the daily snivel

  Mucous

Today I'm feeling very sick and phlegmy, so I decided to take the day off from studying for my upcoming civil procedure exam, and even refrained from casework at the Legal Clinic, so as to convalesce at home with a soothing hot beverage and perhaps curl up in bed with a nice, toasty cat. Finding myself with a day of peace, I finally got some laundry done and thereby diminished the leaning tower of socks and underwear that was casting an ominous shadow across my floor and my life (and, besides, I was all out of clean everything). Now I'm thinking about filling out some Christmas cards and generally being incredibly boring on a Friday night.

Yesterday was a little more stimulating. I wrote my immigration law exam, which I thought went quite well, despite being three hours of hand-cramping madness as we all frantically dashed through 9 questions (each with four subparts) about the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its Regulations, and seminal cases with easy-to-cite names like Zolfagharkhani or Thiruvarulselvan. After that, my weary friends and I painted the town whatever colour spilled beer is, as we went out for pints, dinner, and yet more pints. The ridiculous thing about going out with other law students, however, is that it's akin to being a five-headed monster, each head more opinionated and bossy than the last, and none being able to agree on very simple things like "So, where should we go for dinner?" I had to eat somewhere that served at least some vegetarian food (our first stop was a Churrasco restaurant, which essentially serves meat, meat, and more meat), one person didn't want pub food, another didn't want Indian food, and another didn't want pasta. After all that wandering around, we settled on an Irish pub and ate boxties anyway. Then we hit the Manx Pub, which is a fabulous little basement pub on Elgin Street, and soaked ourselves in pints of Keiths and amusing stories and (as law students will) got engaged in a discussion about whether George W. Bush is a war criminal (and whether we should invade, a la The Mouse that Roared).

One of my exam questions touched loosely on this idea, as it was based on the refugee claim of Jeremy Hinzman, as US soldier who has fled the US and is seeking refugee protection in Canada on the grounds that he is a conscientious objector refusing to serve in an illegal war where torture and other war crimes have been perpetrated. Some of the real facts behind this story can be read here:

...
Jimmy Massey, 33, a staff sergeant who served in Iraq before being honourably discharged after 12 years' service, said he had seen troops shooting civilians at road blocks and in the street. A code of silence, similar to that found in organised crime gangs, prevented troops from speaking about it.

"We were shooting up people as they got out of their cars trying to put their hands up," said Mr Massey. "I don't know if the Iraqis thought we were celebrating their new democracy. I do know that we killed innocent civilians." Mr Massey said US troops in Iraq were trained to believe that all Iraqis were potential terrorists. As a result, he had watched his colleagues open fire indiscriminately. In one 48-hour period, he estimated his unit killed more than 30 civilians in the Rashid district of southern Baghdad.

"I was never clear on who the enemy was," he explained. "If you have no enemy or you do not know who the enemy is, what are you doing there?" His claims were made during an immigration hearing in Toronto, Canada, to assess a claim for refugee status made by a former US soldier, Jeremy Hinzman. Mr Hinzman, 26, fled to Canada after refusing to go to Iraq with his colleagues in the 82nd Airborne Division based at Fort Bragg.

Mr Hinzman is seeking permission to remain in Canada with his wife and child and believes he will face a court martial if he returns to the US. "We were told that we would be going to Iraq to jack up some terrorists," he told the hearing.

"We were told it was a new kind of war, that these were evil people and they had to be dealt with." Mr Hinzman is among several American soldiers seeking refugee status in Canada, hoping the country's opposition to the war will help.
...

Were it any country but the United States, I don't think there would be any doubt that Mr. Hinzman would be entitled to refugee protection as a conscientious objector, but he has a lot of hurdles to overcome, not the least of which is the political price Canada would pay if it allowed a US citizen to come to Canada as a Convention Refugee, and which Mr. Hinzman has absolutely no say in. 

  Good news, everyone!

The Supreme Court of Canada has released its decision in the Same-Sex Marriage Reference, and affirmed that it is within the power of the federal government to change the definition of marriage in Canada to include same-sex couples, that such a change is consistent with our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that such a change would protect the constitutional freedom of religion by not forcing churches to marry same-sex couples where it is contrary to their religious beliefs.

You can read the actual text of the SCC decision here:

Note that same-sex marriage is already recognized in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and the Yukon. If the government does nothing, the majority of the country is recognizing same-sex marriage. What this ruling does is give the government a legitimate authority to introduce a bill making same-sex marriage legal and universal across the entire country, making Canada a leader in recognizing this important right. And probably really pissing off a lot of Americans. Well, good.

I have a great deal of faith in Canada's commitment to human rights, and I hope the bill is introduced and passes soon. Anyway, I have to go write my immigration law exam, so for further reading, the CBC has a good breakdown here:

...
In a non-binding opinion released Thursday morning, the court reaffirmed religious freedoms under the Charter, saying religious officials opposed to same-sex marriages do not have to perform them.

