the daily snivel
Another conservative loses the popular vote
Take that, Mr. Harper.
For those of you unaware of Canadian politics, I should point out (if it wasn't staggeringly obvious) that our federal election took place yesterday on June 28. The governing party of the past 10 years, the Liberals, had been struggling under the erosion in public confidence caused by a number of spending scandals, while the Conservative Party (a coalition formed between the old Progressive Conservative Party and the more socially conservative Canadian Alliance Party) was making huge inroads in popularity as an electorate tired of the same old same old yearned for change.
I for one felt horrified at the prospect of a Conservative government, because I felt that the continuing remarks from Alliance (and now "Conservative") Members of Parliament regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court, bilingualism, social spending, taxation, health care, and the constitution betrayed an otherwise hidden agenda of radical far-right ambitions that were smoothed over by the careful speech and repeated assurances that "Statement X by Member Y is not our Party's policy" by Mr. Harper, leader of the Conservatives. The cards were played so closely to the party's chest that all the rhetoric about change and trust and accountability couldn't divorce me, and most Canadians, of the distinct impression that something sneaky was afoot. In fact, 70.39% of Canadians voted for a party other than the Conservatives, indicating a resounding rejection of that ideology. I feel an extra bit proud of my country for that.
I think there is a place for rational discourse around contentious political issues. My ideas and beliefs aren't so sacred that they cannot be challenged. I think that it's only natural that people feel differently about complex social issues and I'm not saying I distrust and dislike the Conservative Party simply because it espouses a great many values that I do not. But while recognizing that candor is seldom even possible for a political party, I think politicians must be clear about their reasoned positions and not simply circle the wagons whenever a member of the caucus publicly states something that most Canadians don't really agree with. More likely than not, it just gives the impression that the party is saying "Not yet, stupid!"
There's a policy void that prevents voters from comparing such inflammatory statements against clearly outlined principles. The other alternative is to look at influential conservative think tanks and academics, such as the "Calgary School" of policy wonks largely responsible for the rise of Mr. Harper, and their record says little that is in any way encouraging because again all you see is hostility to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, public medicare, social justice, multiculturalism, and regulation of industry. The old PC party used to win large voter appeal because it balanced fiscal conservatism with a generally socially liberal policy outlook.
A crazy conservative Canadian blog says this about people with attitudes like mine:
[emphasis mine]
As the election results more properly indicate, it's clear that most people of my generation are very liberal, and an awful lot of them vote. While it's a sad fact that only 60% of Canadians voted on June 28, only 29.61% of those voted for the Conservative Party. Every other major political party in Canada is socially liberal. Conservatives may be a minority in the population, but a lot of them couldn't be bothered to vote for the Conservative party either.
Last night, I nipped to the polling station between work and client intakes and marked my X for our local New Democratic Party candidate (Ric Dagenais). The NDP is considered a very "lefty" party (in contrast to the successful centrist stance taken by the Liberals), and I have few delusions that they would ever form a majority government, but the power a strong opposition party can wield over a naturally centrist governing party is great. Many of Canada's most prized social traditions were adopted by Liberal governments making use of the best ideas of the NDP and its forerunners. And given that we were almost certainly headed for a Liberal minority government (lacking the 155 out of 308 seats required) with the Conservatives as the opposition, a strong NDP presence would be a badly needed counterbalance by providing enough seats for the Liberals to form a governing coalition between the two parties.
My sister, some friends and myself went out last night after intakes to drink and keep a wary eye on the live CBC coverage, and the CBC obliged by displaying up-to-the-minute seat counts and pie charts showing which party was ahead. I don't think I was surprised by the result (it's essentially what I predicted when the election was called) though I was surprised by the level of punditry and poll-watching that saturated the discussion and predicted an imminent Conservative victory. You could almost see Mr. Harper licking his chops at the thought. It was a relief to go to bed knowing that I wouldn't wake up to a Conservative government that was ready to outlaw same-sex marriage, prohibit abortion, slash taxes beyond any workable threshold for the planned spending, and tinker with the constitution that we hate to see tinkered with so dearly that the last two attempts to amend it utterly collapsed. Not to mention that the Conservatives would have sent Canadian troops to Iraq when the public sentiment against doing so was, and continues to be, so high here.
I like the idea that at least the NDP will help keep a minority Liberal government honest and perhaps pulled a little more to the left -- assuming the government doesn't collapses in a wave of non confidence such that a new election has to be called anyway. It will be interesting to see how the government works -- I hope enough progress can be achieved in terms of passing the bill for same-sex marriage and decriminalizating possession of small amounts of marijuana. Now mind you, I didn't vote Liberal, but it really is one of those "devil you know" situations. The Liberals have a lot more reason to be honest and upfront in their dealings with public money and public trust given that they almost lost it all last night. I mean, I really want to believe better of the government than that it will walk away from this election concluding that it's managed to fool us all again.
Anyway, given how much in favour of Republican values the Conservatives are, what we have now is at least a government I think I can continue to be generally non-ashamed of.
Monday, June 28, 2004 For those of you unaware of Canadian politics, I should point out (if it wasn't staggeringly obvious) that our federal election took place yesterday on June 28. The governing party of the past 10 years, the Liberals, had been struggling under the erosion in public confidence caused by a number of spending scandals, while the Conservative Party (a coalition formed between the old Progressive Conservative Party and the more socially conservative Canadian Alliance Party) was making huge inroads in popularity as an electorate tired of the same old same old yearned for change.
I for one felt horrified at the prospect of a Conservative government, because I felt that the continuing remarks from Alliance (and now "Conservative") Members of Parliament regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court, bilingualism, social spending, taxation, health care, and the constitution betrayed an otherwise hidden agenda of radical far-right ambitions that were smoothed over by the careful speech and repeated assurances that "Statement X by Member Y is not our Party's policy" by Mr. Harper, leader of the Conservatives. The cards were played so closely to the party's chest that all the rhetoric about change and trust and accountability couldn't divorce me, and most Canadians, of the distinct impression that something sneaky was afoot. In fact, 70.39% of Canadians voted for a party other than the Conservatives, indicating a resounding rejection of that ideology. I feel an extra bit proud of my country for that.
I think there is a place for rational discourse around contentious political issues. My ideas and beliefs aren't so sacred that they cannot be challenged. I think that it's only natural that people feel differently about complex social issues and I'm not saying I distrust and dislike the Conservative Party simply because it espouses a great many values that I do not. But while recognizing that candor is seldom even possible for a political party, I think politicians must be clear about their reasoned positions and not simply circle the wagons whenever a member of the caucus publicly states something that most Canadians don't really agree with. More likely than not, it just gives the impression that the party is saying "Not yet, stupid!"
There's a policy void that prevents voters from comparing such inflammatory statements against clearly outlined principles. The other alternative is to look at influential conservative think tanks and academics, such as the "Calgary School" of policy wonks largely responsible for the rise of Mr. Harper, and their record says little that is in any way encouraging because again all you see is hostility to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, public medicare, social justice, multiculturalism, and regulation of industry. The old PC party used to win large voter appeal because it balanced fiscal conservatism with a generally socially liberal policy outlook.
A crazy conservative Canadian blog says this about people with attitudes like mine:
See, even though we’re outnumbered among the population as a whole, social conservatives have one great advantage. Think about it for a second. When you picture a “social conservative”, who do you picture? I see a woman like Elise Wayne or a man like Stockwell Day. Middle aged, gainfully employed, and generally reliable. When I think of a social liberal, I think of a twenty-one year old community college student reading the latest issue of Maxim Magazine in a dilapidated basement somewhere. Which of the two is more likely to vote if properly motivated? The ranks of the social left are greatly inflated by a vast collection of largely useless debris who, in many ways, are more of a liability than anything else.
[emphasis mine]
As the election results more properly indicate, it's clear that most people of my generation are very liberal, and an awful lot of them vote. While it's a sad fact that only 60% of Canadians voted on June 28, only 29.61% of those voted for the Conservative Party. Every other major political party in Canada is socially liberal. Conservatives may be a minority in the population, but a lot of them couldn't be bothered to vote for the Conservative party either.
