As carefully explained at Got Medieval:
Newt Gingrich’s claims about how the proposed Cordoba House (or “Ground Zero Mosque” as it is often erroneously called) is named after a massive symbol of Muslim imperialism is so very, very wrong.
(Not mentioned in the post, although raised in the comments, is that the Cordoba mosque is currently a symbol of Christian imperialism, having been catherdralized after the Reconquista.)
A brilliant, brilliant commentary on gender identity and the Will/Jack debate by the always engaging Mr. Fry:
There was a time when polari and Julian and Sandy and limp-wristed mincing and winking innuendo were all that came between a certain kind of gay man and his pride, his self-respect and his ability to hold his head high in a hostile world. Read Quentin Crisp’s The Naked Civil Servant or watch John Hurt’s glorious portrayal. It is not the only way for a gay man to be, no one is saying it should be, but it is a wholly proper and acceptable manner (not to mention an often loveable and witty one) and to see it traduced with superiority by the very people who should be supporting and endorsing it sickens me.
Read the whole thing here.
From the always fantastic Hijinks Ensue, a fragment of today’s excellent comic:
Go see the whole thing: Let your geek gavel fly
I was all prepared to get huffy when this came up on my RSS feeder:
Judging the judges
Is the Supreme Court becoming a threat to parliament?
The article is not anti-judge, as I’d feared, but rather about a strong (activist?) judiciary being a necessary bulwark against a strong executive and a weak legislature. I, of course, always prefer a strong judiciary (assuming they are also competent and just) because I have a deep-seated antipathy for tyranny of the majority and in the face of the decline of the upper houses, the judiciary remains our only chamber of sober second thought. Granted the nobility of the House of Lords has always struck me as quaintly outdated, but I am a firm supporter of the Double-E senate: equal and effective, yes, but certainly not elected. Because an elected Senate, like an elected judiciary, would simply be another tool of the majority and could not be depended upon to protect the minority, responsible as they would be to their constituents.
As for our senate, I’ve always felt it unfairly maligned. Sure it gets stacked be every sitting government, and granted it doesn’t do much in the way of making, as opposed to breaking laws, but it does important work in vetting legislation and studying it, so I don’t think it’s outlived its usefulness yet. On top of which, their decor is awesome:
Courtesy of Justice Russell in Champagne v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1204
[26] Not having regard for the totality of the evidence is an error of law. See Toro v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1981] 1 F.C. 652, [1980] F.C.J. No. 192. A claim in which the basic facts have been misconstrued should be set aside. Indeed, the Court has held that misconstruing evidence that forms the basis of the claim is a fundamental error. See Adamjee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 1815. Moreover, a failure to mention facts that are a basis for the claim also constitutes a reviewable error. Fainshtein v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No. 941. The Applicants cite and rely on many cases in which a decision has been set aside based on a misapprehension of the facts. See, for example, Mbiya v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1001 and Thambirasa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 205.
Afanasyev v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 737
Decision by de Montigny granting judicial review of inadmissibility under s. 34 (and refusal to grant Ministerial relief under s. 34(2)).
The Applicant served in the Soviet military from 1985 to 1987, and reported on radio transmissions; he was declared inadmissible under 34(a) and (f), namely:
engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;
…or being a member of an organisation that did so.
Justice de Montigny found that the officer’s findings on what, exactly, the Applicant did were problematic on multiple fronts. First, the officer cited both the CSIS explanation of what the Applicant allegedly did and the Applicant’s description, without dealing with discrepancies between the two accounts. Furthermore, the decision was predicated on the officer’s understanding of “espionage”, but nowhere is that understanding explained. (paras. 32-34)
Justice de Montigny also found that the officer failed to consider Ministerial relief under s. 34(2) on the sole ground that there were not formal, separate submission on relief; there had clearly been a request for relief to be considered, and there was relevant evidence on the record (paras. 38-42)
[33] When a Visa Officer has a doubt which has no foundation in the facts and the Applicant puts her best foot forward by submitting a complete application; the Officer should seek clarification to either substantiate or eliminate the doubt. Without seeking clarification, the Officer was in no position to do either.
[39] My conclusion should not be seen as altering the discretion of
officers making decisions on section 25 applications, nor as giving the
appellants a “right to a particular outcome or to the application of a
particular legal test” (Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2002 SCC 1 (CanLII), 2002 SCC 1; [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3).
[40] However, the H&C Officer had the duty to look at all of the
appellants’ personal circumstances, including Mr. Hinzman’s beliefs and
motivations, before determining if there were sufficient reasons to make a
positive H&C decision (ibidem, Chapter 5, section 11.3). She did not. Had
the Applications Judge addressed the appellants’ ground of complaint, as stated
at paragraph 57 of his Reasons, I am convinced that he would have concluded as I
do and found that the H&C decision was significantly flawed and therefore
unreasonable.
[41] Consequently, I propose to allow the appeal and,
rendering the judgment that the Federal Court ought to have rendered, I would
set aside the decision of the Officer denying the appellants’ H&C
application and I would refer the application back for redetermination by a
different officer in accordance with these reasons.
It was an error of judgment for Octavia Nasr to write such a simplistic tweet about the death of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.
"Enter the cells of the Badam Bagh prison in Kabul, Afghanistan, and what culprits will you find locked up inside? A 16-year old recipient of an unplanned marriage proposal, a pregnant wife irrationally accused of adultery, and a veiled old woman who just displayed a "bad attitude.""
