Category Archives: Legal

The Case of the Cuban Five

by the International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban Five

A LEGAL UPDATE: THE CASE OF THE CUBAN FIVE

In September 1998, five Cuban men were arrested in Miami by FBI agents. Gerardo Hernandez, Ramón Labañino, Fernando Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and René Gonzalez were accused of the crime of conspiracy to commit espionage. The US government never accused them of actual espionage, nor did it affirm that real acts of espionage had been carried out, as no classified document had been confiscated from the Five. Their actual mission in the United States was monitoring the activities of the groups and organizations responsible for terrorist activities against Cuba. After the triumph of the Cuban revolution in 1959, Cuba had been the victim of more terrorist attacks than any other country in the world, killing 3,478 and injuring 2,099. The vastly majority of those attacks originated in southern Florida, by groups tolerated and partly financed by the US government.

After their arrest, the Five were immediately placed in solitary confinement, isolated from all other inmates for the entire 17 months of pretrial custody. For the first five months they were housed in separate cells isolated from each other as well as the other inmates. After those five months, a motion was filed by the defense asserting that their need to work on their defense was being compromised by the isolation. Four were then moved into the same single cell, with one kept housed alone, but they remained in the Special Housing Unit in isolation cells for all 17 months before their case was first brought before a court.

In spite of the vigorous objections raised by the Five’s defense, the case was tried in Miami, Florida, a community with a long history of hostility toward the Cuban government, which prevented them from receiving a fair trial.

Cuban 5

The trial, which lasted over six months, became the longest trial in United States history. More than 119 volumes of testimony and over 20,000 pages of documents were compiled, including the testimony of three retired US Army generals and a retired admiral, who agreed that no evidence of espionage existed.

Near the trial’s conclusion, when the case was about to be handed to the jury for consideration, the US government recognized in writing that it had failed to prove the main charge against Gerardo Hernandez, conspiracy to commit murder, admitting that it was facing an “insurmountable obstacle” in connection with winning the case. This charge had been added seven months after Gerardo’s arrest. However, the jury, under intense pressure brought to bear on them by the local media and Cuban-American community, nonetheless found the Five guilty of all charges.

The Five were sentenced to a total of four life sentences plus 77 years and were imprisoned in five separate maximum security prisons spread across the US without the possibility of communication with each other.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Thinking about Grandparent’s Raising Grandchildren this ‘Grandparents’ Day’

by Sarah Allan

Grandparents’ Day is a day to appreciate, recognize and celebrate every grandparent everywhere in the world. Grandparents who share time, wisdom, energy and love with grandchildren and great grandchildren; who provide child care while their children work; who spend their savings making sure their grandchildren have “a better life”; who don’t see their grandchildren and miss them dearly; and those who are raising their grandchildren 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, month after month, year after year.

In Canada, more than 65,000 children are being raised by a grandparent or other relative without any parental involvement. In British Columbia, there are almost 10,000 children who are being raised by their grandparents. This is more children than are in foster care in BC. Many of these children end up being cared for by their grandparents as the result of a crisis situation involving the child’s parents, such as the involvement of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, neglect or abandonment, drug addiction, mental health issues, incarceration or death. These amazing ‘grandparents raising grandchildren’, or ‘GRG’s’, have been referred to as the province’s ‘invisible foster care system’ as without them, the taxpayer funded foster care system would be responsible for the care and well-being of all of these children.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

La Hausse La Hausse… On the 100th Day of Student Protests in Quebec

by Annie Guglia

Je m’appelle Annie Guglia, j’ai 21 ans, je suis candidate au Baccalauréat en Administration des Affaire à l’Université du Québec À Montréal, et contrairement à ce que les médias essaient de vous faire croire, je ne suis pas ni terroriste, ni extrémiste, ni anticapitaliste, et j’arrive absolument à comprendre les répercussions directes et indirectes de mes actions.

Je sais que beaucoup de canadiens hors-Québec pensent que les étudiants québécois sont idiots et agissent en bébés gâtés depuis l’annonce de la hausse de nos frais de scolarité postsecondaires. Nous payons effectivement les droits de scolarité les moins cher en Amérique du Nord, nous en sommes conscients. Cependant, toute problématique doit être placée dans son contexte afin d’être comprise, et je trouve que la plupart des médias (et surtout anglais) exposent mal le conflit étudiant que je côtoie presque quotidiennement. Laissez-moi donc vous expliquer objectivement (ou presque) en quoi consiste la hausse imposée par le gouvernement libéral de Jean Charest, et ensuite, je placerai cette hausse dans son contexte socio-politico-économique afin d’expliquer pourquoi elle est inacceptable aux yeux de beaucoup de Québécois. 

