What’s Happening in the Protests The farmers are peacefully protesting in Delhi. They have set makeshift homes in tractors, trailers and tents. It is apparent that they are not leaving without an answer, as the implications of this negotiation, or lack thereof, changes the face of the agriculture industry completely. There has been no destruction to property and instead protestors are keeping the city clean through picking up after themselves. They have also helped local homeless individuals through feeding them through the langar seva. During these protests, the worldwide community has gathered to feed these protestors at no cost and through volunteerism, a solid langar system. Volunteers have also set up schooling for the kids present in the Delhi protest, alongside handing out additional necessities such as blankets and shoes for the cold weather. International Impact Internationally, people of Indian descent are supporting people back home through rallies to show the implications of these bills. Some people are not sure what raising awareness and representation in country’s outside of India will do. The answer is quite simple. This protects and shows solidarity with our farmers back home. In no means are we even close to experiencing what the farmer’s back in Punjab and the other states are going through however, this is a way for us to tell them that we hear them and we are standing with them. By raising awareness, we are also urging country’s to cover the matter to ensure that there is a greater light shed on the issue. This is our way to ensure that we are doing what we can to protect our farmers. Evidence of this impact was also witnessed when India wanted to speak to Canada’s ambassador regarding the comments made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, where he stood up for the farmer’s right to peacefully protest. This act alone is evidence that India is being pressured by how its international reputation is being viewed. So, let’s not stay silent, if not for our sake, then for the sake of our farmers back home. How you can support the movement
Continue to educate yourself on the movement. Thanks to social media, we are able to hear the voices of the oppressed. With the Indian media shadow-banning and releasing biased reports suggesting ulterior motives for the protests, it’s up to us to ensure we set the record straight. The Punjabi music industry has also stepped up to make songs to educate individuals about the cause, by incorporating the history of these lands through their lyrics. There are also many organizations who are donating money to farmers during the protests to stay safe. An organization I personally support is Khalsa Aid and they have been accepting e-transfers and using the funds to take care and support the farmers who are sacrificing their lives by leaving their homes and marching to the protest in Delhi. Conclusion Suicide has been a sad and a more increasing reality for Punjab farmers, it has increased by 12 times over the last five years. Poor working conditions coupled with the lack of government support has devastated the livelihood of these farmers. These farmers are already struggling to take care of their lands with the lack of support and the unfair rates the government grants them for their crops. With little to no choice, the farmers take up large loans but without any way to pay them off, they get buried in debt which has been correlated to the increase in suicide rates for these farmers. Instead of the government creating laws to support them (as it currently exists in many Western nations) they have chosen to introduce bills that continue to threaten their well-being and only benefit corporate interests. With these laws, it is only a matter of time until the farmer's way of life in India worsens. Farmers feed the world and it’s time we feed them the respect and the support that they deserve. Because if there are no farmers, there’s no food. By: Karen Randhawa and Sukhdeep Kullar The headline may not catch the attention of those in developed nations. However, it is integral to the Indian economy. Nearly 60-70% of India’s economy is dedicated agriculture. The agriculture sector is composed of:
This is the largest and poorest segment due to the disparity of power. These laws eliminate the commission agent (arthiya) which has been integral to the farming economy, as the arthiya employs individuals who load and offload trucks, weigh the products, and find price rates. Each town has multiple arthiyas and individuals who work with them. This goes on to have a huge impact on the logistics industry since local truckers will be losing their livelihood. There was a “go green revolution in the 60s” where India asked Punjab and Haryana to feed the nation by planting wheat, so that they would no longer need to rely on foreign imports. The method for farming ruined the land, through various chemicals being introduced to the very same agricultural crops that feed the nation. Punjab and Haryana land specifically has sacrificed so much to feed India, but now that India needs them - everyone is turning their backs. Punjab’s economy is heavily agriculturally based, given that it is endowed with five rivers and fertile land. That being said, are Punjab’s interests always upheld at the national level through the saddening increase in farmer suicide rates over the years and the lack of governmental support for shopping local or fair pricing. As someone who practices the Sikh faith, I have been seeing a lot of the teachings of Sikhism in the hard work and determination of the farmers. In Sikhism, the first Guru, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji laid the principles as “Kirt Karo (an honest and earnest living), Naam Japo (pray) and Vand Chhako (share the fruits of your labour with others).” The first and third principles have deep roots in farming, as farming was seen as a practice of being self-sufficient and serving the community. This has also helped to develop the practice of langar through feeding individuals free meals, which can be seen in Gurudwaras across the world. During the pandemic, langar seva overseas for those who could not make ends meet, was witnessed around the world - to any person of the human race. By: Karen Randhawa and Sukhdeep Kullar As the movement continues to get strong, I thought it was a good idea to share it with the readers of LB. My ancestors were farmers, hence why this issue becomes personal. I wanted to try my best to do this issue justice with regards to explaining the bills in detail to those who may not be aware of why the “Farmers Protest” matters, and that too on this side of the world. It’s important to mention that you do not have to have any family connection to farmers, to acknowledge and understand the threat this bill poses to the livelihood of farmers, the very same people who continue to feed the world.
