FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Oct 7

Would Trump Really Enact the Insurrection Act?

by bcurry

The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the president to use active-duty military personnel to perform law-enforcement duties inside the U.S.  Unfortunately, the Insurrection Act was written in fairly broad terms, with little specific guidance on how and when the powers can be used.  It apparently gives presidents wide latitude in deciding when to mobilise military personnel for domestic operations.  Presidents can invoke the law if they determine that “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” against the government make it “impracticable to enforce” U.S. law “by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”.  To date, President Trump has chosen not to invoke this Act.  One important reason is that if he chooses to invoke the Act, it remains unclear what further legal challenges he might face.  Since the start of his second term, he has sent or talked about sending troops to 10 American cities.

Already, the Trump administration is facing numerous challenges to his use of federalizing the National Guard in cases involving Los Angeles and Chicago.  Most recently, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying any National Guard units to Portland, Oregon, including the California National Guard.  U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, issued the order pending further arguments in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.  She said the relatively small protests the city has seen did not justify the use of federalized forces and allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.  California and Oregon also sought the temporary restraining order after U.S. President Donald Trump sent guard members from California to Oregon.  The same judge temporarily blocked his administration from deploying Oregon National Guard troops to Portland.  This upset Trump who then talked about invoking the Insurrection Act.

The use of the Insurrection Act has normally been under very exceptional circumstances since its first use by Abraham Lincoln when the southern states rebelled during the US Civil War, and by former President Ulysses S Grant against a wave of racist violence by the Ku Klux Klan after the war.  It was last used by President George Bush in 1992 when massive riots broke out in Los Angeles over the acquittal of four white police officers in the beating of Rodney King, a black man.  The American government has traditionally worked to limit the use of military force on American soil, especially against its own citizens.  Its use would be an extreme option in order to allow the Trump administration to circumvent legal hurdles.  It was reported that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller in creditably declared that the government was facing a “legal insurrection”, and that court rulings against its law enforcement efforts were tantamount to “an insurrection against the laws and Constitution of the United States”. 

Suggesting that the use of the military to assist local police forces, as was the case in Washington, D.C., in fighting urban criminal activities would appear to be an extreme measure and one which does not inspire confidence in local and state police forces.  There has to date been no real evidence of any form of organized insurrection in American cities.  Suggesting that the police cannot deal with civil protests against such policies as the Trump administration’s approach to the potential arrests of illegal undocumented persons has been greatly exaggerated.  In effect, the appearance of military personnel on the streets only makes the potential angry reaction of peaceful protesting groups even more likely, especially when they are exposed to the use of tear gas and other riot control measures.

Invoking the Insurrection Act under the current circumstances would be a serious political and policy mistake on the part of the President.  It would certainly strengthen the perception that this administration has become increasingly authoritarian in its use of presidential powers, very often attempting to circumvent the judicial system.  I strongly believe that given its very definition, there is no existing insurrection in the U.S., armed or otherwise.  The very use of this term has been severely abused by the Trump administration, and can only lead to much more unrest by the citizenry in the affected cities of this great nation. 

Civil Rights Donald Trump Judicial System Urban Issues US

Leave a comment »
Mar 17

Donald Trump’s Administration Is Clearly Showing Signs Of Becoming Despotic

by bcurry

The Oxford English Dictionary states that a despot is “a ruler who exercises absolute power especially in a cruel and oppressive way.”  Anyone who has studied American governance under the constitution understands that it provides for “checks and balances.”  In order to do this, there are three basic pillars: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.  However, today we are seeing an evident weakening of two of these principle pillars under the Trump administration.  There is little doubt that attacks are being made against the justice system and the rule of law.  The President has entered into a new process never before witnessed in the U.S., other than during times of wars.  The President is abusing his powers while contesting the roles of the courts and of Congress.  He is undermining the very constitutional rights of many people, whether citizens, legally living or refugees in the U.S.

The latest example is that of Mahmoud Khalil, a young U. of Columbia graduate student who is married to an American citizen, living in New York, and recently obtained a green card giving him permanent residency in the U.S. Mr. Khalil has never been charged with a criminal offence.  On March 8th, Mr. Khalil was arrested by ICE officers and flown to LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana.  On March 10th, District Judge Jesse Furman ordered that the Trump administration not deport Khalil pending judicial review of his arrest.  Mr. Khalil was a student activist and negotiator in the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupations.  After student protests on numerous American campuses, President Trump issued an executive order promising to combat anti-semitism and prosecute or “remove” perpetrators of such views.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has cited a little-used 1952 Cold-War era statute as the rationale for Mr. Khalil’s detention. The law says that the government can initiate deportation proceedings against anyone whose presence in the country is deemed adversarial to the U.S. foreign policy interests.  Rubio subsequently posted a threat to deport Hamas supporters. No one has yet provided any proof that Mr. Khalil has a direct or indirect connection Hamas.  If anything, he was actively exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech in a peaceful manner.  Needless-to-say, there were those, including Trump who would deny this right because they simply did not agree with his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including some Columbia administrators.  For this reason, he was targeted from the outset.

