Adam Sandler and the Politics of Same Sex Marriage

Brenda Cossman
Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Adam Sandler’s new film I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry is causing quite a stir.   In the film, Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James) are New York fire fighters (it doesn’t get any more heroic) who enter into a sham gay marriage.  Although the film might not to be everyone's taste (typical Sandler slapstick comedy with lots of homophobic jokes thrown in for good measure), it may tell us alot about the politics of same sex marriage in America.

In the film, Chuck and Larry are both very, very straight, but Larry needs to get married to secure some employment benefits for his children.  They try a domestic partnership first, but it turns out to not be enough.  So, they come to Canada, get hitched, and go back home as a ‘married’ couple.The rest of the story plays out in the typical slap stick comedy form:  a specialist (Steve Buscemi) investigates the couple to see if they are “really” gay, Chuck falls for the lawyer (Jessica Biel) but can’t do anything about it because he is supposed to be gay, the guys at the firehouse shun the gay boys, blah, blah, blah.   Eventually, it all turns out well, with the guys at the firehouse seeing the error of their ways and support Chuck and Larry.  The real gay folks get married, and the real straight folks end up with straight folks, and everyone is supposed to feel good.

Torture and the Case of Syria

Ed Morgan
Friday, August 10, 2007

This morning’s news brings Maher Arar back to the front pages, this time with revelations that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), and not just the RCMP in collaboration with immigration and security authorities in the United States, had advance knowledge that he would be tortured. If true it is an important disclosure, and calls are rightly being made for an investigation of CSIS’ role in all of this. Indeed, this new angle on the Arar case harks back to accusations of CSIS involvement in the case of another Canadian, Muayyed Nurreddin, who claims that CSIS officials set him up to be abused abroad. Two other Canadians, Abdullah Almalki and Ahmad El Maati, have made similar accusations of collusion by Canadian government authorities in their arrests, interrogation, and torture. Each of these cases is slightly different and each points to different branches of security services on both sides of the Canada – U.S. border. Each one, of course, deserves independent investigation and a legal remedy for wrongs done to the individuals concerned.

Michael Ignatieff, the Charter and the Quebec Nation Debate

Sujit Choudhry
Monday, August 13, 2007

On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the  Charter, I offer some skeptical thoughts on the success of the Charter as an instrument of nation-building, in Bills of Rights as Instruments of Nation-Building in Multinational States: The Canadian Charter and Quebec Nationalism, posted on SSRN.  Here is the abstract (after the break):

Il Sait Porter l’étoile de David? Religious Schooling and the Constitution

Ed Morgan
Saturday, August 25, 2007

Robert Fulford writes a complex piece in this morning’s newspaper ["Modernism isn't written in stone", National Post, Saturday, August 25, 2007, p. A23], with which I both agree and disagree. Fulford, in his usual concise way, does three things at once. First, he posits the separation of religion and government as essential to the development of modern democracies, citing the contest between Islamists and secular nationalists as central to determining the political course of Middle Eastern societies. Next, he states that although state-imposed religion is always pre-modern, contemporary democracies can and do differ on their particular approach to the subject and that not all adhere to the model of strict separation. Finally, he states that Ontario’s public support for a Roman Catholic separate school system is in the tradition of democracies giving a small nod to religious heritage without undermining their essential liberal structure.

Canada's New Terrorism Bills: Slow Down and Debate

Kent Roach
Monday, October 29, 2007

Canadian Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day tabled new legislation in the House of Commons last Monday to allow British-style special advocates to play a role in security certificate cases that are used to detain and deport non-citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism. The bill responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision earlier this year that the existing legislation was unconstitutional.

On Tuesday the government tabled another bill in the Senate to revive investigative hearings and preventive arrests. These Criminal Code powers were introduced after 9/11 but expired in March, 2007 after the government failed to convince Parliament to renew them for three years. The government now proposes to include the powers in the Criminal Code, subject to a some changes and a 5 year renewable sunset.

The official opposition - the Liberal Party - has indicated some preliminary support for both bills and they appear likely to pass. There is a need to slow down and carefully consider both bills, as well as important work already done by Parliamentary committees on anti-terrorism law.

Migrating Same Sex Marriages

Brenda Cossman
Wednesday, March 12, 2008

I have just posted a new article on SSRN entitled "Betwixt and Between Recognition: Migrating Same Sex Marriages and the Turn to the Private".   

