Environmental groups concerned about potential open-net pen fish farm expansions
A coalition of environmental groups is concerned about the potential expansion of open-net pen salmon farming despite a previous promise by Ottawa to phase them out on the West Coast.
Salmon farming companies have submitted 12 applications — two of which have already been approved — to expand the size or number of net pen operations, and/or to increase the amount of fish produced at sites on the B.C. coast, according to a press release issued by four groups.
One application involves a proposal for a new Grieg Seafood farm with the capacity to produce 4,400 tonnes of Atlantic salmon in Chatham Channel, northeast of Vancouver Island, in partnership with the Tlowitsis First Nation.
The applications are being made despite the Liberal government’s promise to phase out open-net pen fish farms in B.C. waters by 2025, said Stan Proboszcz of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society.
“If the federal government does have a mandate to remove this industry, why would the industry invest in new equipment or operations?” Proboszcz said.
“It doesn’t make a lot of sense. So, that's a key question, both for the industry and the federal government.”
Any expansion of farm production amplifies the risks disease, bacteria and parasites pose to plummeting wild salmon stocks, said the coalition, which also includes the Living Oceans Society, David Suzuki Foundation, and Clayoquot Action.
Former fisheries minister Bernadette Jordan announced closures for nearly 60 per cent of the province’s commercial salmon fisheries in July to prevent the complete collapse of numerous wild salmon stocks.
The pending aquaculture applications should be denied by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) given the exceptionally low returns faced by wild salmon, Proboszcz said.
During the 2019 election, Justin Trudeau promised to end open-net pen farming in B.C. waters by 2025. However, Jordan’s mandate letter issued after the Liberals won stated DFO had to come up with a transition plan by then.
Given that the new federal Fisheries Minister Joyce Murray, MP for Vancouver Quadra, hasn’t yet received her mandate letter, it’s unclear if Ottawa’s pledge to eliminate open-net pens remains the same, Proboszcz said.
“We really haven't seen any sort of plan or roadmap for getting to that 2025 commitment,” he said.
“We hope that the mandate letter is explicit about that promise.”
Murray is absolutely committed to phasing out open-net pen salmon farms in British Columbia by 2025, the minister's office said in an email to Canada’s National Observer.
A report on the findings from initial public input sessions on the transition plan was released in July, the ministry said, adding DFO work based on that information and recommendations from Indigenous and stakeholder working groups continues.
Close collaboration with Indigenous communities, the B.C. government, industry, scientists and other stakeholders is key to developing a responsible path forward, the ministry said.
The ministry did not clarify if current aquaculture applications represent an expansion of open-net pen salmon production on the B.C. coast.
“We cannot comment on specific farms or license requests, but the minister will continue to advance the commitment to phase out open-net pen farms, and will consider this commitment when approaching aquaculture management decisions in British Columbia,” the ministry said.
The salmon farm industry was struck a blow in late 2020 when Jordan, citing input from seven First Nations, announced the closure of 19 fish farms in the contentious Discovery Islands region by July 2022.
The farms — near the aquaculture hub of Campbell River on Vancouver Island and operating along the migratory routes of juvenile salmon — were a flashpoint for heated public debate and polarized scientific opinions over the harm fish farms pose to wild salmon.
Before Jordan’s decision, the DFO determined that a number of pathogens from fish farms posed minimal risk to wild salmon.
And the region’s aquaculture companies have launched a court challenge to review the minister’s decision to close the salmon farms.
Mowi Canada West, which had 30 per cent of its production based in the Discovery Islands, recently announced the temporary closure of one of its three hatcheries beginning in May with potentially 17 employees affected.
It’s not clear if the applications to DFO from Mowi, Grieg and Cermaq Canada boost net-pen production overall, or if any of the proposed changes just shift existing production from the Discovery Islands to other regions of the coast.
Responses from the three aquaculture companies were not available before Canada’s National Observer publication deadline.
Rochelle Baker / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
Photo by Tavish Campbell of a now empty fish farm in the Discovery Islands., Canada's National Observer
Friday, December 03, 2021
Oilpatch keeping the lid on spending amid record-setting output
CALGARY — Canadian oil and gas companies have been hesitant to loosen the purse strings in spite of this fall's commodity price boom, and the arrival of the new Omicron COVID-19 variant may help to explain why.
Benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude closed at US$65.67 on Wednesday, more than 20 per cent lower than in early November prior to the arrival of the new strain of the virus. Last Friday, as news of Omicron began to spread around the globe, fears that the variant would affect economic recovery from the pandemic prompted a broad-based sell-off on the markets, with energy stocks taking the brunt of the beating.
It was a reminder of just how much uncertainty there still is in the Canadian oilpatch, and why companies are being cautious in spite of impressive recent profits as oil prices this fall spiked to levels not seen in seven years.
According to Statistics Canada, Alberta oil production in October was 119 million barrels, an all-time monthly record.
At the same time, however, Statistics Canada says oil and gas capital spending over the first three quarters of 2021 was CDN$8.5 billion, still 32 per cent below the same period during 2019 pre-pandemic.
The industry also spent less than a third of what it did during the same period of 2014. That year, capital investment in the Canadian oilpatch hit an all-time record high of CDN$81 billion.
“We’re not expecting it to go back to 2014 levels, when it broke all records," said Rob Roach, deputy chief economist for ATB Financial. "But we’re not even back to where we were during the recession of 2015-16.”
Roach said a number of factors are helping to keep the lid on capital spending, not least of which are ongoing concerns about the trajectory of the pandemic and its impact on oil prices. In addition, he said the industry has other things to worry about, including current and future pipeline capacity and transportation restraints as well as the risk that OPEC+ could change course and once again flood the market with oil.
The threat of climate change, and the risk that government policy could limit future production and demand, is also a factor, Roach said.
Amid such uncertainty, Roach said, it's not surprising that we're not seeing a boom in new projects and hiring. Even if the price of oil skyrockets next year — some analysts have suggested global oil prices could go as high as US$120 next summer — it's unlikely the boom-time sentiment of 2014 is going to return.
"Even if we got those prices, we would still face the same limitations," Roach said. "How long will it last, will OPEC change its mind on a dime and down goes the price, and what do we do long-term about climate change?"
Instead of spending, many Canadian oil and gas producers have spent much of the last year paying down debt, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Scott Norlin. And after being forced to slash dividends in 2020, companies have also taken advantage of this year's high prices to return value back to shareholders. (Suncor Energy Inc. and Cenovus Energy Inc. are among the companies that doubled their dividend recently.)
Norlin said he thinks industry spending will increase in 2022, as companies hit their debt targets and start reallocating capital to new projects. But he projects that total spending for 2022 will still only come in around the CDN$31-billion range.
“Not to say there’s not going to be growth, but I don’t think there’s going to be those massive, massive growth rates," Norlin said. “With rising prices, there’s always that knee-jerk reaction to bring rigs on and try to drill as much as you can, but operators have done a really good job (this year) of staying disciplined. Especially in Canada, they’ve sort of learned to live within cash flow.”
The Canadian Association of Energy Contractors said last week it is expecting 6,457 oil and gas wells to be drilled in 2022, a more than 25 per cent increase from 2021 and a return to pre-pandemic levels.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 2, 2021
Amanda Stephenson, The Canadian Press
CALGARY — Canadian oil and gas companies have been hesitant to loosen the purse strings in spite of this fall's commodity price boom, and the arrival of the new Omicron COVID-19 variant may help to explain why.
Benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude closed at US$65.67 on Wednesday, more than 20 per cent lower than in early November prior to the arrival of the new strain of the virus. Last Friday, as news of Omicron began to spread around the globe, fears that the variant would affect economic recovery from the pandemic prompted a broad-based sell-off on the markets, with energy stocks taking the brunt of the beating.
It was a reminder of just how much uncertainty there still is in the Canadian oilpatch, and why companies are being cautious in spite of impressive recent profits as oil prices this fall spiked to levels not seen in seven years.
According to Statistics Canada, Alberta oil production in October was 119 million barrels, an all-time monthly record.
At the same time, however, Statistics Canada says oil and gas capital spending over the first three quarters of 2021 was CDN$8.5 billion, still 32 per cent below the same period during 2019 pre-pandemic.
The industry also spent less than a third of what it did during the same period of 2014. That year, capital investment in the Canadian oilpatch hit an all-time record high of CDN$81 billion.
“We’re not expecting it to go back to 2014 levels, when it broke all records," said Rob Roach, deputy chief economist for ATB Financial. "But we’re not even back to where we were during the recession of 2015-16.”
Roach said a number of factors are helping to keep the lid on capital spending, not least of which are ongoing concerns about the trajectory of the pandemic and its impact on oil prices. In addition, he said the industry has other things to worry about, including current and future pipeline capacity and transportation restraints as well as the risk that OPEC+ could change course and once again flood the market with oil.
The threat of climate change, and the risk that government policy could limit future production and demand, is also a factor, Roach said.
Amid such uncertainty, Roach said, it's not surprising that we're not seeing a boom in new projects and hiring. Even if the price of oil skyrockets next year — some analysts have suggested global oil prices could go as high as US$120 next summer — it's unlikely the boom-time sentiment of 2014 is going to return.
"Even if we got those prices, we would still face the same limitations," Roach said. "How long will it last, will OPEC change its mind on a dime and down goes the price, and what do we do long-term about climate change?"
Instead of spending, many Canadian oil and gas producers have spent much of the last year paying down debt, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Scott Norlin. And after being forced to slash dividends in 2020, companies have also taken advantage of this year's high prices to return value back to shareholders. (Suncor Energy Inc. and Cenovus Energy Inc. are among the companies that doubled their dividend recently.)
Norlin said he thinks industry spending will increase in 2022, as companies hit their debt targets and start reallocating capital to new projects. But he projects that total spending for 2022 will still only come in around the CDN$31-billion range.
“Not to say there’s not going to be growth, but I don’t think there’s going to be those massive, massive growth rates," Norlin said. “With rising prices, there’s always that knee-jerk reaction to bring rigs on and try to drill as much as you can, but operators have done a really good job (this year) of staying disciplined. Especially in Canada, they’ve sort of learned to live within cash flow.”
The Canadian Association of Energy Contractors said last week it is expecting 6,457 oil and gas wells to be drilled in 2022, a more than 25 per cent increase from 2021 and a return to pre-pandemic levels.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 2, 2021
Amanda Stephenson, The Canadian Press
The world's largest shipping company said it's giving away $80 million in bonuses to employees as it sets to make record profits this year
htan@insider.com (Huileng Tan)
Maersk said it will give $1,000 each to about 80,000 employees worldwide.
The Danish shipping giant posted its most profitable quarter in its 117-year history last month.
Maesk is set to report the biggest profit in Danish corporate history.
Maersk — the world's largest shipping company — said it will reward its employees with a $1,000 cash bonus each as the Copenhagen-based firm looks set to report record profits.
The bonus applies to about 80,000 of the Danish company's employees worldwide, bringing the total amount to $80 million, reported Denmark's Borsen newspaper and Bloomberg, citing an internal memo. The 400 most senior managers will not get the bonus.
"In a massive team effort our colleagues across the globe have risen beyond the call of duty to respond to our customers' needs," CEO Soren Skou said in the memo, per Bloomberg. "And this has not been easy given the unknowns and disruptions that we had to deal with, the impacted supply chains, congestions, and capacity shortages," he said.
Maersk posted its most profitable quarter in its 117-year history last month, more than quadrupling its third-quarter operating profits to $5.9 billion as the global shipping and supply chain crisis led to record container freight rates.
The shipping company expects its fourth quarter to be equally as profitable, with a gross profit between $6 billion to $7 billion, as shipping rates and consumer demand showed no signs of abating.
In fact, this year is such a bumper year for Maesk that the shipper was set to report the biggest profit in Danish corporate history, according to Sydbank A/S analyst Mikkel Emil Jensen, per Bloomberg.
Maersk also gave a $1,000 bonus to most employees last year when it reported a $2.9 billion in profits.
htan@insider.com (Huileng Tan)
You've probably bought something that travelled on a Maersk ship this year.
Md Manik/SOPA Images/LightRocket
Maersk said it will give $1,000 each to about 80,000 employees worldwide.
The Danish shipping giant posted its most profitable quarter in its 117-year history last month.
Maesk is set to report the biggest profit in Danish corporate history.
Maersk — the world's largest shipping company — said it will reward its employees with a $1,000 cash bonus each as the Copenhagen-based firm looks set to report record profits.
The bonus applies to about 80,000 of the Danish company's employees worldwide, bringing the total amount to $80 million, reported Denmark's Borsen newspaper and Bloomberg, citing an internal memo. The 400 most senior managers will not get the bonus.
"In a massive team effort our colleagues across the globe have risen beyond the call of duty to respond to our customers' needs," CEO Soren Skou said in the memo, per Bloomberg. "And this has not been easy given the unknowns and disruptions that we had to deal with, the impacted supply chains, congestions, and capacity shortages," he said.
Maersk posted its most profitable quarter in its 117-year history last month, more than quadrupling its third-quarter operating profits to $5.9 billion as the global shipping and supply chain crisis led to record container freight rates.
The shipping company expects its fourth quarter to be equally as profitable, with a gross profit between $6 billion to $7 billion, as shipping rates and consumer demand showed no signs of abating.
In fact, this year is such a bumper year for Maesk that the shipper was set to report the biggest profit in Danish corporate history, according to Sydbank A/S analyst Mikkel Emil Jensen, per Bloomberg.
Maersk also gave a $1,000 bonus to most employees last year when it reported a $2.9 billion in profits.
Majority of Canadians want to ditch the British monarchy. How feasible is it?
Saba Aziz 20 hrs ago
Saba Aziz 20 hrs ago
© (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images) BERLIN, GERMANY - JUNE 24: Queen Elizabeth II arrives for the state banquet in her honour at Schloss Bellevue palace on the second of the royal couple's four-day visit to Germany on June 24, 2015 in Berlin, Germany. The Queen…
Canada’s ties with the British monarchy are under scrutiny once again after Barbados officially removed Britain’s Queen Elizabeth as its head of state and became a republic this week.
For Barbados, the transition on Tuesday marked an end to its last remaining colonial bonds nearly 400 years after the first English ships arrived at the Caribbean island.
Barbados celebrates as it officially becomes a republic, cuts ties with British monarchy
There is now renewed debate in Canada over whether to follow Barbados' lead, with a majority of Canadians saying the monarchy is becoming less relevant or is no longer relevant at all, new polling shows.
According to an Angus Reid survey published Tuesday, more than 50 per cent say Canada should not remain a constitutional monarchy indefinitely, while one-quarter say it should.
The same poll also suggests that as long as Queen Elizabeth II continues to reign, 55 per cent of Canadians support continuing to recognize her as the official head of state.
In an Ipsos poll conducted exclusively for Global News in March 2021, two in three Canadians, or 66 per cent of respondents, said the Queen and the Royal Family should not have any formal role in Canadian society, as they are “simply celebrities and nothing more.”
That was up two per cent over last year and six per cent since 2016, according to Ipsos.
The waning support comes amid uncertainty around the 95-year-old monarch’s health that has recently limited her public appearances.
Despite Canadians' dwindling enthusiasm for the royals, eliminating the monarchy in Canada will be a “complicated process," experts say.
To make any change to the role of the Queen or her representatives in Canada, there must be unanimous consent from the House of Commons, the Senate and each of the provincial legislatures to change the constitution — a process that could take years to complete.
Read more:
How Canada could break up with the monarchy
“Under our constitution, all 10 provinces would have to agree on changes to the office of the Queen and it's very difficult for all 10 provinces to be on the same page at the same time,” said Carolyn Harris, historian and author of Raising Royalty: 1,000 Years of Royal Parenting.
Because Canada’s Indigenous communities have their own treaties with the Crown, First Nations would need to be consulted as well for any transition to take place, Harris said.
“So in Canada, it would be a very complicated process compared to the comparatively straightforward process in Barbados,” she told Global News.
Citizens for a Canadian Republic (CCR), a non-profit group, acknowledges there would be challenges when it comes to amending the Constitution but still encourages the discussion.
Among the hurdles it highlights on its website is “an unfair amending formula."
“Compounding these difficulties is the subject of how Canadians should choose their new head of state and what role it would play in the federal system,” CCR states.
In the practical sense, abolishing the monarchy would not change much for Canada, as the Queen has no political authority, argued Melanie Newton, an associate professor of history at the University of Toronto.
“And the federal government could become a republic without the Indigenous people necessarily having to give up those symbolic ties to the British monarchy,” she said.
Barbados’ move to becoming a republic was the culmination of a more than two decades-long push to ditch the monarchy.
A "major shift" took place last year spurred on by the racial inequalities of the COVID-19 pandemic response, access to vaccines and the Black Lives Matter protest movement across the world, said Newton.
Read more:
53% of Canadians skeptical of the monarchy’s future beyond the Queen’s reign: Ipsos poll
In a historic throne speech in Sept. 2020, governor-general Dame Sandra Mason told the world Barbados was removing Queen Elizabeth as its head of state.
A two-thirds majority vote was needed to amend the country’s constitution.
The parliament unanimously passed the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021 last month, effectively transferring the responsibilities of the governor general to a new position of president.
Mason was elected as the island's first president by the Barbados parliament on Oct. 20 and formally sworn in on Nov. 30.
Video: Barbados becomes a republic and parts ways with the Queen
Cynthia Barrow-Giles, professor of political science at the University of West Indies, said the transition to the republic represents a “moment of pride for many Barbadians."
“This move is very emblematic of overthrowing the yoke of British colonialism and with it some of the negative connotations that people have been dealing with more recently with respect to the character of British colonialism,” she told Global News.
But there is still a “significant amount of work” left to do in terms of the constitution and governance, Barrow-Giles added.
The process of becoming a republic is “far easier” when there is a centralized system of government, as was the case with Barbados, she noted.
“Canada's situation compared to the Caribbean situation is a little more complex," she said.
Other Caribbean nations have also left the monarchy to become republics, including Trinidad and Tobago, but the last country to remove the Queen as head of state was Mauritius in 1992.
With Barbados cutting ties, that leaves 15 Commonwealth countries that have the Queen as their monarch, including Canada.
Read more:
Barbados becomes a republic: What it means for the Crown, the Commonwealth and Canada
However, Barbados will remain part of the Commonwealth, a grouping of 54 countries across Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe.
Other Caribbean nations, including Jamaica and St. Lucia, have also discussed breaking away from the monarchy.
Video: The details on the Queen’s mounting health concerns
Now, Barbados’ move may fuel republicanism within the Commonwealth, experts say.
“It's certainly something that will be discussed and debated in the Commonwealth realms, especially as this transition does not mean a departure from the Commonwealth,” said Harris.
Barrow-Giles concurred, saying, “I would think that for a lot of the other Caribbean countries, the conversation would resume, and hopefully we'll get that transition going.”
— with files from Global News’ Redmond Shannon
Canada’s ties with the British monarchy are under scrutiny once again after Barbados officially removed Britain’s Queen Elizabeth as its head of state and became a republic this week.
For Barbados, the transition on Tuesday marked an end to its last remaining colonial bonds nearly 400 years after the first English ships arrived at the Caribbean island.
Barbados celebrates as it officially becomes a republic, cuts ties with British monarchy
There is now renewed debate in Canada over whether to follow Barbados' lead, with a majority of Canadians saying the monarchy is becoming less relevant or is no longer relevant at all, new polling shows.
According to an Angus Reid survey published Tuesday, more than 50 per cent say Canada should not remain a constitutional monarchy indefinitely, while one-quarter say it should.
The same poll also suggests that as long as Queen Elizabeth II continues to reign, 55 per cent of Canadians support continuing to recognize her as the official head of state.
In an Ipsos poll conducted exclusively for Global News in March 2021, two in three Canadians, or 66 per cent of respondents, said the Queen and the Royal Family should not have any formal role in Canadian society, as they are “simply celebrities and nothing more.”
That was up two per cent over last year and six per cent since 2016, according to Ipsos.
The waning support comes amid uncertainty around the 95-year-old monarch’s health that has recently limited her public appearances.
Despite Canadians' dwindling enthusiasm for the royals, eliminating the monarchy in Canada will be a “complicated process," experts say.
To make any change to the role of the Queen or her representatives in Canada, there must be unanimous consent from the House of Commons, the Senate and each of the provincial legislatures to change the constitution — a process that could take years to complete.
Read more:
How Canada could break up with the monarchy
“Under our constitution, all 10 provinces would have to agree on changes to the office of the Queen and it's very difficult for all 10 provinces to be on the same page at the same time,” said Carolyn Harris, historian and author of Raising Royalty: 1,000 Years of Royal Parenting.
Because Canada’s Indigenous communities have their own treaties with the Crown, First Nations would need to be consulted as well for any transition to take place, Harris said.
“So in Canada, it would be a very complicated process compared to the comparatively straightforward process in Barbados,” she told Global News.
Citizens for a Canadian Republic (CCR), a non-profit group, acknowledges there would be challenges when it comes to amending the Constitution but still encourages the discussion.
Among the hurdles it highlights on its website is “an unfair amending formula."
“Compounding these difficulties is the subject of how Canadians should choose their new head of state and what role it would play in the federal system,” CCR states.
In the practical sense, abolishing the monarchy would not change much for Canada, as the Queen has no political authority, argued Melanie Newton, an associate professor of history at the University of Toronto.
“And the federal government could become a republic without the Indigenous people necessarily having to give up those symbolic ties to the British monarchy,” she said.
Barbados’ move to becoming a republic was the culmination of a more than two decades-long push to ditch the monarchy.
A "major shift" took place last year spurred on by the racial inequalities of the COVID-19 pandemic response, access to vaccines and the Black Lives Matter protest movement across the world, said Newton.
Read more:
53% of Canadians skeptical of the monarchy’s future beyond the Queen’s reign: Ipsos poll
In a historic throne speech in Sept. 2020, governor-general Dame Sandra Mason told the world Barbados was removing Queen Elizabeth as its head of state.
A two-thirds majority vote was needed to amend the country’s constitution.
The parliament unanimously passed the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021 last month, effectively transferring the responsibilities of the governor general to a new position of president.
Mason was elected as the island's first president by the Barbados parliament on Oct. 20 and formally sworn in on Nov. 30.
Video: Barbados becomes a republic and parts ways with the Queen
Cynthia Barrow-Giles, professor of political science at the University of West Indies, said the transition to the republic represents a “moment of pride for many Barbadians."
“This move is very emblematic of overthrowing the yoke of British colonialism and with it some of the negative connotations that people have been dealing with more recently with respect to the character of British colonialism,” she told Global News.
But there is still a “significant amount of work” left to do in terms of the constitution and governance, Barrow-Giles added.
The process of becoming a republic is “far easier” when there is a centralized system of government, as was the case with Barbados, she noted.
“Canada's situation compared to the Caribbean situation is a little more complex," she said.
Other Caribbean nations have also left the monarchy to become republics, including Trinidad and Tobago, but the last country to remove the Queen as head of state was Mauritius in 1992.
With Barbados cutting ties, that leaves 15 Commonwealth countries that have the Queen as their monarch, including Canada.
Read more:
Barbados becomes a republic: What it means for the Crown, the Commonwealth and Canada
However, Barbados will remain part of the Commonwealth, a grouping of 54 countries across Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe.
Other Caribbean nations, including Jamaica and St. Lucia, have also discussed breaking away from the monarchy.
Video: The details on the Queen’s mounting health concerns
Now, Barbados’ move may fuel republicanism within the Commonwealth, experts say.
“It's certainly something that will be discussed and debated in the Commonwealth realms, especially as this transition does not mean a departure from the Commonwealth,” said Harris.
Barrow-Giles concurred, saying, “I would think that for a lot of the other Caribbean countries, the conversation would resume, and hopefully we'll get that transition going.”
— with files from Global News’ Redmond Shannon
I BELIEVED IN IT WHEN I WAS 16, STILL DO
Climate crisis fuels push to drop voting age to 16
As Canada and the world see increasingly frequent examples of climate chaos by the week, the slow legislative move to give more of a say to those who will have to deal with it started over again in Ottawa.
When Parliament was dissolved for the election last summer, a slate of pending bills went with it, but Sen. Marilou McPhedran rose late last month to put one of them back on the table.
The newly named S-201 she sponsored has passed first reading, and McPhedran and its supporters hope the effort will eventually lead to Canadian citizens aged 16 and 17 winning the right to vote.
The Independent senator from Manitoba hopes the move might revitalize the country’s democracy, while some youth advocates said it was beyond time these teens get a bigger say, specifically on climate policy.
“It's becoming increasingly evident that the climate crisis is here and it requires robust actions now,” said Manvi Bhalla, who advocates for a louder political voice for young people as president of the group Shake Up The Establishment.
Just last month, three major storms featuring so-called "atmospheric rivers" battered British Columbia, destroying critical infrastructure. The storms followed devastating wildfires and summer heat waves that represent a lethal mix of cascading climate impacts from a warming planet.
Bhalla said what happens now will determine humanity’s future and that of the world’s landscapes and other beings — and young people deserve to have a say.
“Youth have no stake in the game but our futures and deserve to have a say in shaping this future given that we were born into this crisis with no sense of agency over its inception,” she said.
The voting rights push, meanwhile, made sharp progress in Germany over the summer, with the three parties forming its next coalition government all committed to lowering the voting age to 16.
“It’s not as radical an idea as many might think,” said Sara Austin, the chief executive at Children First Canada, a key backer of a separate legal challenge launched on Tuesday by young people in an Ontario court.
That brief argues youth are just as capable of making rational voting decisions as those over 18 and that the applicants have been denied a constitutional right to avoid discrimination based on age.
“Imagine if 16-year-olds could vote about the future they want,” said Catherine McKenna, Canada's former climate change minister who did not seek re-election in 2021. “They'll be 45 in 2050 when we need to be net-zero. I'll be 80.”
“I want to hear their voices now about what we need to do to get there. They'll live far longer with the consequences of our action or inaction,” she said in tweets supporting McPhedran’s bill.
For Bhalla, young people hope for an equitable, healthy and sustainable life — a slow life — and know what needs to be done to make it happen.
“It is beyond time to recognize and legitimize their intelligence and passion as an ends to meet these goals,” she said.
Morgan Sharp, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Canada's National Observer
Climate crisis fuels push to drop voting age to 16
As Canada and the world see increasingly frequent examples of climate chaos by the week, the slow legislative move to give more of a say to those who will have to deal with it started over again in Ottawa.
When Parliament was dissolved for the election last summer, a slate of pending bills went with it, but Sen. Marilou McPhedran rose late last month to put one of them back on the table.
The newly named S-201 she sponsored has passed first reading, and McPhedran and its supporters hope the effort will eventually lead to Canadian citizens aged 16 and 17 winning the right to vote.
The Independent senator from Manitoba hopes the move might revitalize the country’s democracy, while some youth advocates said it was beyond time these teens get a bigger say, specifically on climate policy.
“It's becoming increasingly evident that the climate crisis is here and it requires robust actions now,” said Manvi Bhalla, who advocates for a louder political voice for young people as president of the group Shake Up The Establishment.
Just last month, three major storms featuring so-called "atmospheric rivers" battered British Columbia, destroying critical infrastructure. The storms followed devastating wildfires and summer heat waves that represent a lethal mix of cascading climate impacts from a warming planet.
Bhalla said what happens now will determine humanity’s future and that of the world’s landscapes and other beings — and young people deserve to have a say.
“Youth have no stake in the game but our futures and deserve to have a say in shaping this future given that we were born into this crisis with no sense of agency over its inception,” she said.
The voting rights push, meanwhile, made sharp progress in Germany over the summer, with the three parties forming its next coalition government all committed to lowering the voting age to 16.
“It’s not as radical an idea as many might think,” said Sara Austin, the chief executive at Children First Canada, a key backer of a separate legal challenge launched on Tuesday by young people in an Ontario court.
That brief argues youth are just as capable of making rational voting decisions as those over 18 and that the applicants have been denied a constitutional right to avoid discrimination based on age.
“Imagine if 16-year-olds could vote about the future they want,” said Catherine McKenna, Canada's former climate change minister who did not seek re-election in 2021. “They'll be 45 in 2050 when we need to be net-zero. I'll be 80.”
“I want to hear their voices now about what we need to do to get there. They'll live far longer with the consequences of our action or inaction,” she said in tweets supporting McPhedran’s bill.
For Bhalla, young people hope for an equitable, healthy and sustainable life — a slow life — and know what needs to be done to make it happen.
“It is beyond time to recognize and legitimize their intelligence and passion as an ends to meet these goals,” she said.
Morgan Sharp, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Canada's National Observer
Young Canadians file suit against federal over minimum voting age
Wed., December 1, 2021
Several young Canadians are taking the federal government to court in an effort to strike down the minimum voting age.
They argue that denying citizens under the age of 18 the right to vote in federal elections is unconstitutional.
They contend the minimum voting age violates two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
They say one section of the charter guarantees the right to vote for all Canadian citizens without an age qualification.
The Canada Elections Act sets the minimum age for federal elections at 18.
Thirteen youth from across the country ranging in age from 12 to 18 are part of suit, which hasn't been tested in court.
"They each want to participate meaningfully in Canadian democracy by exercising their right to vote before age 18," said the claim, which was filed in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice on Tuesday.
The youth argue election rules have change significantly over time and should continue to do so.
"Initially restricted to property-owning men aged 21 and older, voting rights in Canada have been gradually extended to other Canadian citizens such as women, racialized people, Indigenous people, inmates, and citizens who live abroad," the claim said.
"This progressive enfranchisement was driven by our growing recognition that 'every citizen' must include those who may have been excluded from social and political participation."
The young people are joined in the suit by Justice for Children and Youth, a non-profit legal aid clinic dedicated to advancing the rights and interests of young people in Canada.
Tharan D’Silva, 12, is among those taking the federal government to court and "believes that youth have intelligent, developed political views that the government must acknowledge," the claim said.
"He is passionate about health care, climate change, and education, and participates in a social club for kids with autism," it said.
Katie Yu, 15, from Iqaluit, Nunavut, is also part of the claim.
She is "committed to raising awareness on climate change, mental health, suicide prevention and racial justice, and how these issues impact the North," the claim said.
"Minimum voting ages present an unjustifiable restriction on the right of citizens to vote in Canada," the claim argues.
The youth say being denied the right to vote "perpetuates stereotypical and prejudicial attitudes that young people are less capable and less deserving of participating in Canadian democracy through the voting process," according to the document.
Those qualifications aren't imposed on those older than 18, they claim.
"Vague and unsubstantiated assertions about maturity are not enough to justify depriving a large portion of Canadian society their core political right," the claim said.
The federal government did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 1, 2021.
Liam Casey, The Canadian Press
Wed., December 1, 2021
Several young Canadians are taking the federal government to court in an effort to strike down the minimum voting age.
They argue that denying citizens under the age of 18 the right to vote in federal elections is unconstitutional.
They contend the minimum voting age violates two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
They say one section of the charter guarantees the right to vote for all Canadian citizens without an age qualification.
The Canada Elections Act sets the minimum age for federal elections at 18.
Thirteen youth from across the country ranging in age from 12 to 18 are part of suit, which hasn't been tested in court.
"They each want to participate meaningfully in Canadian democracy by exercising their right to vote before age 18," said the claim, which was filed in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice on Tuesday.
The youth argue election rules have change significantly over time and should continue to do so.
"Initially restricted to property-owning men aged 21 and older, voting rights in Canada have been gradually extended to other Canadian citizens such as women, racialized people, Indigenous people, inmates, and citizens who live abroad," the claim said.
"This progressive enfranchisement was driven by our growing recognition that 'every citizen' must include those who may have been excluded from social and political participation."
The young people are joined in the suit by Justice for Children and Youth, a non-profit legal aid clinic dedicated to advancing the rights and interests of young people in Canada.
Tharan D’Silva, 12, is among those taking the federal government to court and "believes that youth have intelligent, developed political views that the government must acknowledge," the claim said.
"He is passionate about health care, climate change, and education, and participates in a social club for kids with autism," it said.
Katie Yu, 15, from Iqaluit, Nunavut, is also part of the claim.
She is "committed to raising awareness on climate change, mental health, suicide prevention and racial justice, and how these issues impact the North," the claim said.
"Minimum voting ages present an unjustifiable restriction on the right of citizens to vote in Canada," the claim argues.
The youth say being denied the right to vote "perpetuates stereotypical and prejudicial attitudes that young people are less capable and less deserving of participating in Canadian democracy through the voting process," according to the document.
Those qualifications aren't imposed on those older than 18, they claim.
"Vague and unsubstantiated assertions about maturity are not enough to justify depriving a large portion of Canadian society their core political right," the claim said.
The federal government did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 1, 2021.
Liam Casey, The Canadian Press
Ex-Google scientist Gebru opens AI institute year after tumultuous exit
By Paresh Dave
(Reuters) - Timnit Gebru, the computer scientist whose disputed exit from Google's artificial intelligence research team prompted debate across the tech industry about diversity and censorship, said on Thursday she has launched a small lab to continue her work freely.
The Distributed AI Research Institute has raised $3.7 million from foundations and aims to critically study services from big tech companies as well as propose AI-based solutions to issues such as food insecurity and climate change, Gebru said.
It joins several non-governmental projects such as the Algorithmic Justice League that are advancing ethical use of AI. Critics worry that without proper safeguards systems including for facial recognition and credit scoring could lead to mass surveillance and racial discrimination.
Gebru has hired a fellow based in South Africa and expects to add other researchers next year. They will publish studies and educate activists and lawmakers globally.
"I want to make sure DAIR is not just working on research papers," Gebru said. "I want to be an institute that realizes you have to engage with various groups of people."
Gebru, who is Black, has said Google fired her a year ago for criticizing its lack of workforce diversity and for fighting managers who objected to publishing a paper she co-wrote on potential social and environmental costs of language technology. Google has said it accepted Gebru's resignation.
Her speaking out about the incident drew praise from many scientists and engineers, but others questioned her work and tactics. Alphabet Inc unit Google in the aftermath reorganized the ethical AI research team Gebru had led, fired her co-leader and lost the pair's manager to Apple.
Freedom to pursue whatever led Gebru to start DAIR over joining another company. But sustaining it without becoming beholden to sponsors or other powers will be the challenge, she said. Initial backers include the MacArthur, Ford and Rockefeller foundations.
(Reporting by Paresh Dave in Oakland, Calif; Editing by David Gregorio)
By Paresh Dave
(Reuters) - Timnit Gebru, the computer scientist whose disputed exit from Google's artificial intelligence research team prompted debate across the tech industry about diversity and censorship, said on Thursday she has launched a small lab to continue her work freely.
The Distributed AI Research Institute has raised $3.7 million from foundations and aims to critically study services from big tech companies as well as propose AI-based solutions to issues such as food insecurity and climate change, Gebru said.
It joins several non-governmental projects such as the Algorithmic Justice League that are advancing ethical use of AI. Critics worry that without proper safeguards systems including for facial recognition and credit scoring could lead to mass surveillance and racial discrimination.
Gebru has hired a fellow based in South Africa and expects to add other researchers next year. They will publish studies and educate activists and lawmakers globally.
"I want to make sure DAIR is not just working on research papers," Gebru said. "I want to be an institute that realizes you have to engage with various groups of people."
Gebru, who is Black, has said Google fired her a year ago for criticizing its lack of workforce diversity and for fighting managers who objected to publishing a paper she co-wrote on potential social and environmental costs of language technology. Google has said it accepted Gebru's resignation.
Her speaking out about the incident drew praise from many scientists and engineers, but others questioned her work and tactics. Alphabet Inc unit Google in the aftermath reorganized the ethical AI research team Gebru had led, fired her co-leader and lost the pair's manager to Apple.
Freedom to pursue whatever led Gebru to start DAIR over joining another company. But sustaining it without becoming beholden to sponsors or other powers will be the challenge, she said. Initial backers include the MacArthur, Ford and Rockefeller foundations.
(Reporting by Paresh Dave in Oakland, Calif; Editing by David Gregorio)
The supply chain crisis is wreaking havoc on the environment as carbon emissions from ships and seaports reach the highest rate since 2008
insider@insider.com (Bethany Biron)
Carbon emissions at seaports are up significantly since the start of the pandemic, a report found.
The rise stems from an increase in consumer demand and congested ports during the supply chain crisis.
Emissions at four of the world's largest ports are up 79% since the start of the pandemic, according to the study.
The supply chain crisis is taking a toll on more than just shipping, its also wreaking havoc on the environment.
Carbon emissions at major seaports have reached the highest rates since 2008, according to a recent report from Singapore's Nanyang Technological University. According to the study, pollutant emissions across four of the world's largest shipping ports — in locations including Singapore, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Hamburg, Germany, — have increased by 79% since the start of the pandemic.
And though maritime shipping currently accounts for 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions — a higher rate than airplanes — scientists predict that at current rates it could comprise upwards of 17% by 2050.
Pollutant emissions, which started rising in response to increased consumer demand during COVID-19 lockdowns, have been further exacerbated by historic levels of port congestion. The backlogs are contributing to "prolonged turnaround time" and extended idling, during which ships continue to emit harmful gases, according to the report.
