So the criminal code of Canada states (in part) "202 (1) Everyone commits an offence who (d) records or registers bets or sells a pool" and that "(2) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable (a) for a first offence, to imprisonment for not more than two years"

It also states "213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view (c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

Now why do we set up stings for summary conviction offences, but not prosecute indictable offences like football pools?

I'm just asking.

   Recently, on the intertubes, a same-sex divorce case has got some knickers in some knots. A couple of views on the case are this: this and this. I recommend doing your own research and forming your own opinions. For what it's worth, here's what I think.

   Two people who desired and intended to be pair-bond partners vacationed from their homes to be married in a jurisdiction where it is generally permitted for same-sex couples to be married. Years later the same two people no longer want to be legally (civilly) recognized as pair-bond partners.
Enter the law. It turns out that if you live in Ontario, Canada and you want to get married to same-sex person, it is permissible. If you are from somewhere that it is not legal and you are not going to stay afterward, then it is not permissible. At it's heart... the people got their ceremony when they wanted it and years later when they don't want to be married they discover they aren't. Problem solved.

   Yeah... no. It seems now that folks are foaming at the mouth because this undermines a lot of forward progress. And if gay marriages are without legal standing if it is illegal in the homeland then Egyptians in Canada may not blog and Lower Slobbovian women may not drink Fresca on Tuesdays. These mouth-foamers seem to suggest that the solution is "Even if you may not do this in your own country, it is permissible in our culture so everything is fine!". Problem solved.

   Yeah... no. Consider the universal application of this. Suppose I have a hankering for a northern right whale (Eubalena glacialis) steak... I can't do that here that is an endangered species. IT IS ILLEGAL! So I fly over to Lower Slobbovia where it is legal, kill the whale, make a steak for myself and completely use every possible part to feed, clothe, heat, or whatever, the poor people of Lower Slobbovia. And no one should complain.

   You say, "But, Stephen, that is different! We were talking about people getting married."
So try this... Suppose I want to marry my brother in the Province of Alberta. I can't do that here, he is my brother, it is illegal! So we fly to Lower Slobbovia where it is legal to marry a sibling, tie the knot, etc. And no one should complain. Or suppose I want to have 3 wives... or marry a 12-year-old... or marry a corpse...

   In the true big world picture of things, I think we want other jurisdictions to respect our laws so we should respect theirs. In the specific case that started my rant... if they wanted to be married and the laws of the home jurisdiction were so prohibitive, perhaps they should have lobbied to change the law (like in Canada) or move to where the laws are more to their liking.

   Gay marriage, straight marriage, whatever marriage from where I sit should be so much more than the legal standing. It should be about love and mutual support and growth. And for the record... I don't want to marry my brother, a 12-year-old, a corpse, nor 2 more wives! I am exceedingly satisfied with the one spouse I have. I wish everyone could be as fortunate as I have been.

   I'm just saying.

A Hypothetical Workaround for Tracking a Canadian Election in "Real Time"

Imagine an open source application that has two functions:
1) Allows the user to make a post to Twitter with a hash-tag indicating how that user voted (like #VotedCPC #VotedLPC #VotedNDP #VotedGRN #VotedBLOC #VotedOTHER) , and
2) Aggregation, for personal use of that user, of the counts of all the hash-tags in the set for a period of time (for example Election Day).

Then the permitted action of "the transmission by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on what is commonly known as the Internet, of his or her personal political views." would be enabled and the aggregated, publically avaliable information, which is not an "opinion survey of how electors voted or will vote at an election or respecting an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated" could be viewed by an individual without being transmitted.

I'm not a lawyer, but this would seem to get around a number of restrictions. It would not be valid statistically, but it might be interesting.

Maybe for the next go around, if they don't change the law.

I'm just saying.

Canadian Election 2011 Research Part I

Well, we're off, again!

I don't know who to vote for so I am doing research. This is leading me to new frustration. I like the spin that parties get on some topics.

