March 24, 2011
March 5, 2011
February 15, 2011
QotD: Don’t trust your government
Last week’s civil liberties bill was hardly perfect but it’s still a step in the right direction. And, frankly, it’s bonny and startling in equal measure to have a Deputy Prime Minister who says things like this:
“I need to say this — you shouldn’t trust any government, actually including this one. You should not trust government — full stop. The natural inclination of government is to hoard power and information; to accrue power to itself in the name of the public good.”
I’m quite happy to oblige Mr Clegg. I don’t trust this government either. I think it’s intentions are often fine but I doubt whether it has the courage of those convictions. Government necessitates trimming and compromising but the troubling ease with which this crew can be blown off course does not bode well for stormier times ahead. It needs to make a proper — muscular, you might say — defence of its liberalism. Thus far it has been too wimpy by far and, for that matter, too content to try and blame everything on its predecessor. That dog won’t hunt anymore.
Cameron, Clegg, Clarke, Grieve, Gove, Alexander, IDS and so on are, on the whole, decent men with decent ideas. Their government still has a surprising amount of potential and the ability to do some good. But that doesn’t mean they can be trusted.
Alex Massie, “Nick Clegg is Right. Again.”, The Spectator, 2011-02-14
February 7, 2011
Licensing as a tool for restricting competition
Stephanie Simon addresses the pro and con positions on licensing for various jobs:
[E]conomists — and workers shut out of fields by educational requirements or difficult exams — say licensing mostly serves as a form of protectionism, allowing veterans of the trade to box out competitors who might undercut them on price or offer new services.
“Occupations prefer to be licensed because they can restrict competition and obtain higher wages,” said Morris Kleiner, a labor professor at the University of Minnesota. “If you go to any statehouse, you’ll see a line of occupations out the door wanting to be licensed.”
[. . .]
At a time of widespread anxiety about the growth of government, the licensing push is meeting pockets of resistance, including a move by some legislators to require a more rigorous cost-benefit analysis before any new licensing laws are approved. Critics say such regulation spawns huge bureaucracies including rosters of inspectors. They also say licensing requirements — which often include pricey educations — can prohibit low-income workers from breaking in to entry-level trades.
Texas, for instance, requires hair-salon “shampoo specialists” to take 150 hours of classes, 100 of them on the “theory and practice” of shampooing, before they can sit for a licensing exam. That consists of a written test and a 45-minute demonstration of skills such as draping the client with a clean cape and evenly distributing conditioner. Glass installers, or glaziers, in Connecticut — the only state that requires such workers to be licensed — take two exams, at $52 apiece, pay $300 in initial fees and $150 annually thereafter.
California requires barbers to study full-time for nearly a year, a curriculum that costs $12,000 at Arthur Borner’s Barber College in Los Angeles. Mr. Borner says his graduates earn more than enough to recoup their tuition, though he questions the need for such a lengthy program. “Barbering is not rocket science,” he said. “I don’t think it takes 1,500 hours to learn. But that’s what the state says.”
In harder economic climates, expect to see a push towards trying to get some form of certification or licensing imposed in new fields. For example, I’ve seen several attempts to introduce mandatory certification for technical writers, usually with the intent of limiting access to the (reduced) pool of writing jobs in the field. Usually the biggest fans of certification are those who think they’re in a good position to dictate the requirements for certification (and often run courses/seminars which, I assume, would automatically appear in the final list of requirements).
February 1, 2011
A nasty bureaucratic trick
Jon, my former virtual landlord, sent along this link describing it as a “creative solution”:
An immigration officer tried to rid himself of his wife by adding her name to a list of terrorist suspects.
He used his access to security databases to include his wife on a watch list of people banned from boarding flights into Britain because their presence in the country is ‘not conducive to the public good’.
As a result the woman was unable for three years to return from Pakistan after travelling to the county to visit family.
The tampering went undetected until the immigration officer was selected for promotion and his wife name was found on the suspects’ list during a vetting inquiry.
The Home Office confirmed today that the officer has been sacked for gross misconduct.
