Daily Archives: July 29, 2022

The proposed Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It would also provide for both federal and interstate recognition of same-sex marriages validly entered in a state. The RMA passed the House with 47 Republican votes and awaits action in the Senate, where it will need at least ten Republican votes to survive a filibuster.

My co-blogger Ilya Somin has already addressed some of the interesting federalism aspects of the bill. I want to address here a particular religious-liberty dimension of the bill: its silence about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Members of Congress concerned about the effects of federal law on religious liberty, and about the myriad unanticipated ways legislation may burden religious exercise, have long been reassured by knowing that RFRA (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) provides a statutory floor of protection.As explained below, RMA is subject to RFRA's statutory protections for religious liberty, unlike other prominent civil rights proposals under consideration in the Senate.

RFRA provides: "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability," unless it demonstrates that application of the burden "furthers a compelling governmental interest" and is the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." 2000bb1.

RFRA applies by its terms to "all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after November 16, 1993." 2000bb3 (a). The proposed RMA, of course, is one such federal statute.

RFRA further specifies: "Federal statutory law adopted after November 16, 1993, is subject to this chapter unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this chapter." 2000bb3(b). Nothing in RMA "explicitly excludes" application of RFRA.

By contrast, three bills now pending in Congress "explicitly exclude" RFRA. First, the Equality Act, H.R. 5 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5/text), provides in Section 1107: "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bbet seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title."

Second, both the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 (H.R. 3755) (abortion-rights protection) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text) and legislation designed to protect the use of contraceptives (H.R. 8373) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text) include identical provisions explicitly excluding RFRA: "[T]his Act supersedes and applies to the law of the Federal Government and each State government . . . and neither the Federal Government nor any State government shall administer, implement, or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law that conflicts with any provision of this Act, notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.)."

The RFRA carveouts in these bills are one reason they're dead-on-arrival in the Senate. They can't get Republican support.

But RMA is different. In general, it requires state and federal governments and those "acting under color of state law" (commonly, government officials) not to refuse recognition or rights to validly married same-sex couples. It does not govern purely private actors--like employers, landlords, or vendors--whose religious scruples might be triggered by an anti-discrimination requirement.

Moreover, even if RMA were understood more expansively to cover the rare putatively private actor, the provisions of RFRA still apply to the Act. A person whose RFRA rights are violated "may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government." 2000bb1(c). Enforcement of RMA that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion would in principle be subject to any available limitations and defenses under RFRA.

Important questions will remain about whether and exactly how RFRA would apply concretely to the enforcement of RMA in a particular instance. RFRA necessitates an accommodationist, intensely fact-bound inquiry. In particular, the upshot of applying RFRA could not sensibly be to altogether deny recognition or a marital right to which a married same-sex couple is entitled under RMA.Still, in light of other pending legislation, the omission of a RFRA carve-out from RMA is notable.

If RMA passes, it would be a milestone for a nation that once rushed to pass DOMA--emergency legislation barring recognition before a single same-sex marriage even existed. The country would now be protecting hundreds of thousands of existing same-sex marriages. It would provide an important measure of reassurance to millions of current and future spouses and their children.

It might also set a precedent for the passage of other LGBT rights legislation on a bi-partisan basis. If such legislation is to have a chance of seeing the president's desk, there is no other way.

Visit link:

Religious Freedom and the Respect for Marriage Act - Reason

Conservative lawmakers at the state Capitol are looking to assert themselves in future legislative sessions with the creation of the Arizona Freedom Caucus, modeled on its federal counterpart in the U.S. House.

Driving the news: A group of GOP lawmakers announced on Friday that "nearly a third" of the 31 Republicans in the state House had founded the Arizona Freedom Caucus.

Why it's important: Republicans have one-vote majorities in both legislative chambers, and conservatives have seen many of their legislative proposals, on such issues as restrictive new election laws, stalled by a small number of GOP holdouts.

The big picture: The Arizona Freedom Caucus is part of a coordinated national effort that already includes six other states and could include as many as 25 by 2023, according to Andy Roth, president of the groups' parent organization, the State Freedom Caucus Network.