Adding to the problem, container ships — which the NTU report found to have the sharpest increased rate of emissions — have started increasing their speed by 22% if weather permits to account for increased demand, Mike Konstantinidis, CEO of METIS Cyberspace Technology, told Quartz.
"Lockdown measures and other COVID-19 restrictions on human activity have upended the landscape for the shipping sector and significantly affected the operating patterns of maritime and trade, revealing significant increases in pollutant emissions in the seaports in our study," Adrian Law Wing-Keung, a professor at NTU's School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, wrote in the report.
Southern California, home to the biggest seaports in the US, has been hit particularly hard by the supply chain crisis. As of Wednesday, Marine Exchange reports there are 134 ships waiting off the coasts of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as 110,000 empty containers currently litter shipping yards and roads in the region.
Now, increased carbon emissions mark the latest in a series of growing challenges for the cities. According to the NTU report, emissions at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach increased by double and two-thirds, respectively.
Looking ahead, environmental organizations are calling for change from some of the world's largest retailers. A report released earlier this week by Stand.earth and Pacific Environment found that Walmart, Target, Amazon, and IKEA contributed to a collective increase of 20 million metric tons of carbon emissions between 2018 and 2020.
"The retail brands that fill our homes and lives with their products bear a direct responsibility both for the pollution that the maritime shipping in their supply chains creates and for taking the necessary actions to demand emissions reductions now and 100 per cent zero emissions shipping this decade," the report said.
insider@insider.com (Bethany Biron)
© Provided by Business Insider A container cargo ship in Rotterdam Harbour on April 4, 2021 in the Netherlands. Niels Wenstedt/BSR Agency/Getty Images
Carbon emissions at seaports are up significantly since the start of the pandemic, a report found.
The rise stems from an increase in consumer demand and congested ports during the supply chain crisis.
Emissions at four of the world's largest ports are up 79% since the start of the pandemic, according to the study.
The supply chain crisis is taking a toll on more than just shipping, its also wreaking havoc on the environment.
Carbon emissions at major seaports have reached the highest rates since 2008, according to a recent report from Singapore's Nanyang Technological University. According to the study, pollutant emissions across four of the world's largest shipping ports — in locations including Singapore, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Hamburg, Germany, — have increased by 79% since the start of the pandemic.
And though maritime shipping currently accounts for 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions — a higher rate than airplanes — scientists predict that at current rates it could comprise upwards of 17% by 2050.
Pollutant emissions, which started rising in response to increased consumer demand during COVID-19 lockdowns, have been further exacerbated by historic levels of port congestion. The backlogs are contributing to "prolonged turnaround time" and extended idling, during which ships continue to emit harmful gases, according to the report.
Adding to the problem, container ships — which the NTU report found to have the sharpest increased rate of emissions — have started increasing their speed by 22% if weather permits to account for increased demand, Mike Konstantinidis, CEO of METIS Cyberspace Technology, told Quartz.
"Lockdown measures and other COVID-19 restrictions on human activity have upended the landscape for the shipping sector and significantly affected the operating patterns of maritime and trade, revealing significant increases in pollutant emissions in the seaports in our study," Adrian Law Wing-Keung, a professor at NTU's School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, wrote in the report.
Southern California, home to the biggest seaports in the US, has been hit particularly hard by the supply chain crisis. As of Wednesday, Marine Exchange reports there are 134 ships waiting off the coasts of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as 110,000 empty containers currently litter shipping yards and roads in the region.
Now, increased carbon emissions mark the latest in a series of growing challenges for the cities. According to the NTU report, emissions at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach increased by double and two-thirds, respectively.
Looking ahead, environmental organizations are calling for change from some of the world's largest retailers. A report released earlier this week by Stand.earth and Pacific Environment found that Walmart, Target, Amazon, and IKEA contributed to a collective increase of 20 million metric tons of carbon emissions between 2018 and 2020.
"The retail brands that fill our homes and lives with their products bear a direct responsibility both for the pollution that the maritime shipping in their supply chains creates and for taking the necessary actions to demand emissions reductions now and 100 per cent zero emissions shipping this decade," the report said.
FARMERS
Oregon officials ask public help to find killers of 8 wolvesOfficials in Oregon are asking for public assistance to locate the person or persons responsible for poisoning eight wolves in the eastern part of the state earlier this year.
© Provided by The Canadian Press
The Oregon State Police has been investigating the killing of all five members of the Catherine Pack in Union County, plus three other wolves from other packs, the agency said in a news release Thursday.
“To my knowledge this is the first wolf pack to be killed by poison in Oregon,” said Capt. Stephanie Bigman of the OSP in Salem. “To my knowledge there are no suspects. All investigative leads have been exhausted and that is why we are reaching out to the public for assistance.”
Wolf advocates were stunned by the news.
“This is horrific,” said Sristi Kamal of Defenders of Wildlife in Portland. “This is quite clearly an intentional and repeat offense.”
Oregon has only about 170 wolves within its borders, and the loss of eight “is so egregious,” Kamal said.
“The poisoning of the Catherine wolf pack is tragic and disgusting” said Sophia Ressler, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “No wolf should have to suffer such a fate. Awful events like this show how much more work is needed for us to coexist with these vitally important animals."
A group of conservation and animal protection groups late Thursday said they were offering a combined $26,000 in rewards for information leading to a conviction in the poisonings. The rewards were offered by the Center for Biological Diversity, Cascadia Wildlands, Defenders of Wildlife, The Humane Society of the United States, Northeast Oregon Ecosystems, Oregon Wild, Predator Defense and WildEarth Guardians.
Wolves once ranged most of the U.S. but were wiped out in most places by the 1930s under government-sponsored poisoning and trapping campaigns.
More than 2,000 wolves occupy six states in the Northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest after animals from Canada were reintroduced in Idaho and Yellowstone National Park starting in 1995.
However, wolves remain absent across most of their historical range. Wildlife advocates argue that continued protections are needed so they can continue to expand in California, Colorado, Oregon and other states.
The Fish and Wildlife Division of the Oregon State Police was alerted on Feb. 9 that a collared wolf from the Catherine Pack was possibly deceased.
Troopers responded and located five deceased wolves, three males, and two females. The wolves were located southeast of Mount Harris, within Union County. Investigators also found a dead magpie in the vicinity of the dead wolves, the agency said.
The animals were sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service forensics lab in Ashland to determine the cause of death.
On March 11, State Police were told a mortality signal from an additional wolf collar had been received in the same general location. Searchers found a deceased female wolf, a skunk, and a magpie all very close to the scene. The female wolf was determined to be a member of the Keating Pack.
In April, the federal lab released findings consistent with poisoning as the cause of death for all six wolves, the skunk, and two magpies.
In addition, two more collared wolves were found deceased in Union County after the initial incidents. In April, a deceased adult male wolf from the Five Points Pack was located west of Elgin, and in July a young female wolf from the Clark Creek Pack was located northeast of La Grande, the county seat.
Toxicology reports confirmed the presence of differing types of poison in both those wolves, the OSP said.
Nicholas K. Geranios, The Associated Press
The Oregon State Police has been investigating the killing of all five members of the Catherine Pack in Union County, plus three other wolves from other packs, the agency said in a news release Thursday.
“To my knowledge this is the first wolf pack to be killed by poison in Oregon,” said Capt. Stephanie Bigman of the OSP in Salem. “To my knowledge there are no suspects. All investigative leads have been exhausted and that is why we are reaching out to the public for assistance.”
Wolf advocates were stunned by the news.
“This is horrific,” said Sristi Kamal of Defenders of Wildlife in Portland. “This is quite clearly an intentional and repeat offense.”
Oregon has only about 170 wolves within its borders, and the loss of eight “is so egregious,” Kamal said.