This series hopes to describe to our readers the largest protest in the world’s largest democracy, the significance for farming, and why it is a violation of rights. Laws are passed for the betterment of society. However, it is beneficial to contact and keep those individuals who are impacted in mind, in order to pass effective legislation. Yet common farmers had no part in the process of drafting and approving the legislation. The unity amid a pandemic and the resilience displayed by the farmers who left the comfort of their home to protest, is commendable to say the least. What Legislation is Being Opposed? In September 2020, amid a pandemic, the government passed 3 laws deregulating the agriculture sector. Bill #1 - Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 Eliminate all government subsidies for the farmers Currently, the government guarantees farmers a minimum support price for at least a few grain crops which range from 10 to 15 USD for 100 kilos of grain products. Currently, farmers trade their crops within a Mandi system, that allows them to trade in a market with minimum support pricing (MSP). Think of the Mandi as the middle man/ farmer’s market. With the passing of this bill, this law will eventually diminish within a year or two because of the lack of regulation that forces farmers to deal with the demands of big corporations. Going forward, the farmers will have to do contract farming with corporations on an agreed upon price and the corporation will dictate the specifications of products produced. Any excess product will not be purchased, and thus will go to waste. To explain it in comparable terms, it is the equivalent of eliminating a minimum wage or a price floor. The farmers now do not have any price stability and are at a greater risk of being taken advantage of. Bill #2 - The Farming Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill If the farmer gets into a dispute with a private company, they cannot go to the courts. Under contract law, will these corporations choose to perform in good faith? In this situation, what are the repercussions if the corporations decide against that? There is a clear power imbalance that tips the scale in the favour of corporations. There is no legal recourse for 50-60% of India's population in cases where a big corporation takes part in exploitation. In the event a dispute occurs, an arbitration will happen but who will have the bargaining power? You guessed right - the corporation not the farmer. Such a bill gives the corporations even more power so that they continue winning every single time, leaving nothing up to the farmers. Bill #3 - The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill Any person or entity can hoard or store an unlimited quantity of any essential commodity or product. A large corporation has the capacity to use their financial resources to purchase and hoard agricultural products.. Unfortunately, farmers do not have the capital to invest in storage. This becomes an issue because these very same corporations will have the ability to buy crops in bulk at a lower price. This will undercut the market for these crops on which farmers gain their profits thus leaving them with significantly less to take home. By: Karen Randhawa and Sukhdeep Kullar As we continue to reflect on how to put an end to anti-Black and Indigenous racism, we must examine our judicial system and determine the reasons it has failed to serve all Canadians equally. Most recently, Chief Justice Richard Wagner explained that the lack of diversity in the justice system is partly to blame. Although Canada’s judiciary has become more diverse, as a growing number of women, visible minorities and Indigenous people are issued a license, there is still a limited number of racialized judges across Canada. In fact, there has yet to be an Indigenous Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) judge. A note on the appointment process The procedure behind judicial appointments has often been kept from the public. It was not until 2016, that the Liberal government commenced an initiative to diversify Canada’s judiciary by rendering the selection process more transparent. The nine SCC judges are appointed by the Governor in Council pursuant to s. 4(2) of the Supreme Court Act (SCA). Requirements for the appointment process has been somewhat formalized to try and promote transparency. In a nutshell, an independent and nonpartisan advisory committee provides the Prime Minister (PM) and the Minister of Justice a short list of potential candidates, who then select a nominee. The nominee is then subjected to a hearing before a Parliamentary committee. Since the SCA is silent on the inner workings of the process, this approach was developed on an ad hoc basis in response to public concerns about lack of transparency. This process has not always been strictly followed. Admittedly, the transition from the traditional processes (whereby the PM appoints from a list of potential candidates, free of public scrutiny) to a public process (whereby impartial committees partake in selecting the candidate) shows signs of progress. However, mere transparency is not sufficient. The process must also be rigorous and consistent. Of the nine judges, the SCA requires that at least three shall be appointed from