A line in the sand

Image of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Source: Government of Canada

When I was a teenager, I had the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on my bedroom wall. It had pride of place right next to pinups of Duran Duran and Corey Hart. As an immigrant and racialized person, it appealed to me. The idealism of everyone being equal and having the same rights made sense to my analytical mind and stood in contrast to the baffling prejudices I experienced in my daily life.

Although Canada was founded in 1867, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was patriated only in 1982. It was authored by the first ministers– the Prime Ministers and Premiers of the ten provinces. Of course, the final deal was determined by a group of white men ensconced in a room. In this case, the room where it happened was the kitchen of a conference centre.

The Prime Minister in 1982 was Pierre Trudeau, father of our current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau. 

A key part of the deal was the inclusion of Section 33, the notwithstanding clause, which allows parliament, provincial or territorial legislature to declare a law to be exempt from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was added because provinces did not want their authority diminished. As envisioned, Section 33 would be used only in exceptional circumstances after fulsome debate about the trade offs between group and individual rights. It was a compromise– not ideal, but it got the job done. I’m confident that Charter would not have passed without it.

Yesterday, the Ontario government passed legislation to prevent a labour union from going on strike. As I wrote previously, Bill 28 preemptively invokes the notwithstanding clause. In other words, the government knew that the law violates the rights in Sections 3, 7, and 15 of the Charter, and they were going to do it anyways.

The Section 2 rights being infringed were “freedom of peaceful assembly” and “freedom of association.” Section 7 provides legal rights and “…the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Section 15 provides equality rights, and the protected categories are: race, national or ethnic origin; colour; religion; sex; age or mental or physical disability.

The bill was rushed through in less than a week. There was no court challenge. There was no public debate. They hadn’t even exhausted all of the mechanisms for bargaining with a union. It was just bullying. The government has crossed a line in the sand.

So you can see why a kid who was enamoured with the Charter had to show up to protest. Normally, labour negotiations are messy. If the answer was clear, the dispute would be resolved before there’s any coverage in the media. But the invocation of the notwithstanding clause changed the calculus of the dispute. Whereas percentage wage increases are negotiable, charter rights are fundamental.

If Charter Rights and Freedoms can be taken away when they are inconvenient for a government, then no one is safe.

Today’s protest included parents, children, and representatives from many unions, including 5 unions that endorsed the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario in the last election in the spring. The atmosphere was festive– there was music, an African drum circle, a conga line, and an activity tent for kids. There was a picket line around Queen’s Park and eventually traffic was stopped entirely on Queen’s Park Crescent. I saw Fred Hahn and got to talk to Laura Walton.

Forty years later, the Charter does show its age. For example, the opening sentence is: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…” If we were writing the Charter today, we probably wouldn’t use this language.

More significantly, we collectively have changed. Politics is less collaborative, and more about scoring points. Disputes were more genteel in the 1980s and 1990s. It felt like parties across the political spectrum were working towards a common goal of a better Canada. We might disagree on how to get there, but at least we agreed on the project. When a right-of-centre party was elected, it didn’t feel like an existential threat. It felt like letting another member of the family choose what we were having for dinner. It sounds quaint now.

I don’t even know how to charitably describe right-of-centre parties today. It’s not just that they have different ideas about fiscal policy or the speed of social change, but rather we are living in different worlds with alternative facts, personal attacks rather than policy proposals, and different bounds of good behaviour. To be clear, I’m talking about only Canada in the current article. But this fracturing is playing out all over the world.

We probably wouldn’t be able patriate a Charter of Rights and Freedoms today. Or even amend it to remove the British monarchy as the head of state, to add protections for sexual orientation, or to remove the notwithstanding clause.

This dispute will play out in the coming days. The union called the gather today a political protest and not a strike. No one has been charged under the new law. Prime Minister Trudeau has expressed his disapproval of the law. It may be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. Separately, a transit union has called a strike for Monday. The hashtag #generalstrike was trending on Twitter. Stay tuned.

Putting children first

The Ontario Legislature is currently debating Bill 28, Keeping Students in Class Act, 2022. The purpose of the bill is to prevent education workers from going on strike and imposing a settlement on them. The worst parts of this bill are 1) preemptively invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian constitution and 2) circumventing the Ontario Human Rights Code. This is no way to run a government. It’s not how the notwithstanding clause was meant to be used and human rights aren’t limited to when it’s convenient.

If you want to learn more about the labour conflict, there’s lots of material. If the government wants to put children first, the solution is easy: pay fair wages, so schools can hire and retain qualified people. Of course the government should be responsible holders of the public purse. So that means staying at the bargaining table and making reasonable offers. Not by fast-tracking legislation that a priori takes away rights.