Because these lists are easy to get added to, but nearly impossible to get removed from (and there’s little chance you get told why you’re on the list — or even if you’re on it), this little trick could have continued indefinitely until the perpetrator had to go through security screening for a higher position.
January 20, 2011
QotD: The ongoing retreat of freedom of speech in Canada
It used to be there actually had to be a violent protest before public institutions caved in and cancelled controversial events. That was unjustifiable, too. Police and officials should always seek to protect law-abiding speakers and organizers from the angry mob. Those who seek to disrupt events just because they disagree with the speakers should be the ones inconvenienced, not those exercising their constitutional rights.
Now, though, it seems the mere whiff of protest is enough for officialdom to bow to would-be protestors’ demands. Get together a group of unhinged radicals or zealots in someone’s rumpus room, make a couple of angry phone calls and — poof! — you can get your way and silence free speech and free assembly. Organizers, especially those connected with public institutions such as universities, museums and galleries, apparently care not a whit about free expression or individual choice. Their first instinct is to crater to protestors; let the forces of oppression and extremism have their way. Forget about preserving democracy and open debate, officials will act as the forces of censorship want.
Some of this has to do with the increased anger and vehemence of protestors, no doubt. In recent years, young lefties in particular have convinced themselves that only their positions are fact-based and only their positions can save the world. All other opinions are lies, as well as being threats to mankind and the planet. Therefore they are justified in any action they take to stymie opposing views, which they also believe are unworthy of free speech protection. They truly believe they are doing a public service when they shout down speakers or force the cancellation of events by smashing windows or jostling attendees outside the doors.
Lorne Gunter, “We’ve become a wimpy state, as well as a nanny state”, National Post, 2011-01-20
December 8, 2010
Contrast US military’s “DADT” policy with Canadian policy
The US military has been struggling with their “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy for the last few years. Not every military has the same concerns: the Canadian Forces have reportedly introduced dress rules for transsexuals and transvestites in the military:
As U.S. politicians continue to debate whether to let gays serve openly in the American military, the Canadian Forces have issued a new policy detailing how the organization should accommodate transsexual and transvestite troops specifically. Soldiers, sailors and air force personnel who change their sex or sexual identity have a right to privacy and respect around that decision, but must conform to the dress code of their “target” gender, says the supplementary chapter of a military administration manual.
A gay-rights advocate hailed development of the guidelines as a progressive approach to people whose gender issues can trigger life-threatening psychological troubles.
Cherie MacLeod, executive director of PFLAG Canada, a sexual orientation-related support group, said she has helped a number of Forces members undergoing sex changes, surgery the military now funds.
I’m quite surprised that the armed forces were willing to introduce this policy without being forced into it by court action or human rights tribunal activity. There are one or two members of the armed forces who transition every year, according to a DND spokesperson, and it has paid for the costs involved since 1998.
Changing sex is difficult for someone in civilian life, but it must be exponentially harder in a self-consciously “macho” environment like the military.
I expect the conservative bloggers will have a field day with this announcement.
Worried about your upcoming citizenship test? Publius has the answers for you
Publius has done all the hard work for you so you can ace the new citizenship test:
So from the mouth of well meaning ignorance, how would a typical Canadian fare on Mr Kenney’s new immigration test? Thanks to the vast resources of this blog, and its network of agents and correspondents through out the Dominion, we have located the typical Canadian. He’s a male in his late thirties and lives in Kenora. Which I think is in Alberta. But from Toronto it’s hard to tell. We brought the typical Canadian to our high-tech testing center at the corner of Center St and Universe Ave, in downtown Toronto. Here is the test. And here is the typical Canadian’s answers:
– Identify four (4) rights that Canadians enjoy.
The right to complain about the weather. The right to complain about how taxes are too high. The right to complain that the government isn’t spending enough money on me or my community. The right to stand in the middle of the cookie aisle at Loblaws and block everybody’s way (I know who you are).
-Name four (4) fundamental freedoms that Canadians enjoy.
The freedom to speak, unless it offends a politically influential minority group. The freedom to own property, unless it offends a politically influential environmental group. The freedom to protest, unless it offends visiting dignitaries. The freedom to bitch about the weather, unless it offends a co-worker who is a ski-nut.