Between the lines: It's unclear exactly how many people are in the Arizona Freedom Caucus. Anyone who does join will have the option of keeping their membership secret from the public.

Flashback: For years, conservative state lawmakers have been part of an Arizona Liberty Caucus, but that group has been ineffective and loosely structured.

Editor's note: This story has been updated to show the State Freedom Caucus Network plans to expand to 25 states by the end of 2023 (not this year).

Read more from the original source:

Arizona Freedom Caucus hopes to be a force at the Capitol - Axios

With the Covid-19 pandemic mostly a thing of the past, process automation solutions provider Ana-Digi Systems is using the new level of freedom to alleviate some of the problems caused by the worldwide shortage of electronic components by offering its various automation equipment products and services.

Previous stock levels have been increased to cater for the anticipated higher demand for equipment.

Established in 1985, Ana-Digi Systems is a recognized supplier of industrial process automation solutions of which the LS Electric automation products form a part.

LS Electric is a leader in Korean power solutions, automation and green business, and provides equipment catering for simple automation control to large-scale manufacturing facilities and process control.

LS Electric products provide the optimal solutions diverse industrial and mining fields, Ana-Digi says.

Ana-Digi Systems, a wholly black-owned Level 2 broad-based black economic empowered company, is an official distributor of LS Electric automation products, with branches in South Africas Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban.

In conversation with Mining Weekly, Ana-Digi Systems comments that, included in the extended scope of automation products offered, it also offers variable speed drives (VSDs) which provide users with enhanced energy saving in a variety of industries.

Great success has been achieved, especially in ventilation and pumping systems, the company adds, referencing a mine ventilation project, where a continuous saving of 1MW per fan was achieved, meaning that the system was paying for itself within a few months.

The company adds that good stock levels of the most popular programmable logic controllers (PLCs), VSDs, and human-machine interface and motion control products are kept, and that it can supply VSDs ranging in size from 0.1 kW to 10 400 kW and voltages between 220 V and 11 000 V.

PLCs can be supplied for automation systems whichrequire I/O counts ranging from 10 up to 131 000.

All standard industrial communication protocols are catered for, the company says.

Read more from the original source:

Company exploiting post-pandemic freedom with automation solutions - Creamer Media's Mining Weekly

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read more from the original source:

OPINION: What blinds Freedom Foundation to this gift? - Lewiston Morning Tribune

Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Riayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah also urged that the sanctity of all religions be preserved and respected at all times. Bernama photo

KUALA LUMPUR (July 29): Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Riayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah decreed that people should never belittle, insult or ridicule religions in the name of freedom of expression.

His Majesty also urged that the sanctity of all religions be preserved and respected at all times.

Religion is not something to be joked about and used as a joke.

I am afraid that such an act will fuel the flames of racism and destroy the bond of unity between all races that has been built for a long time, said His Majesty in conjunction with the national-level Maal Hijrah1444H celebration and the recitation of Yassin, in conjunction with Warriors Day at the Federal Territory Mosque here tonight.

Also present was Raja Permaisuri Agong Tunku Hajah Azizah Aminah Maimunah Iskandariah.

Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob, Minister in the Prime Ministers Department (Religious Affairs), Senator Datuk Idris Ahmad and the Cabinet ministers were also in attendance.

Al-Sultan Abdullah also called on the people to safeguard the blessings of this independent and sovereign country.

May Allah SWT illuminate our hearts and souls with the spirit of peace, avoid the traits that can invite division and protect this beloved country from any calamity and danger, he said.

Al-Sultan Abdullah said in line with this years Maal Hijrah theme, Keluarga Malaysia Pemangkin Kemakmuran, the hijrah (migration) of Prophet Muhammad should be used as a guide to building a stable and glorious future for the country.

His Majesty said following the great event, an Islamic country was born which became the starting point for the development and spread of Islam throughout the world.

Al-Sultan Abdullah added that the construction of Madinah is the true reality of the unity of the plural society of an Islamic country, which is the most successful in the political history of the world.

The unity was successfully achieved through the agreement of all races and religions, based on the Charter of Madinah, His Majesty said.

Therefore, Al-Sultan Abdullah urged that efforts should be made so that all people, regardless of race or religion, can live in unity, peace and prosperity under the Sovereign Ruler, and uphold the Federal Constitution.

By appreciating the Sirah (history) Rasulullah, His Majesty said the unity of a pluralistic society can be achieved by respecting and understanding the existing diversity.

The King also said that todays hijrah demands not only in terms of migration but it involves the transformation of the mind to form a culture based on morality and ethics.

Being malicious, jealous and always finding fault with others are reprehensible traits that Allah SWT dislikes.

These traits bring negative effects that can obscure the principles of justice and equality until eventually collapsing and dividing the unity of the ummah and erasing the history of the nations civilisation, His Majesty said. Bernama

Facebook Messenger Twitter WhatsAppEmailPrint

Read more:

King: Do not insult, ridicule religions in the name of freedom of expression - The Borneo Post

Opinion: We can't do more to stop gun violence, we're told, because of the Second Amendment. This idea of 'freedom' has gone off the rails.

Reginald M. Ballantyne| opinion contributor

Summer afternoon: Theyre called the two most beautiful words in the English language.

My vote for ugliest words goes to: political realities.

The wages of those realities were exacted at the Highland Park, Ill., Fourth of July parade, planned as a traditional celebration of summer and freedom. Instead, it became a violent instance of another tradition in America: peaceful citizens regularly slaughtered in the name of a freedom that most Americans and many worldwide believe has gone off the rails.

Since summer breezes began stirring, we have lost supermarket shoppers, targeted for their race; teachers; schoolchildren who tried cowering under their desks; physicians; both parents of a 2-year old, now an orphan. An 8-year-old boy, whose spinal cord was severed in the Fourthof July violence, is in unbearable pain and may never walk again.

We are alone among developed nations in doinglittle to try to stop them, those whograb the headlines.

Political realities are what supposedly justify our great American cop-out. No one is exempt here: left, right, middle, sideways.

Despite Americans vaunted ingenuity and determination, we seem to be individually and collectively stuck in our entrenched positions. Likewise, our representatives are stuck, banking on their constituents predictable views and their votes.

There are cries that something must be done, and the retort: Get real! Political realities indicate not much can or will be done.

Ironically, in June, as the country was reeling from recent violence, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a century-old New York law that placed some commonsense restrictions on that right. That ruling will no doubt undermine restrictions in other states.

To its credit, New York quickly passed a new law enhancing restrictions.

There are data, there are studies, as well as the example of other countries, showing that restrictive measures have in fact been effective and would prevent some of those incidents: not all of them, because nothing is perfect. (Flash: Seat belts are not perfect, traffic lights are not perfect, vaccines are not perfect.)

Responding to a countrywide outcry following the violence this spring, the president signed a bipartisan law setting modest restrictions on the freedom thats terrorizing the country. The bipartisanship was encouraging but lets face it inadequate, as political realities blocked more comprehensive measures that would deal with the staggering proliferation of deadly weapons in the U.S.

What about reform?How Arizonans feel about new bipartisan gun deal

The hope now, I believe, lies in engaging in conversation with our fellow citizens. Jon Meacham wrote that democracy requires the two of us to see each other, not as rivals or adversaries, but as neighbors. Democracy doesnt work, he said, if I decide that you are simply a rival and that any victory for you is a loss for me.

This calls for a middle ground, where complete, unchecked freedom is traded for human lives. That would mean some of us would stop insisting on banning what otherssee as part of their heritage and their families traditions. Amajority of them support commonsense restrictions, yet they are reluctant to speak out because they dont want to add fuel to the zeal of abolishing what they love.

Paralyzed by the horror, and the complexity of dealing with it, we have abandoned the stage to extremists on both sides and to the politicians and merchants who exploit those extremes.

Meanwhile, the immature, irresponsible and mentally disturbed among usface few checks on their freedom to inflict harm on the innocent.

The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, allowed creation of civilian forces bearing arms to counteract a tyrannical government.

