Herald Column: Our Foolish Commitment to Marijuana Prohibition

Further to this post, this week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at Ottawa's plans to crack down on marijuana: 

 

However, it is drug prohibition which is at the root of so much of the violence we are trying to address. Which then begs the question: does "getting tough on crime"mean we want less crime or merely more criminals on whom we can "get tough"? The government's ongoing commitment to the war on drugs would seem to ensure that it's the latter.

 

It is time for a rethink. More of the same policy only means more of the same result on the streets. A good place to start would be the private members bill tabled by Liberal MP Keith Martin which would decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana.

 

Decriminalization does not go far enough, however. A bolder approach would be to revisit the 2002 report of the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs which recommended the legalization of marijuana.

 

Any honest assessment of marijuana should indicate that it belongs not alongside cocaine and heroin, but rather alongside alcohol and tobacco: legal, regulated, and restricted to adults.

 

And if we really want to stop marijuana from being used as a "currency" by organized crime, then the simplest and most logical means by which to do so is to take it out of their realm.

 

In defending this new bill, Nicholson argued that Canadians remain confused about the legal status of smoking marijuana. What confuses me is why the government remains intent on pursuing an illogical and counterproductive course of action.

Alberta Opts Out on Protecting Free Speech

We spoke last month with Lindsay Blackett - Alberta's Minister of Culture and Community Spirit - about forthcoming changes to Alberta's Human Rights legislation. You can listen to that conversation via the audio player at right. It certainly indicated to me that the minister was serious about changing to legislation so as to protect freedom of speech. You can also read similar thoughts from the minister here:

 

"People have the right to say what they believe and Albertans strongly believe in that right," says Lindsay.

"We've got to try and find what was the purpose of the human rights commission to start with back in 1972."

"For me, it's back to the future and the simplicity of what the human rights commissions is supposed to be. It was originally just intended to provide protection against discrimination on grounds of race, colour, creed, religion and so on with respect to employment, accommodation and access to services. That's it."

"It wasn't about hurt feelings. The reason a lot of human rights commissions are disrespected across the country is because they've forgotten that."

(Via Ezra Levant, who - as you would expect - has much to say).

 

Despite all the rhetoric about the need to protect freedom of speech, the Alberta government is doing precisely nothing about it. In a profoundly disappointing decision, the Alberta government's legislation to amend the Act has left in place the section dealing with matters of speech.

 

That decision is briefly explained here (PDF):

 

- Section 3 of Alberta’s human rights legislation already states that “nothing shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.”
- Government found that removing “publications” from the Act could have serious consequences. Ultimately, Albertans need a balance between freedom of speech and responsibility.

 

In other words: everything's wonderful - why is everyone so bent out of shape? But if the Alberta government believes there is nothing wrong with the legislation insofar as free speech is concerned, then why exactly was the minister running around talking about the need to better protect freedom of speech?

 

Anyway, as to the government's new belief that Section 3(2) is a sufficient protection of freedom of speech, let's recall the successful human rights complaint against Rev. Stephen Boissoin over a letter he wrote to the Red Deer Advocate. Boissoin argued that Section 3(2) should provide some protection to it. But the panel chair was having none of it (PDF - see page 75):

 

On an analysis of the case law, I disagree that s. 3(2) creates further protection for political speech.

 

(...)

 

I do agree that s. 3(2) is an admonition for Panels to balance the freedom of expression with the eradication of discrimination in the consideration of complaints under Section 3 of the Act, but I do not find that s. 3(2) is a complete defence, nor a justification, for a breech of s. 3(1). In this case I find, in balancing the two freedoms, that the eradication of hate speech, such as that promulgated by Mr. Boissoin and the CCC is paramount to the freedom Mr. Boissoin and the CCC should have to speak their views. I find, therefore, that s. 3(2) in this case is not a defence to the breach of s. 3(1).

 

So much for the government's argument. Look, if the government really believed that everything was fine as far as this was concerned, then they should have been willing to stand up and say so. Now, though, they have committed themselves to the position that nothing is wrong, and they'll have to defend it. A political gift, perhaps, to the fledgling Wildrose Alliance party, as they're poised to elect a new leader - if they're smart, they'll jump on this.

 

The Western Standard has more on this story.

Kenney vs Galloway, Redux

As I argued here and here, British MP George Galloway should be allowed into this country. However, it should be noted that George Galloway never actually tried to enter Canada. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney addressed the matter in an interview with Maclean's magazine, and his comments deserve to be highlighted:

 

Mr. Galloway received a preliminary notice of determination by the Canadian Border Services Agency that he might be inadmissible to Canada, I gather based in large part on his public admission that he provided funds to Hamas, a banned illegal terrorist organization, which would seem–on the face of it–to constitute grounds for inadmissibility under Section 34(1)f of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act. He was invited to provide submissions to the CBSA to inform their consideration of his potential application to enter Canada. He never provided them with any such submissions and he never presented himself to a point of entry where he would have had, at that point, a final decision on his admissibility, and had he been determined to be inadmissible by an officer at a port of entry he would have been able to apply for an inadmissibility hearing. So there’s a whole process that we have under our law to make determinations independently of politicians about admissibility. I simply said publicly that I would not use my extraordinary ministerial power to effectively overrule a decision of a CBSA officer on his admissibility. Why? Because I didn’t see any compelling reason.

 

Our friend Terry Glavin has been trying for sometime to get that same point across, and has suffered no end of exasperation in watching how this has been reported. Terry also has the scoop on some interesting developments which could soon make any decision to bar George Galloway a slam dunk.

Pesticides: Science vs. Emotion

It's not just municipalities and provinces discussing pesticide bans - the debate has found its way to Ottawa:

 

New Democrat MPs Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster) and Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) called on the federal government this week to ban the non-essential use of pesticides.