[. . .]
-What did the Canadian Pacific Railway symbolize?
That graft, corruption, political manipulation, juvenile anti-Americanism, and screwing over people who don’t live in Ontario and Quebec, has been a Canadian tradition since the beginning.
-What does Confederation mean?
Like federation but with more “con” in it. Like transfer payments.
[. . .]
-What is the role of the courts in Canada?
To uphold the laws of Canada, unless it conflicts with their personal political beliefs. At that point they just make stuff up, and then use some latin terms to cover their tracks.
-In Canada, are you allowed to question the police about their service or conduct?
Yes, but not during the APEC conference, the G20, or if you’re living in Caledonia.
December 6, 2010
QotD: Ignorance of the law is overwhelmingly common, and getting worse
The maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” made sense back in the days when the only kind of acts that were illegal were genuine crimes that caused palpable harm to innocent victims: murder, rape, theft, etc.
But with the growth of the regulatory state, every individual is now subject to thousands of pages of densely written federal, provincial and municipal statutes and regulations. The law is also embodied in innumerable judicial decisions. And it’s all in continual flux: Regulations are passed without parliamentary debate, and courts release new judgments daily.
There is probably not a single law professor, judge or legislator in Canada who has even a passing familiarity with, let alone full comprehension of, all the laws we are required to obey. The average joe doesn’t stand a chance. We are all potential offenders every day, no matter how law-abiding we might wish to be.
Given this welter of law, how should those responsible for enforcing it conduct themselves?
Karen Selick, “Drop that pig and put your hands in the air”, National Post, 2010-12-06
December 5, 2010
“People talk about how knives are dangerous, and then they go in the kitchen and they have 50 of them”
Marc Lacey looks at the non-firearm right-to-carry movement:
Arizona used to be a knife carrier’s nightmare, with a patchwork of local laws that forced those inclined to strap Buck knives or other sharp objects to their belts to tread carefully as they moved from Phoenix (no knives except pocketknives) to Tempe (no knives at all) to Tucson (no knives on library grounds).
But that changed earlier this year when Arizona made its Legislature the sole arbiter of knife regulations. And because of loose restrictions on weapons here, Arizona is now considered a knife carrier’s dream, a place where everything from a samurai sword to a switchblade can be carried without a quibble.
Arizona’s transformation, and the recent lifting of a ban on switchblades, stilettos, dirks and daggers in New Hampshire, has given new life to the knife rights lobby, the little-known cousin of the more politically potent gun rights movement. Its vision is a knife-friendly America, where blades are viewed not as ominous but as tools — the equivalent of sharp-edged screw drivers or hammers — that serve useful purposes and can save lives as well as take them.
[. . .]
“People talk about how knives are dangerous, and then they go in the kitchen and they have 50 of them,” said D’Alton Holder, a veteran knife maker who lives in Wickenberg, Ariz. “It’s ridiculous to talk about the size of the knife as if that makes a difference. If you carry a machete that’s three feet long, it’s no more dangerous than any knife. You can do just as much damage with an inch-long blade, even a box cutter.”
[. . .]
“We had certain knives that were illegal, but I could walk down the street with a kitchen knife that I used to carve a turkey and that would be legal,” Ms. Coffey said. “I’d be more scared of a kitchen knife than a switchblade.”
She said switchblade bans were passed in the 1950s because of the menacing use of the knives in movies like “West Side Story” and “Rebel Without a Cause.”
November 26, 2010
Marni Soupcoff says get the government out of the marriage business
Although the column was prompted by the attention-whoring actions of a British couple, the basic principle still applies in Canada:
It really doesn’t make sense for the government to be divvying up rights and benefits based on the sexual orientation of its citizens. Yes, marriage has an undeniably rich history in our cultural and serves very useful societal purposes — I don’t buy into the arguments that marriage is dead. But it’s ultimately a moral and, in some cases, religious matter that should be sanctioned (or not) by a couple’s peer group, religious group and family. It’s not rightfully a spot for government to be sticking its nose, and the fact that it does so puts it in charge of decisions it has no business making — like who is fit to be called a married couple and who should get special tax treatment based on the status relationship.