What would Madison, Hamilton, Franklin and the other founders who signed the Constitution have said if theyd witnessed the worst days of Highland Park, Uvalde, Buffalo, Tulsa, Parkland, Las Vegas, Sandy Hook ... a level of carnage impossible with 18th century weapons? Envisioning a free, safeand peaceful society, would they have hailed those scenes as the price we must pay for defending against tyranny?

Tyranny? Our government cant even persuade many of us to get vaccinated or wear masks.

One of our representatives-in-chief was quoted recently saying we cant do anything thats inconsistent with the culture of most of the country.

Who says the culture were living with reflects most of the country? Is your American culture defined by this recurrent horror? Mine is not, nor is my neighbors.

I have to believe theres hope in making our reasonable voices heard.

Reginald Reg M. Ballantyne III is former chairman of the American Hospital Association and commissioner of The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.Reach him atreg.ballantyne3@gmail.com.

Read the original post:

Second Amendment has become distorted. Why do we defend it? - The Arizona Republic

Plans to repurpose the St. Brigid's church property up for sale in Ottawa's Lowertown neighbourhood have been unveiled, and the group behind the project denies ties to the "Freedom Convoy", instead saying its all about peace and love.

The United People of Canada (TUPOC) are calling the new property, located at the corner of St. Patrick Street and Cumberland Street, their "Embassy."

"Just looking to create a unique and inclusive space where people of all different backgrounds and beliefs are welcome to participate in dialogue, participate in co-working, access a community cafe, venue space and we're hosting a number of community conversations," said William Komer, Director of TUPOC.

The organization says it is in the process of buying the property, which is listed for nearly $6 million.

Their largest financial backer is a London, Ont. financial adviser.

"The whole thing is to create a lot of love from our good example, hoping that these people will pass it along to their little world and eventually we hope to have locations around the world," said Tony Cuzzocrea, the President of Planmar Financial Corp.

Cuzzocrea wouldnt specify how much money he has contributed, but admitted he is the projects largest financial backer.

The TUPOC group has come under fire from some members of the community over support for the "Freedom Convoy."

"You look at their website and it's just platitudes. You know I can say peace and love, peace and love, but what really are you doing?" said Sylvie Bigras, President of the Lowertown Community Association.

One of the group's directors has admitted to being an adviser to Dwayne Lich, the partner of "Freedom Convoy" organizer Tamara Lich, but the group denies connections to the occupation.

"Someone is going around alleging that 3.2 million of 'Freedom Convoy' funds went to purchasing St. Brigid's church, that's completely false," said Komer.

"We are no way connected with them at all. We're good people with great intentions, only wanting to help mankind," added Cuzzocrea.

There are no plans to make major changes to the former St. Brigids Church, just to revitalize and repurpose it, the group said.

Go here to see the original:

Group behind St. Brigid's church purchase denies ties to 'Freedom Convoy', says it's about peace and love - CTV News Ottawa

Conservative leadership hopeful Pierre Poilievre takes part in a debate at the Canada Strong and Free Networking Conference in Ottawa on May 5.BLAIR GABLE/Reuters

Stephen Harpers public endorsement of Pierre Poilievre as the next leader of the Conservative Party means very little, but also a lot.

Very little, because Mr. Poilievre probably had the leadership sewn up even without the former prime ministers imprimatur.

A lot, because Mr. Harper is clearly hoping to preserve party unity and win over uncommitted voters in support of a candidate he believes has a clear shot at becoming prime minister.

But for that to happen, Mr. Poilievre must square a circle. He opposes mandatory vaccinations, a policy that during the pandemic saved many thousands of lives, perhaps including yours.

Harper didnt address batty Poilievre policies in endorsement: former cabinet ministers

Stephen Harpers endorsement a boost for Pierre Poilievres leadership bid, Conservative Senate leader says

Mr. Poilievre is going to have to offer a convincing explanation for that opposition, if he wants to become prime minister. Simply saying its all about freedom wont cut it.

One reason Mr. Harper publicly endorsed Mr. Poilievre was to make absolutely certain that Jean Charest never leads the party. The former Quebec premier is ideologically too much of a wet, as the late Margaret Thatcher used to say, for Mr. Harpers liking.

