Appeal of Weinstein case on a technicality is unfortunate

New York's appeals court just threw out the landmark 2020 rape conviction of Harvey Weinstein. No-one is publicly saying that Weinstein was actually innocent, and Weinstein remains in prison anyway due to a separate Los Angeles conviction in 2022 (which might also be appealed now). 

The case put before the appeals court, and accepted by it, is a technical one, that the judge in the original case unfairly allowed testimony against Weinstein based on allegations of prior sexual acts and behaviour not directly relevant to the case in question. This was called "highly prejudicial" and may have unfairly set the jury against the man. Although, frankly, how this differs from a general portrayal of Weinstein's character is beyond me.

At any rate, the New York case will have to be retried, and the witnesses and traumatized victims will need to testify in public all over again. I hope the lawyers who brought this appeal are feeling good about themselves. 

The Weinstein case was a crucial turning point in the MeToo movement and, as the dissenting appeal judges noted, this kind of decision, based as it is on legal technicalities, risks endangering years of progress in sexual violence cases. Even if the Weinstein case is retried, and even if he is re-convicted, this represents a set-back for the MeToo movement (although MeToo founder Tamara Burke insists otherwise), and a foot in the door for traditional patriarchal and misogynistic attitudes in the courts.

Canada's also granted "exemption" from Russian titanium sanctions

Hard on the heels of reports that Airbus' production in Canada was granted an "exemption" from sanctions against imports of Russian titanium (apparently after lobbying from the French government, which partially owns Airbus), comes the news that Canada airplane producer Bombardier has been granted just such an exemption too.

The only justification offered for either exemption is that, well, titanium is needed for airplane building (engines, landing gear), and Russia's VSMPO-AVISMA Corp. is one of the world's largest producers of titanium, i.e. no justification at all.

There's not much point in imposing sanctions if you're just going to cave in when it gets awkward. 

Even stranger, though, a look at the major producers of titanium shows China way ahead (and to be fair, for other reasons, we don't really want to buy from them if at all possible), followed by Mozambique, South Africa, Australia and ... Canada. Russia does not even appear in the top 15 of global titanium producers. So, exactly why are we buying titanium from Russia?

Bombardier CEO Eric Martel deadpans, "We did work with the government and we did work also with our supplier base to make sure we were doing the right thing. But at the same time we needed to ensure, you know, that we keep running our factories." Ah, well, that explains it then.

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Jolie explains, "We will always make sure to put maximum pressure on the Russian regime and meanwhile protect out jobs here at home. We can do that together." Well, no you can't; that's not how sanctions work. 

Such fecklessness! Ukraine is livid, understandably. You can just imagine the wry smile on Vladimir Putin's ugly mug as we speak.

Why does Loblaws get all the hate?

There's a Reddit group out there called r/loblawsisoutofcontrol which does a good line in outrage, and is proposing that we all boycott Loblaws supermarkets during the month of May. They seem to think that this will force Loblaws to reduce their prices by 15% overnight, which seems like a rather optimistic goal. Buy, hey, power to them. Nothing wrong with a bit of idealism and consumer pressure.

What I don't quite understand,  though, is that there are lots of supermarket chains out there, some owned by Loblaws, some by Metro or Sobeys, some are standalone giants like Costco and Walmart, and some are smaller chains or independent stores. You can choose to shop wherever works for you, right?

So, if you don't like Loblaws stores, go to No Frills (also owned by Loblaws, but much cheaper) or Price Chopper or wherever. Some people like Loblaws for its wide aisles, cleanliness, freshness, selection, etc, and are willing to pay for that. Some people are not and go elsewhere. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

There are many indignant and impassioned social media posts of people making comparisons between Loblaws prices and those of No Frills or Food Basics or Walmart, and - surprise! - Loblaws is more expensive. They could have done a comparison of Loblaws with Pusateri's and concluded that Loblaws was cheaper. Should we be boycotting Pusateri's then? And a recent multi-university study concluded that Loblaws stores are still far and away Canada's preferred location for discounted food products, followed by Walmart, Costco and Metro.

Shopping at Loblaws is not a human rights issue. It's just a supermarket chain, one of many (although the largest in Canada, so it attracts much more attention and vitriol). More to the point, it's a business, not a charity, and it charges what it thinks its market will pay. Sure, boycott it if it makes you feel better, but there are probably better uses for your energy, anger and outrage.

Figures of authority just assumed Zameer was guilty - he wasn't

When humble Brampton accountant Umar Zameer finally received a verdict of not guilty a couple of days ago, he was looking pretty drawn and exhausted after three years of stress and uncertainty. But the court and jury were unequivocal in ruling that Zameer did not deliberately run down Detective-Constable Jeffrey Northrup in a parking lot back in July 2021, as all the evidence - with the notable exception of the rather suspect deputations of various police officers - suggest.