Last night, I nipped to the polling station between work and client intakes and marked my X for our local New Democratic Party candidate (Ric Dagenais). The NDP is considered a very "lefty" party (in contrast to the successful centrist stance taken by the Liberals), and I have few delusions that they would ever form a majority government, but the power a strong opposition party can wield over a naturally centrist governing party is great. Many of Canada's most prized social traditions were adopted by Liberal governments making use of the best ideas of the NDP and its forerunners. And given that we were almost certainly headed for a Liberal minority government (lacking the 155 out of 308 seats required) with the Conservatives as the opposition, a strong NDP presence would be a badly needed counterbalance by providing enough seats for the Liberals to form a governing coalition between the two parties.
My sister, some friends and myself went out last night after intakes to drink and keep a wary eye on the live CBC coverage, and the CBC obliged by displaying up-to-the-minute seat counts and pie charts showing which party was ahead. I don't think I was surprised by the result (it's essentially what I predicted when the election was called) though I was surprised by the level of punditry and poll-watching that saturated the discussion and predicted an imminent Conservative victory. You could almost see Mr. Harper licking his chops at the thought. It was a relief to go to bed knowing that I wouldn't wake up to a Conservative government that was ready to outlaw same-sex marriage, prohibit abortion, slash taxes beyond any workable threshold for the planned spending, and tinker with the constitution that we hate to see tinkered with so dearly that the last two attempts to amend it utterly collapsed. Not to mention that the Conservatives would have sent Canadian troops to Iraq when the public sentiment against doing so was, and continues to be, so high here.
I like the idea that at least the NDP will help keep a minority Liberal government honest and perhaps pulled a little more to the left -- assuming the government doesn't collapses in a wave of non confidence such that a new election has to be called anyway. It will be interesting to see how the government works -- I hope enough progress can be achieved in terms of passing the bill for same-sex marriage and decriminalizating possession of small amounts of marijuana. Now mind you, I didn't vote Liberal, but it really is one of those "devil you know" situations. The Liberals have a lot more reason to be honest and upfront in their dealings with public money and public trust given that they almost lost it all last night. I mean, I really want to believe better of the government than that it will walk away from this election concluding that it's managed to fool us all again.
Anyway, given how much in favour of Republican values the Conservatives are, what we have now is at least a government I think I can continue to be generally non-ashamed of.
The law of the land
This is an op-ed piece in today's Globe and Mail. It succinctly says what I cannot about why voting for the Conservatives tonight would just be a constitutional nightmare. Effectively, if a Conservative majority couldn't effect constitutional change legally, it would do so illegally. If a Conservative majority didn't like a decision of Canada's highest court, it would invoke the 'Notwithstanding Clause' of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to overrule it. If a bunch of cranky, fundamentalist extremists wanted to pass a draconian bill to criminally prohibit abortion, there probably wouldn't be a whip within the party to stop it.
So yes, I voted tonight, neither for the distasteful Liberals nor for the untrustworthy Conservatives.
Full article here...
So yes, I voted tonight, neither for the distasteful Liberals nor for the untrustworthy Conservatives.
Full article here...
This article was e-mailed to me by my pal Jenn, and I am excerpting it here with a link to the entire article itself, available through the Toronto Star website.
I hope everyone in Canada has gotten it together to vote today.
Saturday, June 26, 2004 I hope everyone in Canada has gotten it together to vote today.
W is for Women?
COLUMN: Will Bush's anti-woman agenda tempt Harper?
Date : Sunday, June 27, 2004
Source : The Toronto Star (CANADA)
BYLINE: Jennifer Wells
It was Richard Goldstein writing in The Village Voice who coined the catchphrase "stealth misogyny."
The piece, published in the spring of 2003, was an examination of the covert workings of George W. Bush and crew to undo decades of advances in women's rights. In succeeding months, the presidential agenda morphed from covert to overt, much like the administration's plans vis-à-vis Iraq.
For examples of the unspooling of women's rights advances, we can cite the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Act, signed into law by the president last November.
...
Here, the Conservatives' Rob Merrifield comes to mind, the party's health critic having advocated third-party, you-can't-possibly-know-what's-good-for-you counselling for women seeking abortions.
Of course, this column isn't about Mr. Merrifield, nor his boss, Mr. Harper. It is not about Mr. Merrifield, Mr. Harper and their party because the Conservatives have offered little in the way of clarity on such matters as women's issues and gay rights. Except for the occasional off-message slip, as in Mr. Merrifield's comments, and those more recently by Conservative MP Randy White, who bemoaned our "misguided" courts, which "miss the conservative social reality of our times." Overriding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, suggested Mr. White, is a way to address such an imbalance.
Quickly thereafter, the cone of silence once again descended on the Conservative Party agenda in these matters.
With little material to work with, we turn again to the U.S. to view snapshots, not of what will happen, but of what can.
...
The president's on-line store offers "W for women" T-shirts, which feature an American flag waving out from the "W." It has a scooped neck, is all cotton, and can be purchased for $17.95 (U.S.). The T-shirts are a tiny part of a vast array of presidential merchandise, which, through ball caps and golf balls and mousepads, evince the many faces of Bush II. There's the "Interstate" merchandise line, which is very NASCAR looking. There's the "Farm-Ranch" line in green and yellow featuring tractor hats and belt buckles and a spray of barbed wire on the licence plate. And there's the minimalist "W" line, all subtle and black and perfect for Manhattanites.
...
Who is the real Stephen Harper? Who knows? His nurturing among the so-called "Calgary School" of wonks is of no help, at least as far as women's issues are concerned. The Calgary School of wonks sounds a lot like that old Chicago School of economists. I never heard Milton Friedman giving much room to women within his small government, low taxes, market forces theology.
<< The Toronto Star -- 6/27/04 >>
Someone randomly forwarded me this e-mail. It had the look and feel of an unverified and inaccurate internet chain mail, but because it dealt with the upcoming Federal election I felt it was worthy to note and comment upon. A quick Google search reveals that a number of other people have revealed this e-mail as well. The website below has a comments forum and a number of posters have debunked a lot of the claims made on behalf of the Conservative Party.
The spam article is dealt with fairly well in comments at the following blog:
http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/000808.html
My own comments follow the political spam itself...
Let's address a few specific gripes with some actual factual points:
The author of the political SPAM writes that his taxes increased during the past 11 years of Liberal governance, but ya know what? The biggest real-world tax increase for most Canadians came with the advent of the GST, a 7% sales tax charged for most goods and services in each and every province. The GST was implemented by the Progressive Conservative Party. The Liberal Party was voted into power in 1993 on a promise to abolish the GST. It never did this. I never voted for either party, however, so I consider it a draw. In any case, average federal personal income tax levels have actually decreased. Indeed, many on the left lament the cuts to social programs made necessary by Mr. Martin's emphasis on tax cutting and deficit reduction. If the author of the article has complaints about his taxation levels, he should look to his provincial government (under Ralph Klein's conservatives, since the author claims to be an Albertan) and his municipal government.
The author claims that Mr. Martin is from Quebec. In fact he is from Windsor, Ontario. The author wants us to believe that Quebec has a disproportionate influence in Canadian politics, and that choosing Mr. Harper would put an end to a long string of rich politicians from Quebec holding this office. In the past forty-seven years we have had just three Prime Ministers from Quebec: Mr. Chretien, Mr. Mulroney, and Mr. Trudeau.
It's hard to address concerns like: "My trust in the justice system has decreased" -- based on what? Too hard, or too lenient? In terms of concerns for one's family's safety, well, violent crime has been steadily declining in Canada. Other concerns like "My personal debt has increased" and "My costs to educate my children have increased" seem only tangentally related to the Federal Government. If anything, a Conservative government that brings in private healthcare and cuts spending is going to increase your debt, since you'll be paying for more services directly. There's no way that a Conservative Government, which is committed to increasing the size of Canada's Armed Forces, using the notwithstanding clause to overturn Supreme Court of Canada decisions, and has flirted with the idea of setting up a Parliamentary Committee to review and decide upon whether controversial judicial decisions are rightly decided (and act to remedy "wrong" decisions) will decrease neither the size, cost or influence of the Federal Government. Sounds to me like we're well on the way to an increase.
Suffice to say, everyone should vote their conscience on June 28, but those who vote for the Conservative Party based on Mr. Robberstad's sloppy reasoning above are dinks.