He may also want to reassure anyone who supported him, but who is wondering whether Mr. Poilievre is too ideologically extreme, that he believes the Carleton MP can be trusted to lead the country.

In truth, most of Mr. Poilievres policies arent that extreme. He would fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. If your salary is flatlined, even as the price of everything skyrockets, you might want Tiff Macklem fired, too.

Coyne: Winner of one majority in five tries says Poilievre has what it takes

As for his vow to defund the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, there will be too much opposition for that to happen. And who cares about his conspiratorial mutterings about the World Economic Forum?

His opposition to the carbon tax is, sadly, no longer politically damaging. That tax is a useful tool in reducing carbon emissions, but economic issues trump environmental issues, these days.

Only in his opposition to vaccine mandates is Mr. Poilievre dangerously extreme. It is an incredibly irresponsible stand to take.

When Mr. Poilievre declared his support for the protesters who occupied Ottawa last winter, he was expressing solidarity with people who opposed the policies of the federal, provincial and municipal governments, along with most employers, who said anyone who refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 could lose their job.

That policy was essential to contain the pandemic. And it worked.

Canada has lost just over 45,500 people, or 1,120 people per million of population, to COVID, one of the lowest rates in the developed world. The United States, which had much less rigorous vaccine enforcement and a substantially lower level of vaccination, lost 3,050 people per million of population.

There are other factors in play as well, but it is reasonable to assert that mandatory vaccination saved tens of thousands of Canadian lives that would have been lost had we adopted the more laissez-faire American approach.

In June, Mr. Poilievre introduced Bill C-278, legislation that would prohibit the federal government from imposing vaccine mandates on its employees or on travellers.

And lest you think the legislation would apply only to the current situation, he explicitly declared on Twitter that he would scrap all vaccine mandates & ban any and all future vaccine mandates.

Mr. Charest missed the point when he said that Mr. Poilievre disqualified himself from becoming leader because he supported an illegal protest. Politicians on the left support illegal protests all the time.

But opposing vaccine mandates is, or should be, disqualifying.

If COVID-19 came roaring back, or a new pandemic arrived, when Mr. Poilievre was prime minister, would he keep vaccinations entirely voluntary? Would he be willing to sacrifice thousands of lives in defence of what he calls freedom but most of us would call reckless and dangerous behaviour?

And if his judgment is so unsound on this all-important issue, how can we trust him on other issues?

This may not matter at election time. The pandemic may be well and truly in the rear-view mirror by then, with economic issues front and centre.

But there is the ebb and flow of politics, and then there is right and wrong. Mr. Poilievres stand on vaccines is so wrong that it undermines the case for his becoming prime minister. Mr. Harpers endorsement doesnt change that in the least.

For subscribers: Get exclusive political news and analysis by signing up for the Politics Briefing.

Read the original:

Poilievre will need more than promises of freedom - The Globe and Mail

I have been in a decade-long debate with a German friend and historian at Cambridge University, and it remains visceral and all too timely. It concerns the grim theme of violence and its experience in our respective societies and histories. Germany seems to haunt certain Indian political fantasies. Only the other day, Haryana Chief Minister M.L. Khattar prophesised that like Germany, today, India too could be reunited with Pakistan and Bangladesh!

Unification or not, my German historian-friend remains staggered that a million Indians killed each other in a single year during Partition with basic and household weaponry and without State apparatus. Our debate is not simply about which violence is more inhuman the one carried out with kitchen knives by erstwhile neighbours or the other that was done in industrialised gas chambers, matched by brutal bureaucratic machinery of mass death. Though we also often argue about that.

As contemporaries, I am as far removed from the civil war that accompanied our Independence as my German friend is from the Holocaust, which remains the exceptional horror of human history. Our debate has no real winners given the topic is how two different societies manufactured and operationalised deadly hatred. What remains moot is the role of the State in managing antagonism and protecting the vulnerable against violence. I will come to that in a minute, as this is indeed critical to the state of peace in India today.

My friend and I only agree that our societies dealt with the aftermath of mass violence entirely differently with lasting consequences. He grew up being schooled in collective guilt and responsibility for the crimes of his forefathers with the aim to learn that hatred towards the other is not only inhuman but, above all, cannot and should not be repeated.