Why shouldn’t we use the notwithstanding clause?

Section 33 of the Canadian constitution allows governments to exempt laws from the Bill of Rights. Since Sections 2 and 7-15 of the charter protects individual rights, it was felt that some kind of mechanism was needed to supersede individual rights in an exceptional circumstance after careful consideration. The Province of Québec has been a heavy user to shield their language laws. The constitution probably would not have ratified without it

33 (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Unfortunately, the clause is being used like a cheat code when the game of governing gets to be too hard. This is the third time that the Ford government has attempted to use it.

What can I do?

Rather than ranting on social media, here are a few actions you can take. Actions at the top of the list tend to be more effective and less effort. Do one or more than one. It’s up to you.

Option 1: Contact Premier Ford, Minister Lecce and your MPP

Call Premier Ford: 416-325-1941
Call Minister Lecce: 416-325-2600

You can email too, but call is better. Premier Ford pays attention to the feedback that comes in each day and his phone is answered 24/7.

If you are just as stunned by @fordnation & @Sflecce‘s use of the Notwithstanding Clause to trample education workers’ rights, don’t just tweet. Call them.


Ford: 📞416-325-1941
Lecce: 📞416-325-2600


I am a parent. I want my child in class as much as anyone else. Not like this.” — Danyaal Raza (@DanyaalRaza) October 31, 2022

When you call, make your points and be polite. The people on the phone are just doing their jobs.

Here’s what I said.

“I’m concerned about Bill 28, Keeping Students in Class Act. It uses the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian constitution and sets aside the Ontario Human Rights Code. This is not a good law. The government should get back to the bargaining table and give education workers a fair deal. Their wages should keep up with inflation and schools should be able to hire qualified people to do the work.”

You can also contact your MPP by phone or email. You can find your MPP by using your address. If your MPP is not a Conservative, it’s less effective, but still worth doing.

I emailed using basically the same words as I did over the phone.

Option 2: Write to Prime Minister Trudeau and your MP

The federal government can disallow a law passed by a provincial government. It hasn’t been used for many years, but in the past it was used a lot. Bill 28, if it’s passed, would set a bad precedent and it’s worthwhile putting up a fight.

Comment
by from discussion
intoronto

Option 3: Donate your “Catch Up Payment”

The Ministry of Education has a one-time program to give parents $200 per child ($250 for a special needs child) to help them “catch up” on learning gaps that came about as a result of the COVID pandemic. The program cost $365 million. As an individual parent, I can’t move the needle on three years of pandemic schooling with $200. But imagine what a teacher could do with $5400 or what an entire school could do with $140,000.

Apply for the payment and donate it.

I suggest CUPE, as they will be facing fines and legal fees. Email for Interac is info@osbcu.ca. You could also donate it to an opposition party. Or your favourite teacher.

Option 4: Join a picket line

Join a picket line to support them.

“Find a picket line here: cupe.on.ca/dontbeabully/” Source: @Yoequality on Twitter

I did.

These little piggies stayed home

Voter turnout in the two most recent elections in Toronto reached historic lows. In the provincial election on June 2, 2022, the turnout was 48.2%, the lowest ever recorded for a provincial election. In the municipal election on October 24, 2022, the turnout was 29%, another lowest rate ever. So what’s going on here? Is it simple voter apathy, that the electorate is disengaged with politics? Or is there something else going on?

As is often the case, the answer is nuanced. Turnout was down, but it wasn’t down uniformly across candidates. Voters for incumbents came out, but voters for the other candidates stayed home. I was a campaign manager for both elections in the riding of Don Valley West/ Ward 15, and one of the key reasons that electors stayed home they didn’t feel like their voted mattered.

Bar graph showing sharp decline in turnout for voters for non-winning candidates

The graph shows the change from 2018 to 2022 in percentage points of voters for winners vs. voters for the other candidates. For the provincial election, there was a change in candidate, but the incumbent party won. In the municipal election, the incumbent candidate also won.

This decline suggests a certain fatalism among voters for non-winners. Since March 2020, we have been in survival mode. Isolation, social and physical distancing, uncertainty, and anxiety have affected our mental health. We are not sleeping well, are less patient with each other, doom scrolling through social media, binging on videos, and have less capacity for empathy. On the campaign trail, we found that people were tired, worn out by the worry of living through pandemic. Asking them to engage in big issues, such as decarbonization and disability benefit rates, was a lot when they were trying to get through the day. These electors just didn’t have in them to show up on election day and vote for a candidate who was probably going to lose.

