June 2011 - UNDER CONSTRUCTION
FILLER HERE
Please feel free to look around and follow the below links for full text of articles.
In the meantime, please feel free to visit below:
Globe and Mail, Letters to the Editor, Kent Glowinski, July 4, 2011
We are doing our children a serious disservice. By supporting a hereditary monarchy, we teach them that some people are better than others, simply due to who bore them. The media’s focus on Kate Middleton seems to be primarily concerned with what kind of dress she is wearing, or how pretty her hair is, and thus reinforces that women, even of influence, must be physically attractive above all.
The archaic values of nepotism and sexism embodied by the monarchy are the last things we should be promoting as acceptable to our kids. It’s time to promote meritocracy and the importance of not objectifying women. We owe our children a Canadian republic, without a Royal Family.
Kent Glowinski, Ottawa
Innocent until proven Facebook: Vancouver Hockey Riot 2011
BY KENT-DANIEL GLOWINSKI, VANCOUVER SUN JUNE 21, 2011
When I worked for the Ontario Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in 2006, the commissioner would regularly warn young Canadians about the possible dangers of disclosing too much personal information on social media websites such as Facebook.
At the time, Facebook was still on the rise in Canada, and privacy commissioners’ biggest fears were the negative impact inappropriate and nudey-or-boozy photos posted openly on such websites could have on reputation and future jobs. Facebook: destroyer of careers.
No one ever imagined, however, the role Facebook would play in law enforcement. Within the five years since I worked for Commissioner Ann Cavoukian, Facebook is credited daily with catching speeders, sexual assaulters and even cheating spouses. More surprising is the evidence is almost always posted by the accused themselves. Facebook: Bringer of justice.
If there are winners to be credited in the riot, they would be (1) Idiocy and (2) Facebook.
Firstly, idiocy because of the sheer numbers of idiots who rioted, looted, burned and vandalized, but the equally as high number of the same idiots who brazenly, arrogantly and stupidly posted and admitted their involvement on their Facebook pages.
Secondly, Facebook because, through its very nature, it helped those delusionally narcissistic folks to easily admit guilt and deliver the crown prosecutor signed, sealed and delivered confessions. As a lawyer, I am not one to praise confessions, but when they are brash and proud, as the saying goes, “give a man enough rope and …. ”
Most Canadians would not believe that Canada is a ‘surveillance society’ and thus think they can do bad things anonymously in public. Unlike England, we don’t have many government-operated cameras (CCTV) patrolling public spaces. However, in Canada, as the 2011 riot proves, while government is not operating cameras, every citizen with a cellphone and every business with cameras form a private network of complete public surveillance. And, with the police receiving millions of riot photos, both citizens and businesses are clearly willing to volunteer their services to the state.
For defence lawyers to watch clients caught in the act (from multiple vantage points) is dispiriting, to then see them consciously, and above all, proudly admit to it online, is cringe-inducing.
But folks get what they deserve. Like the good-looking water polo-player, Nathan Kotylak, who thinks that a lawyer, an apology and some restitution will make it all go away. The other problem with many folks is they don’t realize that the memory of Facebook and the Internet is eternal.
That one night of boozy-vandalizing fun, which many young guys have had at one point, can be forgiven and forgotten – by people. Heck, I even forgive Nathan Kotylak and his rioting colleagues and think they will be productive citizens in the future.
The Internet, however, is not so forgiving. Even once the dust has settled, once the criminal charges are completed, and the community service swept and mopped away, Nathan will still always be ‘that guy.’
Forever. On Google.com, one of the first results for a search of his name will always be a photo of him lighting a cop car on fire. In a sense, the punishment meted out by Facebook will be far worse than anything a court could ever give.
I am not religious, but the proverb: “pride comes before the fall” seems appropriate. No doubt, Facebook helped provide idiots a canvas for that pride. I don’t think what we saw in Vancouver on June 15, 2011 was a mass of sociopaths. Instead, I think we witnessed what happens at the extreme of narcissism and selfishness, of destruction in the name of attention or fame, of people who forget that outside of that bubble of ‘me’ is an entire world right there watching.
Whereas I used to be extremely critical of Facebook and its lack of privacy controls, I can now officially say thank you to Facebook for saving the B.C. taxpayers money by allowing rioters to provide evidence against themselves, free of charge.
I tip my hat to those idiots, and thank you again for posting your guilt on Facebook. Instead of fame and fortune, you found infamy and ridicule. Like the lyrics of a song The Ballad of Brock Anton written by a Vancouver artist about Brock Anton, rioter: “My name is Brock Anton, not to be confused with Zac Efron, ‘cause one of us is rich and one of us is a moron.”
Kent-Daniel Glowinski is an Ottawa lawyer. He has worked for the Ontario and B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioners on social media issues.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
By Kent Glowinski, Ottawa Citizen May 26, 2011
This week, NDP Leader Jack Layton has been meeting with his 103-member caucus, a group liberally sprinkled with "sacrificial lamb" candidates who began the election campaign with no realistic hope of winning. But here they are.
I was once a sacrificial lamb candidate for a political party (also known as placeholder, seat-warmer, or, in Quebec, a "poteaux" candidate). Jean Charest was leader of the party. Jean Chrétien was prime minister.
In 1997, at 18 years of age, I ran as the federal candidate in the federal riding of Skeena (now Skeena-Bulkley Valley), British Columbia for the now-dead Progressive Conservative party.
But those were different times. Back then, we lambs ran. We ran, and we campaigned. I had a nomination meeting (attended by about six people, including my parents, and younger brother), I went to every single election debate, I doorknocked, and I talked to the media. I can still see my father pounding my election signs into the mossy, soggy, wet turf of northern British Columbia.
We even did a stakeout (with borrowed cellphones from the opposing Liberal candidate -thank you Rhoda Witherly) when it turned out former high-school classmates of mine were destroying campaign signs or spray-painting "FAG" (in yellow) across them in the middle of the night. Two of them were arrested after we caught them in the act.
My grandmother, originally from Norway, who had immigrated to Canada with her four brothers and sisters and homesteaded in Smithers, B.C., came with me on the campaign trail as I spoke to constituents in the northern B.C. interior. She even showed me the place where her dad built a log cabin for the family out of old railway ties.
I got 1,106 votes. I lost. Badly. In 2000, under the Honourable Joe Clark, my younger brother, Devin, while at McGill University, ran as the sacrificial lamb candidate for the Progressive Conservatives in the same riding.
He actually went to the riding, gave media interviews, and lived at home with our parents. Again, a sacrificial lamb who actually campaigned.
A decade later, however, things have changed. A lot. Being a sacrificial lamb candidate for a political party means, well, nothing.
Looking, for example, at Ruth Ellen Brosseau, the Honourable Member for Berthier-Maskinongé, one who did not have to speak the same language as constituents, live in the riding, ever have campaigned in the riding or, lastly, care at all.
Go on vacation, come home, and you're a member of Parliament.
In fact, as the 2011 federal election has demonstrated, being a name with a warm body is all that matters. It does not even matter that you might have misbehaved in life, had a jaded history, or cannot even be reached by telephone by your own political party -la NDP. Go to Vegas, do nothing, exist. Prerequisites for a member of Parliament in 2011.
That's depressing. Especially for those Canadians who do care, who do give up careers, salaries and time with families, friends and loved ones, for the honour, privilege and sacrifice to become a member of Parliament. Many of whom, by the way, ran in the 2011 election.
I recently had a lot of discussions with friends and family about running again for federal office. I was seriously concerned about how political parties and the public might view it if I ever ran again -but this time for a seat that was "winnable" (as is said in political circles). Literally, as the 2011 election has shown, anyone can run for the right party at the right time and they will become a member of Parliament.
Canadian politics is now just about the brand. Candidates -good, bad, ugly, terrible -do not matter. Run for the right party brand, and win. Like the Conservative candidate in Lethbridge, Alberta. Bring several friends to a nomination meeting, win it, and never campaign. Tell off the media. Answer no questions. Just win. Right party. Right riding. Member of Parliament.
An election with no candidates at a candidate debate. Bizarre. Otherworldly.
I have never been a proponent of proportional representation, but if there is evidence for supporting it, the 2011 Canadian federal election is it. People do not vote for local candidates, aside from the few wellknown members like Scott Brison or Ralph Goodale. They vote for leaders. They vote for parties. Ruth Ellen -who's that? If Canada had proportional representation, parties would have ensured that their top choices for candidates, who were likely to get elected, were Canadians who cared and did not view Parliament as a hobby.
I cannot believe I just made an argument for proportional representation.
I will never judge Canadians for whom they vote. But when I read the headlines about the Québécois and Québécoise who voted for NDP members of Parliament who have no connection to their riding, I do wonder if people are paying attention. As they say, you get what you pay for. But I really am concerned about those constituents who elect a member of Parliament who is unable to help with basic things like passport applications, Employment Insurance appeals or navigating bureaucracy.
And also, it pulls on my heartstrings to see people like Scott Bradley, the 2011 Liberal candidate in Ottawa Centre, who door-knocked every day for over a year and campaigned every single day, with his kids in tow, get out-voted by a Conservative candidate who, himself, was just a sacrificial lamb who rarely showed up to debates or campaign events.
Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine a campaign where many Conservative candidates simply don't debate, where unilingual anglophones get elected by sovereignist Québécois and Québécoise.
Now, more than ever, I am driven to run for office. I am going to run in a riding that matters to me. And, even if I am a sacrificial lamb for my party, I am going to campaign, I am going to be reachable by cellphone, I am going to debate and, above all, I am going to do it while defending my past and my experience. I will be accountable and accessible.
And I won't be in Las Vegas.
Kent Glowinski is a lawyer in Ottawa.
Ontario Legal Aid's publications, journal, legal essays and discussions on Ontario law
Osgoode Law School's Press Release on Irwin Law's Class Action Review
"Goodbye and Goodnight, Queen of the North" March 23, 2006, Globe and Mail, by Kent Glowinski
Linkedin Kent Glowinski
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kentglowinski
Kent Glowinski Website
http://www.kentglowinski.org/about.html
Other Official Links on the Kent Glowinski website
Homepage of the Kent Glowinski website
About Kent Glowinski, the .com website
Links Kent Daniel Glowinski website official 2011
Index of the Kent Daniel Glowinski .com website 2011
Kent Glowinski Blog
Kent Glowinski's Blog on Legal Issues
http://kentglowinski.wordpress.com/
http://kent-glowinski.livejournal.com
Bien que l’essentiel du critère applicable à l’article premier soit demeuré constant, son application a changé selon les circonstances. La Cour suprême du Canada a insisté sur le fait que le critère est flexible et qu’il doit s’appliquer avec souplesse pour tenir compte d’un contexte en particulier (par ex. Dunmore c. Ontario (Procureur général), 2001 CSC 94 (IIJCan), [2001] 3 R.C.S. 1016. D’une manière générale, lorsque le législateur a été obligé de trouver un équilibre entre les groupes concurrents, la Cour a eu davantage tendance à s’en remettre au jugement du législateur que lorsque, selon elle, «le gouvernement [est devenu] plutôt ce qu'on pourrait appeler l'adversaire singulier de l'individu dont le droit a été violé», comme dans le cas des lois criminelles ou pénales (Irwin Toy Ltd. c. Québec (P. g.), 1989 IIJCan 87 (C.S.C.), [1989] 1 R.C.S. 927 ; Libman c. Québec (P. g.), 1997 IIJCan 326 (C.S.C.), [1997] 3 R.C.S. 569). Toutefois, les récentes décisions rendues par la Cour semblent laisser entendre qu’à son avis, la distinction entre la médiation et la concurrence est imprécise et qu’elle examinera attentivement les circonstances de l’espèce avant de déterminer s’il y a lieu de s’en remettre au jugement du législateur : RJR-MacDonald Inc. c. Canada (P. g.), 1995 IIJCan 64 (C.S.C.), [1995] 3 R.C.S. 199, Thomson Newspapers c. Canada (P. g.), précité.
