Looks like the polygamy debate’s getting more attention in Canada. It seems like the legalization of polygamy is the logical next step after same-sex marriage. Why should we stop someone from having more than one spouse? To each his own.
A story that generated much publicity in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has become the centrepiece of a Supreme Court hearing that could permanently alter the scope of defamation law in Canada.
Lawyers for the Ottawa Citizen and more than a dozen other media organizations urged the top court yesterday to endorse a new defence against libel that would protect properly researched stories published in the public interest, even if they contain errors.
Full Story (Thanks for bringing this story to my attention, Dad)
As someone who practices journalism, this story is particularly relevant to me. As the law stands now, if I publish something that could potentially tarnish someone’s reputation, I can be charged with libel even if I approached the story with the best intentions for public interest or if the information was false because one of my sources lied to me. This makes publishing controversial stories quite risky, and discourages journalists from pursuing important stories that could put them in hot water. Depending how this case goes, that could all change.
It seems it’s okay for everyone to have an advocacy group – except straight white men. At least that’s the case at Brandon University. And I’ve seen this issue come up many times (the I’m a White Minority @ Ryerson Facebook group controversy comes to mind). It seems a bit hypocritical that some of the same people who claim to be fighting for equality would rally against the right for men to have advocacy groups of their own – just like every other group has.
When Will Breen tried to form his campus group, he faced a lot of criticism:
One elected council member set the tone of debate, scoffing that Breen’s group would be nothing but a “pornography and cigar club.” As a man, he huffed, he didn’t require representation. Other speakers were miffed and simply couldn’t see the need. The motion was defeated.
At another forum, a female professor could barely tolerate hearing Breen’s reasons for starting a Men’s Collective. “She was saying that men do not have need of representation, that we have historically been the oppressors, that we have no position of disadvantage,” the fourth-year geology student recalled.
But Breen isn’t forming another group to compete for victim status. He questions why everyone thinks a group should be “disadvantaged” to have an advocacy group.
“Men have issues just like everyone else,” he maintained.
Imagine if someone called the Women’s group a “baking and knitting club.”
Breen eventually was granted the right to start his group, which will receive $400 in funding. That, compared to the $5,000 per year and $2,000 startup grant the Women’s Collective gets. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans-gender Commission gets $2,000 per year.
Thanks to Fraser for bringing this story to my attention.