The Globe and Mail

How being a good dinner companion could make your career

Flickering candlelight casts strange shadows along the walls. The accumulated mumble of voices is silenced by the piercing sound of a gong, followed by an immediate eerie quietness. Everyone rises from their seats, gowns billowing. A mesmerizing Latin chant reverberates throughout the medieval hall.

This wasn’t a strange dream, but part of my real-life journey as a graduate student at the University of Cambridge, the world’s fourth-oldest university. As an undergrad in Canada, I would meet up with colleagues over a casual pint at the campus pub, but in Cambridge, socializing takes place in a more formal and structured setting.

The most frequent communal activity that has persisted since the university’s founding is the “formal hall.” This elaborate custom involves the donning of formal attire and gown and partaking in a three-course meal served in ancient dining halls.

Participating in these formals teaches numerous important skills. Firstly, they bring people out of their academic silos and facilitate interactions between disciplines. One evening, I conversed with a gentleman who directed a pharmaceutical company. He was interested in learning about Canada’s Constitution, and afterward he spoke about the clinical trials his company was conducting.

Continue reading

Standard
Huffington Post Canada

Mulcair was the one out of line at Question Period

A sad spectacle occurred in Question Period this Tuesday, with an exchange between Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair and Paul Calandra, the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Secretary. Mulcair asked the government whether the Canadian military mission in Iraq would extend beyond thirty days. Calandra responded by questioning the NDP’s commitment to Israel by discussing inflammatory statements made by one of its fundraisers.

Mulcair, with a witty retort on Paul Calandra confusing Iraq and Israel, asked the question again, to which Calandra gave the same reply. After Mulcair tried for a third time, he used his subsequent question to challenge the Speaker’s neutrality.

According to the House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, Government Ministers (or Parliamentary Secretaries acting on their behalf), when responding to a question, may:

  1. Answer the question
  2. Defer their answers
  3. Make short explanations as to why they cannot furnish an answer at that time; or
  4. Say nothing

Continue reading

Standard
Maclean's Magazine

[Letter] Finding Fault with Israel

Emma Teitel suggests that “Jews may hesitate to speak openly and critically about Israeli policy” because they fear anti-Semitism (“Why Jews don’t dare criticize Israel,” July 28). While her concerns are certainly founded, her assertion is not true. Gabor Maté, an infant survivor of the Holocaust, published an article entitled “Beautiful dream of Israel has become a nightmare” in the Toronto Star. Shira Herzog states in the Canadian Jewish News that: “Hypersolidarity [with Israel] can close down a conversation, because it can become a no-win, futile ideological debate.” Jews residing within Israel can be exceptionally critical. A column entitled “Israel does not want peace” was published in the left-leaning Haaretz. Even in the right-leaning Jerusalem Post, writer Gershon Baskin has suggested that Israel’s response to the Gaza conflict should not be purely military. The visible and virulent anti-Semitism that has arisen around the world and in Canada is not the by-product of Israel’s incursion in Gaza. The attacks on synagogues in France, “no Jews allowed” signs in Belgium, large crowds in Germany calling for Jews to be gassed, and the assault on Jews at a pro-Gaza rally in Calgary are anti-Semitic acts, plain and simple. Those who wish to criticize the policies of a state have the right to do so, but they must speak out and report to the authorities those among them who are committing hate crimes.

Original post here.

Standard
Times of Israel

Silencing the wolf

Consider the following: a British parliamentarian or American congressman says something incredibly inflammatory during a legislative debate. No criminal charges are laid, but the MP is barred from legislative debates for six months on the basis of the controversial nature of these comments. There would be enormous outrage for the censorship of unpopular opinion, and rightfully so.

Precisely the following has occurred in Israel, after the controversial Member of Knesset Hanin Zoabi has been slapped with a six month ban on participation in the plenary debates and committees. This came after a number of provocative statements. In response to the kidnapping of the three young Israeli teenagers last month, she said (before it was known that the boys had been murdered) that the kidnapping was not an act of terrorism:

I can’t call this act terrorism, even if I don’t agree with it – and I don’t […] this incident is a result of [Israeli] war crimes.

Additionally, Zoabi had published an article where she encouraged Palestinians to take part in popular resistance and “to put Israel under siege instead of negotiating.” The six month ban is the maximum possible punishment that can be meted out by the Knesset’s Ethics Committee.

Continue reading

Standard
Guelph Mercury

Status quo unacceptable in Gaza dispute

A loud noise punctures the quiet Jerusalem night. At first it seems to the unknowing ear that it may be just be the wind picking up and dying down.

This idealistic musing is quickly dispelled as the strange sound continually recurs and disappears. After the third or fourth such sound, the mind begins to understand that this is an abnormality. It is the dreaded sound of the rocket siren.

When I heard my first siren, I bolted to the nearest shelter. Luckily, this happened to be right next door.

My friends had different experiences. One was at a Tel Aviv grocery store when the Iron Dome — Israel’s anti-missile defence system — intercepted a rocket near his location, resulting in a shock wave that was felt at the store.

On the roof of a Tel Aviv building, partygoers heard a loud noise, and saw the smoke trail of a rocket intercepted by the Iron Dome, not far from where they were standing. Others I spoke to were at a beach and saw rockets in the distance, which were luckily intercepted by the anti-missile system.

I have lived in Canadian tranquility my entire life. I have never before experienced violence and hatred perpetrated against a civilian population. For this reason, my first experience with Hamas’ rockets shook me to my core.

