While we're trampling civil liberties...

I was just thinking about Obama's press conference on August 9th, 2013, and I recall hearing a few things:

"I believe that those who have lawfully raised their voices on behalf of privacy and civil liberties are also patriots who love our country and want it to live up to our highest ideals."

"No, I don’t think Mr. Snowden was a patriot."

"So the fact is, is that Mr. Snowden has been charged with three felonies.  If, in fact, he believes that what he did was right, then, like every American citizen, he can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case."

I infer from these remarks (extracted from this transcript) that either the President of the United States presumes that Mr. Snowden is guilty of at least one of the felonies (and therefore did not lawfully raise his voice and is therefore not a patriot), or that the President has some other reason to publicly claim that Mr. Snowden is not (in the president's mind) a patriot.

If it is the former, what does it say about a country when its head of state makes such comments which seem to contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."). Or the the presumption of innocence notion in U.S. Law that was established by precedent in 1895. (Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895))

If it is the latter, mentioning it in this press conference implies it is the former.

Either way, I think it could be challenging to get a fair trial when the President announces you are unpatriotic.

Just thinking.

Things Paul Harvey Didn't Say

Recently, I received FW:FW:FW: that was attributed to Paul Harvey, the essence of which is: in a country where there is freedom of religion, people of faith should be granted the time to pray without any legal repercussions. The story behind it is that someone was offended by a 30-second prayer and sued.

I appreciate and support the general sentiment that freedom of religion should be just that, and I am not offended if any faith wants to pray (or not).

From a practical perspective, how should we handle prayers at the start of a game if there are representatives of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist faiths together with Atheists. Should each be allowed 30s of devotional time? Should they pray or whatever simultaneously?

From a legal perspective, I think that distributing a document that was written (predominantly) by someone (Nick Gholson, Times Record News in Wichita Falls, Texas, September 1999) and attributing that text to someone else (Paul Harvey), may raise issues of plagiarism. Other copyright infringement issues would be related to the general reprinting and distribution without permission. (see http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/prayer.asp for my source)

Also, I don't like FW:FW:FW: chain letters so I try and complain and set the sender on the path to what is Truth, Fairness, Befriendment and Beneficence.

Faithfully yours,
Stephen

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?

Charter Rights in Canada

Recently a woman from out of the country gave birth prematurely. That child is deemed Canadian (under Canadian law). The parents had to pay 10's of thousands of dollars for medical expenses. We have "universal health care" for Canadian Citizens. To qualify for those benefits in Alberta, you must be an Alberta resident for at least 4 months (I think). A newborn cannot possibly have lived (independently) ANYWHERE for 4 months. The Charter guarantees equal treatment under the law without discrimination on the basis of age. Since that Canadian child could not ever have been accommodated under the law, the law discriminates unfairly on the basis of age.

My solution? Add a clause something like "or is under 4 months of age and has resided in the province since birth" or something like that... we wouldn't have to scrap or rewrite all the law, it would be reasonable under the Charter, and would work for the better health of Canadian citizens.

So there!