Zameer and his family and his lawyers, not to mention various legal experts and civil rights campaigners, celebrated in a very restrained style. "They just felt a real sense of relief, but they're not celebrating", as Zameer's lawyer Nader Hasan put it. But the first comment they heard from Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw was, "I share the feelings of our members, who were hoping for a different outcome".

Say, what? So, he was hoping for a miscarriage of justice in favour of a guy - the unfortunate victim of a gruesome accident, to be sure - who happened to be wearing the same uniform? Demkiw has since walked back his emotional comments, but the damage is done. The police are notorious for "looking after their own", but this was beyond the pale.

It wasn't the only off-colour comment this case has attracted. Immediately after the incident, and when Zameer was subsequently released on bail, several highly-ranked civic leaders weighed in. Then Police Chief James Ramer, speaking on the initial sparse information, called the incident an "intentional and deliberate act", not bothering to wait and see if his opinions might actually be right or reasonable. Ontario Premier Doug Ford called it "completely unacceptable that the person charged for [originally "responsible for"] this heinous crime is now out on bail", even though the usual bail procedures were followed to the letter. Former Toronto Mayor John Tory and former Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown added similar sentiments.

None of these supposedly responsible civic leaders allowed Mr. Zameer the presumption of innocence he was due. Some of them have grudgingly walked back their comments since the official acquittal; no-one has really apologized in so many words. But these kinds of unguarded comments from influential public figures can create a false narrative and affect the public's (and the jury's) view of the individual under suspicion. At worst, you could see it as a deliberate politicization of the issue, or even an openly racist response.

As Mr. Zameer and his family try to pick up the pieces of their lives, you can't help but think that they must be feeling somewhat jaundiced about the responses of these figures of authority.

Gas price increase NOT due to the carbon tax

I don't use gasoline personally, but people are outraged at the recent increase in gas prices at Canadian pumps. Prices increased by about 10c a litre overnight (more in some provinces, less in others).

Of course, many people are conveniently blaming the Liberal government and the latest increase in the carbon tax. But, in fact, that increase happened on April 1st, and amounted to a measly additional 3c on a litre, as the price on carbon was increased from $65 a tonne to $80. Moreover, the carbon tax rebate received by Canadians will increase proportionately.

The most recent price hike is solely down to the oil industry. In spring, oil companies switch to a "summer blend" of gasoline for the "summer driving season". Summer gas has a smaller proportion of butane and, given that butane is relatively inexpensive, that jacks up the cost, and therefore the price to the consumer. This change in the manufacturing process also costs money, and that too is passed on to the consumer. Go figure.

The quoted reason for this annual spring changeover is that gasoline evaporates faster in warmer temperatures, causing smog and "other environmental harms". Which wouldn't normally worry the oil industry unduly, but there are environmental laws in place requiring refineries to make this change. So, they can pollute more in winter and less in summer, it seems.

It kind of puts all the furore over the carbon tax increase into perspective, doesn't it? And you won't be getting a government rebate for this increase, either.

Why is the USA sending tens of billions to an already rich country?

The dysfunctional US Congress has finally managed to agree something. It is sending $26.4 billion to Israel because it is running out of drones and missiles with which to pound little Gaza.

Wait, isn't Israel actually quite a rich country? Can't it buy its own missiles if it wants to prosecute a war? Why is the USA bankrolling it?

Good questions, all. I can at least answer the first of them. Yes, Israel is a rich country. In fact, it is the 20th richest country in the world per capita. Not as rich as the USA (No.6) admittedly, but richer per capita than the UK, France, Italy, and the European Union in general.

So, why is the USA sending it tens of billions of dollars? No idea.

Now, Palestine, there's a poor country, No. 130 in the world, just below Venezuela, Honduras and Bhutan.

Complaints about capital gains change coming from the "ultra-rich"

Well, I go away for a few days and I get back to a chorus of disgruntled Canadian investors and business owners. The reason? The Liberals' 2024 budget had the audacity to touch the sacrosanct capital gains inclusion tax loophole. 

Previously only 50% of capital gains (from selling property, stocks and shares, etc) were taxable in Canada, which always seemed like an unfair boon to the wealthiest 1%, who are doing just fine and really don't need protecting from anything. I should know: I'm one of them. 

The new rule is that 67% of capital gains should be taxed - actually back to how things were in 1999 - although only for capital gains over $250,000 (that bar does not apply to corporations and trusts, only to individuals). Selling a primary residence remains exempted from capital gains tax, as before. 