The spam article is dealt with fairly well in comments at the following blog:
http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/000808.html
My own comments follow the political spam itself...
On Saturday, June 26, 2004, at 03:50 pm, William wrote:
Interesting point of view...
Forwarded message:
My name is Alan Robberstad I am a Canadian.
One voter out of millions of Canadian voters.
Paul Martin is no friend of mine.
Liberal governments have not made my life any better.
Liberal governments have made the future worse for my children.
Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party became Prime Minister many years ago.
Guess who was the Liberal Finance Minister.....Paul Martin...LEST WE FORGET Since 1993
(1) My taxes have increased.
(2) My family's share of the national debt has increased.
(3) My personal expenses have increased.
(4) My waiting time to see a doctor has increased.
(5) My concerns for my family's safety have increased.
(6) My costs to educate my children have increased.
(7) Government interference in my life has increased.
(8) My personal debt has increased.
(9) My income has stayed more or less the same.
(10) My savings have decreased.
(11) The buying power of my dollar, in Canada, has decreased.
(12) The value of my dollar, in the U.S., has decreased.
(13) My trust of elected officials has decreased.
(14) My trust in the justice system has decreased.
(15 )My trust in the immigration system has decreased.
(16) My hope that a Liberal won't waste my tax dollars has decreased.
(17 )My dreams for a better future for my kids, in Canada, have disappeared.
That is my story since the Liberals came to power.
I am not voting for Paul Martin's Liberals.
I am voting against Paul Martin and his Liberal Party on June 28, 2004.
I am voting for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.
Do I like the Conservatives?
Not particularly......I don't really like Politics.
I am not political by nature.
I am not passionate about politics.
I am a middle age guy (48).
I live in a small house on a fairly quiet street in Edmonton.
I have a wife, Kathy, and two children (ages 19 and 17).
I have no pets.
I am a middle class man.
I don't usually say too much.
Until now.
Now I am going to say something!
In 35 of the past 37 years, Canada has been ruled by
(1) Pierre Trudeau - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
(2) Brian Mulroney - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
(3) Jean Chretien - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
(4) And now we are going to vote for Paul Martin???? -
a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec???
The leader of the Conservative party, Stephen Harper, is
(1) Not a lawyer.
(2) Not a multi-millionaire.
(3) Not from Quebec.
Stephen Harper says that the Conservative party will
(1) Reduce my taxes.
(2) Pay off the national debt as fast as they can.
(3) Shrink the size and influence of the federal government.
That's good enough for me.
I'm going to give the Conservative party a chance with my vote.
But wait!
Paul Martin is now saying the same thing.
My mother told me forty years ago "Fool me once - shame on you.
Fool me twice - shame on me!"
The Liberals have had 34 years to be financially responsible.
Remember, Jean Chretien was Trudeau's Finance Minister.
Remember also, Paul Martin was Jean Chretien's Finance Minister .
These people have been raising my taxes for thirty four years.
They have been mis-spending my tax dollars for 34 years.
34 years!
And now Paul Martin says he'll stop taxing and spending.
No way.
Thank you for reading my story so far!
Why am I telling my story to you?
Although I feel alone, I know that I am not alone.
Your story may be similar to mine.
And you may also feel alone.
One small voter in the midst of millions of voters.
What can you and I do together to change things?
Here is my idea.
Lets you and I join up together.
Just you and I.
Together.
As a small team of two.
How can you and I fight a huge political machine?
You and I have two things that we can use
(1) Our individual personal connections.
(2) The Internet.
The Internet is supposed to be this global zing tool, right?
Let's put it to use.
I have 27 Canadians in my personal e-mail address book.
I am sending this e-mail to each of them.
I'm asking you to do two things
(1) Forward this e-mail to every Canadian in your own address book.
(2) Vote against Paul Martin and the Liberal Party on June 28.
Vote for the Conservative candidate in your riding.
I have probably written this e-mail too late.
As I said I am not politically adroit.
I feel like Peter Finch, in the 1976 movie "Network", when he shouted "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
Please, forward the e-mail RIGHT NOW!!
As I type these last few words the voting begins in less than 18 days.
432 hours till voting begins.
I hope the Internet is as fast as some people claim it is.
This may not work.
This e-mail may "fizzle out" and go nowhere.
But you and I will have tried, won't we have?
My best wishes to you.
My best wishes to Canadians everywhere.
My thanks to David Stokes from Toronto
He actually wrote this just (5) days before the last federal election in 2000.
Fool me once - shame on you.
Fool me twice - shame on me!"
Let's address a few specific gripes with some actual factual points:
The author of the political SPAM writes that his taxes increased during the past 11 years of Liberal governance, but ya know what? The biggest real-world tax increase for most Canadians came with the advent of the GST, a 7% sales tax charged for most goods and services in each and every province. The GST was implemented by the Progressive Conservative Party. The Liberal Party was voted into power in 1993 on a promise to abolish the GST. It never did this. I never voted for either party, however, so I consider it a draw. In any case, average federal personal income tax levels have actually decreased. Indeed, many on the left lament the cuts to social programs made necessary by Mr. Martin's emphasis on tax cutting and deficit reduction. If the author of the article has complaints about his taxation levels, he should look to his provincial government (under Ralph Klein's conservatives, since the author claims to be an Albertan) and his municipal government.
The author claims that Mr. Martin is from Quebec. In fact he is from Windsor, Ontario. The author wants us to believe that Quebec has a disproportionate influence in Canadian politics, and that choosing Mr. Harper would put an end to a long string of rich politicians from Quebec holding this office. In the past forty-seven years we have had just three Prime Ministers from Quebec: Mr. Chretien, Mr. Mulroney, and Mr. Trudeau.
It's hard to address concerns like: "My trust in the justice system has decreased" -- based on what? Too hard, or too lenient? In terms of concerns for one's family's safety, well, violent crime has been steadily declining in Canada. Other concerns like "My personal debt has increased" and "My costs to educate my children have increased" seem only tangentally related to the Federal Government. If anything, a Conservative government that brings in private healthcare and cuts spending is going to increase your debt, since you'll be paying for more services directly. There's no way that a Conservative Government, which is committed to increasing the size of Canada's Armed Forces, using the notwithstanding clause to overturn Supreme Court of Canada decisions, and has flirted with the idea of setting up a Parliamentary Committee to review and decide upon whether controversial judicial decisions are rightly decided (and act to remedy "wrong" decisions) will decrease neither the size, cost or influence of the Federal Government. Sounds to me like we're well on the way to an increase.
Suffice to say, everyone should vote their conscience on June 28, but those who vote for the Conservative Party based on Mr. Robberstad's sloppy reasoning above are dinks.
This was an interesting news item that only came to my attention yesterday when one of the law students who worked for the Montreal defence counsel assisting Mr. Alalul mentioned it to me. I was helping her move, and as we all cooled down on her new balcony in the lovely evening air and sipped water, she told us the fascinating story of her role in seeing justice done. The lawyer told my friend yesterday that she used her arguments against the charges word for word in court.
The story below is of a young Palestinian university student who was charged with uttering a death threat (contrary to s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada) after making what sounded like a truly innocuous remark to a Jewish man he was having an argument with.
The article was e-mailed by Jaggi Singh, a Canadian activist of great notoriety, but despite the subjective rhetoric in his note, and the contentious milleu of the neverending Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the background, the facts of the case are almost exactly as my friend relayed them. This is a fascinating story of what happens when hidden assumptions and fears about other groups of people get the better of us. In the climate of suspicion that has followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it is all too easy to twist an innocuous quip (that surely would have been allowed to pass had I said it to someone as a snarky retort) into a threat of violence.
Charges can be laid in an instant by authorities, and in the meantime lives are put on hold. Nidal Alalul was unable to attend school while the charge pended against him, and was subjected to the great stigma of being a criminal accused (and a supporter of terrorism no less). It's hard to see this as a case of an honest mistake by authorities. There is a bias revealed that I find troublesome. Would you, as a police officer or a Crown Attorney, press charges in a case such as this? And what do these actions say about the security guards and staff of Concordia University, who arrested and assisted in the prosecution of Nidal Alalul? Without ever daring to wade into the battle of ideas between those favouring Israel and those favouring Palestine, this strikes me as a tremendous step backwards in promoting a sense of fairness and integrity in the justice system.
