Charter of Rights

Wednesday July 21, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday July 21, 2021

Ford outright rejects vaccine passports on eve of Step 3 of COVID-19 reopening

Ontario Premier Doug Ford firmly rejected the possibility of implementing vaccine passports on Thursday.

June 4, 2021

Ford spoke at a news conference announcing a new long-term care home in Toronto, the Runnymede Long-Term Care Home, expected to open in the summer of 2023. The centre is expected to provide 200 new long-term care spaces.

“No, we aren’t doing it,” he said. “We’re not going to have a split society.”

As for whether it will be mandatory for health-care workers to get a vaccine, Ford said while they’re encouraged to do so, no one should be forced to be immunized.

“I’m not in favour of a mandatory certification and neither, by the way, is the chief medical officer,” said Ford. “Folks, just please go get vaccinated.”

Fords comments follow similar ones by Solicitor General Sylvia Jones a day before, who shut down the possibility of any sort of proof-of-vaccination system being introduced in the province.

April 8, 2021

If needed, Jones said, Ontarians  who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 can rely on the receipt printed or emailed to them after their second shot.

Some businesses in the province have said that when Ontario enters Step 3 of its reopening plan, patrons will need to show proof of vaccination upon arrival. 

Toronto Mayor John Tory has called on the provincial government to create a voluntary system that would help individual businesses or organizations determine the vaccination status of patrons, employees and members. The Toronto Region Board of Trade has also endorsed such an initiative.

Ford said Thursday he will be addressing the question of a federal vaccination card with the prime minister later in the day.

Ontario reported 143 new cases of COVID-19 and 10 more deaths linked to the illness on Thursday, while total vaccinations fell by more than 100,000 from the same day last week.

Public health units collectively administered another 166,201 doses of COVID-19 vaccines yesterday, of which roughly 88 per cent were second shots. Last Wednesday saw more than 268,000 shots given out provincewide.

More than 57 per cent of Ontarians aged 12 and older have now had two doses of vaccines. (CBC) 

 

Friday June 11, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday June 11, 2021

The Canadian Charter’s notwithstanding clause is increasingly indefensible

It isn’t happening in Quebec, but in Ontario, so there will be more of a fuss than would otherwise be the case.

September 14, 2018

But there will be less of a fuss than the last time the Doug Ford government threatened to use the notwithstanding clause to override constitutionally guaranteed rights. The next time it happens, there will be less still. And there will be a next time, and a next time after that, and another, and another – precisely because the political costs of doing so diminish with each use.

This is how the clause is being normalized. This is how, in consequence, the Charter of Rights is being eviscerated. It is already more or less a dead letter in Quebec, where the override has been invoked over the years by governments of every party. Once upon a time it might have caused something of a stir, at least outside the province, as when Robert Bourassa used it to uphold the ban on English-language signs in 1988.

September 21, 2019

But having paid no discernible price for invoking the clause to protect Bill 21, legislation that effectively bars the hiring of religious minorities across much of the public service, Quebec’s CAQ government was quick to do the same with regard to Bill 96, its new and harsher language law. A rights “guarantee” that cannot protect minorities from overt harassment and discrimination – a guarantee that applies only as when the government of the day decides it should – is not much of a guarantee at all.

July 28, 2018

And now it is happening elsewhere. Mr. Ford’s first attempt to use the clause, over a 2018 bill that would have cut the size of Toronto city council in half – in the middle of a municipal election – may have collapsed in confusion, but now the Premier is back for another try. This time the casus belli is Bill 254, legislation passed earlier this year that would, among other things, double the length of time before an election campaign during which third-party advocacy groups would be subject to spending limits.

As before, the Premier has supposedly been provoked to action by a judge’s ruling, overturning the legislation on Charter grounds. But as before this is not really the issue. The government could have appealed either ruling to a higher court, and even had it lost there, it could have rewritten either bill in ways that addressed its purported intent, without unduly limiting Charter rights. (Globe & Mail) 

 

Friday September 14, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday September 14, 2018

Why would Trudeau leave it to Mulroney to defend the Charter of Rights?

When one Canadian province decides to opt out of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you expect prime ministers to speak out strongly.

February 3, 2018

But it probably tells us something that the most spirited words against the use of the “notwithstanding” clause this week have come from a former prime minister, not the current one.

It was Brian Mulroney who came out swinging on Tuesday against the idea of provinces sidestepping the Charter — “how the hell did this thing get in our Constitution?” — while the current prime minister seemed to be trying to say as little as possible.

While Justin Trudeau can be hard line about people adhering to the Charter of Rights when it comes to summer-job applications or candidacy for the Liberal party, it took the prime minister more than a day after Premier Doug Ford’s staggering announcement on Monday to say anything publicly. And when Trudeau did speak on Tuesday, he chose a relatively mild adjective: “disappointing.”

Mulroney, on the other hand, seems to feel fewer constraints, despite a potentially awkward family conflict.