My name is Annie Guglia. I am 21 years old, and I study management at Université du Québec à Montréal. Unlike the media is trying to convey, I am not a terrorist or extremist or anticapitalist, and I fully understand the direct and indirect consequences of my actions. I know some of you “off-Quebec” support us, and I thank you! Some others think that Quebec students are currently acting like idiots or spoiled children since our government announced a drastic tuition fee hike. We acknowledge that we pay a lot less that most people in North America, but everything in life must be put in its context to be understood. Let me explain first objectively (but not really) what the increase will be, then I will put it in its socio-politico-economic context to make you understand the reasons why the increase is so unacceptable to most Quebecers at this point.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 101 – Happy 30th Birthday!

by Sarah Allan

If you’re like me, and were born after 1982, you never knew a Canada without the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Maybe that is why so many of us never really think about the Charter and what it means, because for us, it has always been there. So, since it seems that Harper and his Conservatives are too busy selling off our natural resources and making enemies of the popultion to celebrate this important milestone in Canadian history, and to avoid taking for granted the rights and protections this prolific document provides and guarantees us as Canadians, today, on the Charter’s 30th birthday, I thought I’d give you all a run down on the Charter and it’s main provisions. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 101!

Why are you allowed to share your opinions with others as you please? The Charter! Why do you have a right to vote? The Charter! Why do you have a right to a lawyer if you’re arrested? The Charter! Why are you presumed innocent until proven guilty? The Charter! Why is the government required to treat us equally regardless of race or gender? The Charter! As you read this, I hope that you will think about how the Charter impacts your life and the lives of other Canadians, but also, I hope you will try and imagine what life would be without it, because my friends Canada would be a very different place.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Bill C-31 and Our Refugee System: A Plea for Justice

by Gregory Johannson

For those that value the liberal democratic paradigm in Canada, be alarmed. With Bill C-31 in Parliament with a majority government, the principle of equality before the law faces erosion in ways that threaten the rights of refugees and refugee claimants, and by extension, every Canadian. Indiscriminate, mandatory detention and the deliberate removal of the right to a fair hearing for certain classes of people (among other clauses in the Bill’s current form) constitute corrosive elements on our justice system. Any measure that restricts the right of a person – whether the most vulnerable or most powerful – from receiving equitable treatment in the eyes of the law is a threat, not only to those targeted, but to our society as a whole. A slippery slope indeed.

Less a shocker than an extension of a manifestly anti-refugee political trajectory, Bill C-31 is part of a legislative climate that has witnessed more steps backward than forward since Canada became the first (and to date, only) country to receive the UNHCR Nansen Medal in 1986 for ‘outstanding services in supporting refugee causes.’ It was a proud moment, but a fleeting one. Take a minute to mull over the U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement (STC), one of the more profound regressions. STC allows the U.S. – a country with a rocky past in its outlook on torture and recognition of gender as grounds for refugeehood – to make binding decisions on refugee claimants before they ever arrive in Canada.

Would we force Canadian criminals to be tried in Florida and face the death penalty? Why design a system for our society if we lack the resolve to respect its outcomes?

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simone de Beauvoir Institute’s Take on Feminism and the Bedford Decision

Simone de Beauvoir Institute at Concordia University, via Sarah Allan

The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently ruled that two elements of Canada’s prostitution laws cause harm to women (Canada Attorney General v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions_index/new_releases.htm). Specifically, the Court argues that the bawdy house provisions and the living off the avails provisions of the Criminal Code violate the security of individuals who work in the sex trade and, as such, are unconstitutional. In more simple terms, the court argues that prostitution laws put women in the sex trade at risk of violence and that these laws violate the fundamental Charter rights of sex workers.

What the Ruling Means
The ruling removes barriers for women working in the sex trade that increase their vulnerability to violence and harm. It allows them to hire a driver or a bodyguard, for example, as a way to ensure their safety-practices that were previously criminalized (living off the avails provision). It enables women to work together out of the same apartment; this practice was criminalized under the bawdy house laws. The ruling means that women can work more safely and that they can work together.