If it could happen to him, it could happen to you. And that's why I'm going to be a defence counsel when I grow up.
Monday, June 21, 2004 The story below is of a young Palestinian university student who was charged with uttering a death threat (contrary to s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada) after making what sounded like a truly innocuous remark to a Jewish man he was having an argument with.
Acquitted! Palestinian Concordia student Nidal Alalul cleared after bogus charges by Hillel members
by Jaggi Singh
MONTREAL, June 11, 2004 -- This morning in Montreal's Municipal Courthouse, Concordia student Nidal Alalul was acquitted of the charge of "uttering a death threat". Judge Antonio Discepola, who is regarded as one of the most pro-prosecution judges in Montreal, nonetheless found Nidal not guilty with a terse four word statement: "The information is dismissed." In his written judgement, Discepola found Nidal's testimony
very credible, while casting doubt on the accounts provided by the complainants, who were members of Hillel Concordia and Birthright.
On March 11, 2003 -- several months after Benjamin Netanyahu was shut down by pro-Palestinian students at Concordia University -- Nidal was arrested
on campus and charged with "uttering a death threat". Nidal, a member of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) had been in an argument with Schlomo Lifshitz, 47, of Birthright, which offers free trips to Israel to Jewish youth (in his judgement, Discepola describes Birthright
as "a non-governmental organization funded by the Israeli government"). Schlomo was tabling with Hillel, and began to bait Nidal, who is a foreign
student orginally from Nablus. When Schlomo said that Nidal had "a weak personality", Nidal replied: "I'll be famous in two years ... a lawyer or
a politician ... and you'll be selling falafel."
Nidal's comment was interpreted as a death threat, with Schlomo, members of Hillel, Concordia security, and eventually the Crown attorney assuming
that Nidal meant that he wanted to be a suicide bomber. The overtly racist assumption throughout the trial was that the only way for a Palestinian
youth to be famous is by becoming a suicide bomber. That racist assumption was backed by Concordia University, whose security guards detained Nidal,
and did not attempt to get his side of the story. Moreover, Concordia University lawyers attended the trial, helping the Crown make her case, in a clear show of bias against Nidal. (Similarly, Concordia lawyers have been helping the Crown in cases against other pro-Palestinian students and their allies, in relation to the September 9, 2002 protests at Concordia University, with little success. In one case, a defendant has already been acquitted of five charges before even having to present a defence!)
Written complaints against Nidal were made by several members of Hillel, including Rachel Guy (who now sits on Concordia student council). Rachel
testified against Nidal, but her credibility was severely weakened when she conveniently forgot to admit that she actually wrote Schlomo's written
statement to the police for him.
That Nidal was never charged is another example of the biased treatment of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim students, and their allies, by Concordia University. Nonetheless, Nidal's acquittal -- as well as other recent acquittals and dropped charges -- indicates that victories are possible in court, especially when the charges are so racist and bogus in the first
place.
To stay in touch about ongoing court proceedings related to Concordia University, please e-mail noii-montreal@resist.ca.
-- JBS
The article was e-mailed by Jaggi Singh, a Canadian activist of great notoriety, but despite the subjective rhetoric in his note, and the contentious milleu of the neverending Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the background, the facts of the case are almost exactly as my friend relayed them. This is a fascinating story of what happens when hidden assumptions and fears about other groups of people get the better of us. In the climate of suspicion that has followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it is all too easy to twist an innocuous quip (that surely would have been allowed to pass had I said it to someone as a snarky retort) into a threat of violence.
Charges can be laid in an instant by authorities, and in the meantime lives are put on hold. Nidal Alalul was unable to attend school while the charge pended against him, and was subjected to the great stigma of being a criminal accused (and a supporter of terrorism no less). It's hard to see this as a case of an honest mistake by authorities. There is a bias revealed that I find troublesome. Would you, as a police officer or a Crown Attorney, press charges in a case such as this? And what do these actions say about the security guards and staff of Concordia University, who arrested and assisted in the prosecution of Nidal Alalul? Without ever daring to wade into the battle of ideas between those favouring Israel and those favouring Palestine, this strikes me as a tremendous step backwards in promoting a sense of fairness and integrity in the justice system.
If it could happen to him, it could happen to you. And that's why I'm going to be a defence counsel when I grow up.
No good deed goes unpunished
... a reference to the multitude of deep scratches on my face, caused by my sister's (normally sweet) cat, Peter, who I was cat-sitting this weekend along with the kitten whilst my sister was away camping. The kitten drives Peter crazy, and as I was getting ready to leave, he ran out the apartment door and down the stairs in the hopes that he would be let outside. Instead, I ran down after him, and scooped him up into my arms so that carry him upstairs. I wasn't prepared to leave him outside, alone, for any number of hours.
As soon as I picked the cat up, he started growling and scratching and went right for the face. I ran upstairs with the snarling beastie, chucked him in the front door, closed it and locked it, and left. Bleeding profusely.
As I walked down the street, blood trickling down my lip, I looked back to see the cat in the window, glowering at me.
Meanwhile, today is call day for 2005-2006 articling applications, and every second year law student spent the morning by their telephones, hoping that they would receive a job offer from a law firm. I'd had five really promising interviews, including one with the Ottawa Crown Attorney's Office, and I had high hopes that I'd be set up with a position in Ottawa to article at after I graduated. The articling process is an absolutely essential part of your transition from a mere law graduate to a practicing lawyer (along with passing the Bar admissions courses), and is effectively a ten-month apprenticeship under a senior lawyer at a law firm.
And nobody called for me.
Actually, that's not true. The firm I had the highest hopes for did call, but only to tell me that they'd offered the position to someone else, who'd accepted it immediately, but that I was really high on their list, though.
Sigh.
What's worse, is that nobody I know got a position in Ottawa today. So many brilliant people are in the lurch today, and now we have to go through the whole disheartening process again to apply for Toronto positions.
Oh well. Toronto ho.
Thursday, June 17, 2004 As soon as I picked the cat up, he started growling and scratching and went right for the face. I ran upstairs with the snarling beastie, chucked him in the front door, closed it and locked it, and left. Bleeding profusely.
As I walked down the street, blood trickling down my lip, I looked back to see the cat in the window, glowering at me.
Meanwhile, today is call day for 2005-2006 articling applications, and every second year law student spent the morning by their telephones, hoping that they would receive a job offer from a law firm. I'd had five really promising interviews, including one with the Ottawa Crown Attorney's Office, and I had high hopes that I'd be set up with a position in Ottawa to article at after I graduated. The articling process is an absolutely essential part of your transition from a mere law graduate to a practicing lawyer (along with passing the Bar admissions courses), and is effectively a ten-month apprenticeship under a senior lawyer at a law firm.
And nobody called for me.
Actually, that's not true. The firm I had the highest hopes for did call, but only to tell me that they'd offered the position to someone else, who'd accepted it immediately, but that I was really high on their list, though.
Sigh.
What's worse, is that nobody I know got a position in Ottawa today. So many brilliant people are in the lurch today, and now we have to go through the whole disheartening process again to apply for Toronto positions.
Oh well. Toronto ho.
Delayed Climax
At 6:30 am, my alarm clock shrieked and this woke up both myself and my cat. The cat immediately proceeded to snuggle up onto my chest and lick my face and lips, which is his sweet little way of saying both "Good Morning," and "Please give me food." I pet the cat for ten minutes before I ran out of time and the licking became unbearable. I slipped into my robe and then fed the cat.
At 6:40 am I stumbled into the shower, bleary and cranky. Even at that hour there wasn't enough hot water. I'm sure I muttered under my breath throughout the washing, rinsing, lathering and shaving. A shower without both sufficient water pressure and sufficient hot water is simply being naked and wet.
At 7:00 am I threw some clothes on and put together the books, binders and stacks of caselaw I required for my trial, and shoved them into a backpack. As I was in a hurry, I brought my sandals in a bag, but for some reason wore black socks and black dress shoes with a pair of shorts. Fashion woe.
At 7:10 am I was out the door. I hit the drycleaners, picked up my suit, my shirts, and my ties, and got onto the bus.
At 7:30 am I was at the Clinic. I hustled and put on my suit, grabbed my briefcase (which I keep stashed there), a freshly pressed tie, and my nobby shoes.