September 7, 2009

In a free-wheeling conversation at the National Library and Archives on Tuesday, Mulroney made abundantly clear that he has never been a fan of this opt-out provision in the Charter — and he’s no more fond of it now that it’s being used in a province where his own daughter, Caroline Mulroney, is the attorney-general.

“Everybody knows I’m not a big fan of it and I never have been,” Mulroney said, while sidestepping any direct criticism of his daughter’s government. “Look, to me, the backbone and the enormous strength of Canada is the independence and the magnificence of our judiciary. … That is a major thrust of our citizenship.”
 
Mulroney said he hasn’t discussed this with his daughter, but she probably already knows how he feels, since it’s also in his memoirs, as “the most abject surrender of federal authority in our history.” 
 
That’s a shot at former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, who put the clause into the Charter to win a deal with the provinces nearly 40 years ago. He’s also the father of the current PM, of course — all this proving that constitutional dramas in Canada are also historical family sagas, minus the lush scenery or film deals. (Source: Toronto Star) 

Thursday September 13, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday September 13, 2018

City council candidates in ‘entirely uncharted waters’ amid chaos over nomination deadlines

After an unprecedented day comes unprecedented chaos.

September 11, 2018

Premier Doug Ford’s move to trump a judicial ruling in order to secure a Toronto city council with 25 wards has left candidates and lawyers scrambling and voters in limbo ahead of the upcoming municipal election.

That includes at least eight incumbent city councillors who had planned to run for re-election but who could be locked out of the 25-ward race depending on how the legislation is worded, with legal experts unsure of what to expect from Ford’s government.

When a Superior Court judge ruled Monday that Ford’s legislation cutting the size of council to 25 from 47 wards was unconstitutional, city advocates believed for a short time that they had won the day.

July 28, 2018

But Ford’s announcement hours later that he would invoke the rarely used “notwithstanding” clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to override Justice Edward Belobaba’s ruling led to a flurry of unanswered questions, including whether the election can even proceed as planned on Oct. 22.

The legislature will resume Wednesday after Ford recalled MPPs from recess. Ford indicated the new bill would be tabled then. What it will say, his officials refuse to tell.

The province doesn’t expect the new legislation to be passed before Sept. 24, with MPPs off for two days next week to attend the International Plowing Match near Chatham-Kent. That leaves a very small window between a fundamental shift in the election process and the start of advance polling days, which are currently scheduled to begin Oct. 10. City clerk Ulli Watkiss earlier raised concerns about having enough time to prepare an election, including printing ballots for the whole city.

City council will have an emergency meeting Thursday to again discuss their current legal options and what happens next. (Source: Toronto Star) 

 

SaveSave

February 26, 2007

A chorus of opinion writers emerged over the weekend to celebrate the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision to declare government issued security certificates against suspected terrorists as unconstitutional. Now some rather local activist minded folk irritated by my cartoon are checking in to tell me how much of a fascist monster I am to swim against the river of support for the Supreme Court’s decision.

To them I let it be known that that’s supposed to be the job of the editorial cartoonist — to go against the conventional wisdom of the eggheads in country, whether they’re politicians or supreme court judges. This cartoon is to remind the reader that while it may be by all appearances an indictment against government curtailing the rights of a few dubious individuals for the safety of the majority there remains a threat that at anytime in the future this country will endure the horror of a terrorist act. We are, afterall, fighting them with bullets half a world away in Afghanistan.

But then the accusation is made that the depiction of these terrorists using the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a plaything paints me, the cartoonist, as a racist, implying that all Muslims are terrorists. It reminds me of the time I drew Martha Stewart being harassed at the US/Canadian border as terrorists were breezing in without difficulty. Same accusation was made in letters posted alongside the Martha Stewart cartoon.

Should the terrorists be shown wearing suits, or baseball caps on backwards? Everybody knows what the stereotypical terrorist in 2007 looks like, and they resemble the very people you see in today’s cartoon.

* * * * * * * * * *
And here’s a perfect example:

Mr. Mackay:

So Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols build a terrorist bomb carrying vehicle, blow up a large building in a downtown American City, kill 165 people including men, women and children and as full scale professional terroists, get a full trial, full access to the US Bill of Rights, benefit of the doubt, aggressive lawyers, full disclosure of the government’s case, as does every IRA terrorist that tried to kill people in downtown London and every Basque separatist that blows up trains. These are all nice white people, McVeigh a veteran of the US armed forces, they do not wear beards or funny hats. It is obvious that in your world, the absence of beards and non-european headwear makes the big difference for the white folks who, with no real public complaint get full protection when the state takes after them. Even when the white guy without the beard and head gear is a pig farmer who is charged with killing bunches of females and feeding them to pigs, we still make sure he has the benefit of the doubt and disclosure and a lawyer and a fair trial. But the Mackay message is that Beards and Headgear and Mulsim identity get you ridiculed and we are urged by you to think those bearded, headgeared, muslims should not get the benefit of our Charter of Rights, and by inference that the Charter of Rights is something to joke about.

