. Candidates and representatives must have freedom of speech.
  2. We should make a separation between a candidates’ private life and her public life in relation to her work as a political candidate.

The first point is essential in a representative democracy, in which the members of a community elect an individual to represent them in Parliament. Candidates who put themselves forward as potential representatives of the community must be free to discuss, debate, react, and express a wide-range of points of view on complex and challenging issues. They need this freedom in order to develop positions that represent their fellow community members; and voters need candidates to undergo this process so that they know what they are voting for on election day. As one caller to today’s show said, “everyone says stupid things, and smart people learn from that—the person who has never said anything stupid is the one who currently holds a stupid opinion.”

In an ideal representative system, the representatives truly are individuals; they are independent thinkers who consider the issues and make their own choices in their work as law makers. They may choose to compromise by joining coalitions with other representatives or by joining a party and agreeing to some overarching principles, but they remain at their core individuals elected by their constituents to represent them in Parliament.

In another system, political positions and messages are designed by corporate communications teams attached to the offices of the leaders of the major parties, and any candidate who strays in the smallest way from the party’s branding is swiftly terminated. The misstep can be something said on Facebook or Twitter many years before the candidate ever considered entering politics, and after nomination by the candidate’s local riding association. And because of the culture and the nature of the mass media, no candidate who is not affiliated with one of the major parties has any hope of being elected.

The present system as exhibited in the current election is much closer to the second option, albeit with some degree of democratic decision making regarding the formation of party platforms through the party membership, and some latitude for controversy committed by strategically important candidates or staffers.

It seems to me that a more reasonable approach to outrageous statements made by a candidate would be for the local riding association to provide a public platform for the nominated candidate to interact with the community and local party members: Did you really say that? What do you mean by that? If there was a Bill in Parliament on this issue, how would you vote? The riding association that nominated Mr. Jagdish Grewal may have taken this approach and expanded discussion of the issue within the riding’s community, rather than allowing the party elite to summarily revoke his candidacy and thereby end the discussion.

The second point is also essential and needs to be recognized: a person’s work should be considered separate from her private life. The only question we should ask is, “Did she act that way as part of her work as a political representative, or did those actions actually harm her work as a political representative?” Politicians, like all workers, must be free to have their private lives to themselves, regardless of how immoral, outrageous, or controversial their private lives may seem. If they engage in criminal behaviour, then that is the domain of the police and the courts, just as it would be for any other citizen.

Many examples exist to illustrate this point—JFK, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King Jr. are a few that come to mind. How would the civil rights movement have been affected if King’s private sex life had been exposed the way it might be today on the internet, or had been judged to be relevant to his transformative political work? The more we can separate the private lives of political candidates and representatives from their public, working lives, the more they can be brave and principled in public life. [1]

There’s something Canadians can do to create more democracy in our society: we can choose not to accept any actions by powerful groups that restrict and remove freedom of expression of individuals. This is true for all institutions and organizations, and it’s true for all parties that field candidates in an election. Let’s have blunders, outrage, head-scratching, and argument, rather than the present strict adherence to top-down branding that cleanses out the conflict of ideas that we need to understand one another and create new and better political positions.

[1] Note about muckraking: As citizens interested in optimizing democracy, we should protect the rights of muckrakers, while simultaneously recognizing the complexity of the human person and the irrelevance of most features of private life to the ability to be an effective and principled leader in public affairs. If a candidate makes statements that she intends to be unrelated to her public work, then we should recognize her privacy as worth protecting.

Posted in Blog posts | Comments Off on Free Speech for Candidates