Presidential pardons are getting out of hand

The whole system of presidential pardons in America is broken and wrong. I know US presidents have been doing it since the year dot (well, since George Washington anyway), and I know it's enshrined in the US Constitution. But it doesn't make any real sense and it is quite clearly open to abuse.

Joe Biden, hot on the heels of his horrible and embarrassing decision to pardon his own son for his criminal acts (possibly the worst decision of his whole presidency, and a huge black stain on his legacy), has just pardoned 39 other criminals accused of non-violent crimes (mainly drug-related), and commuted the sentences of about 1,500 others (mainly those who had their prison sentences interrupted by COVID), in the largest single-day act of clemency in modern American history. And he may not be finished yet.

Donald Trump has already vowed to pardon the imprisoned January 6th Capitol rioters "on Day 1". These are convicted criminals, many of them violent, whom Trump seems to see as political prisoners and maligned patriots. Biden is also said to be mullling the idea of pre-emptively pardoning (now, THERE's a concept!) the legal investigators of the January 6th coup attempt, in the full knowledge that Trump will be coming after them (and unspecified other politcal opponents) as soon as he gains power. It's all getting a bit ridiculous.

People who are in American prison are there because the courts, after due deliberation and legal cases that are often lengthy and complex, deemed that they have broken the laws of the land. It's not a perfect system, but it's pretty good. Who are these presidents, who think they know better than the courts, or who rely on the partisan political advice of others? Who are they to second-guess the whole system of due process and legal precedent?

Canada's Supreme Court to finally test excessive use of "notwithstanding clause"

Canadian courts are finally taking to task those provincial governments - like Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan - that are routinely and willfully using the "notwithstanding clause" in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to pass legislation that is clearly contrary to human rights in the country.

Section 33 of the Charter, which effectively allows governments to override parts of the document, has always been a controversial element, and was always intended as a tool of last resort, only to be invoked in extremely rare circumstances. But, increasingly in recent years, some provincial governments have been using it to justify their own controversial motions, even invoking it pre-emptively, in the full knowledge that the legislation they are proposing is illegal under the Charter, as Ontario Premier Doug Ford did just this week. It has never been invoked at the federal level, but Pierre Poilievre - of course it would be him! - says he would be open to using it to push through dubious legislation on legal sentencing and bail.

It's frankly ridiculous that such a clause exists at all - it only exists to allow governments to break the law of the land - but given that it does, it should be used extremely sparingly and judiciously. The latest crop of (mainly conservative) populist politicians seem to feel this does not apply to them.

But now, finally, the Supreme Court of Canada is set to take on a case - brought by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and teacher Ichrak Nour el Hak - appealing Quebec's Bill 21 (which seeks to ban public service employees from wearing religious symbols like crosses or hijabs). As part of this case, the Supreme Court must look at whether Quebec can hide behind the notwithstanding clause to push through such legislation.

Bring it on, I say. The notwithstanding clause is an unconscionable anachronism, but, given that it exists, it should at least be limited to the kinds of extremely rare circumstances envisaged by the Charter's authors, not just to allow unscrupulous governments to pass bad legislation.

Birthright citizenship is NOT a peculiarly American idea, nor is it illegal

President-elect Trump (how I hate to write that!) has often made a big deal about his plan to end birthright citizenship in the USA, which.for some reason he finds unfair and un-American, even illegal.

Birthright citizenship is the idea that any child born in the USA can take American citizenship, regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. Trump wants to end that, basically because he doesn't like immigrants of any sort. He argues that the current system is a "wilful misinterpretation" of the Constitution, an idea put into his head by wacko lawyer (now disbarred) John Eastman. 

In fact, the language in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is very clear, and many judges and even conservative lawyers have rejected Eastman's fringe theory.

What really rankles, though, is Trump's deliberate lying in interviews on the subject: "You know, we're the only country that has it". Er, no. Canada has unconditional birthright citizenship at birth. Mexico has it. Brazil has it. In fact, pretty much all of North and South America has it, along with the Caribbean and some African countries, as the Library of Congress confirms. I'm pretty sure Trump knows that, but as usual he is willing to lie to make a point.

Montreal dance ticket pricing ruled discriminatory

However much you might believe that there is rampant anti-Black discrimination thoughout Canadian society, it's still hard to get on board with a Montreal community centre's BIPOC ticket pricing for its Shake La Cabane family dance night event.

The event was advertised as $25.83 general admission or $15.18 for anyone "Black, Indigenous or People of Colour". The event's organizers justified it as a "micro-reparation" for a discriminated population, "in the name of solidarity, not charity", and mentioned a couple of examples in the USA as precedent.

But they were forced to backtrack and cancel the event after a public outcry and the attentions of various Quebec politicians. Oh, and an opinion from the Quebec Human Rights Commission that such a policy violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, specifically Section 10, which calls for the "full and equal recognition and exercise of [a person's] human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race".

I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time.

How do we deal with Syria now?

In the aftermath of the whirlwind collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, there are lots of unanswered, and possibly unanswerable, questions, at least until the dust settles a bit more.