By contrast, in my Indian education, Partition violence came first into view for my generation via State television and the Doordarshan series Tamas. In this series and countless other accounts, Partition violence is still understood widely as emotional but collective suffering in which everyone was a victim of a moment of violent madness. Neither the State nor any people have taken responsibility for those mass killings. The lesson is that since there has been no responsibility or culpability for it, Indians, arguably, have been condemned to repeat a bad history.

Also read: Rawalpindi reunionPakistan is celebrating 90-year-old Pune womans homecoming after Partition

Recent Indian headlines only affirm the power of repetition that gives any traumatic history, and especially that of violence, its force.

Youd be forgiven if newspaper headlines seem to teleport you back into the 1920s. The themes are eerily similar. Confrontations over blasphemy: Check. Mob policing of inter-faith intimate relations between men and women: Check. Heated polemics over religious conversions: Check. Fear based on fiction or downright lies on demographic takeover by a religious minority: Check. Obsession with who is praying where in public: Check. Demolitions of homes or small shrines to create religiously segregated neighbourhoods: Check.

A century apart and the repeated pattern bears the same controversies. The violence that accompanies each of these controversies remains tightly bound to the social fabric of communities in India even today. To take one instance, in the 1924 case of Rangila Rasool, votaries and protagonists of that infamous blasphemy controversy and consequent violence appealed to the courts and the State to determine the truth of one religion and also to dispense justice between two hostile groups. But unlike then, when foreign masters tightly held the reins of the State, todays political institutions are entirely Indian but deploy a law designed by the British.

The violent hatred that has propelled recent religious controversies in India, however, is misidentified as debates about freedom of expression. Whether or not you are a free speech absolutist, a proper contextualisation of this clutch of laws is essential. British imperial imperatives deliberately miscast this relationship as one of freedom and with deadly consequences to date.

Also read: How Nehru added conditions apply to Article 19(1)(a) & India lost way to gates of freedom

Simply put and to cut a very complex and long history short, after the Rebellions of 1857, the British empire made a U-turn on its prevailing social policies and decided against any activism in Indian religious affairs. Consider the fact that prior to the rebellions/mutiny, intervention in religion the abolition of Sati (1829), followed by the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act of 1856 had formed the centrepieces of British imperial rule and law.

With the activating of the Indian Penal Code in 1861, the imperial State took a so-called neutral stance of intervening in religion only to maintain public peace. This had three major and enduring consequences. First, the domain of religion, as opposed to the political arena, afforded relative freedom to colonised Indians. Religion was thus easy to mobilise, especially by conservative politicians given to exclusivism such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak. By contrast, newspapers and pamphlets were heavily censored for political writings and especially any criticism of government policies. The Sedition Law (IPC 124A), further policed and ensured this. It was not that the State was entirely removed from religion or distant from it. But rather, it strongly defined its intervention in terms of maintaining peace between communities.

Second, and in so occupying the role of a neutral mediator, the colonial State set up Hindus and Muslims as legally competitive and antagonistic entities.

Finally, the law increasingly judged theological issues of religion but displaced and named them after freedom of expression. The colonial State went on to not only arrogate the power to judge the life of a prophet or doctrine but also significantly legalised religious competition and antagonism.

To say that this has been toxic would be an understatement. The postcolonial State and the much-celebrated Indian Constitution, while being radical in endowing individual rights, has failed to dismantle this colonial relationship of law and religion that has effectively set up a hostile competition between groups.

Also read: Pakistan-Bangladesh merger with India possible, like Germany unification, Khattar says

It is striking that Indias most spiritually inclined political leader, M. K. Gandhi, identified the law as the key obstacle to religious harmony. Even before he returned to India, in his manifesto Hind Swaraj (1909), Gandhi chastised both Hindus and Muslims for failing to see the law as a gladiatorial set-up that could only lead to vengeful hatred. As was his want and despite it being his own profession, Gandhi pointed out the moral bankruptcy of expecting justice through any commercial transactions between lawyers.