"Liberals call for immediate action to protect rail shippers; releasing a report does not constitute implementation" POSTED ON MARCH 21, 2011 (http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/liberals-call-action-protect-rail-shippers-releasing-report-constitute-implementation/)

The article suggests that the Government, formed by the Conservative members of Parliament, are responsible for the lack of cost review. “The last costing review was conducted in 1992”

It does not mention that the last costing review was conducted under a Conservative Government. It also does not mention that from 1993 until 2006 the Liberal government did not do any costing review.

I do not like being misled this way.

I'm not saying I support the Conservatives nor am I saying I do not support the Liberals...

I'm just saying...

Ontario Court Strikes Down Anti-Prositution Laws

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100928/ontario-anti-prostitution-laws-struck-down-100928/

Hurray! I have argued for years that the laws surrounding prostitution in Canada were ridiculous!

These things are illegal (for now):

Soliciting for the purposes of prostitution

Soliciting to hire a prostitute

Operating a common bawdy house (where prostitution takes place)

Living off the avails of prostitution.

See anything missing? Yeah. Prostitution. That's right prostitution is legal in Canada. You just can't advertise it, ask for it, enable it, or spend any money you might make at it.

Politicians ask us to give them a job where they use their talents and abilities to satisfy one of our needs and we pay them to do it. We fund the place where they ply their trade. They spend their take-home pay.

What's the difference? Sex.

Although we frequently get screwed by politicians, too.

I'm just saying...

Order of Canada

Joseph Emmanuel Yvon Levaque has one, and he was founder and first President of the National Association of Principals and Administrators of Indian Residences
(Didn't the government apologize for Residential Schools because they were evil and wrong?)

Cardinal Paul Grégoire (October 24, 1911 – October 30, 1993) was a Canadian Archbishop of Montreal. In 1979, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada.
(Wasn't he in charge of those Quebec priests who were inappropriate with children?)

Where is the righteous indignation against their OoC's? Just Asking

So who is the parent, again?

So far this week we have a Quebec court overturning the grounding of a 12-year-old girl and a new law that makes spanking illegal. The traditional tools of swift physical punishment and revocation of privileges are being removed.

As a some-time educator, I recognize that positive reinforcement of desired behaviour is a very strong teaching tool, but teaching consequence requires that an appropriate consequence must follow a behaviour. Let us encourage good behaviour, but do not force parents to ignore bad behaviour. These children who have been spared the rod hand and spoiled with no negative feedback for negative behaviour will likely become the miscreants and malcontents of the future. And we will blame the parents for not doing enough.

Maybe Macgyver has some way to make a punishment out of a spatula, some chewing gum, and a pile of bad legislation and judicial rulings. If employing literary devices and fictional characters isn't illegal, yet.

Random application of the Charter

The headline jumped out at me: "Random use of police sniffer dogs breach of Charter: top court"
(http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/25/school-search.html)

I read the article and find something vaguely disturbing about it. On one hand, I really enjoy the freedom to wander about and not have to wonder when the police will be searching me and my stuff. On the other hand, if buddy has enough cocaine and heroin in my kid's school to make it obvious she is never going to use it all herself, I don't mind if it gets found in a random search.

So are CheckStops now unconstitutional without a specific warrant?

Parliamentary Democracy

The name is derived from the French parlement, the action of parler (to speak): a parlement is a talk, a discussion, hence a meeting (an assembly, a court) where people discuss matters. (see Wikipedia: Parliament)

Canadian parliamentarians have got the talking down to a fine art, mostly, but have missed the rest of the definition. You know, the bit about discussion. In an good discussion people take turns talking and listening. The more people involved, the more time you spend listening.

In the next public forum leading up to a federal election, ask your incumbent M.P. if they have talked through, heckled, or otherwise ignored anyone in the House during question period. And preface it with my earlier comment about listening.

The concept of a federal Parliamentary Democracy has an excellent premise: Select a representative to discuss how to best govern the the country. By convention and like in most structured debates, some of the representatives argue "for" and others argue "against" legislation.

The discussion should be the most important shaping tool for the legislation. If our debates were not automatic "nay-saying" of what the Government (or Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition) are putting forth, but actual discussions of how to make the legislation best serve the country, Canada would likely be able to create the most supportive national milieu for people, industry, and the environment.

It might not work better, but it won't work any worse. And we'd could maintain our polite, Canadian ways.