It also declined to answer whether same-sex marriage was required by the constitution.

The Paul Martin government had asked the court to consider whether excluding gays and lesbians from legal marriage violated equality rights under the Charter.

But the court said that by failing to appeal a number of lower court rulings that said excluding gays from marriage was discriminatory, the federal government had already accepted that position.

"The government has clearly accepted these decisions and adopted this position as its own," the court wrote.

The court rejected the argument that the traditional definition of marriage is rooted in history, saying times have changed.

"Several centuries ago it would have been understood that marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples. The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today," wrote the court.

"I feel it is a clear green light in favour of equal marriage," said Martha McCarthy, a lawyer for same-sex couples.

Groups opposed to same-sex marriage reacted swiftly, as Gwen Landolt with Real Women and Catholic Civil Rights League member Richard Bastien called for a referendum on the issue. Landolt says the traditional definition of marriage should be enshrined in the constitution.

Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said Monday he would take the bill to Parliament as early as this month.

Martin has asked MPs to support the bill, but has also told them it will be a free vote.

The Liberals hold a thin minority government, with 134 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, but should have the support of most or all of the 19 New Democrat MPs and 54 Bloc Québécois MPs.

NDP Leader Jack Layton has said his caucus will vote in favour of the bill, while Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, whose party is split on the issue, says it will be a free vote.

If passed, Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands in making gay marriage legal nationwide.
...

 

  Finally a cure for the vexation caused by obnoxious people with cellphones.

SHHH - The Society for HandHeld Hushing.

Via Mintyfresh:

"After reading a story in the NYT, Jim's wife Heidi decided that maybe there was a way to fight back against the obnoxious cell phone users that we all have to deal with in stores, restaurants, trains and pretty much everywhere else. Can design ride to the rescue? Jim and the incomparable Aaron Draplin thinks it can. So, as a public service, we introduce the reasonably polite SHHH, the Society for HandHeld Hushing."

Download the amazingly handy PDF, and slice and dice your way to hysterical handouts. I dare you to give them out.

It's worth noting that I willingly gave away the free cellphone I had this summer and donated it the Clinic so that harried caseworkers could make emergency calls back to their review counsel while in court. When I first reactivated it for use in Toronto during interview week, I was initially worried it might take hold of me like the One Ring did to Frodo, and I would turn sunken-eyed and covetous of it, and stroke it reassuringly and call it my precious, but I prevailed. And what's more, I refuse to get another one until they actually force one into my grudging hands (and they will) as a condition perk of my articling position at the criminal law firm in Toronto next fall.  

  I'm never as productive as when I'm avoiding studying for exams

It's funny that now that I have a serious itch to update my blog (since I'm procrastinating studying for my exams, I have a ton of energy for all those little projects and good intentions that otherwise get set aside), Blogger has been behaving quite badly, sending up all kinds of error messages, stalling on updates, and refusing to even let me access the posting facility. That's free technology for you.

My plea to Google: Stop adding features to Blogger. Just make it work first!

Anyway, in my rambling perusal of the internets [sic -- George W. Bush], I came across a great blog that, unintentionally, captures the style and wit of one of my favourite children's books, The Magic Pudding. The e-text can be downloaded at that link through the Gutenberg project, though you can also buy it at most good bookstores, and it really does need to be experienced with the original illustrations in my opinion. Anyway, the book was written at the turn of the last century, and is set in Australia. It features a surly magic pudding that walks around and insults people, but also demands to be eaten as it is endless and always renewing itself. It is accompanied by a well-spoken wombat, a penguin, and a crusty old seaman. I could never do it justice with a description, since it defies one. But give it a read. The language is wonderful, with this fantastic, free-flowing dialogue that reads the way people do talk (albeit the way they talked 100 years ago), and is witty and charming. There's a great passage when Bill Barnacle and Sam Sawnoff are telling the story of how they came to be in the possession of the Puddin' (as it is called) and are a little vague on the details, suggesting at first that the original owner had an unfortunate accident, when the Puddin' interjects and says something to the effect of, "As I recall, you hit him on the head and threw him off the iceberg!"

Anyway, Fafblog is both witty and has similarly archaic and folksy language, but is also an excellent and endless source of biting commentary. Here's their analysis of the state of science in the USA of late (my favourite is "conservationism," which I've marked with bold):

Yknow science hasn't been real popular lately. What with Congress cuttin the National Science Foundation budget an nobody believin in evolution anymore an the president not carin about global warming, maybe it's time we switched to a New Science that everyone will like better!

FAFBLOG PRESENTS: NEW SCIENCE! New Science is way better than borin ol Old Science! With Old Science you hadda putter around lookin for facts an evidence to back up hypotheses, an use the hypotheses to come up with a scientific theory. An when you get new evidence you gotta change everything all over again! Well not with New Science! With New Science you get to pick the conclusion an work backwards to the pick the right facts! It's quicker an easier an more efficient - you don't even have to leave your house! This is just a preview of what New Science can do for you:

• BIOLOGY! New Biologists have done extensive testing an found that since we come from dust an to dust we shall return, we are primarily composed of dust, although the other four elements, air, water, fire, and funk, all play their own important roles as well. When you're feelin hungry an there's nothin to eat around, try scoopin up some dust (or dirt, if dust is scarce).
  
  
• ASTRONOMY! In older times scientists thought that the stars an planets rotated around the earth on fixed spheres in the sky. Silly scientists! Now New Scientists know the stars an planets rotate around the earth on fixed spheres in the sky pushed by angels. The rotation of these stars an planets determines critical elements of your destiny, such as whether today is a lucky day for love, or whether you will attract interest in yourself and your ideas.
  
  
• CLIMATOLOGY! Is the earth gettin warmer? Maybe but it sure isn't the fault a greenhouse gases! The earth just has a fever caused by an imbalance of the four humours. Pump a little more yellow bile into the atmosphere an it should be all set.
  
  
• CONSERVATIONISM! Rare animals are fantastical an legendary. When they go missin it's not cause they're endangered or cause they're gettin poisoned to death or anythin. It's cause they have snuck off to a fantastical an legendary land Wherre Therr Be Dragonnes! File em away in Doctor Fafnir's Bestiary of Fearsomme & Terreble Besttes, like the griffin or the manticore or the whooping crane!
  
  
• GODOLOGY! Why believe in God on crummy ol faith when New Science proves for a fact that he absolutely has to exist? Trained Godologists have determined that God orbits the earth in the celestial empyrean beyond the ninth sphere of the primum mobile. He is composed of 23% copper, 12% zinc, 4% nickel, and 61% Godmium, a special metal only used in the processin an manufacture of God. NASA Godnichians are hard at work buildin a space probe to launch into God by 2015!
  

 

  Update surprise.

Every now and then I start to write a post but don't get around to finishing it in time, so I save it as a draft and come back to it later. This means that occasionally a post appears in the archives of posts past that is, nevertheless, completely new. It's like putting on a pair of jeans and finding a loonie (that is, a Canadian $1 coin, for the benefit of my unenlightened non-Canadian readers) in your pocket that you'd forgotten about.

Such a post can be found here, for November 16, 2004. 

  Reliable sources indicate he isn't dead.

December means exam time for us busy law students, and tonight I'm working on my summary for Immigration Law, as I have an exam in three days. But I wanted to assure you all that I'm alive, mostly well, and absolutely not about to flunk, nosirree. In all honesty, I'm feeling pretty good about Immigration Law. It's mostly governed by statute (the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) and associated regulations, so the key is really to just know all those crazy sections really well. For instance -- to work in Canada, foreign nationals normally need a work permit, but you don't need one as "a guest speaker for the sole purpose of making a speech or delivering a paper at a dinner, graduation, convocation, or similar function, or as a commercial speaker or seminar leader delivering a seminar that lasts no longer than five days..." -- Section 186(j) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations tells us that. Isn't that veird?

I suppose that's not so veird -- er, weird. But it is important to know. Rather, it's important for me to know. You probably don't care.

In other news, interestingly, little Rob is finally growing up -- he's learning to drive like an honest-to-goodness adult. As you may recall, my future job at the criminal law firm in Toronto requires me to have a car and a licence so that I can drive to all the courts in the area as well as the jails. So, I had my first driving lesson the other day, in a standard no less. It was a lot of fun, and the instructor had a great car (a shiny Mazda 3 - very sporty) and I "only" stalled it twice. That said, I did a lot better than my instructor's last student, who threw it into reverse when the car was doing 120 and fucked up that gear rather nicely (made shifting into reverse really sticky for me, too). Right now I have to work on smoothness and control in terms of starts and stops, but it really was enjoyable. I think my major problem is just nervousness. For instance, I analyzed what my feet were doing way too much when I was driving forwards, and the driver picked up on this and had me practice backing up instead, and then I had no trouble with the clutch at all. It was just go go go. My next lesson is on December 23, after exams, and my sister has promised to let me drive with her in her new Accent when she comes down for the holidays as well.

More updates will follow. Meanwhile, have a gander over at the list of swell blogs along the column to the right of this entry. I've added two of note -- Matilda, by my long lost friend Jennifer, and Not Well Planned, which is by my first girlfriend (and, by implication, first ex-girlfriend), someone I haven't spoken to in nearly ten years, but who I think well of and who can still write an exceedingly funny story.