“The poisoning of the Catherine wolf pack is tragic and disgusting” said Sophia Ressler, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “No wolf should have to suffer such a fate. Awful events like this show how much more work is needed for us to coexist with these vitally important animals."
A group of conservation and animal protection groups late Thursday said they were offering a combined $26,000 in rewards for information leading to a conviction in the poisonings. The rewards were offered by the Center for Biological Diversity, Cascadia Wildlands, Defenders of Wildlife, The Humane Society of the United States, Northeast Oregon Ecosystems, Oregon Wild, Predator Defense and WildEarth Guardians.
Wolves once ranged most of the U.S. but were wiped out in most places by the 1930s under government-sponsored poisoning and trapping campaigns.
More than 2,000 wolves occupy six states in the Northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest after animals from Canada were reintroduced in Idaho and Yellowstone National Park starting in 1995.
However, wolves remain absent across most of their historical range. Wildlife advocates argue that continued protections are needed so they can continue to expand in California, Colorado, Oregon and other states.
The Fish and Wildlife Division of the Oregon State Police was alerted on Feb. 9 that a collared wolf from the Catherine Pack was possibly deceased.
Troopers responded and located five deceased wolves, three males, and two females. The wolves were located southeast of Mount Harris, within Union County. Investigators also found a dead magpie in the vicinity of the dead wolves, the agency said.
The animals were sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service forensics lab in Ashland to determine the cause of death.
On March 11, State Police were told a mortality signal from an additional wolf collar had been received in the same general location. Searchers found a deceased female wolf, a skunk, and a magpie all very close to the scene. The female wolf was determined to be a member of the Keating Pack.
In April, the federal lab released findings consistent with poisoning as the cause of death for all six wolves, the skunk, and two magpies.
In addition, two more collared wolves were found deceased in Union County after the initial incidents. In April, a deceased adult male wolf from the Five Points Pack was located west of Elgin, and in July a young female wolf from the Clark Creek Pack was located northeast of La Grande, the county seat.
Toxicology reports confirmed the presence of differing types of poison in both those wolves, the OSP said.
Nicholas K. Geranios, The Associated Press
THE STATE VS THE PEOPLE
Nova Scotia government heading back to court against disabilities group
HALIFAX — The Nova Scotia government says it will appeal a recent court decision that found there was discrimination against people with disabilities who had sought improved services and housing in the community.
But in an emailed comment Thursday, Community Services Minister Karla MacFarlane appears to shift the Progressive Conservative government's approach.
MacFarlane said "many significant questions" arise from the Appeal Court decision, including how other social programs could be affected, so the province has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The minister also said the court decision places a legal requirement on the department's disability support program and that she needs "to better understand that requirement." The cabinet minister noted she was speaking on behalf of the premier, who has been outside the province.
The landmark Appeal Court decision said the provincial government's failure to offer people with disabilities "meaningful'' access to housing and care is reflected in long wait-lists. The court also said the situation amounted to a violation of their basic rights.
The appeal was originally launched by the Disability Rights Coalition. During a hearing a year ago, its lawyer Claire McNeil argued the mistreatment of people with disabilities included unnecessary institutionalization, lengthy wait times, and forced removal to remote areas of the province far from family and friends.
After the court's decision, the coalition urged the government not to launch an appeal and to respect the equality of people living with disabilities.
On Wednesday, the group held a news conference where those participating appeared to believe that further court action wasn't likely and that the remedy for the discrimination would go back before a human rights board. McNeil had urged the province to take the approach of negotiating and working with the coalition during the hearing to set up a timetable for reforms.
On Thursday, Vince Calderhead, one of the lawyers who argued the original human rights case, said he was deeply disappointed by the Houston government's change in stance.
"It’s appalling that the ‘solutionist’ premier is now choosing to fight people with disabilities in court rather than do the right thing and comply with its fundamental human rights obligations," he wrote in an email, referring to Houston's campaign mantra that the Tories would work to solve long-standing problems.
"This appears to be a blatant stalling tactic rather than ‘doing the right thing.’ This represents a continuation of decades of stalling on the rights of persons with disabilities."
The original human rights case was launched by three people with intellectual disabilities who spent years confined in the Emerald Hall psychiatric hospital despite medical opinions they could be housed in the community. The board decision ruled the individual rights of Joey Delaney, the late Beth MacLean and the late Sheila Livingstone were violated, but it also ruled against the separate claim by the coalition that the system was discriminating more widely against people with disabilities.
The coalition appealed the board's finding on systemic discrimination and won before the Appeal Court.
The Appeal Court also upheld and extended the findings of individual discrimination against the three, doubling the compensation paid to Delaney from $100,000 to $200,000, while the compensation due to MacLean — who died in September at a local hospital — went from $100,000 to $300,000.
In her email, MacFarlane said the government will not be appealing the findings regarding MacLean, Livingstone and Delaney.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 2, 2021.
Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press
Nova Scotia government heading back to court against disabilities group
HALIFAX — The Nova Scotia government says it will appeal a recent court decision that found there was discrimination against people with disabilities who had sought improved services and housing in the community.
© Provided by The Canadian Press
A day after the Oct. 6 Court of Appeal ruling, Premier Tim Houston said his government heard the court's message "loud and clear," and he pledged to work with the disabilities community.
He also said he didn't believe citizens should have to take the government to court to make it "do the right thing." APPARENTLY THEY DO
A day after the Oct. 6 Court of Appeal ruling, Premier Tim Houston said his government heard the court's message "loud and clear," and he pledged to work with the disabilities community.
He also said he didn't believe citizens should have to take the government to court to make it "do the right thing." APPARENTLY THEY DO
But in an emailed comment Thursday, Community Services Minister Karla MacFarlane appears to shift the Progressive Conservative government's approach.
MacFarlane said "many significant questions" arise from the Appeal Court decision, including how other social programs could be affected, so the province has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The minister also said the court decision places a legal requirement on the department's disability support program and that she needs "to better understand that requirement." The cabinet minister noted she was speaking on behalf of the premier, who has been outside the province.
The landmark Appeal Court decision said the provincial government's failure to offer people with disabilities "meaningful'' access to housing and care is reflected in long wait-lists. The court also said the situation amounted to a violation of their basic rights.
The appeal was originally launched by the Disability Rights Coalition. During a hearing a year ago, its lawyer Claire McNeil argued the mistreatment of people with disabilities included unnecessary institutionalization, lengthy wait times, and forced removal to remote areas of the province far from family and friends.
After the court's decision, the coalition urged the government not to launch an appeal and to respect the equality of people living with disabilities.
On Wednesday, the group held a news conference where those participating appeared to believe that further court action wasn't likely and that the remedy for the discrimination would go back before a human rights board. McNeil had urged the province to take the approach of negotiating and working with the coalition during the hearing to set up a timetable for reforms.
On Thursday, Vince Calderhead, one of the lawyers who argued the original human rights case, said he was deeply disappointed by the Houston government's change in stance.
"It’s appalling that the ‘solutionist’ premier is now choosing to fight people with disabilities in court rather than do the right thing and comply with its fundamental human rights obligations," he wrote in an email, referring to Houston's campaign mantra that the Tories would work to solve long-standing problems.
"This appears to be a blatant stalling tactic rather than ‘doing the right thing.’ This represents a continuation of decades of stalling on the rights of persons with disabilities."
The original human rights case was launched by three people with intellectual disabilities who spent years confined in the Emerald Hall psychiatric hospital despite medical opinions they could be housed in the community. The board decision ruled the individual rights of Joey Delaney, the late Beth MacLean and the late Sheila Livingstone were violated, but it also ruled against the separate claim by the coalition that the system was discriminating more widely against people with disabilities.