Above all, and unlike Tilak, Gandhi called out British legal neutrality as a (covert) call to violence. Gandhi would repeat and make the same arguments 40 years later. At the height of mass violence in 1947, Gandhi was the only leader who did not appeal for the imposition of martial law or any British intervention as Jawaharlal Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had all demanded of the outgoing masters.

The Third Reich under Adolf Hitler had created a deathly State machinery of genocide. In India, though, 50-plus years of legal confrontations between religious communities created the critical context and led to the deadly civil war of 1947 as the colonial State feigned neutrality till its last standing day.

Gandhis answer to hatred was to seek and demand a politics of individual restraint and responsibility based neither on cowardice nor competition. Restraint was only possible by channelling and committing to the highest precept common to all religions non-violence. Each individual, thus, had to be true to only their own religion without seeking to convince the other. The laws capacity to then referee any hatred generated by the competition it had set up was sought to be depleted.The exit from State-ordained or legalised hostility was, in effect, an exit from hatred.

Indians may no longer be able to listen to, let alone be persuaded by, Gandhi. Indians, however, can and must learn to take collective responsibility for the violence of Partition and close this violent chapter. If nothing else, it will ensure that the history of hatred had a dnouement or endpoint in 1947. Rather than being its victims, Partition violence points to the history of violence as intimate. Crucially, it must be treated as finished, or else, it will continue to extract a price in the present. The lesson from Germany contra CM Khattar is not unification but a reparation for a collective history of violent hatred.

Without this closure on Partition and as a reckoning, no law or court will be able to guarantee the peace essential to Indias hard-won freedoms.

Shruti Kapila is Professor of Indian history and global political thought at the University of Cambridge. She tweets @shrutikapila. Views are personal.

(Edited by Humra Laeeq)

Continue reading here:

British gave India freedom to hate. We are staring at Partition violence again - ThePrint

In 2019, Stuff first published the Redacted series exploring the problems with the Official Information Act (OIA). Three years on, were revisiting the OIA to see whats changed.

OPINION: Journalists' complaints about abuse of freedom of information laws are generally met with public apathy.

But imagine there was a legion of officials who make it their business to thwart your work and waste your time. Those officials ultimately mean that the public is less well-informed on important issues.

Two recent episodes demonstrate just how frustrating it can be for media to try to extract information from the public service, where a culture of secrecy pervades.

This is information the public is legally entitled to. The guiding principle of the Official Information Act is that it should be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it.

And over the years requests have revealed dodgy spending on the taxpayer dime, and the news that American billionaire Peter Thiel had been granted Kiwi citizenship after spending just 12 days in the country.

For journalists, it is both a vital tool, and a thorn in our side.

The subjects I had requested information on two politically contentious issues: freshwater and political fundraising. Both cases resulted in complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman, Parliaments OIA watchdog.

They are an illustration of a regime that is marked by delays, obstruction and a presumption against releasing documents for fear it trips up ministers or discredits their departments.

Sungmi Kim/Stuff

The Governments promise to review the 40-year-old freedom of information regime has stalled.

The government is reforming the rules for political donations. This year three parties have become embroiled in court cases centred on donations and critics have long argued the law must be tightened to prevent abuses.

As part of the overhaul, the Ministry of Justice asked for public feedback on some options for new rules. In June, I asked the ministry to release the submissions to me. The No Right Turn blog made the same request, at roughly the same time.

This is a work-a-day request. Government departments regularly publish submissions as part of the business of decision-making. Parliaments website uploads all written submissions to select committees on its website. Journalists often ask to see submissions it informs our writing about peoples views on new policy and laws.

But the request was declined. The Ministry refused using a provision of the Act which allows it to withhold documents that it plans to soon release publicly. (In fact, they went up on the Ministrys website the following day).

On the surface, this is fair enough. Waiting a day for the information was no hardship.

However, the ministry had also struck a deal with three political parties to keep their submissions secret. This is very unusual and especially troubling because it was a policymaking exercise designed to enhance scrutiny, and these parties were seeking to influence the rules under which they are allowed to raise funds.

If the submissions contained confidential information (like membership figures or financial information) this could have been easily redacted.