One thing that is happening is that some countries, including the UK, France, Germany and several other European countries, are immediately suspending asylum applications from Syria. (Canada has made no such moves.) Why the rush? Why the precipitate reaction, within hours of the regime's fall?

A steady stream of Syrians have been fleeing the country for years now. But the main reason for the asylum claims has been that they are fleeing the murderous Assad regime, and that of course no longer applies, so the argument goes. Indeed, some Syrian refugees in the diaspora may be looking to return to Syria. In addition, any Syrian refugees leaving now may well be members of the failed Assad regime itself, something I admit I hadn't thought about.

The other major issue that is still very much up in the air is how to deal with Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the main architects of the uprising, and presumably the likely mainstay of any new government for the country. Problem is, HTS is a proscribed terrorist organization according to the US, UK, EU and Canada, so this makes diplomatic and political dealings verboten.

In their defence, HTS did break with Islamic State as long ago as 2016, and they have tried to tread a more moderate path since then. Several countries are already looking into de-proscribing HTS in a hurry, although it's a bit embarrassing that they would only seek this move now, when push has come to shove.

As for some of the other Islamist organizations involved in the putsch, some of whom are at least as suspect from a diplomatic point of view, I guess each will be considered according to their merits in good time. 

But no-one saw this coming, and reactions to it will not be swift, and will necessarily be cautious.

Another senseless mass killing in Haiti

Witchcraft is alive and well and living in Haiti. Or at least that's what a local warlord believes.

A lot of bad stuff happens in benighted Haiti, but this is among the worst. Monel Felix, better known as Mikano, a gang leader from Wharf Jérémie in the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince, called in a voodoo priest when his son mysteriously sickened and died, and the priest blamed the boy's death on some elderly locals practising witchcraft. Leaving nothing to chance, Mikano ordered the old folks rounded up and shot or stabbed to death. At least 110 deaths have been confirmed, and maybe as many as 184 according to some sources. The mutilated bodies were burned in the streets.

Spiralling gang violence in Haiti has resulted in at least 5,000 deaths so far this year, but this adds a whole new horrific twist to the situation. The boy probably died due to the disease-ridden unsanitary conditions in Haiti since order broke down last year, but Mikano chose to believe a voodoo priest instead. And his henchmen chose to carry out his mad orders. What a place!

Republican attitudes to their electoral system entirely dependent on who wins

It's hardly news - and hardly unexpected - but recent polls of American Republicans' attitudes toward their electoral system have miraculously completely changed.

In 2020, just 21% of Republicans believed that the elections were well run and administered. In 2024, that percentage has shot up to 93%! 

So, what changed? Well, nothing really. The US electoral system, janky as it has always been, has not been changed. The only thing that changed is that, in 2020 the Republicans lost, and in 2024 they won. 

The attitude change was influenced - nay, directed - by Donald Trump, of course, who spent most of 2024 spreading baseless claims about election cheating in preparation for a possible loss. When it turns out that he won, the claims, no longer needed, suddenly disappeared. It's almost enough to make you cynical...

Meanwhile, Democratic voters did see the electoral system as slightly less reliable in 2024 than in 2016 or 2020, showing that they are not completely immune to the same kind of sollipsistic magical thinking (it's known as the "winners effect"). But it only went down from 96% to 84%, proving that many more Democrats than Republicans live in the real world.

The anti-woke backlash takes control

An article in the Globe and Mail succinctly summarizes the pressures on big businesses to cave in to the anti-woke sentiments that are in the ascendancy in the USA.

There are anti-woke campaigners and influencers out there diligently and assiduously working to persuade American companies that ESG (environmental, social and governance) and DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies are anti-business and, hell, anti-American. Several Conservative states have also been pushing hard in this respect, and with Donald Trump taking the helm at the federal level, you just know that there will be even more pressure on companies to abandon any progressive developments they may have been experimenting with.

Once such American conservative influencer is Robby Starbuck (presumably not his real name), who boasts that his campaigns have been instrumental in causing companies like Deere & Co, Harley Davidson Inc, Molson-Coors Beverage Co and Walmart Inc to pull back from DEI policies (changing their hiring practices, pulling out of relationships with equity groups, cutting funding for pride parades, etc). 

Starbuck reckons that he has persuaded companies worth over $2 trillion to change their policies away from DEI and ESG, leading to "better workplace environments as a result". Here is his shtick: "Companies can clearly see the America wants normalcy back. The era of wokeness is dying right in front of our eyes ... We are now the trend not the anomaly." *Sigh*

The article does point out that, thus far at least, Canada has NOT been following this disturbing trend. Indeed, the Globe and Mail's Board Games corporate ranking shows that Canadian companies have make significant strides in ESG and DEI in the last couple of years. But, already, some Canadian companies are making changes in their US operations to accommodate the changing climate there.

And, of course, when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold (or worse). With anti-woke campaigners and legislators already hard at work in conservative provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, you can see the tide turning and the backlash beginning here too. If and when Pierre Poilievre gets elected (more of a "when"), it will take off in earnest. Years of effort and painfully slow progress down the drain in the blink of an eye.