It would be inaccurate to say that electors didn’t care. While canvassing, people definitely had their issues, such as funding for health and education, unwanted high rises in Leaside, and an unwanted rail yard in Thorncliffe Park. In the provincial election, we heard from people that would be voting strategically. They wanted their vote to make a difference in the outcome.

Now it’s your turn. Did you stay home on election day? What was your situation?

Data

Results of 2018 Provincial Election

CandidatePartyVotesPercentage
Kathleen WynneLiberal17,80238.89
Jon KieranProgressive Conservative17,62138.49
Amara PossianNew Democratic8,62018.83
Morgan BaileyGreen1,2682.77
John KittredgeLibertarian3800.83
Patrick Geoffrey KnightCanadian Economic860.19
Source: Don Valley West (provincial electoral district)

Results of 2022 Provincial Election

CandidatePartyVotesPercentage
Stephanie BowmanLiberal16,17749.91
Mark SaundersProgressive Conservative14,20843.84
Irwin ElmanNew Democratic3,39210.47
GreenSheena Sharp2,0256.25
Laurel HobbsNew Blue4211.29
John KittredgeLibertarian2250.69
Kylie Mc AllisterOntario Party1670.51
John KladitisIndependent850.26
Paul ReddickConsensus Ontario600.19
Source: Don Valley West (provincial electoral district)

Results of 2018 Municipal Election

CandidateVotesPercentage
Jaye Robinson (incumbent)16,21949.22%
Jon Burnside (incumbent)14,44043.82%
Tanweer Khan1,3093.97%
Nikola Streker5831.77%
Minh Le4041.23%
Source: 2018 Toronto municipal election

How little I knew you Geraldine Ferraro

When Geraldine Ferraro ran for vice president in 1984, I had no idea what it meant to be a feminist and to be limited as a member of a marginalized group. But I did have the impression that Ferraro must have been a Very Bad Person, based on the people talked about her, both in terms of content and tone. It didn’t occur to me that her gender had anything to do with it. Her passing on the weekend provides me with an opportunity to reflect on how little I understood at the time about her and what she did for us.

That year, I was thirteen years old and in grade eight. I was not following politics at all. To me, the most significant event on the world stage was the birth of UK’s Prince Harry in September. I knew that there was a presidential election in the US and who candidates were. I knew that Geraldine Ferraro was running. I had no idea what the issues were in the election. But I did have the impression that Ferraro must be a Very Bad Person.

The news was always critical. She had said the wrong thing. She was doing things she shouldn’t have. Her past was questionable. More damaging than the facts were the implications, which read like a laundry list of words to marginalize someone: incompetent, immoral, not Christian, too uppity, exceeding her capabilities… The adults around me (both men and women) seemed to feel a sense of outrage; how dare she run for Vice President!

It did not strike me as remarkable that a woman was running for the position.  I had the mistaken idea that the world always was and will be this way. It didn’t occur to me that people expressed these sentiments about her, because she was a woman. I had the mistaken idea that men and women had equal opportunity in our society.

To give you an idea of how unenlightened I was, let me tell you about the most memorable scene (to me) from the move Top Gun. Maverick (Tom Cruise) had kept Charlie (Kelly McGillis) waiting, because he stayed to play beach volleyball with his mates. When Maverick arrived at Charlie’s place, he made weak excuses and asked her to wait some more while he had a shower. Charlie said no and made him talk to her un-showered. This scene amazed me, because it was an example of a woman not letting a man get away with bad behavior. In my daily life, male relatives often acted badly, and women just put up with it. It never occurred to me that there was something that we could do about it.

But, in a sense, there wasn’t anything we could do about it. On one occasion, I did resist and it didn’t work out well. My brother, sister, and I were supposed to take turns making lunch to bring to school. My brother, being the youngest and the only son, often shirked his duties with little reprimand from our parents. The job was often left to me and my sister. We probably should have just not made his lunch until he pitched in. But that was too blatant and would have drawn the ire of our parents. My sister and I hatched a plan: we would make his sandwich inside-out with the bread in the middle, the meat on the outside, and the condiments on top. We giggled like fiends as we prepared this messy revenge. When my brother came home, he was furious. (My husband says that it was probably because we embarrassed him in front of his friends.) He raged and yelled at us. And what did we do? We did what we saw our female role models did. We acquiesced and didn’t do it again. It’s astonishing, now that I look back on it. The me in 2011 would never put up with something like this. I don’t think we did our brother any favors either.

Reading Ferraro’s obituary gave me a new appreciation for what she did and how far I have come. I know what it’s like to be under attack. I know what it’s like to have special attacks lobbed at me with astonishing vitriol, because I was a woman and I dared. She held up remarkably against the barrage of attacks. She opened up possibilities for women who followed. Rest in peace, Geraldine Ferraro.

