Politics

The politics of judging our judges – Toronto Star

Published

3 years ago

July 27, 2021

“Representation matters” is the refrain I have heard repeatedly since the appointment of Mahmud Jamal, a person of colour, to the Supreme Court of Canada. His appointment has been almost universally celebrated for this reason, by lawyers, politicians and the media.

My mom (a nonlawyer) even texted me the day of the announcement to express her excitement. She, similar to Justice Jamal, is an Ismaili Muslim born in Uganda, who came to Canada as a refugee (Jamal, born in Kenya and raised an Ismaili Muslim, later became a Baha’i).

But I can’t say I share my mom’s excitement. After all, “Brown faces in high places” doesn’t mean better outcomes for most Brown people, or for that matter, most Black and Indigenous peoples, or other groups who are disempowered and marginalized through the legal system. If anything, “Brown faces in high places” is a testament to the durability of colonialism and white supremacy, insulating existing power relations from critique by diversifying their hue.

A good example is Clarence Thomas, the only current Black Supreme Court judge in the United States and notorious for his right-wing judgments. Just two summers ago, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Black man tried six times by juries that were all or almost entirely white, because the prosecutor was deliberately removing Black jurors. Justice Thomas dissented and would have upheld the illegitimate conviction.

While our legal system is no doubt different than the United States, judging remains an inherently political exercise. Judges don’t just “call balls and strikes” in applying the law. Judges are human. They decide cases based on their own view of what “justice” entails.

That’s hardly a secret; one of the most influential appellate judges in Canada, the now-retired John Laskin, put it this way: “we are powerfully influenced by the equities of the case, by the needs of real people. If we have to, we will bend the law to reach a fair result.”

But if judges decide cases based largely on what they perceive to be a fair and just result, that asks the question, how does a judge define fairness and justice? That principle becomes even more pronounced at the Supreme Court, where judges are not constrained by precedent and better able to shape the law in their own vision.

As Justice Thomas demonstrates, racial identity does not determine world view. For this reason, I care very little that Jamal is a person of colour — I’m more interested in what he thinks about the law. In my view, the greatest insight comes from his 23-year career in corporate law.

Because our legal system is adversarial, it often requires lawyers to decide which group of “adversaries” they wish to represent, which is a choice driven primarily if not exclusively by a lawyer’s politics.

For example, some lawyers decide to work for unions rather than management, tenants rather than landlords, criminal defendants rather than the prosecution, and non-citizens rather than immigration enforcement. Some lawyers don’t care who they represent and work for “all sides.” Relatedly, lawyers often differentiate clients through ability to pay — some prioritize working for low-income people on legal aid, rather than the wealthy who can afford exorbitant hourly rates.

As a corporate lawyer, Jamal worked predominantly for the powerful. Reported cases show that he represented banks, mining companies, accounting firms, and the energy industry, i.e. entities responsible for the exploitation and oppression of the vast majority.

If Justice Jamal’s chosen legal career — i.e. his decades-long commitment to furthering the interests of Canadian capital — gives some insight into his views about the law, what does that mean for people of colour, especially Indigenous peoples residing within and outside of Canada? It is they who are often on the other side of the courtroom, and on occasion, were facing off against corporations represented by Justice Jamal.

All of this is to say, it’s difficult to celebrate mere representation, when a diverse Supreme Court is not necessarily any more just. Perhaps the more pertinent question is whether reforming a colonial institution can ever be an anti-racist victory, or we should instead focus our efforts on supporting social movements in their fight for a more just world.

Riaz Sayani is a criminal defence lawyer practising in Toronto.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Politics

RFK Jr. says Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water. ‘It’s possible,’ Trump says

Published

17 hours ago

November 4, 2024

Anne Joseph

PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.

Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.

“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.

Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”

The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”

Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”

The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.

In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.

Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.

In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.

A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.

In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.

But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.

“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.

Source link

Politics

Danielle Smith receives overwhelming support at United Conservative Party convention

Published

17 hours ago

November 4, 2024

Anne Joseph

Danielle Smith receives overwhelming support at United Conservative Party convention

Source link

Politics

America’s Election: What it Means to Canadians

Published

2 days ago

November 2, 2024

Steven Kaszab

Americans and Canadians are cousins that is true. Allies today but long ago people were at loggerheads mostly because of the British Empire and American ambitions.

Canadians appreciate our cousins down south enough to visit them many millions of times over the year. America is Canada’s largest and most important trading partner. As a manufacturer, I can attest to this personally. My American clients have allowed our firm to grow and prosper over the past few decades. There is a problem we have been seeing, a problem where nationalism, both political and economic has been creating a roadblock to our trade relationship.

Both Democrats and Republicans have shown a willingness to play the “buy only American Made product” card, a sounding board for all things isolationist, nationalistic and small-mindedness. We all live on this small planet, and purchase items made from all over the world. Preferences as to what to buy and where it is made are personal choices, never should they become a platform of national pride and thuggery. This has brought fear into the hearts of many Canadians who manufacture for and service the American Economy in some way. This fear will be apparent when the election is over next week.

Canadians are not enemies of America, but allies and friends with a long tradition of supporting our cousins back when bad sh*t happens. We have had enough of the American claim that they want free trade, only to realize that they do so long as it is to their benefit. Tariffs, and undue regulations applied to exporters into America are applied, yet American industry complains when other nations do the very same to them. Seriously! Democrats have said they would place a preference upon doing business with American firms before foreign ones, and Republicans wish to tariff many foreign nations into oblivion. Rhetoric perhaps, but we need to take these threats seriously. As to you the repercussions that will come should America close its doors to us.

Tit for tat neighbors. Tariff for tariff, true selfish competition with no fear of the American Giant. Do you want to build homes in America? Over 33% of all wood comes from Canada. Tit for tat. Canada’s mineral wealth can be sold to others and place preference upon the highest bidder always. You know who will win there don’t you America, the deep-pocketed Chinese.

Reshaping our alliances with others. If America responds as has been threatened, Canadians will find ways to entertain themselves elsewhere. Imagine no Canadian dollars flowing into the Northern States, Florida or California? The Big Apple without its friendly Maple Syrup dip. Canadians will realize just how significant their spending is to America and use it to our benefit, not theirs.

Clearly we will know if you prefer Canadian friendship to Donald Trumps Bravado.

China, Saudi Arabia & Russia are not your friends in America. Canada, Japan, Taiwan the EU and many other nations most definitely are. Stop playing politics, and carry out business in an unethical fashion. Treat allies as they should be treated.

Steven Kaszab
Bradford, Ontario
skaszab@yahoo.ca