A further request to the ministry media team, to ask which parties were granted secrecy, was ignored. That required me to separately ask parties for their submissions almost all agreed. It remains a mystery which parties demanded anonymity. As a result, I have been forced to ask the Office of the Ombudsman to intervene a process which will take many months and soak up the time of at least one investigator.

What I also didnt know was that Victoria Universitys Bryce Edwards had made a request for the information back in early April. After wrangling with the agency for weeks they (erroneously) didnt start on his request until late May because his correspondence didnt include the words Official Information Act.

On July 1, the ministry released all the information to him barring the three secret submissions. Unlike No Right Turn and I, they didnt ask him to wait until publication on their website.

This might not seem like a big deal. But it is important for two reasons. Firstly, the agency responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice, appears to have breached the Act.

It is required to release the information as soon as reasonably practicable. So, all three requesters should have received it at the same time. The law also doesnt allow the agency to release it one person, but withhold it from others.

Secondly, the release to Edwards came in the same week the Government announced its planned changed to the donations regime. The proposals are opposed by National and ACT, and the Greens would like them to go further.

The release of the submissions would have added another layer to media reporting, and better inform commentary on the political announcement.

Last week the ministry apologised for dropping the ball. A spokesman said: In hindsight, we should have got this information to you sooner. This seems to have been a process issue at our end, and we are sorry about that.

ALEX LIU/STUFF

Senior reporter Andrea Vance demonstrates how to seek information using the Official Information Act.

This one on a political hot potato dragged on for almost a year.

The Government has promised to tackle the sensitive issue of water allocation, a burning issue because of differing views on proprietary rights over water. That work is (slowly) ongoing and some issues are tied up with the reform of the resource management regime.

On August 4, 2021, I requested a briefing note to the minister titled: Next steps for the discussion document regarding iwi, hap and Mori landowners' rights and interests in freshwater bodies. (I even helpfully cited the reference number allocated to the document).

I also asked for a discussion document and other written material prepared on the subject. After 13 working days, MfE wrote to say it needed more time, and extended the request by 20 days.

Nine days late on their extended deadline, it finally responded. It had waited 42 days to deny my request to release the briefing, citing a clause which allows MfE to keep secret confidential advice to government. The discussion document was also withheld and other documents, including meeting minutes, were only summarised.

ROBERT KITCHIN/Stuff

The Ministry for the Environment wanted to keep secret advice and letters to Minister David Parker on freshwater rights.

Letters from Khui Wai Mori, a freshwater forum, to Environment Minister David Parker were also kept back using the same confidential-advice-to-government clause.

I contacted the Ombudsman, asking the office to review the content of the documents, and refusal to release these documents.

In my complaint, I noted that KWM is not a government agency, but an expert group. And that its advice related to decision-making processes within another body may not be protected under the clause quoted by MfE.

I also argued that the allocation of water rights had been the subject of intense national debate, and public interest in the matter transcended the need to keep the advice confidential.

Submitting a complaint, finding and attaching documents, and making relevant arguments to the Ombudsman all takes time. Even, as a semi-regular moaner (I have the complaints page bookmarked in my favourites), these are work hours when I could be doing something more productive.

Iain McGregor/Stuff

The allocation of freshwater has long been a contentious issue.

It also sucked up time in the Ombudsmans office. The complaint took eight months to work its way through the watchdogs processes.

During that time, the ministry had renamed the discussion document, and quietly published it on its website in February. I was not notified and only learned this in June when MfE received a prod from investigators.

In a letter, director Keita Kohere apologised for the delay in publishing the document and for the lack of communication around its release.

The letters were released to me, plus another briefing. But she argued the original briefing document I requested was never formally conveyed to Parker and have continued to withhold it.

These are just of many examples of resistance and avoidance. Some agencies rub up against the spirit of openness, while others downright contravene the law.

In 2019, Stuff first published the Redacted series exploring the problems with the Official Information Act (OIA). Three years on, were revisiting the OIA to see whats changed.

Original post:

Andrea Vance: How flawed freedom of information system keep the public in the dark - Stuff