Quebec. Generally, the Governor in Council appoints three from Ontario, two from the Western provinces or Northern Canada and one from the Atlantic provinces. Apart from these general guidelines, the selection process is truly at the hands of the executive. This may sometimes create a tension between the need to uphold an independent judiciary system and government discretion. With little formalized requirements, the SCC selection process has rarely resulted in the appointment of racialized judges or led to the appointment of an Indigenous judge. Why is diversity important? There is an inherent contradiction when arguing for diversity on the SCC. If judges ought to remain unbiased, why should diversity matter? While all judges should aim to be impartial when hearing a case, it is evident that judicial judgement is not void of personal biases and prejudice. These underlying biases were formally recognized by the SCC in R v RDS (1997). In brief, the case concerned the arrest of a black 15-year-old who had allegedly interfered with the arrest of another youth. The police officer and the accused were the only two witnesses present, and their accounts differ greatly. In deciding that the accused should be acquitted, the judge at first instance took judicial notice that police officers often overreact, especially when dealing with non-white groups. The Crown appealed the decision, arguing that the judgment was biased, and the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ordered a new trial. The accused appealed to the SCC. The SCC allowed the accused’s appeal and restored the acquittals, finding that there was not reasonable apprehension of bias. The dissent explained that such remarks were inappropriate in all circumstances and should never contribute to a judicial decision. The majority affirmed that courts should be held to the highest standards of impartiality. Decisions must be based on facts in evidence, not biased generalizations. However, the burden of proof for a judge to be found to have acted with reasonable apprehension of bias is high. It is particularly important to note the judgement delivered by four Justices (La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin JJ). Unlike the rest of the majority who showed concern over the judge’s comments, these judges recognize that judges, while they must strive for impartiality, can never be neutral and purely objective. Instead, different life experiences and backgrounds appropriately assist judges in their decision-making process, so long as those experiences are relevant and not based on inappropriate stereotypes. It follows, therefore, that a diverse SCC bench would advance the court’s ability to develop judgements and resolutions tailored to the specificity of each case. The SCC must work toward improving its selection process and encouraging the appointment of racialized judges that would better reflect the multicultural Canadian population, given that judges of diverse backgrounds apply and interpret the law differently. For instance, Aboriginal communities have often voiced their concerns over the criminal justice system, finding criminal procedures alienating and ineffective in seeking appropriate redress. To have an Indigenous SCC Justice would mean consideration specific to Aboriginal traditional and cultural values. It is merely one way to help fix a system that presents an unending course of barriers and obstacles. This would truly allow our justice system to reflect the view of all Canadians. By Lucinda Chitapain About the App Last week, Prime Minister (“PM”) Trudeau announced there will be a voluntary nationwide contact tracing app coming soon. According to the PM, this app will alert Canadians if they’ve come into contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. Ontario will be the first to get this app on July 2. The government emphasizes that it will be important to use during the potential second wave as the Canadian economy slowly enters reopening. How it works? People who test positive upload their results anonymously COVID Alert, the app, using a temporary code that is given to them by a healthcare provider. Using bluetooth technology, the phone records and stores all app users that have come into close contact. If an individual has tested positive, they anonymously upload their results to the app. The app would then notify all close-contacts and may direct them to self-isolate for up to 14 days. The information that is uploaded will then be shared with other users to see if they have been near someone who has tested positive. How anonymous is anonymous? Although the app uses bluetooth technology, privacy remains a concern. Could uses be tracked using bluetooth identifiers? App Specifics from the Government The government considers this app to be low maintenance, as it runs in the background, uses bluetooth, no geotagging or location services of any sort. The federal Privacy Commissioner worked on the app, in an effort to connect cases and better document the spread of the virus. The intellectual property rights for the app will be granted to the federal government. Although healthcare falls within provincial jurisdiction, the pandemic is a national emergency and concern which has led to the federal government playing an increasing role in healthcare. The