The coalition appealed the board's finding on systemic discrimination and won before the Appeal Court.
The Appeal Court also upheld and extended the findings of individual discrimination against the three, doubling the compensation paid to Delaney from $100,000 to $200,000, while the compensation due to MacLean — who died in September at a local hospital — went from $100,000 to $300,000.
In her email, MacFarlane said the government will not be appealing the findings regarding MacLean, Livingstone and Delaney.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 2, 2021.
Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press
The acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse raises questions about white privilege
Jasmeet Bahia, PhD Candidate, Sociology, Carleton University
Recently, two highly publicized trials came to a close. One involved three white men found guilty of killing Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed Black man who was attacked and killed while jogging in Brunswick, Ga.
Jasmeet Bahia, PhD Candidate, Sociology, Carleton University
Recently, two highly publicized trials came to a close. One involved three white men found guilty of killing Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed Black man who was attacked and killed while jogging in Brunswick, Ga.
© (AP Photo/Andrew Selsky) People carry out a
The other case centred around a white 18-year-old named Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shot three people during an anti-racism protest. Jurors acquitted him of all charges.
In case you missed the details of this highly polarizing case: Rittenhouse shot and killed two men and injured a third during a protest in Kenosha, Wis., in 2020. The protests were in response to the police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse claimed his shots were fired in self-defence.
Both trials have brought up questions about race in America, Black lives, whiteness, the future of protest and self-defence. The Rittenhouse case also raises questions about when whiteness protects white people and when it does not.
In the last decade, the American public has witnessed both civilian white men as well as police injuring and killing innocent Black Americans with few consequences. Some extreme cases result in death, but other examples of harassment and violence are abundant.
The harassment of Black people in their daily lives, such as birdwatcher Christian Cooper or Shayne Holland, who was asked to leave his apartment complex swimming pool, is a more quiet, insidious violence.
In the case of Rittenhouse, however, both the accused and the victims were white. Those who are familiar with the American justice system aren’t surprised by the non-guilty verdict. Rittenhouse is added to a long list of white men who have everything stacked in their favour in a court of law.
Rittenhouse had his (white) boyhood and a favourable judge who banned anyone in the court from labelling the shooting victims as victims.
While Rittenhouse is not connected to any white supremacy groups, his lionization by them has given him social and political clout. Former president Donald Trump, FOX News media host Tucker Carlson and other online commentators in far-right chat rooms are applauding Rittenhouse as a “sweet kid” and vigilante.
Who does ‘whiteness’ save?
The acquittal of Rittenhouse and his celebrity among right-wing extremists proves that white skin colour alone is not enough to protect white people. If whiteness is not enacted in service to white supremacists, it is considered a threat to them.
The white victims, Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz, have been called “race traitors” by the far right, meaning their whiteness stopped shielding them from the violence of other white people.
History is full of examples of this. Abolitionist Elijah Parish Lovejoy, civil rights activist Viola Liuzzo, Heather Heyer — who was protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 — and the 168 adults and children who died in the Oklahoma City bombing are part of a history of white supremacists killing those they deem unfit for their version of whiteness.
After the civil rights movement, as legal and social repercussions against violence against Black Americans were put in place, white supremacist groups felt that they could not be as openly violent as they had historically been. This pattern of violence — failing to protect white people who take the side of racialized communities — will likely be exacerbated by the Rittenhouse acquittal.
The betrayal of white supremacy by allies is seen as so egregious that any obstacle to the dominance of white people will be removed regardless of the colour of their skin.
Fear of being replaced
We have increasingly seen more violent counter-reactions to the Black Lives Matter movement. Many of those who attend in opposition to the movement are hyper-vigilant about defending what they see as “American values.”
The idea that white men are protecting society from Black peple has been part of the American narrative since the era of slavery. This fear of being replaced by people of colour persists today and contributes to a sense of fragility.
The protection of white safety is ingrained in western societies, including within our legal systems. The Rittenhouse trial has likely created a sense of safety among right-wing groups as this case establishes historical precedent for their actions to be labelled as self-defence.
While Ahmaud Arbery was killed due to his Blackness, Rittenhouse’s victims shared an identity with their perpetrator. The praise for Rittenhouse, as well as the denouncement of his victims by white extremists, highlights the question of who is safe under white supremacy and who is not.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Jasmeet Bahia does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The other case centred around a white 18-year-old named Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shot three people during an anti-racism protest. Jurors acquitted him of all charges.
In case you missed the details of this highly polarizing case: Rittenhouse shot and killed two men and injured a third during a protest in Kenosha, Wis., in 2020. The protests were in response to the police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse claimed his shots were fired in self-defence.
Both trials have brought up questions about race in America, Black lives, whiteness, the future of protest and self-defence. The Rittenhouse case also raises questions about when whiteness protects white people and when it does not.
In the last decade, the American public has witnessed both civilian white men as well as police injuring and killing innocent Black Americans with few consequences. Some extreme cases result in death, but other examples of harassment and violence are abundant.
The harassment of Black people in their daily lives, such as birdwatcher Christian Cooper or Shayne Holland, who was asked to leave his apartment complex swimming pool, is a more quiet, insidious violence.
In the case of Rittenhouse, however, both the accused and the victims were white. Those who are familiar with the American justice system aren’t surprised by the non-guilty verdict. Rittenhouse is added to a long list of white men who have everything stacked in their favour in a court of law.
Rittenhouse had his (white) boyhood and a favourable judge who banned anyone in the court from labelling the shooting victims as victims.
While Rittenhouse is not connected to any white supremacy groups, his lionization by them has given him social and political clout. Former president Donald Trump, FOX News media host Tucker Carlson and other online commentators in far-right chat rooms are applauding Rittenhouse as a “sweet kid” and vigilante.
Who does ‘whiteness’ save?
The acquittal of Rittenhouse and his celebrity among right-wing extremists proves that white skin colour alone is not enough to protect white people. If whiteness is not enacted in service to white supremacists, it is considered a threat to them.
The white victims, Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz, have been called “race traitors” by the far right, meaning their whiteness stopped shielding them from the violence of other white people.
History is full of examples of this. Abolitionist Elijah Parish Lovejoy, civil rights activist Viola Liuzzo, Heather Heyer — who was protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 — and the 168 adults and children who died in the Oklahoma City bombing are part of a history of white supremacists killing those they deem unfit for their version of whiteness.
After the civil rights movement, as legal and social repercussions against violence against Black Americans were put in place, white supremacist groups felt that they could not be as openly violent as they had historically been. This pattern of violence — failing to protect white people who take the side of racialized communities — will likely be exacerbated by the Rittenhouse acquittal.
The betrayal of white supremacy by allies is seen as so egregious that any obstacle to the dominance of white people will be removed regardless of the colour of their skin.
Fear of being replaced
We have increasingly seen more violent counter-reactions to the Black Lives Matter movement. Many of those who attend in opposition to the movement are hyper-vigilant about defending what they see as “American values.”
The idea that white men are protecting society from Black peple has been part of the American narrative since the era of slavery. This fear of being replaced by people of colour persists today and contributes to a sense of fragility.
The protection of white safety is ingrained in western societies, including within our legal systems. The Rittenhouse trial has likely created a sense of safety among right-wing groups as this case establishes historical precedent for their actions to be labelled as self-defence.
While Ahmaud Arbery was killed due to his Blackness, Rittenhouse’s victims shared an identity with their perpetrator. The praise for Rittenhouse, as well as the denouncement of his victims by white extremists, highlights the question of who is safe under white supremacy and who is not.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Jasmeet Bahia does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)