Why We Support the Ruling as Feminists
The ruling begins with the explicit statement that the question at hand is not about morality, but is rather one of constitutionality (paragraph 9). As feminists, we support a legal framework in which complex social issues are disentangled from patriarchal moral norms. Historically, the idea that women should not wear pants in church, the implicit condemnation of women who chose to have a child outside of marriage, or the notion that women who dress sexy in some way invite sexual assault and rape are different examples of the ways the patriarchal moral order has framed how women’s actions, behaviours and dress have been considered, in society at large and in the legal arena. Full equality before the law for women is facilitated when ”morality” is excluded from legal considerations.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

2 out of 3 Prostitution Laws Unconstitutional: A Partial Victory for Sex Workers

by Sarah Allan

Today, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its judgment in the matter of Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, which brought a constitutional challenge to the criminal laws that relate to prostitution. They struck down two of the three laws that were challenged, on the basis that they violated sex workers rights to take steps to ensure their own safety and security, and pretty much needlessly exposed them to increased levels of violence and harm. The five justices determined:

  • the law prohibiting brothels or ‘common bawdy houses’ was disproportionate and overbroad and should be struck down;
  • the law prohibiting ‘living off the avails of prostitution’ was overbroad, and should be read down to only apply where there are “circumstances of exploitation”;
  • the law prohbiting ‘communicating for the purposes of prostitution’ should be upheld, as they felt it served its purposes of combating street nuisance and harm to communities, in a way that outweighed other harms.
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Problem Reaction Solution – Kony 2012

by Dominique Silvan

I’m not usually a viral aficionado, but this particular 30-minute video was plastered all over Facebook and I couldn’t resist.  I was wondering what the content of this fast-spreading buzz piece could be, and why so many of my friends were beginning controversial discussions about it.

[Author’s Note: I knew I would probably want to write a little bit about my insights after watching Kony 2012, but I had no idea I would be SO motivated.  Please bear with the length of this article: I feel that without proper explanation, there would be leaps of logic and omissions of integral facts.]

Right away my heart was torn, witnessing the horrific reality of the situation that has transpired in central Africa, and indeed everywhere else it happens.  I was moved to tears, grieving for the pain and fear these abducted children soldiers and sex slaves experience.  Like everyone, I wondered how this had been allowed to happen and continue.  Surely at this point in our history, despots who wage multi-decade wars of terror on civilian populations would be an international priority for removal.

About halfway through, I became aware of my emotions and how strongly this film was encouraging me to “fight against war” and resent this criminal, Joseph Kony.  I took note of the format in which the film was presented to me, and the people and organizations involved.  I noticed that the viewer were shown the problem – a very pressing and legitimate concern for all humans who know with every cell of their body that we are peaceful and loving beings by nature.  I perceived my reaction with as much mindfulness as possible, noting a strong desire to express outrage, sorrow, and anger, and demand justice.  Promptly, the filmmaker offered up a solution: force the issue into critical international attention so we can all demand that world policy makers commit to military action in Africa.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

UBC Law Statement Against Bill C-10

by Fathima Cader and the Social Justice Action Network (SJAN) at UBC Law

The Social Justice Action Network (SJAN) at the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia has released a statement against Bill C-10, as per below. We are now seeking endorsements from UBC Law faculty, students, staff, and alumni. If that includes you and you would like to sign on, please send an email to fcader@interchange.ubc.ca or sjan.ubclaw@gmail.com with your name and affiliation. We will be publicly releasing this statement with endorsements on the morning of Friday, March 2, 2012 on the SJAN website: http://sjanubclaw.wordpress.com.

Please be advised that an initial draft of this letter, whose content was amassed from the compiled work of numerous UBC law students, was sent to Senator Mobina Jaffer earlier this week. If you are not associated with UBC Law but would like to voice your opposition to Bill C-10, you can still sign this petition: http://leadnow.ca/keep-canada-safe. This link will allow you to contact all the senators simultaneously.

UBC Law Statement Against Bill C-10

We, the undersigned faculty, students, staff, and alumni of the Faculty of Law at the University of British of Columbia are writing to register our opposition to Bill C-10, specifically with regards to its provisions on mandatory minimums, for the following reasons:

1. Deterrence

First, crime rates are dropping in Canada. Therefore, we do not need a bill that serves only to heighten hysteria. You cannot be tough on crime that does not exist, especially when the people who will be most negatively impacted by this Bill – particularly battered women, Aboriginal Canadians and people with mental health and addiction struggles – are themselves the ‘victims’ this Bill purports to protect.

Second, as we know from the US, mandatory minimums do not decrease crime rates. Indeed, the Conservative government has not put forward any evidence in this regard, especially with respect to drug-related offences.

Third, mandatory minimums cannot in fact deter crime, when the general public does not even know what mandatory minimums are and which offences carry them.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 76 other followers

%d bloggers like this: