No Canadian sovereignty on Canadian soil

In case any of my Canadian readers were still under the illusion that Trump’s fascism wouldn’t bleed into our country, I present to you Bill C-23, a law which strips us of several immigration rights at border check points between Canada and the United States… even if the check point is on our side of the border.

U.S. border guards would get new powers to question, search and even detain Canadian citizens on Canadian soil under a bill proposed by the Liberal government.

Legal experts say Bill C-23, introduced by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, and likely to pass in the current sitting of Parliament, could also erode the standing of Canadian permanent residents by threatening their automatic right to enter Canada.

The bill would enshrine in law a reciprocal agreement for customs and immigration pre-clearance signed by the governments of Stephen Harper and Barack Obama in 2015. Both houses of Congress passed the U.S. version of the bill in December.

Michael Greene, an immigration lawyer in Calgary, says C-23 takes away an important right found in the existing law.

“A Canadian going to the U.S. through a pre-clearance area [on Canadian soil] can say: ‘I don’t like the way [an interview is] going and I’ve chosen not to visit your country.’ And they can just turn around and walk out.

“Under the new proposed bill, they wouldn’t be able to walk out. They can be held and forced to answer questions, first to identify themselves, which is not so offensive, but secondly, to explain the reasons for leaving, and to explain their reasons for wanting to withdraw,” said Greene, who is national chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s citizenship and immigration section.

“And that’s the part we think could be really offensive and goes too far.”

Howard Greenberg, a Toronto immigration lawyer who has chaired the immigration law committees at the Canadian Bar Association and the International Bar Association, says the law raises the prospect of a Canadian being arrested simply for deciding he or she has had enough with a certain line of questioning.

“At some point, it may change from a situation where you’re simply responding to a question, to a situation where you’re failing to respond to a direction of an officer. So the ambiguity is somewhat dangerous for the traveller.”

Yes, that’s right. American border agencies can detain you in your own country.

I have to say I’m somewhat blindsided by how obsequious our government seems to be. In what world would a country be okay with citizens being detained on their own soil by foreign powers?

My new Member of Parliament has already gone on record to criticize the law, but even if the Conservatives wake up and throw their weight in with the NDP, the Liberal supermajority can still make it pass.

I don’t think I had any intentions of visiting the United States as it is, but just the symbolism of “Americans can arrest Canadians on Canadian territory” strikes me as a stunning invasion of our so-called sovereignty.

Here’s hoping the Liberals come to their senses.

-Shiv

Signal boosting: Don’t fuck someone whose political views fuck you

Hanna Brooks Olsen has some advice for feminists dating Trump supporters: Break the fuck up.

A partner who voted for and continues to support a candidate who undermines your humanity does not respect your humanity.

It’s important, too, to remember what a privilege it is to “agree to disagree,” young (probably) white feminist. Your peers who are more marginalized bear the brunt of your connivance. Continuing to date someone who undermines you (and them) tacitly permits these views to exist.

…

Young person, there are people in the world (of all genders!) who not only agree with your political views, but agree with your fundamental belief that you are a human being who is worth loving. There are people in the world that you can be in a relationship with who don’t make you feel like you’re “too sensitive” for getting upset over an executive order, who don’t need to be asked not to call refugees “illegals,” and who will support you in your various causes.

In short, young person, I hope you at least remember this: Don’t fuck someone whose political actions could fuck you.

Wurd.

-Shiv

The Guardian’s anti-trans bias isn’t exactly subtle

Full disclosure: I have an axe to grind with any organization, publication or person that styles itself/themselves as progressive but consistently pushes anti-trans bullshit.

Check this out: Of the articles tagged “transgender” that allow commentators to participate, all five are about cisgender anxieties about trans people–transition regret, bathroom bills, housing in prisons, Sarah fucking Ditum, more bathroom segregation. This is an editorial choice, not an accident. There’s an editor out there fully cognizant of the fact that you can get 1,000x more clicks on a page that’s willing to call trans people “grotesque” than something thoughtful and evidence-based.

And I’m fucking sick of it. Look at the comments of this article. Moderating voice that tries to make the distinction between anxiety of sexed attributes and dissatisfaction with gender role? 4 likes. “Trans activist” conspiracy theory quoting the much-discussed-long-misapprehended 80% desistance myth? 107 likes.

Fact checking? 11 likes.

Trans cabal? 142 likes.

Fact checking? 20 likes.

Contradicting themselves in the same paragraph but hey it’s transphobic who cares? 80 likes.

Anecdote about “some people say”? 116 likes.

Smarten the fuck up, Guardian consumers. I’m so done with faux-progressives.

-Shiv

Journalist or Activist?

Borrowing from the tradition of anti-intellectualism, activist is now a snarl word in journalism, too. 

As a gender variant person who writes on gender variant issues, I am routinely accused of being “political” in my writings.* What I find utterly bizarre is that I label any contextualizations of my personal experiences as personal experiences. In the absence of that label, I stand by that work on the basis of its adherence to evidence.

I am utterly baffled as to how drawing upon sources to make statements supported by scientific consensus is now a “political” activity. Let me be perfectly clear: If evidence-based argument is “activism” rather than a strain of politics, then by definition your politics don’t include facts. This is ultimately what has alienated me from mainstream media, this strange and frankly broken idea that all opinions are equivalent, even when one is bullshit from start to finish and the other is well-researched. It has groomed an entire generation of self-appointed experts who quite frankly are amazing at wasting my fucking time.