They introduced a bill in Parliament to amend the Pest Control Products Act to place a moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides in homes, gardens and on recreational facilities.

The moratorium would be in place until scientific evidence can prove pesticide use is safe. The bill requires approval by a parliamentary committee and if accepted, the moratorium would take effect on Earth Day, 2010.

By the way, Mr. Julian told me in our interview (which you can listen to via the player at right) that these pesticides "very clearly" cause cancer - I'm not sure where he gets that; even the Canadian Cancer Society doesn't go that far:

 

Studies show that pesticide exposure may be associated with cancer risk for adults and children. Although the evidence is not yet conclusive, it is growing and suggestive.

 

The broader question, though: is such a ban needed? I would argue no - in fact, I did, last year:

 

...the sweeping review of 2,4-D by Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) went largely unnoticed. Quite strange, really, considering that pesticide bans are in place or being debated right across the country.

Or maybe not so strange, when you consider the PMRA's conclusions, and their most inconvenient bearing on the pesticide ban crusade: "Products containing 2,4-D do not pose unacceptable risks to human health or the environment."

And: "an independent science advisory panel comprised of government and university experts-researchers in toxicology, epidemiology and biology . . . agreed with Health Canada's assessment that 2,4-D can be used safely when used according to label directions."

As for glyphosate, even the Pesticide Action Network concedes that glyphosate is "relatively less harmful than many of the products which compete with it in the market place."

That's from a declared anti-pesticide organization. From the science, it's even more conclusive. A review of the relevant literature  was published in 2000 in the peer-reviewed journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. It found that "glyphosate is noncarcinogenic," that "there were no effects on fertility or reproductive parameters in two multigeneration reproduction studies with glyphosate," and concluded that "under present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans."

 

What about the cancer claims? Liberal MP Keith Martin raised some excellent points a few years ago during debate on this matter:

 

When we go through some of the studies, they show that a lot of the anti-pesticide comments are rooted in fear and fly in the face of common science.

Let us take a look at some of the premises. The first one is cancer rates. Have cancer rates gone up or have they gone down? We all know people who have had cancer and we know many more people have it. The reality is we are living longer. Males living in my province of British Columbia have the greatest longevity of any place in the entire world. Canadians ought to be proud of that. Indeed, Canadian women and men are some of the longest living people.

Cancer, perhaps above all others factors, is a function of age. As we get older, the incidence of cancer rises. Our ability to contract cancer increases with age. It is a function of our genetics, what we have done to our bodies such inaction, poor dietary habits and smoking.

Has the incidence of cancer increased? No. The number of people, per population, who get cancer has remained relatively static over the last 10 years. In some areas it has gone up. For example, the incidence of lung cancer in women has gone up because more and more women are smoking. The incidence of lung cancer in men has gone down. The incidence of cervical cancer has gone down because women have been more adept in having pap smears to monitor cervical cancer. This has saved thousands and thousands of women's lives. Thankfully we have those tools.

Do pesticides cause cancer? The anti-pesticide groups will not tell us this, but 99% of the pesticides we consume are natural.

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Malpeque.

Over the decades ample studies have been done on pesticides. They have shown no increase in the incidence of cancer in populations that have been subjected to pesticides. Most of the pesticides we spray are natural. If we compare synthetic pesticides to natural pesticides, there will be no difference in the statistics of the mortality and morbidity. These chemicals, natural and synthetic, have been exhaustively studied for decades. Large populations have been looked at.

 

Also, Ottawa Citizen columnist Dan Gardner has been fiercely devoted to this issue - see here, here, here, and here.

 

The New Democrats say they want to start a debate on this issue - I'm all for that, so long as we're willing to put all the facts on the table.

Herald Column - The Wrong Kind of Human Rights Reform

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the immiment itntroduction of reforms to Alberta's human rights regime, and the peculiar inclusion of one particular change:

 

...It's expected the new human rights legislation will include a parental "opt-out" clause with regard to aspects of education which might offend religious sensibilities. At the same time though, it's a change described by Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett as "symbolic"--as in "meaningless."

But if this change is merely "symbolic,"why include it at all? Something doesn't smell right.

Parents can opt out of some classes now, so there's no need to create such a right. Then, curriculum is provincial jurisdiction anyway, so it's odd to have one provincial ministry protecting us from another.

And, it's hard to see how protecting something under human rights legislation wouldn't make it the purview of a human rights commission. But, it is largely the actions of these commissions that have so many people demanding change. I'm not sure unleashing these commissions on a whole new realm is the change we need. Minister Blackett says Albertans should "wait and see"what the government comes up with and then judge them. Fair enough, but this is a government that floats trial balloons for a reason: to gauge reaction. So here's some: this is pointless and potentially dangerous, sir. Please reconsider.

Yes, parents should have a say in their children's education, and Alberta parents already have plenty of choice. At some point, however, the system needs to take a stand on what is best for all students and tell the wishy-washy and easily offended parents to suck it up.

Take the recent debate over the decision by a New Brunswick school to remove O Canada from the daily routine. This apparently stemmed from the concerns raised by the parents of just two students. Is this the kind of "parental input" we should want, let alone enshrine in legislation? (The popular national sentiment was that parents offended by the national anthem in schools should keep such concerns to themselves.)

But if those concerns stemmed from a religious objection then under Alberta's proposed new changes, such a matter could find itself in the hands of a human rights commission--along with lessons on evolution, sex-ed, or Canadian military history. Under these changes, human rights complaints could be stacking up faster that you can say "On the Origin of Species" and "Vimy Ridge." Yet, all belong in Alberta schools.

Just imagine: we might be the first jurisdiction to have a monkey trial adjudicated by a kangaroo court.

 

The rest here.