There are also some further carve-outs regarding lifetime capital gains limits for small businesses, farms, fishing property, and for entrepreneurs selling shares in some circumstances. So, a small business owner can still sell their business and not pay any tax on the first $1.25 million (increased from $1 million) in capital gains, and company founders in some industries now pay less tax on up to $2 million in capital gains over their lifetimes. It's complicated, but these carve-outs are designed to keep at least some of the business community (relatively) happy.

As the government points out, 28.5 million Canadians will not be declaring any capital gains at all next year, and a further 3 million will be protected by the $250,000 annual threshold. So, in the end, a paltry 40,000 ultra-wealthy individuals (about 0.13% of Canadians) are likely to be affected by the change, and maybe 12% of corporations.

So, not really that big a deal, right? Well, you wouldn't think that reading the financial pages of the Globe and Mail for example. Most people there, from tech entrepreneurs to regular rich investors, are outraged - outraged, I tell you! - that the government should interfere with their wealth-making in this way. There are headlines like "Higher capital gains won't work as claimed, but will harm the economy", and "Industries upset at being left out of new tax break for small business". 

They say that the change will discourage entrepreneurs and chill venture capital investment, although the government has poo-poo'd these arguments, and it seems very unlikely to me that people are setting up businesses specifically to take advantage of the capital gains tax breaks.

Doctors and the medical profession in particular are complaining, with the Canadian Medical Association warning that it may push some doctors and surgeons (who often incorporate to take advantage of the tax breaks) out of the profession completely. This seems like real sky-is-falling hyperbole to me. How many doctors go into the profession because of the capital gains tax system? Doctors can still make a good living and be taxed (as a corporation) lower than many other lower-earning Canadians. If they also want to make additional money on the stock exchanges or property markets, that's on them, and they should be taxed appropriately on this unearned income. Right?

Well, there are always going to be some complainers, whatever you do. In this case, it's the "ultra-rich" (a convenient shorthand for that 0.13%). So be it. 

But are Canadian taxpayers really that badly done by? It's hard to compare the Canadian capital gains tax with the American one, partly because the American system is so complicated, but if anything Canadian tax seems to be slightly less onerous at first glance. And the government is quick to assure us that Canada's marginal tax rate is much lower than the OECD and the G7 average, and certainly lower than the USA's and UK's.

And anyway, having a low tax rate is only really good for rich people (although those rich people will tell you that they are the real engine of the country's economy). Take, for example, the fact that the happiest countries in the world are those with the highest tax rates. Maybe it's not all about the money after all.

Conscription of ultra-orthodox Jews threatens Netanyahu's grip on power

Benjamin Netanyahu is a very unpopular guy, both outside of Israel, where most of the world is dismayed by his intransigence and his scorched-earth (bordering on genocidal) tactics in Gaza, but also within Israel, where many Jews blame him personally (for some reason) for allowing Hamas to kill, maim and kidnap Israeli citizens in the first place, but also for failing to recover said kidnap victims over the last six months.

Netanyahu had been clinging to power with the aid of a very unsavoury bunch of right-wing ultra-nationalists, including the ultra-orthodox Sephardic Haredi party. Now, though, Netanyahu risks losing the support of these traditional Jewish hard-liners as he looks to end the decades-long exemption from mandatory military service for ultra-orthodox Jews. 

The exemption was begun back in 1948 when the newly-established Jewish state allowed 400 Haredi scholars to avoid mandatory military service, in an attempt to keep alive sacred Jewish knowledge. But the community has grown exponentially since then, and now makes up 13% of the entire population. They have become accustomed to many privileges and special treatments, which brings with it a whole heap of problems, not least the issue of national service and conscription for the army.

A 2017 decision by Israel's Supreme Court ruled that the exemption is discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that even ultra-orthodox Haredis should be subject to the usual 32+ months of national service required of all Israeli men over 18 (and a lesser period for women). The initial end-of-March deadline has been extended to the end of April, but that is fast approaching.

If Netanyahi is to make the Supreme Court's ruling a reality, he will have to do so over the protests (and dead bodies, they say) of Haredis, protests that have already begun in some parts of Jerusalem. In March, he announced the suspension of the handsome subsidies paid to ultra-orthodox Jews studying in yeshivas (institutions for the study of Jewish religious texts), and a draft for all ultra-orthodox Jewish men to do their mandatory military service, whether studying in yeshivas or not.

Three-quarters of Israelis support such a move, but Mr. Netanyahu stands to lose the support of the ultra-orthodox parties propping up his precarious coalition government. What's a self-respecting despot to do?