Welcome to Vancouver, where politics is always good sport!

Ontario court says consumers can’t click away class action rights.

In case anyone missed it, the NY Times Magazine had an all-Olympics issue and featured the two Canadians they know best to talk about the Olympics: Michael Ignatieff and Douglas Coupland.

Here’s the link to Ignatieff’s column, all about how we’re going to rise to the occasion. Stunning picture of the village to go with it. As Bob Rennie would say, you just can’t buy that kind of advertising.

Pivot Legal Society LLP is taking a “perfect logical next step” on the path toward establishing that government is “responsible for ensuring there is adequate shelter” for its citizens. That’s the opinion of Catherine Boies-Parker, one of the lawyers who succeeded in striking down the City of Victoria’s anti-camping bylaw. Earlier, we were the first to tell you Pivot had launched a lawsuit asking for a declaration that the homeless have a right to emergency shelter and the government has a duty to provide it.

That lawsuit comes in the wake of the Adams case, in which the British Columbia Supreme Court found the City of Victoria violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by introducing a bylaw that denied the homeless the right to “erect temporary overnight shelter in parks when the number of homeless people exceeds the number of available shelter beds.”

But that court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal - which upheld the ruling - said it wasn’t necessary to determine if section seven of the charter included a responsibility by the city to provide shelter.

So Pivot’s action is likely an attempt to push the boundaries of those decisions - an assessment shared by Ms. Boies-Parker.

Speaking with Public Eye, Ms. Boise-Parker said, “We’re obviously of the opinion that the courts have left it open that section seven includes positive rights to basic necessities.”

“They haven’t decided a case on that basis yet,” she continued. “But they’ve made it really clear that it’s open to future cases to hold that. And, in the court of appeal decision in the Adams case, the court held the right to shelter is a basic right.

“So it’s a perfectly logical next step to say the government is responsible to ensuring there is adequate shelter and may be responsible for the implications if there’s not.”

Pivot Legal Society LLP is taking a “perfect logical next step” on the path toward establishing that government is “responsible for ensuring there is adequate shelter” for its citizens. That’s the opinion of Catherine Boies-Parker, one of the lawyers who succeeded in striking down the City of Victoria’s anti-camping bylaw. Earlier, we were the first to tell you Pivot had launched a lawsuit asking for a declaration that the homeless have a right to emergency shelter and the government has a duty to provide it.

That lawsuit comes in the wake of the Adams case, in which the British Columbia Supreme Court found the City of Victoria violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by introducing a bylaw that denied the homeless the right to “erect temporary overnight shelter in parks when the number of homeless people exceeds the number of available shelter beds.”

But that court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal - which upheld the ruling - said it wasn’t necessary to determine if section seven of the charter included a responsibility by the city to provide shelter.

So Pivot’s action is likely an attempt to push the boundaries of those decisions - an assessment shared by Ms. Boies-Parker.

Speaking with Public Eye, Ms. Boise-Parker said, “We’re obviously of the opinion that the courts have left it open that section seven includes positive rights to basic necessities.”

“They haven’t decided a case on that basis yet,” she continued. “But they’ve made it really clear that it’s open to future cases to hold that. And, in the court of appeal decision in the Adams case, the court held the right to shelter is a basic right.

“So it’s a perfectly logical next step to say the government is responsible to ensuring there is adequate shelter and may be responsible for the implications if there’s not.”

To truly keep the peace, police must not overreact if Olympic protestors break the law.

A whistleblower finally came forward (and was promptly sacked) for reporting on Amnesty International’s odd relationship with Cageprisoners, an organization that advocates on behalf of the “innocent victims” of the war on terror at Guantanamo — many of whom return to the battlefield to wage jihad as soon as they are released.

It may sound odd to use the word whistleblower to describe someone who merely comments on a public relationship. Though I think it fits in that here we have an insider who breaks with their organization’s formal talking points in comments to the Times of London story entitled “Amnesty International is ‘damaged’ by Taliban link” and is immediately punished for it.

H/T to Terry Glavin, Harry’s Place and Stroppyblog.

Amnesty International and Cageprisoners
Statement by Gita Sahgal

I have been a human rights campaigner for over three decades, defending the rights of women and ethnic minorities, defending religious freedom and the rights of victims of torture, and campaigning against illegal detention and state repression. I have raised the issue of the association of Amnesty International with groups such as Begg’s consistently within the organisation. I have now been suspended for trying to do my job and staying faithful to Amnesty’s mission to protect and defend human rights universally and impartially.

Related posts:

1. OuterLimits: Arab League Hands Over Bashir to International Criminal Court Meanwhile, in an alternate universe, the Arab League has shown…
2. WorldView: Courage and Dignity. Women Fighting For Their Rights in Afghanistan These are brave women. Afghanistan needs help from outside if…
3. Where’s the Outcry Over Human Rights? A 16-cannon broadside against those who would use cultural relativism…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“The dark prince of the Social Credit party” - that’s how Keith Baldrey described Bud Smith in a 1991 story published in Vancouver Sun, adding the former attorney general “has developed a reputation over the years as a first-rate political organizer, who understands political trends and strategies.” So the Royal British Columbia Museum’s foes might want to take note that the Campbell administration appointed Mr. Smith to the institution’s board of directors on January 26.

“The dark prince of the Social Credit party” - that’s how Keith Baldrey described Bud Smith in a 1991 story published in Vancouver Sun, adding the former attorney general “has developed a reputation over the years as a first-rate political organizer, who understands political trends and strategies.” So the Royal British Columbia Museum’s foes might want to take note that the Campbell administration appointed Mr. Smith to the institution’s board of directors on January 26.

“The dark prince of the Social Credit party” - that’s how Keith Baldrey described Bud Smith in a 1991 story published in Vancouver Sun, adding the former attorney general “has developed a reputation over the years as a first-rate political organizer, who understands political trends and strategies.” So the Royal British Columbia Museum’s foes might want to take note that the Campbell administration appointed Mr. Smith to the institution’s board of directors on January 26.

“The dark prince of the Social Credit party” - that’s how Keith Baldrey described Bud Smith in a 1991 story published in Vancouver Sun, adding the former attorney general “has developed a reputation over the years as a first-rate political organizer, who understands political trends and strategies.” So the Royal British Columbia Museum’s foes might want to take note that the Campbell administration appointed Mr. Smith to the institution’s board of directors on January 26.