Just this past weak, Trump signed an executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to rapidly arrest and deport those the administration identifies as gang members without many of the legal processes common in immigration cases. The enemies law allows for summary deportations of people from countries at war with the United States.  One result is the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador, some of whom are claimed by the administration to be gang members.  Subsequently, Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court in Washington issued a temporary restraining order blocking the government from deporting any immigrants under the law after Trump’s order invoking it.  In a hastily scheduled hearing sought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the judge said he did not believe that federal law allowed the President’s action.  Now there is serious contention over whether the Trump administration had ignored an explicit court order, given that the deportees are currently in the El Salvador prison.

Moreover, there appears to be an apparent use of unproven assertions pertaining to ensuring matters related to “national security”, without undergoing the normal “due process” in providing proof or clear evidence before the courts.  In addition, it is obvious that Trump is blatantly “weaponizing” the Department of Justice to do his bidding, something that he falsely claimed had be done to him in the past.  In my opinion, Trump’s actions are increasingly becoming those of a despot.  Whether you agree with me or not, these are certainly dangerous times for American governance!

Civil Rights Donald Trump Free Speech Immigration Judicial System US

Leave a comment »
Feb 9

Politicization of Health Issues in North America

by bcurry

The last few decades have seen a greater politicization of a number of issues related to health.  The clear division among pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine proponents during the COVID pandemic was a major indication of such politicization, with even public officials taking up one side or another.  The pandemic raised a number of health issues in both the U.S. and Canada, forcing governments and medical practitioners to support one side or the other.  However, the science was clear and supported the need for a vaccine and the various societal restrictions introduced to protect peoples’ lives.  The high number of COVID-related deaths, particularly in the first year of the pandemic, confirmed the urgency for action in order to minimize the terrible impact of the virus on the population at large.  Results indicated that where individuals were not immunized, the probability of serious health consequences and even death was that much higher.  Many ended up placing an extreme hardship on the health care system and communities.

In the U.S., the recent Supreme Court’s decision which overturned Roe vs. Wade — a 1973 landmark decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion — opened up the door to reviving the whole issue surrounding abortion, another primarily health issue.  Again, pro-life and pro-choice groups became more politically active in many states, with some state governments enacting laws introducing all kinds of restrictions on abortion, sometimes leading in practice to an outright ban.  This placed medical practitioners in a difficult situation, often putting a woman’s health in jeopardy as a result of the loss of the abortion option. 

More recently, governments in Canada and the U.S. have or plan to introduce legislation to support planned policy changes affecting transgender and non-binary youth and adults.  Often under the banner of “parental rights”, the laws aim to restrict health-care options for such youth and inform parents of any name and gender identity changes students request at school.  Age limits are being prescribed for the use by medical practitioners of puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender affirmation.  As a result, medical experts and patients are weighing in on gender-affirming care and the potential impact of such laws on affected youth.  They believe that limiting their access to care will put some kids at risk of self-harm, especially with respect to their mental health.  Psychiatrists who see gender-diverse youth and adult patients believe that to outlaw access to puberty blockers ignores best practices, guidelines and international standards of care endorsed by major medical associations.  Such laws are an unnecessary and unconstitutional political intrusion into the personal health choices of children, their parents and their doctors.  What is difficult to understand is that it appears to be the policy equivalent to hitting a fly with a hammer, given that the issue affects a very tiny portion of the population, often depicted as representing well less than one percent of children and adolescents.

When it comes to personal health matters, I believe that the majority of people would prefer that the government stay out of the equation.  In Canada, we saw a similar political split during past debates on the issue of medical assistance in dying (referred to as MAiD).  There were those that opposed MAiD primarily on religious beliefs, compared to the medical profession and civil rights groups who argued in favour of assisting those with terminal diseases, living with pain, in anguish, and with no hope for a cure.  In the six years since assisted dying was decriminalized by the Canadian Parliament in 2016, more patients are seeking MAiD year over year as this option becomes more widely known and available.  Since the introduction of this practice into the Canadian healthcare system, over 40,000 Canadians have taken advantage of the option. Decisions for assisted dying are left to the individual, his or her family and their medical practitioners, using several prescribed guidelines developed under the program.