development and ownership of the app are the federal government’s intellectual property. What are Tech Companies Doing about this? Google and Apple have been limited to creating one COVID tracking app per country. I find this to be helpful as information is synced on one platform for all users in that nation. This provides streamlining the information. There are issues regarding syncing app information with that which exists through Alberta’s pre-existing app. Although this restriction creates a limited marketplace which forces individuals to use one app, I would consider this app to be synonymous with Amber Alerts on our phones, as opposed to multiple GPS app options. What are other nations doing? Many countries across the globe introduced COVID-19 tracking apps to their population post March 2020. While in some countries these apps are voluntary to download (Australia, Japan, and Germany), other countries (India, South Korea) mandated their citizens to download the app. The goal of the app, reiterated by governments, is to track those who have the virus and where they’ve been to caution close contacts and the general public from visiting hotspots. Is this democratic? These are questions that come to mind. The world we live in today people already voluntarily gives out a lot of personal information through cookies, accepting terms and agreements without reading them, and through the usage of social media to store our ideas into the virtual space forever. What makes this app different? Well we’re downloading something onto our device, what would it have access to? In Alberta, the COVID app, ABTrace Together, uses bluetooth as opposed to wifi, and it doesn’t require a phone number or name to be associated with the mobile phone itself. It differs from Australia where it is mandatory to provide these personal characteristics (but the information is said to be stored for only 21 days). In Italy, the app deletes information by the end of the year while keeping it anonymous. The right to delete the data when this pandemic is over, is an important factor to consider. There is a concern of how effectively the centralized system can dispose of personal data, and if users can verify that it has been done. Can an argument be made that this is for the public good? I would agree that this app would be important in knowing where an individual who contracted COVID has visited to ensure that others get tested. But would this be a way to outcast individuals from society and where is this information going to be stored? Can it be used to prejudice individuals from opportunities (e.g. access to medical information for employers, which is something that is currently still protected in Ontario that we aren’t required to share our medical history, decreasing a ground that we cannot be discriminated against). At the start of this pandemic, we have seen that Asian-Canadians experienced more racism. This app is a double edged sword - while it provides the benefit of protecting public health, it can also alienate & amplify stereotypes. Data in this society is crucial. Especially with big data analytics being on the rise. Companies profit from selling information about consumer preferences. So where does this app come in? Data has no boundaries, so can this app be considered domestic or can the data be stored across the world? The threat of IP theft continues as the cyber spy agency warns that foreigners could try to steal intellectual property from Canadians as being guise as COVID-19 relief impacts. My Opinion The fact that this app is voluntary will create a disparity in the results. Evidently, governments should not have authority over what the population should download on their phones. Pierre Trudeau’s comment “There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” could be updated to say that the state has no place in the cellphones of individuals. However, with the implementation of a voluntary contact tracing app, there needs to be significant uptake for the data to be representative and effective. I do think not everyone who tests positive will be uploading their results in fear that the information will come back to haunt them later in life. I also am skeptical to see how many people will download the app, will it be one person per household or everyone in it? My guess is that there will be very limited usage but that is just an observation based on the individuals I’ve spoken to. This app seems like it could disenfranchise individuals through the government having control over health related data via technology. Primarily, my concern is with data storage. These apps are being developed by Apple and Google. Although it is voluntary, low maintenance and requires little battery, there is a lot on the line. Storing information as such on a grand scale is different from the Health apps that people usually use to track their fitness. This app is one that relates to illness and I don’t know if our world can handle open data about one’s health without having all the answers. By: Karen Randhawa Social distancing has shown to be an effective tactic at flattening the curve across jurisdictions. However, persuading entire populations to abandon their daily lives and routines to isolate in their homes is not an easy feat. Rather than solely relying on public