Of course I’m hardly the first person to encounter this and I doubt I’ll be the last. Stephen Colbert (apparently) called this out back in the era of Bush Jr.–“reality has an anti-conservative bias”–but it’s quite another thing to actually experience it first hand. When it comes to gender variance, the bottom line is that enough people consider themselves equipped to participate in the conversation, spouting off shit that’s already been refuted forwards and backwards, or more commonly not bothering with citations at all.

My politics require facts. I will not be made to apologize for that.

-Shiv

 

*Even the, uh, political posts.

Conservatives denounce correction of Fox News’ fake news

Apparently satisfied with the amount of pearl-clutching over the national deficit, Canada’s official opposition fired shots across the Prime Minister’s bow by asking him… why his office would correct the blatantly false information about the Quebec mosque shooting aired by Fox News:

OTTAWA—The Opposition Conservatives are criticizing the Prime Minister’s Office for complaining to Fox News about a tweet identifying the suspect in the Quebec City mosque shooting as “Moroccan.”

In an open letter to Fox News Channel co-president Bill Shine, PMO Communications Director Kate Purchase wrote that Canada is “an open, welcoming country that stands by its citizens.”

She accused the tweet of “perpetuating fear and division” and dishonouring the memory of the victims of Sunday’s mass shooting, in which six people were killed.

She asked that it be taken down.

Fox News responded by deleting the tweet and saying it regretted the error.

Conservative MP and party leadership candidate Lisa Raitt says while she understands frustrations over misinformation being reported, Justin Trudeau should be focused on more important matters.

“More important matters”?

I’m sorry, the most powerful country in the world is run by a bull in a china shop and you think misinformation campaigns are “unimportant”?

The deaths of our Muslims citizens at the hands of white nationalists is “unimportant”?

Not exactly subtle.

-Shiv

Snarks of the Months: December/January

Due to technical delays in December, I never actually did a December snark of the month.

So here we go:

December Snark of the Month: Tom Foss

Answering the question, “How is Gender Studies dangerous?” Tom replies…

Well that’s obvious, anbheal. Gender Studies courses make people think there’s no such thing as facts, so they become relativists, which makes people vote for Trump. Because Trump voters all took Gender Studies courses (I think the polling bears this out), or maybe because Trump supporters are violently opposed to people who take Gender Studies courses (but not violently opposed to them in a rationalist way like Boghossian is, just violently opposed to them in a way that totally aligns with his views on gender and LGBT issues).

I think it’s clear that this consequence of Gender Studies courses makes them clearly more dangerous than Boghossian’s example of Creationism, because fundamentalist worldviews never have negative political or environmental consequences. And Moon Landing hoaxers? I mean, seriously, when’s the last time that believing crazy conspiracy theories has ever led to someone shooting up a pizza parlor, for instance? Besides, that kind of stuff has no academic support, unlike Gender Studies courses. That stuff is confined to places like Infowars, and nobody with any kind of power ever takes Alex Jones seriously.

Meta, Tom. So meta.

December runner-up: AlexanderZ

It’s no secret that snarking on Jordan Peterson will bias your chances of winning–because I just disclosed it. Remarking on Jordan Peterson’s shiny new six-figure Patreon salary earned by whining endlessly about respecting trans people, AlexanderZ says:

Well duh. This is a guy who has been interviewed by almost every media outlet in North America because of claim of supposed censorship. His speech is so unfree that you can hear on every channel.

Wurd.

 

January Snark of the Month: The Mellow Monkey

Remarking on the Satanic Temple’s iteration of Baphomet and the breathless Catholic moral panic it induced:

I guess if you can’t tell the difference between an image of a fictional character created to troll you and reality, it makes sense that symbolic penises are the same as the real thing.

(And how far does this symbolism go? Is anything longer than it is wide a symbolic penis now? When we put on pants, are we doing some sort of symbolic sex act with our legs???)

Inquiring minds want to know.

January runner-up: Pierce R. Butler

From the same thread:

Poor Levi got his pentagram upside-down! (See current Republican logo for 3 examples of doing it right.)

And didn’t Playboy give up the whole centerfold schtick in ’15?

Busted.

That’s a very odd definition of “safety”

I’m sure exactly zero people need to be reminded of the sheer volume of misdirection coming out of the White House, but Joe Sands has a pretty on-point review comparing Sean Spicer/Trump’s statements regarding safety to the regulations the Republicans are about to strip.

Contrast Trump:

We’re going to put the safety of Americans first, we’re not going to wait and react, as I said in the statement, the president is going to be very proactive in protecting this country.

With Trump’s plan:

We have Superfund sites that have been operating for years, decades even, where the entire mission is to clean up the downstream pollutants. Superfund sites are reactionary. Much like disallowing visas from Saudi Arabia would be, after the attack on September 11, 2001. A mining company comes in, legally pollutes the land and waterways, and then leaves or goes bankrupt, and the government (the EPA) is left holding the bag. The citizenry of the United States pays billions of dollars a year to clean up the environmental damage to our water and land.

Much like the current administration states that the “extreme vetting” refugee rules are proactive, rather than reactive, an argument that can be proven (and debated) on its merits, they also say that the “mission of the EPA is to protect (should be read: proactively) our air and water.”

But Congress is now using the Congressional Review Act to completely eliminate that rule, rolling back the proactive protections of our environment, going back to only worrying about the permitted areas, or at least removing the protections from regulatory oversight, making it easier for a mining company to circumvent responsibility for polluting our downstream waterways.

If your sanity can handle it, read more here.

-Shiv