The preferable scenario, and the one which would forestall lawsuits like the Goggin/Skarsholt one, would be for the government to remove itself from the marriage business altogether.
That would mean no more government-sanctioned civil unions or marriages or references thereto in the law. Yes, that would also mean massive revisions to the tax code, family law, criminal law — really reams and reams of laws from which the government would have to extricate its judgments about couples’ legal standing.
It would also nicely short-circuit the ongoing debate on polygamy (currently active in BC, but due in your local courtroom very soon too).
November 23, 2010
A Whedon-less reboot of “Buffy”
The good news: they’re talking seriously about doing a cinematic reboot of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”. The bad news: Joss Whedon won’t be anywhere near it:
Joss Whedon, who created Buffy for the original 1992 film and subsequently guided her to TV success, will play no part in the project.
Although Whedon wrote, produced and directed the hit TV series, he apparently does not own the film rights. He told E! Online: “There is no legal grounds for doing anything other than sighing audibly.”
Anderson is aware that in Whedon’s absence, “the most devoted fans of the old series will be keeping a skeptical eye on this nascent revival – and sharpening their wooden stakes”.
She assured the LA Times, though, that she’d “take the touchstones of the Whedon world but frame them in ‘a new story’ that is very much of the moment”.
November 17, 2010
Nuclear ghouls unmasked
Tabloid headline is in this case completely justified:
Organs of nuclear workers secretly harvested for 40 years, report finds
The families of scores of nuclear power station workers whose hearts, lungs and other organs were secretly stored and tested over a period of almost 40 years were let down by the authorities, a report said yesterday.Relatives were seldom told that their loved ones’ organs were to be removed, and as a result families buried or cremated incomplete bodies.
In many cases the truth that their organs had been illegally removed and then destroyed in the testing process emerged only many years later.
The three-and-a-half year investigation conducted by Michael Redfern, QC, covered events spread over almost four decades.
This is the sort of thing that retroactively justifies some of the weird paranoias of the last fifty years. It becomes more difficult to dismiss worries that “they” are doing shady and unethical stuff when it turns out that that’s exactly what they’ve been doing.
November 16, 2010
A child protection service with too many failures
Christopher Booker says that Britain’s bureaucracy to look out for the interests of children is badly off-mission:
For parents who fall foul of this system, often on no more evidence than malicious hearsay, the first shock is to find themselves treated like dangerous criminals. To seize children, social workers seem able to enlist the unquestioning support of the police, who arrive mob-handed, six or eight at a time, beating down doors, tearing babies from their mothers’ arms, holding parents in custody for up to 36 hours while their children are removed into foster care.
The parents must then wrestle with a Kafka-esque system rigged against them in every way. They find themselves in courts where every normal principle of British justice has been stood on its head. Social workers may give written evidence to a judge which the parents aren’t allowed to see. The most outrageous hearsay evidence may be accepted by the court without the parents even being allowed to cross-examine on it.
A key part is played by evidence from supposed “experts”, psychiatrists or paediatricians who may be paid up to £35,000 for their reports, and who receive regular work from the social workers involved. Parents are forbidden to call their own independent experts to challenge a case made against them. They are, all too often, pressured into being represented by lawyers who, again, work regularly for the council, who fail to put their case and who turn out to be just part of the same system.
Parents may be forbidden to testify on their own behalf, but must listen for hours, even days, to everyone else involved — including their own lawyers — putting what amounts to a case for the prosecution. The guardian appointed to represent the interests of the child may never have met the child and merely endorses whatever the social workers say.
Not surprisingly, these bizarre practices are so geared to the interests of a corrupted system that, in the latest year for which we have figures (2008), of 7,340 applications for care orders made by social workers, only 20 were refused.
Meanwhile, the children themselves are handed over to foster homes, which receive £400 a week or £20,000 a year for each child, and where many are intensely unhappy and not infrequently abused. Foster carers and social workers routinely conspire to tell bewildered children that their parents neither love them nor want them back. Children and parents meet at rigorously supervised “contact sessions”, where any expression of affection or attempt to discuss why the children have been taken from home may be punished by termination of the session or denial of further contact.
