law • mackaycartoons

Wednesday July 25, 2018

July 24, 2018 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday July 25, 2018

Does Canada Have a Gun Control Problem?

July 18, 2012

In the aftermath of the deadly mass shooting in Toronto that left two bystanders and the shooter dead and 12 others injured, a right-wing blogger has questioned whether Canada’s gun control laws actually work.

“I thought they had gun control in Canada,” Laura Loomer, tweeted. “What happened?” she asked.

That tweet was one of dozens of others posing the same question, with many branding the shooting as evidence that gun control laws do not work.

But others have been quick to point out that the number of shootings should speak for itself.

“This is the first mass shooting in our country in almost two years,” one Canadian tweeted. “How many has the USA had just this year? Gun control DOES work, obviously. Just not 100 percent of the time.”

The past year has seen a spate of mass shootings across the U.S., with a total of 154 taking place since June 28 alone, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which defines a mass shooting as any that results in four or more individuals shot or killed in the same general time frame or location.

Sunday’s mass shooting in Toronto was the first in Canada since an attack on a mosque in Quebec City on January 29, 2017, which saw a single gunman kill six people and wound 18 others.

Before that, Canada had not had a mass shooting since January 22, 2016, when a 17-year-old student shot and killed two people at a residence in La Loche, Saskatchewan, before continuing his rampage at La Loche Community School, killing a teacher and an assistant, and wounding several others.

A firearm is nearly seven times less likely to be used in a homicide in Canada than in the U.S., according to Statistics Canada. (More Stats: Newsweek)

SaveSave

Tuesday February 13, 2018

February 12, 2018 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday February 13, 2018

Conservatives accuse Trudeau of ‘political interference’ for comments on Stanley acquittal

The federal Conservatives are accusing Justin Trudeau of “political interference” after the prime minister responded to the acquittal of a white farmer in the death of a young Indigenous man by saying the criminal justice system has to “do better.”

Trudeau made the comments after a jury in Battleford, Sask., Friday found Gerald Stanley not guilty of second-degree murder in the 2016 death of 22-year-old Colten Boushie, a resident of the Red Pheasant First Nation.

“I’m not going to comment on the process that led to this point today, but I am going to say we have come to this point as a country far too many times,” Trudeau said in California, where he was wrapping up a four-day trip to the U.S. “I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better.”

Trudeau’s comments appeared to reflect concerns expressed by hundreds of Indigenous people who took to different sites across Canada on Saturday to protest what they described as injustice and a lack of fairness within the court system.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott, meanwhile, took to Twitter to express their support for Boushie’s family and assert the need for improvements.

“My thoughts are with the family of Colten Boushie tonight,” Wilson-Raybould wrote Friday. “I truly feel your pain and I hear all of your voices. As a country we can and must do better — I am committed to working every day to ensure justice for all Canadians.”

Many concerns have been raised about discrimination toward Indigenous People in the criminal justice system; retired Supreme Court judge Frank Iacobucci, for example, raised flags about a lack of Indigenous representation on juries in Ontario in 2013.

Iacobucci’s probe was launched after an inquest into the 2007 drowning death of a high school student in Thunder Bay, Ont., was stopped because of a lack of Indigenous people on the jury. (Source: Toronto Star)

Saturday September 2, 2017

September 1, 2017 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday September 2, 2017

Ticats’ Miserable Days, Summed Up

Football can be a dangerous, brutal sport. It’s particularly bad for brains. So far, most of the supporting evidence for that has come from studying the brains of dead players. Today, we’re going to change that.

For more than two years, The Spectator has been involved in a unique collaboration with a team of McMaster University researchers. We’ve been conducting sophisticated brain scanning experiments on nearly two dozen retired CFL football players to measure the long-term impacts of concussions and repeated hits to the head.

We believe this is the first study anywhere to report findings from living former football players using such a wide array of tests.

The results are “shocking,” one of our experts said. (Source: Hamilton Spectator)

Meanwhile, In a span of less than a day, the Hamilton Tiger-Cats went from controversy to contrition over the hiring of disgraced former coach Art Briles.

Team owner Bob Young and CEO Scott Mitchell both apologized for adding Briles as assistant head coach on Monday, an offer that was rescinded following an outcry from fans and an intervention by the Canadian Football League.