At 7:50 am I was on another bus.
I made it to the Provincial Offences Court at 8:10 am. Neither my client nor my co-counsel had yet arrived, so I paced and collected my thoughts and read through my trial binder. I flipped through the tabbed sections and mentally rehearsed. I was attempting to look calm and composed despite the fact that adrenaline (more correctly, epinephrine) was causing me to feel excited and jittery and anxious to begin litigatin'.
At 8:30, I was still alone. I highlighted some pieces of caselaw just in case I needed to submit them to the Court and the prosecutor.
My client came at 8:45. I didn't know what had happened to my co-counsel, though it turns out she had slept in after a night of (shall we say) festivities, but was diligently racing over to the courthouse in a cab.
I escorted my client to the courtroom. It was 8:50 am. We ran into the prosecutor, who asked us if we wanted to talk about the matter privately. We agreed and met in a private interview room.
The prosecutor came into the negoatiation hitting hard, stating that she was willing to cut my client some slack if he plead guilty but that no one could believe he didn't see X Y Z.
I countered that, in fact, not only did my client not see X Y Z, but that they were not there at the relevant time when my client did A B C, and alluded to serious flaws with what the police witness would be testifying to.
She suggested we look into a reasonable solution. She left.
I could vaguely hear voices in the hallway.
I was introduced to the police witnesses. They left. An offer was put before us. I had a chance to talk to my client about his feelings. We were ready for trial, but a reasonable resolution was in place that, if successfully concluded, would result in the charge being withdrawn. My client would be happy, the prosecutor would be happy, and the cop would potentially be unhappy, making me feel even better.
We agreed to pursue the resolution.
At 9:15 am, we re-entered the courtroom so as not to keep the Justice waiting any longer than necessary. The matter was adjourned, pending resolution.
My trial binder sits, waiting, just in case it is ever needed again.
I have mixed feelings about not being able to go to trial, but I'm happy for my client. There are no sure things in litigation, and this resolution would get all parties what they're looking for. And, to be sure, there will be more trials (and more shining, overstuffed, heavily tabbed trial binders) in the future.
Monday, June 14, 2004 At 6:40 am I stumbled into the shower, bleary and cranky. Even at that hour there wasn't enough hot water. I'm sure I muttered under my breath throughout the washing, rinsing, lathering and shaving. A shower without both sufficient water pressure and sufficient hot water is simply being naked and wet.
At 7:00 am I threw some clothes on and put together the books, binders and stacks of caselaw I required for my trial, and shoved them into a backpack. As I was in a hurry, I brought my sandals in a bag, but for some reason wore black socks and black dress shoes with a pair of shorts. Fashion woe.
At 7:10 am I was out the door. I hit the drycleaners, picked up my suit, my shirts, and my ties, and got onto the bus.
At 7:30 am I was at the Clinic. I hustled and put on my suit, grabbed my briefcase (which I keep stashed there), a freshly pressed tie, and my nobby shoes.
At 7:50 am I was on another bus.
I made it to the Provincial Offences Court at 8:10 am. Neither my client nor my co-counsel had yet arrived, so I paced and collected my thoughts and read through my trial binder. I flipped through the tabbed sections and mentally rehearsed. I was attempting to look calm and composed despite the fact that adrenaline (more correctly, epinephrine) was causing me to feel excited and jittery and anxious to begin litigatin'.
At 8:30, I was still alone. I highlighted some pieces of caselaw just in case I needed to submit them to the Court and the prosecutor.
My client came at 8:45. I didn't know what had happened to my co-counsel, though it turns out she had slept in after a night of (shall we say) festivities, but was diligently racing over to the courthouse in a cab.
I escorted my client to the courtroom. It was 8:50 am. We ran into the prosecutor, who asked us if we wanted to talk about the matter privately. We agreed and met in a private interview room.
The prosecutor came into the negoatiation hitting hard, stating that she was willing to cut my client some slack if he plead guilty but that no one could believe he didn't see X Y Z.
I countered that, in fact, not only did my client not see X Y Z, but that they were not there at the relevant time when my client did A B C, and alluded to serious flaws with what the police witness would be testifying to.
She suggested we look into a reasonable solution. She left.
I could vaguely hear voices in the hallway.
I was introduced to the police witnesses. They left. An offer was put before us. I had a chance to talk to my client about his feelings. We were ready for trial, but a reasonable resolution was in place that, if successfully concluded, would result in the charge being withdrawn. My client would be happy, the prosecutor would be happy, and the cop would potentially be unhappy, making me feel even better.
We agreed to pursue the resolution.
At 9:15 am, we re-entered the courtroom so as not to keep the Justice waiting any longer than necessary. The matter was adjourned, pending resolution.
My trial binder sits, waiting, just in case it is ever needed again.
I have mixed feelings about not being able to go to trial, but I'm happy for my client. There are no sure things in litigation, and this resolution would get all parties what they're looking for. And, to be sure, there will be more trials (and more shining, overstuffed, heavily tabbed trial binders) in the future.
Several short paragraphs about Rob
1. I am precisely thirty-six hours away from my trial. I am prepared, I am confident, and we have a really good chance of winning. But the Crown is mulling over a proposal we made to have the charge withdrawn, and I'm still wrestling with whether it's better to compromise via resolution or go ahead with the trial. It's the client's instructions based on good advice that count, but all the advice I can give doesn't resolve the question of what's best for the client.
2. I sent out a package to a certain law student I'm twitterpated over today. It included a beautiful journal, some pens, a Pocket Protest Kit (from James Spyker), a book of surly postcards, a card, and some mad money so that my friend (who is not being paid for this internship adventure) can buy herself some beer and subway tokens and stamps and so on. I was glad to put it all together, and hope it will make her feel splendid inside, but you just never know, do you?
3. On Monday, June 21, it will be "call day" for all the articling positions in Ottawa. All the students who are going into their third year will be spending the morning sitting by their telephones, anxiously awaiting the decision of whether anyone is going to hire them. I'll be among them. I'll have the potential to be called by any or all of four firms. I interviewed with five -- and one just sent me a rejection letter. On the other hand, we wouldn't have much in common. One of the partners made a sexist joke during the interview, and I just sat in awkward silence for a few moments before stammering something about bringing an alternative, feminist perspective to their family law practice.
4. Several people, one of whom being my older sister, are of the distinct impression that one of the new summer caseworkers rather fancies me. I cannot exactly disagree, though I've been trying to rationalize her flirtation as just innocent flirtation (even I can be randomly flirty when I'm in a good mood) rather than 'I like you' flirtation. She's a bright, funny, pretty gal, and I like and respect her, but there just isn't that spark when we talk, and I think if we got to know each other we'd find we don't have that much in common. Chemistry is a subjective thing, though I'm willing to admit I'm stubbornly refusing to add any catalysts of my own. I sort of snuffed the idea out last Friday when she asked me (while a bunch of us were out) whether I was single. I said I was, but that I really didn't have time for dating or relationships. Which, unfortunately is true. Deep inside, of course, my heart also belongs to someone else (who doesn't really have time for dating or relationships).
I'm sure you're tempted to ponder about the irony of caring about someone who may or may not ever reciprocate, and all the while you're also aware of someone else caring about you, and how this creates a long chain of unrequited affection, and how that is so typical. On the other hand, uh, well... shut up, stupid!
2. I sent out a package to a certain law student I'm twitterpated over today. It included a beautiful journal, some pens, a Pocket Protest Kit (from James Spyker), a book of surly postcards, a card, and some mad money so that my friend (who is not being paid for this internship adventure) can buy herself some beer and subway tokens and stamps and so on. I was glad to put it all together, and hope it will make her feel splendid inside, but you just never know, do you?
3. On Monday, June 21, it will be "call day" for all the articling positions in Ottawa. All the students who are going into their third year will be spending the morning sitting by their telephones, anxiously awaiting the decision of whether anyone is going to hire them. I'll be among them. I'll have the potential to be called by any or all of four firms. I interviewed with five -- and one just sent me a rejection letter. On the other hand, we wouldn't have much in common. One of the partners made a sexist joke during the interview, and I just sat in awkward silence for a few moments before stammering something about bringing an alternative, feminist perspective to their family law practice.
4. Several people, one of whom being my older sister, are of the distinct impression that one of the new summer caseworkers rather fancies me. I cannot exactly disagree, though I've been trying to rationalize her flirtation as just innocent flirtation (even I can be randomly flirty when I'm in a good mood) rather than 'I like you' flirtation. She's a bright, funny, pretty gal, and I like and respect her, but there just isn't that spark when we talk, and I think if we got to know each other we'd find we don't have that much in common. Chemistry is a subjective thing, though I'm willing to admit I'm stubbornly refusing to add any catalysts of my own. I sort of snuffed the idea out last Friday when she asked me (while a bunch of us were out) whether I was single. I said I was, but that I really didn't have time for dating or relationships. Which, unfortunately is true. Deep inside, of course, my heart also belongs to someone else (who doesn't really have time for dating or relationships).
I'm sure you're tempted to ponder about the irony of caring about someone who may or may not ever reciprocate, and all the while you're also aware of someone else caring about you, and how this creates a long chain of unrequited affection, and how that is so typical. On the other hand, uh, well... shut up, stupid!
SHAMELESSLY REPRINTED HERE
An open letter to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper re. reproductive rights & the Charter by Supreme Court Justice Claire L'Hereux-Dube et.al.
Can we trust you, sir, to defend the Charter?
Saturday, June 5, 2004 - Page A21 - Globe and Mail
We are deeply concerned about recent statements by senior members of the Conservative Party that bring into question your party's commitment to women's reproductive freedom and to the freedoms that Canadians enjoy under the Charter of Rights. We hope that, as party leader, you will shed light on the Conservative position by answering three questions.
1. Would a Conservative government protect a woman's right to choice?
Women have enjoyed the right to abortion for more than 16 years, since the Supreme Court's 1988 Morgentaler decision. But recently Conservative health critic Rob Merrifield called for women to receive counselling by persons other than their physicians before terminating a pregnancy. He said that counselling may be "valuable" for women contemplating abortion because "people who take part in it may only be seeing one side of it." Since third-party counselling already is available to women, we take it he meant that such counselling should be mandatory before an abortion.
Why have Conservatives singled out this one medical procedure as beyond the capability of doctors to appropriately counsel their patients? Why is this choice beyond the capability of Canadian women to make?
We had hoped, Mr. Harper, that you would have stated that Mr. Merrifield's views do not represent Conservative Party policy, and fire him as party health critic. Instead, you indicated that a Conservative government would put a private member's bill on women's reproductive choice to a free vote in the House of Commons -- but that you have "no intention of discussing the topic during an election."
Yet an election is exactly the time when we need to know. You are on the record as being "pro-life" and believing that abortion should only be permitted in "exceptional circumstances." Canadians have a right to know whether you would vote to turn women who require abortions, and physicians performing them, into criminals.
2. Would a Conservative government uphold the Charter's fundamental guarantees or override them?
Indeed, many Conservative policies view the Charter of Rights not as a fundamental guarantee for all Canadians, but rather as an obstacle to be circumvented in the drive to remake Canada's social fabric. You have regularly indicated a willingness to use the Charter's notwithstanding clause to override Charter rights and to put the state back into the bedrooms of the nation. Canadians respect and cherish the rights and values that the Charter guarantees. Extensive use of the override places rights squarely back where they were before the Charter was enacted: in the hands of a potentially hostile majority.
3. Would a Conservative government respect the Supreme Court, or compromise its independence?
We are also concerned that the lack of respect shown in Conservative members' public comments about the Constitution may extend to the Supreme Court. Your justice critic, Vic Toews, has stated that Supreme Court justices are "political actors" and "politicians." The Conservative Party handbook indicates that, if elected, you would create a parliamentary committee to review every Supreme Court decision and override the court where the committee considered the ruling in error.
Formalizing parliamentary review would undermine the court's independence and compromise its ability to protect Canadians. The court is one of Canada's most respected institutions. Subjecting its rulings to political approval would upset the delicate balance of power between the Supreme Court and Parliament, the hallmark of constitutional democracy in Canada.
Mr. Harper, you are running to become prime minister, the most powerful office in the land. Where you stand on these fundamental issues will determine the rights and freedoms Canadians enjoy far into the future; they deserve to know your plans. We look forward to your response.
Joseph Arvay; Marc-André Blanchard Karen Busby; Rebecca Cook; Marlys Edwardh; Jean-François Gaudreault-Desbiens; Rebecca Johnson; Anne LaForest; Claire L'Heureux-Dubé; Kathleen Mahoney; David Matas; Ronalda Murphy; Simon Potter; John Rosen; Clayton C. Ruby; Lorne Sossin; Harvey Strosberg; John A.L. Yogis.
Can we trust you, sir, to defend the Charter?
Saturday, June 5, 2004 - Page A21 - Globe and Mail
We are deeply concerned about recent statements by senior members of the Conservative Party that bring into question your party's commitment to women's reproductive freedom and to the freedoms that Canadians enjoy under the Charter of Rights. We hope that, as party leader, you will shed light on the Conservative position by answering three questions.
1. Would a Conservative government protect a woman's right to choice?
Women have enjoyed the right to abortion for more than 16 years, since the Supreme Court's 1988 Morgentaler decision. But recently Conservative health critic Rob Merrifield called for women to receive counselling by persons other than their physicians before terminating a pregnancy. He said that counselling may be "valuable" for women contemplating abortion because "people who take part in it may only be seeing one side of it." Since third-party counselling already is available to women, we take it he meant that such counselling should be mandatory before an abortion.
Why have Conservatives singled out this one medical procedure as beyond the capability of doctors to appropriately counsel their patients? Why is this choice beyond the capability of Canadian women to make?
We had hoped, Mr. Harper, that you would have stated that Mr. Merrifield's views do not represent Conservative Party policy, and fire him as party health critic. Instead, you indicated that a Conservative government would put a private member's bill on women's reproductive choice to a free vote in the House of Commons -- but that you have "no intention of discussing the topic during an election."
Yet an election is exactly the time when we need to know. You are on the record as being "pro-life" and believing that abortion should only be permitted in "exceptional circumstances." Canadians have a right to know whether you would vote to turn women who require abortions, and physicians performing them, into criminals.
2. Would a Conservative government uphold the Charter's fundamental guarantees or override them?
Indeed, many Conservative policies view the Charter of Rights not as a fundamental guarantee for all Canadians, but rather as an obstacle to be circumvented in the drive to remake Canada's social fabric. You have regularly indicated a willingness to use the Charter's notwithstanding clause to override Charter rights and to put the state back into the bedrooms of the nation. Canadians respect and cherish the rights and values that the Charter guarantees. Extensive use of the override places rights squarely back where they were before the Charter was enacted: in the hands of a potentially hostile majority.
3. Would a Conservative government respect the Supreme Court, or compromise its independence?
We are also concerned that the lack of respect shown in Conservative members' public comments about the Constitution may extend to the Supreme Court. Your justice critic, Vic Toews, has stated that Supreme Court justices are "political actors" and "politicians." The Conservative Party handbook indicates that, if elected, you would create a parliamentary committee to review every Supreme Court decision and override the court where the committee considered the ruling in error.
Formalizing parliamentary review would undermine the court's independence and compromise its ability to protect Canadians. The court is one of Canada's most respected institutions. Subjecting its rulings to political approval would upset the delicate balance of power between the Supreme Court and Parliament, the hallmark of constitutional democracy in Canada.
Mr. Harper, you are running to become prime minister, the most powerful office in the land. Where you stand on these fundamental issues will determine the rights and freedoms Canadians enjoy far into the future; they deserve to know your plans. We look forward to your response.
Joseph Arvay; Marc-André Blanchard Karen Busby; Rebecca Cook; Marlys Edwardh; Jean-François Gaudreault-Desbiens; Rebecca Johnson; Anne LaForest; Claire L'Heureux-Dubé; Kathleen Mahoney; David Matas; Ronalda Murphy; Simon Potter; John Rosen; Clayton C. Ruby; Lorne Sossin; Harvey Strosberg; John A.L. Yogis.
"Don't count on me, love, I'm fickle and a little bit strange, and I hunger for change."
I went out to see a fantastic East Coast musician last night at the Manx Pub here in Ottawa. Her name is Amelia Curran, and she's the sister of a good friend of mine. She's here from St. John's, Newfoundland, for the summer and is touring all over the area until August. As much as I went out last night to get a feel for her sound, and especially to be supportive, I was ultimately extremely moved and impressed by her music. She's been nominated three times for best female artist at the East Coast Music Awards (a big to-do, as the East Coast scene in is where some of Canada's best music is played). She has a voice like Beth Orton (but more sultry and less tremorous), and writes moving, acoustic music that blends the sounds of folk and jazz.
I was moved to buy one of her albums last night, and it's been playing non-stop on my iPod ever since. It's called 'Lullabies for Barflies,' which is her newest album, but I know I'm going to have to buy the others now as well. It's just that good, and not all of the songs she played last night are on that particular album, which leaves me wanting for more.
Crass commercialism follows: go ahead and buy one of her albums. You'll be supporting a great independent artist, and they've got my personal guarantee of goodness.
http://www.freds.nf.ca/artists/CurranAmelia.html
There are samples at her website: http://www.ameliacurran.com
Saturday, June 12, 2004 I was moved to buy one of her albums last night, and it's been playing non-stop on my iPod ever since. It's called 'Lullabies for Barflies,' which is her newest album, but I know I'm going to have to buy the others now as well. It's just that good, and not all of the songs she played last night are on that particular album, which leaves me wanting for more.
Crass commercialism follows: go ahead and buy one of her albums. You'll be supporting a great independent artist, and they've got my personal guarantee of goodness.
http://www.freds.nf.ca/artists/CurranAmelia.html
There are samples at her website: http://www.ameliacurran.com
"A blowjob from a bear in a business suit"
One of the things I bought today at the Ottawa Small Press Fair was a homemade spoken word CD called "AudioRotica" from a fairly nice husky young man at the Dusty Owl press table. I stopped by their table and couldn't help but notice the CD standing out among the more pedestrian fare of zines and broadsheets, as it was touted as a CD of gay bear erotica and was in a bright purple CD case. I bought it more or less because the creator approached me as I was hugging my friends goodbye to leave, and asked me if I wanted to buy it, and I couldn't help but feel politely obliged. He let me buy it for $5.00 instead of $10.00, which gave me the vague impression I was either being hit on or schmoozed up.
I'm listening to it right now at the Legal Clinic, as I draft memos-to-file for all of my cases, and while I'm not a connoisseur of such things, it seems fairly well written and well-read, except for the fact that all the talk of nipples and cocks and bears and balls makes me want to giggle. Sex talk is pretty silly in any event, and only moreso when it's being read in a fairly serious story voice by a person who clearly really likes talking about penises. But just to be clear on this, I'd think the same CD filled with hetero erotica would seem as cutely silly as well.
Having read my ex-girlfriend Adrianne's website a little, I saw a list she compiled of awful things said to her during or after sex. I'm trying to remember now if any of them were said by me.
Excerpt:
So the moral is, sex is a fun, silly, messy, happy thing. Go have some and then talk about it, but don't say anything you wouldn't want to see on a website (including this one) someday.
I'm listening to it right now at the Legal Clinic, as I draft memos-to-file for all of my cases, and while I'm not a connoisseur of such things, it seems fairly well written and well-read, except for the fact that all the talk of nipples and cocks and bears and balls makes me want to giggle. Sex talk is pretty silly in any event, and only moreso when it's being read in a fairly serious story voice by a person who clearly really likes talking about penises. But just to be clear on this, I'd think the same CD filled with hetero erotica would seem as cutely silly as well.
Having read my ex-girlfriend Adrianne's website a little, I saw a list she compiled of awful things said to her during or after sex. I'm trying to remember now if any of them were said by me.
Excerpt:
Top 4 worst things said to Adrianne during or just after sex:
4. "Yeeeaahhh, UNLEASH THOSE BEASTS!!!" (As she was preparing to take off her bra)
3. "I'll bring donuts next time"
2. "God, I could really go for some wood chopping right now"
1. "You're going to need a rotorouter to get THAT out!"
So the moral is, sex is a fun, silly, messy, happy thing. Go have some and then talk about it, but don't say anything you wouldn't want to see on a website (including this one) someday.
Rob Patronizes the Arts
(And yes, I do know the difference in meaning between "patron" and "patronize")
Today was the 10th Annual Ottawa Small Press Fair, and while it's always fun and brings in lots of creative people, so many of my friends were attending and had tables there that I simply had to take time away from my trial preparation to stop in and see what was afoot this time around. My friend Natalie of Ransom Works Press was there with some new publications, as was James Spyker, and even my nieces Bronwyn and Gwenna had a table of their creations (they had some swell stuff, including these great fridge magnets I bought). I made a lot of purchases with a view to assembling a "care package" for a certain someone who is working hard in New York City right now. I want to send some cheer and let her know she's being thought of.
I'd already spent about $20 on books, postcards and nifty creative goodies (like James' "pocket protest kit," which includes the parts to make 10 spontaneous double-sided protest signs -- he recommends "Vote for cake") when I came across the table run by a dear, old, long-lost friend of mine. Her name is Jennifer (variously referred to in the past on my journal as 'Kitten' as this was a pseudonym she used back in her teen zine days) and we were best friends for years until we stupidly lost touch and drifted apart. Recently I'd found her website, after purchasing a couple of her new zines when a friend and I were at Venus Envy (Ottawa's best, classiest, funniest sex shop for women and the people who love them). She maintains a blog about her life, and I made a point of keeping up on her stories and adventures, though I was too shy to re-introduce myself.
We had a wonderful opportunity to chat today, and briefly catch up on where we were in our lives. I let her know I was at law school, and working in poverty law/criminal law at the Community Legal Clinic. I bought a bunch of her great stuff, including a nifty "Matilda" button and a hand-stitched book of love stories, each just a paragraph long.
Jennifer said she always finds it weird when people tell her they read her blog, as I'd mentioned I'd been following along for awhile. I sympathized, as you just never know who is out there, and what they're getting out of it. Strangely, while I have no problem with complete strangers reading all about me, it's more awkward when people who know you in real life find it, and gain instant access to your private thoughts and feelings. Jennifer added that Adrianne, a person neither of us had spoken to in almost ten years (her erstwhile best friend and my erstwhile girlfriend), had contacted her to let her know that she had also been reading her blog, to her great surprise. According to Jennifer, Adrianne is designing fashions in Toronto now, and sounds quite happy.
I've referred to Adrianne in this journal in the past as "Phil." I used that name because it's a reference to the fact that she was very particular (and understandably so) about the way her name was pronounced (with emphasis on the pronunciation of "ANNE"), and on our first date I was so worried about getting it wrong that I asked if I could call her Phil instead. Today I was very pleased to hear that she was settled and seemingly happy. I've always wished Adrianne well, and always wanted to have the chance to say so. I was once very sad and hung up over the disaster of our break-up, but you just can't stay nineteen forever, and these things ultimately get "gotten over."
I was also pleased that it took me a couple of seconds to register who Adrianne was when Jennifer mentioned her. Once upon a time, I would have felt instant terror and sadness at the very mention of her name or seeing someone who looked like her in public. aside: This reminds me of the fabulous Hayden song "Wide Eyes" from his new CD, "Elk Lake Serenade" -- the verse goes: "I'm getting off at the next stop. Will you leave with me so that we can be seen by my old love, who's standing over there. She left me so stunned that I walk around scared. Wide Eyes, I think that I've seen you, and I need you to do this for me. Wrap both of your arms around me, and act like I'm all that you need." /aside
Nowadays I'm a lot less girl crazy. I mean, I adore women, but I don't veer into insanity and goofiness and melodrama as much as I did when I was a lad. Instead, my main love right now is sweet Lady Justice. Indeed, I'm holed up in the Clinic right now, preparing for a trial that will be held on Wednesday, June 16. I mean, the Crown could conceivably admit they have a weak case and withdraw it before then, but given the extremely remote possibility of something that sweet happening, I'd rather keep on drafting that examination-in-chief just in case they didn't. You know how it is.
I gave Jennifer a card with all my particulars on it, and hoped she would write it and check out my blog.
Presently, I'm pulling up more research so that I can get back into my considerations over how to get some hearsay admitted at that trial.