Continue reading

Standard
Huffington Post Canada

U of C abortion display verdict not a victory for free speech

The University of Calgary recently reversed the guilty verdict of seven pro-life students who were found guilty of non-academic misconduct for setting up a display with graphic photos comparing abortion to the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide. The University of Calgary initially demanded that the students set up their display facing inwards so passersby would not see the images. After the students refused, the University charged and found the students guilty of misconduct for failing to follow the demands issued by Campus Security. The students appealed to the University’s Board of Governors, which found their appeal groundless and dismissed the case. The students appealed to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, which ordered the University to rehear the appeal, after which the students were found not guilty.

The court decision has been heralded by some as being a victory for free speech on campus. The court ruling focused on the procedural aspect of the law rather than the substantive claim that the students’ right to free expression had been violated. The Court shied away from making any finding on the students’ right to erect the display: it directly stated that “it would be premature at this juncture” to rule on the right of students to erect the display on University property, or to force a change in University policy. Rather, the decision focused solely on the decision of the Board of Governors’ Committee denying the students their appeal hearing on the basis that it was groundless.

Continue reading

Standard
Huffington Post Canada

Broadcasters should not censor political ads

Political speech is seemingly under attack from the last place we might expect: Canadian media broadcasters. CBC, Radio Canada, CTV, Rogers, and Shaw (which owns Global TV) announced last month that they would no longer air political advertisements that include material taken from their airwaves without express authorization.

“As news organizations, the use of our content in political advertisements without our express consent may compromise our journalistic independence and call into question our journalistic ethics, standards and objectivity,” they wrote.

According to the CRTC, “during an election campaign, broadcasters play an important role in informing Canadians about the issues, political parties and candidates involved.” Under section 335(1) of the Canada Elections Act, every broadcaster is required to provide prime-time advertising to all registered political parties. The Act also appoints a Broadcasting Arbitrator, who issues specific guidelines on the content of messages, as well as to deal with disputes between political parties and broadcasters.

Continue reading

Standard
Huffington Post Canada

The Senate Reference and taking steps forward

The Supreme Court just released its long-awaited Senate Reference decision. And the response was spectacularly rebuking.

Harper posed the following questions to the Court and the following responses were provided. I have significantly condensed the decision for easy access.

Harper: Can the federal government unilaterally impose term limits on Senators?

Supreme Court: No, they may not.

Imposing term limits is a change that engages the interest of provinces. It requires the general amending formula to be used (seven provinces with at least 50 per cent of the population), also known as the 7/50 procedure. Imposing fixed terms is not specifically written in the Constitution, imposing term limits would alter the fundamental nature and role of the Senate.

Harper: Can the federal government unilaterally develop legislation that allows citizens to be consulted for potential Senate nominees? Can the federal government establish a framework for provinces and territories to enact legislation to consult their citizens for Senate nominees?

Supreme Court: No, they may not.

Continue reading

Standard
Huffington Post Canada

The Conservatives’ clever ploy with the Truth in Sentencing Act

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the application of the Truth in Sentencing Actwas depicted in various media outlets as being part of a trend of recent decisions rebuffing the Conservative government’s justice agenda. While this could describe a number of recent decisions, the current ruling is more nuanced.

According to the Canadian Press:

They also represent the latest in a series of court rebukes of the Conservative government’s law-and-order agenda.

Sean Fine in the Globe and Mail likewise stated:

The Conservative government’s attempt to detain thousands of prisoners for longer periods has been blocked, in the newest in a series of crushing defeats at the Supreme Court of Canada.

As the Supreme Court decision notes, enhanced credit is often provided for accused who have been remanded in jail, and historically, there were no restrictions on the reasons for giving credit or the rate at which it was granted. A practice developed over time to grant credit at a 2:1 rate. The new Truth in Sentencing Act caps pre-sentence credit at 1.5:1, but does not discuss which circumstances justify enhanced credit.

Continue reading

Standard
The Prince Arthur Herald

An interview with Justice Minister Peter MacKay

In light of the House of Commons reconvening on January 27, The Prince Arthur Herald columnist Samuel Mosonyi spoke with Justice Minister Peter MacKay to gauge the government’s position and rationale on a number of initiatives currently being pursued in the Justice portfolio. These include the Supreme Court’s Bedford decision on prostitution, a cyberbullying awareness initiative, mandatory victim surcharges, the proposed Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, and more. Here is the full interview.

 

PROSTITUTION AND THE BEDFORD DECISION

You tweeted recently that you “disagree with Justin Trudeau’s focus on legalizing prostitution, which will harm and put vulnerable Canadians at risk.” Has Justin Trudeau come out in support of legalization?

Of marijuana, yes. Of prostitution, not yet, although his party, and particularly the youth wing, appears to be very publicly musing, if not advocating, that position. So while we’ve been focused on making our justice system more accountable, Mr. Trudeau and certainly his party seem to be focusing on legalizing marijuana and prostitution. And frankly I tweeted that because I fundamentally disagree, and I think in both instances it would be detrimental to our country’s best interest. It would certainly further endanger vulnerable segments of our population. And I don’t believe that any government of any political stripe should be facilitating the increase of access to drugs or to the sex trade. I don’t think it’s a good thing for our country, certainly not in the best interests of young people, or our citizens. I’m kind of taken aback, frankly, when I heard that yesterday.

After the Bedford decision you released a statement stating that the government is exploring all options to ensure the criminal law continues to address the significant harms to communities, prostitutes, and vulnerable persons. Would it be an option to allow communities themselves to regulate prostitution through zoning and licensing bylaws, instead of treating it as a criminal law matter?

I don’t believe so. I say that because it really is in the federal area of criminal legislation in my view to address this broadly across the country. We’re going to be receiving a lot of input and there will be extensive consultation on this issue. But it’s going to take a much more concerted effort than what any local government or jurisdiction could do. So for that reason I think you will find that there is a necessity within that twelve month period that the Supreme Court has granted that we will bring forward legislation, and amendments that will address what we think are significant harms that flow from prostitution.

Continue reading

Standard