The paper looks at some parallels  between conflict of laws cases and New York Times wedding annoucements in recognizing same sex marriage. Here is the abstract:

"The paper explores migrating same sex marriages - that is, same-sex marriages or civil unions entered in one jurisdiction that migrate to another and seek recognition, calling upon the private law of conflicts.

Bill C-10 - When Funding Becomes Censorship

Brenda Cossman
Thursday, March 6, 2008

There is a new censorship kafuffle in town. It’s Bill C-10, which will restrict tax credits to film and television productions deemed offensive and "contrary to public policy" by the Ministry of Heritage. The arts community is rightly up in arms, condemning the Bill as government censorship. But, the government, along with more than a few supporters, insists that this isn’t censorship. Artists are free to make art, they say, just not on the government’s tab.

So, just what is censorship, exactly?

(A shorter version of this article was first published on Xtra.ca) 

The Miriam Webster dictionary defines censoring as the act of examining material "in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable" It is often, but not always, done by governments.

Okay, so let’s focus on government censorship. When does a government act become the suppression or deletion of objectionable information?

Some kinds of censorship are pretty easy to identify. Like when you write something and end up in jail because of it. Laws that make certain kinds of speech a crime are obviously censorship. And we have had our fair share of those laws. Like obscenity laws used to censor works of literature, like Lady Chatterley’s Lover.

The Significance of Khadr: Part I

Sujit Choudhry
Saturday, May 24, 2008

Khadr is a highly significant judgment, for a number of different reasons.  For Omar Khadr himself, the Court held that he has a constitutional right to the disclosure of the interrogations conducted by Canadian officials in Guantanamo Bay, some or all of which were shared with American authorities.  For the international campaign to close Guantanamo Bay, the Supreme Court has added its voice to the chorus of informed legal opinion in stating that the regime in Guantanamo Bay – at least at the time of the interrogations – violated the Geneva Conventions, which guarantee fundamental human rights to armed combatants.

But the judgment is potentially of much wider significance. Khadr is the latest in a line of cases in which the Court has been asked to set out the precise application of the Charter in situations where Canada cooperates with foreign governments in the national security context.  Canada works with foreign governments in different ways.  For example, it may share intelligence, which foreign governments may then act upon to arrest, detain, interrogate and even torture an individual – as tragically occurred in the case of Maher Arar.  In other situations, Canadian officials may themselves be abroad – such as the CSIS officers who interrogated Omar Khadr in Guantanamo Bay, or Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan.  Canada may also cooperate with foreign governments through extradition and deportation.

The Significance of Khadr - Part II

Sujit Choudhry
Monday, May 26, 2008

In my previous post, I talked about the new ground broken by Khadr.  In this post, I want to identify and offer preliminary reflections on some important questions raised by the judgment.  First, though, full disclosure: I was counsel for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in the appeal.  Second, a disclaimer: these views are strictly my own.

To recall, in my last post, I wrote

Suresh established what we termed the “doctrine of constitutional complicity”, which holds that Canada is constitutionally liable for human rights abuses committed by foreign states which occur outside of Canada when (a) such abuses would violate the Charter had they occurred in Canada at the hands of the Canadian government; and (b) Canada has been complicit in the human rights abuses of the foreign state.

Fight Bad Speech With Good Speech

Ed Morgan
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

This commentary was published in the National Post on November 4, 2008. It was originally published in Canadian Jewish News.

In recent months, I have been invited to participate in two conferences, one put on by the Ontario Bar Association (OBA) and the other by Osgoode Hall Law School. Both are squarely in my fields -- the former dealing with freedom of speech and human rights law, and the latter dealing with law, democracy and the Middle East conflict. I was pleased to be invited -- what more does a professor want than to pontificate to audiences in his field? My problem is that each of these conferences has demonstrated that, contrary to my preferred self-image, I can occasionally be wrong.

The OBA's conference, which explored the recent human rights case against writer Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine, showed that my views on the regulation of hateful speech may have been misguided. The Osgoode Hall conference, which posed the question "Israel/Palestine:One State or Two?" showed that my faith in rational dialogue and academic debate may also have been misguided.

Let me examine each of them in turn.

Pages