Somewhere in the back of my mind, I hope Adrianne gets the chance to read this thought someday, and sees that I'm happy we both got on with our lives, and got over one another.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004 Today was the 10th Annual Ottawa Small Press Fair, and while it's always fun and brings in lots of creative people, so many of my friends were attending and had tables there that I simply had to take time away from my trial preparation to stop in and see what was afoot this time around. My friend Natalie of Ransom Works Press was there with some new publications, as was James Spyker, and even my nieces Bronwyn and Gwenna had a table of their creations (they had some swell stuff, including these great fridge magnets I bought). I made a lot of purchases with a view to assembling a "care package" for a certain someone who is working hard in New York City right now. I want to send some cheer and let her know she's being thought of.
I'd already spent about $20 on books, postcards and nifty creative goodies (like James' "pocket protest kit," which includes the parts to make 10 spontaneous double-sided protest signs -- he recommends "Vote for cake") when I came across the table run by a dear, old, long-lost friend of mine. Her name is Jennifer (variously referred to in the past on my journal as 'Kitten' as this was a pseudonym she used back in her teen zine days) and we were best friends for years until we stupidly lost touch and drifted apart. Recently I'd found her website, after purchasing a couple of her new zines when a friend and I were at Venus Envy (Ottawa's best, classiest, funniest sex shop for women and the people who love them). She maintains a blog about her life, and I made a point of keeping up on her stories and adventures, though I was too shy to re-introduce myself.
We had a wonderful opportunity to chat today, and briefly catch up on where we were in our lives. I let her know I was at law school, and working in poverty law/criminal law at the Community Legal Clinic. I bought a bunch of her great stuff, including a nifty "Matilda" button and a hand-stitched book of love stories, each just a paragraph long.
Jennifer said she always finds it weird when people tell her they read her blog, as I'd mentioned I'd been following along for awhile. I sympathized, as you just never know who is out there, and what they're getting out of it. Strangely, while I have no problem with complete strangers reading all about me, it's more awkward when people who know you in real life find it, and gain instant access to your private thoughts and feelings. Jennifer added that Adrianne, a person neither of us had spoken to in almost ten years (her erstwhile best friend and my erstwhile girlfriend), had contacted her to let her know that she had also been reading her blog, to her great surprise. According to Jennifer, Adrianne is designing fashions in Toronto now, and sounds quite happy.
I've referred to Adrianne in this journal in the past as "Phil." I used that name because it's a reference to the fact that she was very particular (and understandably so) about the way her name was pronounced (with emphasis on the pronunciation of "ANNE"), and on our first date I was so worried about getting it wrong that I asked if I could call her Phil instead. Today I was very pleased to hear that she was settled and seemingly happy. I've always wished Adrianne well, and always wanted to have the chance to say so. I was once very sad and hung up over the disaster of our break-up, but you just can't stay nineteen forever, and these things ultimately get "gotten over."
I was also pleased that it took me a couple of seconds to register who Adrianne was when Jennifer mentioned her. Once upon a time, I would have felt instant terror and sadness at the very mention of her name or seeing someone who looked like her in public. aside: This reminds me of the fabulous Hayden song "Wide Eyes" from his new CD, "Elk Lake Serenade" -- the verse goes: "I'm getting off at the next stop. Will you leave with me so that we can be seen by my old love, who's standing over there. She left me so stunned that I walk around scared. Wide Eyes, I think that I've seen you, and I need you to do this for me. Wrap both of your arms around me, and act like I'm all that you need." /aside
Nowadays I'm a lot less girl crazy. I mean, I adore women, but I don't veer into insanity and goofiness and melodrama as much as I did when I was a lad. Instead, my main love right now is sweet Lady Justice. Indeed, I'm holed up in the Clinic right now, preparing for a trial that will be held on Wednesday, June 16. I mean, the Crown could conceivably admit they have a weak case and withdraw it before then, but given the extremely remote possibility of something that sweet happening, I'd rather keep on drafting that examination-in-chief just in case they didn't. You know how it is.
I gave Jennifer a card with all my particulars on it, and hoped she would write it and check out my blog.
Presently, I'm pulling up more research so that I can get back into my considerations over how to get some hearsay admitted at that trial.
Somewhere in the back of my mind, I hope Adrianne gets the chance to read this thought someday, and sees that I'm happy we both got on with our lives, and got over one another.
"In between molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide..."
Today the person I think I love (I'm not a clear-headed observer of such subjective and hormonally driven phenomena, so it's hard to be sure) departed Ottawa for a three-month internship with an NGO in New York City. Practically all of her friends in Ottawa came out last night to wish her well and let her know she would be much missed. She's the sort of person for whom clichés like "life of the party" and "lights up the room" were intended. Someone referred to her today as a "genuine" person -- funny and quick-witted, but also intelligent and thoughtful and sincere. Though the trip was temporary and enviable, she remarked in surprise that it was almost like she was shipping overseas to go to war, what with all cards and hugs and emotional goodbyes she received.
Still, it was a party, and much fun and booze and laughter was had by all. It was, above all else, a happy occasion. The only regret I had on my part was that I spilled most of a pint of Keiths on myself (I am what they refer to as a "spilly talker," what with all my zany gesticulating and all) as I bantered with my friend's younger sister, who is staying for the summer at her apartment and performing on tour in the area. This made a huge mess, though fortunately as we were mopping it up, someone knocked something off a wall and this caused the whole bar to go silent and stare, and this entirely drew any attention away from me and my wet pants.
Even though I had an articling interview at 9am this morning, I stayed out last night until the very end of the party (ie. when the lady of the hour decided it was the end and went home to finish packing and get some sleep). I thought it was important to be out send my pal out in style by (among other things) buying my friend a drink or two and share as many laughs with her as possible, since I wouldn't see her for several months. I am, above all else, a sentimental idiot.
Eventually it was time to go, and we made our way out of the pub into the night air. I'd exerted no small amount of energy into thinking what cool words I would say as a farewell, and eventually managed to babble "So long," when my friend opened her arms to give me a hug. This was very nice, and as we embraced I kissed her cheek. She pulled me in slightly to extend the hug, which made me feel so deliciously warm and fuzzy inside, and she left her hand on my shoulder once we separated. I told her I intended to send her cheezy Ottawa postcards on a regular basis, said goodnight to her sister and her best friend who stood with us, and made my way dizzily out into the night.
I sent the first postcard out today.
Tonight I'm going to the gym, as I have been regularly doing for the past few months. Getting into even better shape is sort of my mission for the summer. It's my hope that, in September, when my friend gets back from New York and we get together again, she won't believe her eyes.
Still, it was a party, and much fun and booze and laughter was had by all. It was, above all else, a happy occasion. The only regret I had on my part was that I spilled most of a pint of Keiths on myself (I am what they refer to as a "spilly talker," what with all my zany gesticulating and all) as I bantered with my friend's younger sister, who is staying for the summer at her apartment and performing on tour in the area. This made a huge mess, though fortunately as we were mopping it up, someone knocked something off a wall and this caused the whole bar to go silent and stare, and this entirely drew any attention away from me and my wet pants.
Even though I had an articling interview at 9am this morning, I stayed out last night until the very end of the party (ie. when the lady of the hour decided it was the end and went home to finish packing and get some sleep). I thought it was important to be out send my pal out in style by (among other things) buying my friend a drink or two and share as many laughs with her as possible, since I wouldn't see her for several months. I am, above all else, a sentimental idiot.
Eventually it was time to go, and we made our way out of the pub into the night air. I'd exerted no small amount of energy into thinking what cool words I would say as a farewell, and eventually managed to babble "So long," when my friend opened her arms to give me a hug. This was very nice, and as we embraced I kissed her cheek. She pulled me in slightly to extend the hug, which made me feel so deliciously warm and fuzzy inside, and she left her hand on my shoulder once we separated. I told her I intended to send her cheezy Ottawa postcards on a regular basis, said goodnight to her sister and her best friend who stood with us, and made my way dizzily out into the night.
I sent the first postcard out today.
Tonight I'm going to the gym, as I have been regularly doing for the past few months. Getting into even better shape is sort of my mission for the summer. It's my hope that, in September, when my friend gets back from New York and we get together again, she won't believe her eyes.