service announcements to convince citizens to respect stay-at-home orders, the government has relied on fines and charges as enforcement mechanisms. Fines & charges The fines are administered through city by-laws, meaning that there isn’t standardization across the country for violating stay-at-home orders. Cities have no constitutional status - they are “creatures of the state” or the creating province. The powers that cities have are flowed through to them by their respective provinces. The provinces are enforcing their stay-at-home orders through public health acts. If a law in pith and substance pertains to their constitutional power over healthcare and its criminal law implications are incidental (as criminal law falls solely within the federal jurisdiction), then the law can still be deemed constitutional. The stay-at-home orders likely fall under civil rights. While Prime Minister Trudeau has publicly stated the possibility of implementing the Emergencies Act to enforce the stay-at-home orders, the government has yet to do so - likely due to the high controversiality of the Act. The fragmented regulatory environment, owing to the provinces and cities spearheading enforcement, combined with the need for timely action, raise concerns about inconsistencies. First, the amount and administration of fines vary depending on the city. In Toronto, fines can range from $750 to $10,000 for individuals and up to $10 million for businesses. These are issued by police officers. Originally in Montreal, infractions were reported by police officers and it was within the discretion of Crown Prosecutors to charge the individuals between $1,000 to $6,000. By early April, Montreal modified its approach, authorizing police officers to lay charges. The range in fine amounts gives law enforcement considerable discretion in charging. Second, there are differences in what is considered a violation of the stay-at-home orders. In Calgary, only those who were blatantly in violation of the stay-at-home orders, for example street preachers, have been charged. In contrast, Melissa Leblanc of Montreal was fined $1,546 for having friends visit her for her birthday even though they were in their cars, maintaining the advised 2 metre distance. These jurisdictional differences in what is considered a violation seem arbitrary given that stay-at-home orders fall within the scope of criminal law, as they satisfy the Margarine Reference triple P test for criminal law. According to the Margarine Re, a law is deemed to be a criminal law when it has a Prohibition, Penalty (fine, imprisonment) and a Public Purpose. The stay at home order constitutes a prohibition on certain activities, accompanied with penal sanctions, for a public purpose. As such, there seems to be some rationale in establishing a national standard for the criminal sanctions associated with violations of stay-at-home orders. Furthermore, the laws around violations are quickly changing within jurisdictions as cities and provinces are trying to respond to the progression of COVID which creates confusion around what is lawful. As Abby Deshman from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association explains “ultimately when the law is unclear it’s left up to frontline law enforcement to decide who and when and how they will enforce those vague provisions and that opens the door to discriminatory enforcement and arbitrary decision-making.” Impact on minorities Mapping the Pandemic, a project by Alex Luscombe and Alexander McClelland from the University of Toronto, plotted reported infractions between April 4-13 which they collected from media articles, police releases and social media posts. Their study shows that the ticketing disproportionately affects individuals who do not have the ability to comfortably self-isolate due to their living conditions or have not been effectively informed about the spread of COVID-19. Given the systemic barriers faced by people of colour in housing, employment and various aspects of life, it takes no stretch of imagination to visualize who these individuals are. Privacy On April 6th, the Ontario government announced that they will be sharing information on COVID-19 positive individuals with first responders, including police, firefighters and paramedics. This information includes the names, date of birth and addresses of the patients. The CCLA states that this increased access to healthcare information, which has traditionally been heavily protected, raises concerns for privacy. As a greater number of individuals are now accessing this information, there is a heightened risk of privacy breaches and hacking. As CCLA recognizes, the benefits of this increased access are not clear given that testing information is often outdated. What is the public policy rationale behind the expansion of access if the benefits do not warrant it? So what? From reviewing the changing to policing and enforcement in light of COVID, it has become evident that it is imbued with vagueness and uncertainty. There needs to be change in the regulatory environment to make the rights and obligations of citizens clear. By: Veena Ganesarasa |
Legally BrownThis page is dedicated to providing insights on current events and reflecting on recent legal developments. Archives
January 2021
Categories
All
|