I don’t know about you, but I want to make decisions about my health with the least amount of government interference or that of politically motivated groups.  I want decisions to be based on the best science at the time and the experience and input of medical practitioners.  There has been far too much politicization of health issues, driven by motives that most likely have nothing to do with the freedom to determine what is right for each person.  Our beliefs are our own.  As long as one is not harming anyone else, our health-related choices are our business. 

Canada Civil Rights COVID-19 Health Care Health Care Systen Mandatory Vaccination US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Oct 15

Overriding Canadian Human Rights Legislation Via Use of Notwithstanding Clause 

by bcurry

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the revised Constitution of Canada created back in 1982.  It is commonly known as the “notwithstanding clause”, sometimes referred to as the override power and was included at the time so as to have the majority of provinces agree to the new constitution.  The clause allows Canada’s Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override certain sections of the Charter when introducing new legislation.  It is unique among the constitutions of democratic countries and gives federal and provincial governments the ability to ignore most of the constitutional rights of Canadians other than the right to vote, the seating of legislatures and the House of Commons, mobility rights and language rights.  One extraordinary provision is that no explanation for such a move is required.  The U.S, Constitution gives no such powers to the states, but it does authorize Congress to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts.  However, not since World War II has Congress mustered the requisite majority to do so.

For much of our new constitution’s history, it was rarely used by provinces (the federal government has never invoked it) and was politically regarded as an option of last resort.  However, the notwithstanding clause has since been used by Alberta in 2000, and Quebec in 2001 and 2005.  In addition, most Canadian provinces, including Quebec and Alberta, have their own human rights Act, which protects people in a province from discrimination in certain areas, such as employment, accommodation, and access to services, based on specified grounds (‘protected characteristics’).  Recently in 2022, Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford of Ontario threatened to invoke the clause to take the right to strike from teachers but subsequently abandoned his plan due to political pressures and the threat of future court challenges.

More recently, invocation of the notwithstanding clause by provinces has to do with the introduction of so-called “parental rights” legislation, similar to that found in Florida and some southern U.S. states’.  Such laws primarily govern the use the preferred names and genders of schoolchildren.  In June of this year, the premier of New Brunswick, Blaine Higgs, introduced legislation which requires teachers to get the permission of a child’s parents if the child is under the age of 16.  Now the issue has surfaced again in Saskatchewan.  Following the lead of Mr. Higgs, Premier Scott Moe recently recalled his province’s legislature to introduce a similar bill.  If passed, it will mandate parents’ consent for a number of things including the use by any pupil under 16 of a new gender-related preferred name or gender identity at school.

One expert observer noted that provinces tend to use the notwithstanding clause to feed their base the idea that we’ve gone too far in human rights and that the courts have been leading us in the wrong way.  The belief is that elected officials need to capture back their power.  It’s also suggested that its use has resulted in more “wedge politics.”  Remember that introducing such legislation will take away the individual rights of those directly affected, such as in the above cases involving the rights of a child.  Psychiatrists and social workers have noted that there are potential harmful consequences of forcing teachers to contact parents regarding such matters, especially where the child may fear a hostile reaction by their parents to gender-related matters.  Where once before a child could turn in confidence to a teacher or school counsellor for information and assistance, the child may now be much more hesitant to do so.  The detrimental result may be the potential emergence of social and mental health issues.

It has been suggested that in some cases the courts might ultimately end the ability of premiers and prime ministers to preemptively set the constitution aside when it comes to human rights legislation.  This was the most recent case in Ontario over the right to strike by teachers.  Never-the-less, the concern over the use of the Charter’s withstanding clause by provinces should remain a serious concern among Canadians.  After all, who’s next to have their individual rights taken away by a government?  Where does it all end?  The continuing use of this provision will ultimately water down those protections afforded to us under both federal and provincial human rights laws.

Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms Civil Rights Quebec's Bill 21 US

Leave a comment »
May 10

America Wanted to be Great Again.  Now It’s Just Sick!

by bcurry

I know what I’m about to write is controversial.  However, it is true and the facts bear it out.  During and after the pandemic, the U.S. like a lot of countries went through very difficult times.  Over a million Americans died due to COVID and many more were ill and now face what has become known as long COVID.  The rate for COVID-related deaths was the highest on a per-capita basis among industrialized countries.  Although a vaccine existed, a large number of Americans refused to get immunized and even prevented their children from being protected against this horrific disease.  Now, corporate giants are buying up primary care practices at a rapid pace in order to institute what is now referred to as corporate medicine.  In order to take advantage of the growing privatization of Medicare and an aging population, deals are being made which will risk shifting the balance in health care from quality treatment to profits.  Today, nearly seven in ten of all American doctors are either employed by a hospital or a corporation, with primary care doctors increasing simply becoming employees.  It’s all tied to billing.  As for Medicaid coverage, as pandemic protection expires, states are again determining which people are eligible for the health insurance program.  Millions could potentially lose access to their current coverage. 

Then there is the issue of abortion.  More and more states have placed either greater restrictions on legal abortions or have effectively banned abortions within their states.  Anti-abortion factions have even initiated lawsuits aimed at questioning the safety of medication abortion, the method used in more than half of abortions in the U.S.  They are trying to block legal access to mifepristone, a drug approved years ago by the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) as being safe.  The Justice Department strongly disputed the claims in these lawsuits The F.D.A.’s rigorous reviews of mifepristone over the years repeatedly reaffirmed its decision to approve mifepristone, which blocks a hormone that allows a pregnancy to develop.  In addition, where states have placed strict prohibitions on abortions, doctors are complaining that the health of pregnant women can be seriously endangered due to their inability to perform an abortion for medical reasons, resulting in needless suffering.

Then there is the record number of mass shootings so far this year in the U.S.  To date, there have been 22 mass killings in 2023, defined as four or more people killed, not including the perpetrator.  According to the Gun Violence Archive, a non-profit publicly sourced database, there have also been at least 202 mass shootings in the U.S. so far this year, leaving 792 victims injured and 276 dead.  The archive defines a mass shooting as at least four victims struck by gunfire.  Military-styled assault weapons, used in most of these shooting are everywhere, and apparently easily purchased by anyone without stringent background checks.  As usual, Republicans and gun owners offer their condolences and prayers, often alluding to some form of mental illness as the primary cause.  While mental illness is a concern, studies have shown that the majority of the shooters acted because of other motivations, including hate and anger directed at particular groups and individuals.  There appears to be no end to these tragedies in sight.

Then there are the growing actions by certain states over transgender youth.  Over the past three years, Republican state lawmakers have put forward a barrage of bills to regulate the lives of transgender youths, restricting the sports teams they can play on, bathrooms they can use and medical care they can receive.  The people pushing these laws include Christian conservatives — among them some of the same figures who fought the legalization of gay marriage.  Medical groups have overwhelmingly rejected arguments by conservative activists emphasizing parental control and child protection and calling transition care harmful.  They note that transgender people have higher rates of depression and suicide.  Research shows that transition care — which can involve puberty blockers, hormones or surgery, though minors rarely receive surgery — can improve mental health.

Over all, the list goes on and on and on.  I have not even touched on issues related to climate change which several state governments continue to ignore and disavow.  I used to look up to the U.S., but no more.  Its policies now represent the elements of one very sick society.

Abortion Civil Rights Conservative Political Groups Health Care US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Mar 30

No Democracy Today Can Avoid Being Tested By Political Turmoil

by bcurry

President Joe Biden recently visited Canada for what became a real love-in with his opposite Justin Trudeau, the Canadian Prime Minister.  In his speech to Parliament, Biden frequently related to the close relationship to Canada, including our democratic values and institutions.  However, all is not well in both countries.  The U.S. had last year’s violent January 6th insurrection at the Capital and Canada had the truckers’ 3-week illegal occupation of streets within Ottawa’s parliamentary precinct.  Observers claim that a lot of these events are related to what is perceived by some Americans and Canadians as a lack of trust in police, the courts and government at all levels.  What’s worst, in the U.S. you had a former president who refused to accept the results of the last presidential election and today continues to espouse to his followers that the election was stolen.

This past week, President Biden delivered remarks at the second White House-led Summit for Democracy, but at a time when several democracies are under duress of some kind.  One can refer to political conditions in so-called significant democratic countries such as Israel, Mexico, India and Brazil.  Democratic setbacks have also occurred in West Africa, where there have been coups in Mali and Burkina Faso in recent years.  For example, in Nigeria, a country of 220 million people, experts say that the presidential election last February appeared suspect.  At the above noted summit, two notable members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Hungary and Turkey, were excluded in light of fact that their autocratic political systems have grown no less repressive during Mr. Biden’s tenure.

Underlying all this issue is the fact that dictatorships such as Russia and China have been trying to increase their economic and political influence in countries, particularly in Africa and South America.  Both the governments of Russia and China have been accused of having meddled in recent American and Canadian electoral processes.  Dealing effectively with these countries needs to be done in order to avoid any foreign influence in democratic processes.

In the U.S., even the fundamental right of Americans to vote is being challenged in some states where various forms of new voting restrictions or requirements have being implemented or considered, notably by Republican states.  In some cases, such restrictions will especially affect voting by minority groups, college students and marginalized persons. 

Unfortunately, much of political turmoil has been the result of extreme divisions within our societies and large amounts of misinformation and disinformation being spread through on-line social media.  Mainstream media sources, fundamentally important to supporting democratic processes, are continuously under attack.  Journalists themselves have been verbally and physically attacked by extreme politicized groups, both right and left.

Human and civil rights are in danger of being weakened in democratic countries.  Many of the important gains achieved by LGBTQ groups in the last couple of decades are increasingly coming under attack, especially by religious right-wing segments of our societies.  Organized local protests have even occurred against school boards in both countries, and appear to be gaining strength.  Elected school board representatives have increasingly come under attack when it comes to school policies protecting the rights of LGBTQ youth and education regarding sexual orientation.

Generally, trust and confidence in our democratic institutions has to be restored in order to maintain our taken-for-granted freedoms.  Civility has to return to how we conduct our affairs and the rule of law has to be strengthened.  Otherwise, we will only see more and more serious threats to democracies, either here in Canada, the U.S. or abroad.  Words and platitudes are all fine, but actions are now needed.

Canada Civil Rights Elections Extremism Extremist Groups Joe Biden Leadership Mainstream Media Social Media US

Leave a comment »
Jan 14

Is Banning Books in American Schools Discrimination Under Civil Rights Legislation?

by bcurry

Back in March of last year I posted a blog on https://froliticks.ca entitled: book-banning-in-american-schools-continues-to-grow-what-next-burning-books/.  In that blog, I outlined the continuing issue of American schools nationwide quietly removing books from their libraries, particularly books dealing with discussions of race, gender, sex, the Holocaust and LGBTQ identities.  Now, the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has opened an investigation into a Texas school district over its alleged removal of books featuring LGBTQ characters — marking the first test of a new legal argument that failing to represent students in school books can constitute discrimination.  The federal government agency is investigating the Granbury Independent School District as the result of a complaint of discrimination lodged last summer by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas.  Experts suggest that if the federal government finds in the ACLU’s favour, the determination could have implications for schools nationwide, forcing libraries to stock more books about LGBTQ individuals and requiring administrators, amid a rising tide of book challenges and bans, to develop procedures ensuring student access to books that some Americans, especially right-leaning parents, deem unacceptable.

President Biden’s administration recently interpreted Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination in public schools on the basis of sex, as forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity – a finding that is key to the ACLU chapter’s argument.  It is predicted that the proposed federal probe is likely to proceed slowly, taking one to two years, and, if successful, could generate penalties for the school district ranging from nothing to a reduction in federal funding to government-mandated training on inclusivity.  In addition, it has been reported that library and free speech advocates are taking notice.  John Chrastka, who heads the national political action committee EveryLibrary, said he was thrilled when he realized the scope and implications of the Texas ACLU’s argument that book banning could violate federal anti-discrimination laws.  This year, Mr. Chrastka said, EveryLibrary plans to repeat that contention in amicus briefs it will file in lawsuits against school book banning.

Unfortunately, proceeding with various forms of litigation takes time and also can result in other consequences when judgements are rendered.  Decisions rendered can open up other cans of worms, including greater availability of and accessibility to teaching of school materials on religion.  However, one must weigh the benefits of having freedom of thought in an open and democratic society, suggesting that any kind of indiscriminate book bans can lead to thought control and authoritarian measures.  Any decision will likely be contested by Texas as a possible infringement of its jurisdiction over education within school districts in the state.  The matter may even eventually end up going to the Supreme Court, which again would further delay any move to eliminate discriminatory and arbitrary book banning in their libraries by School Boards.

In the above noted blog, I claimed that “throughout formal education today, children will be faced with information and discussion about a number of difficult topics — where better than in schools.  People need to place more trust in educators, who after all have extensively studied and researched many of these topics in compiling their curriculum.  Misinformed and indiscriminate censorship doesn’t have any place in these processes, especially where educators and librarians unfortunately can end up facing daily harassment by fringe groups.  Freedom of thought and practice should be the foundation of a public school education, while respecting the rights of all parents and not just a few.”

Civil Rights Education in U.S. US

Leave a comment »
Blog at WordPress.com.