Its hard to imagine a more racist, destructive, mean spirited message than that in your comment on the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

But instead of my words about why you should be really proud to be part of a country that treats its most despicable, feared or evil people with a guaranteed set of rules of fairness and honesty developed over 800 years, I hope you will consider for a moment what an experienced US soldier, Lt. Cmdr Charles Swift, has to say about dispensing with the rules.

If you really believe that our Charter should be mocked in the fashion of your cartoon, there are wonderful countries in this world without a charter and without an independent supreme court. I would be happy to give you a list of places you might consider that would be more in harmony with your views. Given the power of the internet you could easily continue you work by email, so the move could be done with no loss of income. And often the cost of living might be less than here. Although I really doubt you would move to any such place.

Herman Turkstra

* * * * * * * * * *
Dear Mr. Turkstra,

Thank you for your thoughts. Fortunately, we Canadians are free to express our opinions and I know we won’t see eye to eye on this matter.

I just don’t agree that the Supreme Court did any good to protect the collective interest of Canadians in its decision to protect the rights of a few dubious characters. I also don’t agree with Parliament’s rejection of extending the anti-terrorism provisions. Especially… and this is what so many naive Canadians and Liberals are casually ignoring… when we happen to be at war with terrorists half a world away in Afghanistan. To not have these safeguards in place at such a potentially dangerous time is reckless. If it doesn’t raise the possibility of enduring a Madrid, London, or Bali styled attack, we’ll just become more of a safehouse for terrorist cells planning its assaults on our allies. If you think having to get a passport is such a huge inconvenience for getting into the U.S. now, imagine how inconvenient it’s going to become as we laugh off America’s post 9-11 paranoia with flimsy anti-terrorism laws.

As for the cartoon, the terrorists we’re fighting don’t happen to be nice white guys with Irish or midwestern American accents, but guys wearing turbans and army fatigues. So, if you want to call me racist for drawing the terrorists the way I did you might as well call all the soldiers fighting the Taliban and Al Qaida racists as well. How you conclude that I’ve painted all Muslims as terrorists is groundless and unfair. But it’s not like I’ve heard that one before.

While I appreciate getting your feedback on cartoons I think you could be getting much wider coverage by sending it on to the letters editor. Put it on the record, because the moment a bomb goes off in downtown Toronto or Montreal in the name of Islamic extremism I assure you, you’ll be eating your words.

Sincerely,

Graeme MacKay

* * * * * * * * * *
In dedication to Mr. Turkstra and his ilk, I thought I’d draw another cartoon on the issue. See a related blog entry on ad parodies, otherwise known as wackys, which inspired this cartoon.

OUTRAGE IN THE BLOGOSPHERE

Someone who runs the Dymaxion World blog writes a lengthy analysis piece critiquing my terrorists bouncing on the Charter of Rights cartoon filled with “racism and authoritarianism”. He thinks I’m a right wing propagandist and he uses the same argument Herman makes by suggesting I’m racist for portraying all terrorists as bearded guys with turbans. He adds the FLQ to the list of white guy terror groups which is a nice bit of trivia, but really doesn’t apply to things going on in 2007 despite how lengthy he rambles on about it.

He demands to know why another blogger dared to post my offensive cartoon. In defence he writes:

The Cartoon represents the opinions of many Canadians (that our security is being neglected for the sake of “rights”). Sure, it could be seen as propaganda, or it can be seen as a reflection of some individuals opinions. Whether we agree or not does not change the fact that such a sentiment exists.

If someone wants to ascribe an opinion to me based on a cartoon expressing the artist’s opinion (which isn’t supported in any way by my opinion written below), they can feel free.

FEEDBACK

Hi Graeme: This showed up quite unexpectedly on my screen today and I couldn`t resist a comment. Since then we`ve learned particularly in the last year that the terrorists look exactly like us, a lesson we should have learned when the graduates of Waterloo University blew up power lines in British Columbia two decades ago. And one can argue that Henry Kissinger in Cambodia or Cheney in Iraq or the President of Israel in Gaza were terrorists who looked remarkably like you and me. So I wondered if you still think that terrorists all have turbans? OK OK, I understand you have to deal in stereo types, but my ilk keep battling those stereotypes because they generally lead us down the wrong path, IMHO.

Hope all is well with you.

Herman Turkstra (January 18, 2010)

—–

Things haven’t changed much in my mind since the above cartoons were drawn. I’m certainly disappointed with how events have transpired in Afghanistan since early 2007 – the failure to effectively root out the Taliban from keys areas, the failure to advance democracy in Afghanistan with legitimate elections, and a willingness to accept bribes from insurgents and warlords to enable mobility. Sure, you can call the white guys that ran the U.S. during the Vietnam war, or Cheney during the Iraq war are terrorists as much as you can call Barack Obama a black guy who is arguably a terrorist. I guess there’s different degrees of terrorists. A white guy that blows up power lines in B.C. is a bit different than people convicted of successfully/planning on blowing up and killing random innocent people. There are really only one kind of people who are carrying out those acts in this day and age in the post 911 era, and they all happen to be doing their killing in the name of one certain religion, and one certain god.

Graeme MacKay (January 19, 2010)