“Clearly, what was being contemplated was totally unacceptable to the general public and the media,” Mitchell said Tuesday. “I think when we took a step back and had a chance to talk to the league and some of our partners and some of our fans, what we thought was an opportunity to give somebody a second chance was clearly not acceptable in relation to what had previously happened and what (Briles) had been involved with.” (Source: Hamilton Spectator)

Wednesday June 1, 2016

May 31, 2016 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday June 1, 2016

Uncertain Senate awaits Medically assisted dying bill

When C-14, the Liberal government’s legislation to regulate medically assisted death, passed the House at second reading four weeks ago, the vote was 235 in favour, 75 against.

That vote though was likely the easiest C-14 will face. At second reading, MPs are only asked to approve a bill in principle. A member with reservations can vote in favour and hope to see the legislation amended when it goes to a House committee for further study.

On Monday night, with a slightly amended bill reported back to the House, the margin of approval was more than halved, with C-14 passing by a vote of 192 to 129. A series of amendments moved in the House were defeated immediately beforehand.

Just one Liberal and one New Democrat voted nay at second reading, but upon further review, and having seen what amendments the majority was willing to accept, four Liberal MPs voted against, as did all NDP MPs. Still, 19 Conservatives were willing to support the bill, and with those votes on side, C-14 still passed comfortably.

That result suggests the bill will pass again at third reading, a vote that is expected to occur as early as Tuesday evening.

It is at that point that the C-14’s margin for passage becomes somewhat mysterious. After passing the House of Commons, C-14 will be delivered to the Senate, an upper chamber in the midst of an experiment in legislative independence.

“The outcome I think is beyond my ability to predict,” says Liberal Senate leader James Cowan.

It is seemingly unlikely the Senate will finish with the bill by June 6, the Supreme Court’s deadline for new legislation, something Health Minister Jane Philpott seemed to concede on Monday.

“We are at risk of not meeting the June 6th deadline,” she said. “Having said that, it is my hope that we can see this piece of legislation put into effect at the very soon as possible date.”

The potential impact of any lack of legislation is a matter of some debate, but regardless of when C-14 receives royal assent, it still remains to be seen precisely how, and in what form, it will get there. (Source: CBC News)

Hearing from the Lawyers

May 13, 2016 by Graeme MacKay

Through my website I offer for sale some of my cartoons on a variety of products from t-shirts to coffee cups. It’s mainly a means to get my work out beyond the newspapers and put a few coins in my pocket. To do this I use the company Redbubble.com to manufacture and send out the swag. All I have to do is upload images, adjust how they’ll appear, and add relevant descriptions and keywords. Every month, I get a tiny royalty knowing which images sold, on what products, and on which continent.

It’s all quite fun until work is removed due to a charge of violating Redbubble’s IP/Publicity Rights Policy. Which happened to me when the Content Team sent the following email informing me of a complaint received by WN Music Company, LLC, regarding my caricature of Willie Nelson:

It’s a form letter so I’m not sure if the violation is using the lyric “Always on my mind”, or merely capitalizing on the Willie Nelson brand. Whatever the case I sense a mixture of emotions ranging from feeling like a criminal for looting Willie Nelson’s stash and besmirching his reputation, to being oppressed by big Music for freely expressing my admiration for a legend in a whimsical little doodle.

After a bit of reflection the position I find myself feeling is somewhere in the middle. As a cartoonist, I’ve had my own experience of others taking my work and repurposing it for their own benefit. I’m assuming the lawyers don’t like my use of the lyric, and the image was just the kicker in its eradication from the Redbubble site. The same sort of thing happened to another swag creator when lawyers for Taylor Swift sent a cease and desist letter for using her song lyrics on a coffee cup

The legal department at Redbubble.com must deal with a horrendous amount of copyright infringement complaints and a casual look through will find blatant rip offs of other artists and brands. It’s impossible for Redbubble to properly regulate until complaints are filed, and when they are it’s way easier for them to remove the offending item and not get involved in the legal wrangling that might ensue between the two parties.

While the free speech/expresionist instinct kicked in and I thought about removing the lyric and reposting the caricature as “Nillie Welson”, it’s not a sword I’m willing to fall on. It’s one thing to use the caricature of public personality in an editorial cartoon printed in a newspaper, and quite another to make money on that personality’s image.

Victory for the Willie Nelson brand, I suppose, and I’ll still enjoy his music.