If a revolution were organized by women…

New York Times Magazine had an amazing article this week,
The New Abortion Providers, by Emily Bazelon. It talks about efforts over the last thirty years to make abortions a part of mainstream medical practice.

This approach reminded me of a discussion that I had with a couple of ladies at church. Despite their age (or because of it), they were die-hard feminists and progressive Christians. They talked about how their grandmothers were also feminists, but in a quiet way, behind the scenes. They opined that behind any social movement that was successful had women doing the cooking and organizing while the men were doing the blustering. But at the same time, they didn’t embrace the dominant narrative of feminism. Jo Cranson mentioned Ashley Montague interviewing a grandmother who ask why she should settle for equality when it’s less than what I had before. Robinmarie McClement cited Susan B. Anthony being very concerned about women losing their quiet power behind the throne, if they pursued feminism as a public battle.

Protests and gauntlets in front of free-standing clinics are effective because abortions are a marginalized medical practice. If more doctors performed abortions in their offices or in a hospital, it would make it much more difficult for protesters to single out patients. This change would involve making abortion a standard procedure in the practice of family doctors, internists, and OB/GYN.

In 1995, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education made abortion training a requirement for all OB/GYN residency programs, meaning that medical students would be receiving mandated hours of lecture on how to perform abortion. This motivation behind this move was to make abortion part of the professional qualifications of a doctor. Even if the student never performs an abortion, they needed to be educated about it.

The next step was to make in-roads into academic medicine by establishing fellowships to provide advanced training and to support research.

“A physician at the U.C.S.F. medical school set up the Family Planning Fellowship, a two-year stint following residency that pays doctors to sharpen their skills in abortion and contraception, to venture into research and to do international work. In recent years, the fellowship has expanded to 21 universities, including the usual liberal-turf suspects — Harvard, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, U.C.L.A. — but also schools in more conservative states, like the University of Utah, the University of Colorado and Emory University in Georgia.”

International work was an important component because it exposed the fellows to countries where back alley abortions were still common. Another side effect of the residencies is that the physicians need to perform enough abortions to “train to competency.” In other words, they need to do enough procedures to be able to handle complications. This process often involves performing many, many abortions in a hospital setting, because the complication rates for first-trimester abortions are so low (about 1%). This training usually occurs in hospitals, which means greater, safe access for women. Coming out of these fellowships, residents are equipped to make decisions about the place of abortion in their own practice. The decision whether or not to offer thee treatment is not necessarily a simple yes or no, but possibly choosing a cut-off, such as 7, 9, or 13 weeks.

These small changes are brilliant, because they don’t involve direct confrontation with the protesters on the front lines. They make abortion more available by changing the context. If physicians could bring the simple procedure into the medical fold, it would reduce the need for free-standing clinics and the vulnerability of their patients. (An abortion at 9 weeks gestation produces no recognizes fetal parts and takes less than five minutes by a skilled provider, using device that is “about 10 inches long, costs only $30 and looks like the kind of appliance you might find in a kitchen drawer.”)

There are still other obstacles in the way, such as hospitals being squeamish about associated with abortion and the cost of extra medical insurance, but change is afoot. Moreover, this is a change brought about largely by women for women, with the support of male colleagues, away from the glare of publicity and politics.

Many of the protégées Grimes is talking about are women. In the first generation after Roe, abortion providers were mostly men because doctors were mostly men. Since then, women have streamed into the ranks of OB-GYN and family medicine. They are now the main force behind providing abortion.

Let’s hear it for social revolutions organized by women.

Dreamboarding, not waterboarding

I saw this post today on dreamboarding, and the first thing that I thought of was waterboarding. It turns out that the two have nothing to do with each other, except for the coincidental use of the term “boarding,” but what if…

Dreamboarding is a technique for presenting your dreams or aspirations in a visual format. Kind of like a scrapbooking/collage/dreamcatcher mash up. It’s supposed to be done to celebrate the full moon, with the hope that the dreams will come true.

Waterboarding, in the other hand, is a torture technique. I blogged about this previously, but essentially it simulates drowning by pouring water into the victim’s mouth and nose.

What if dreamboarding was a peace-building technique where you poured dreams into your enemy until they drowned in them? By immersing him or her in one’s hopes, fears, aspirations, love, joy, sorrows, and nightmares, one could win over hearts and minds, rather than alienate them. War is waged only against the “other,” that is, against those who are not one of us. There is no “them,” there is only “we.” Resources, territory, and power are not zero sum games. Peace is not just the absence of war, it’s the presence of a stable, just, and fair community of people who are fed, clothed, healthy, and sheltered.