Shipping Rates and the end of cheap oil

Shipping rates have increased drastically recently. I purchase my gifts online and generally look for the estimated cost of shipping to factor into my price. Using online market places like Amazon make it easy and relatively convenient, except when it comes to international shipping rates. Those babies just pop up at the end of the transaction. Surprise! An extra 50$ on your order. I alternate between using my co.uk, .com, and .ca accounts to see where I can get the most savings, both on product price and shipping. However, then I am hit with a 5$ international transaction charge by my credit card. It is beyond me how they can charge me on top of the price I am already paying. The sellers have agreements with credit card companies to use online credit card payment services in the first place. There is still little difference in price for me, which means shipping has gone up substantially in the last 4 years since I started using Amazon. US sellers advertise in canadian dollars at higher prices despite the equal exchange rate and the Canadian purchaser is stuck with import duties and higher shipping prices. Where are the rising tides, Smith? What happened to the fruits of globalization and NAFTA where goods would move freely and consumers would have a choice about shipping rates? Even standard shipping is ridiculous. One seller quoted a 30-40 week estimation for a book.  This past Christmas, instead of ordering a gift online, I returned to my local retailer where I paid the same price for the product without double the cost of shipping. If more customers think like me, online shopping revenues should decrease. Convenience is coming at a higher price and I predict a return to an era of localization and the end of online shopping as we know it.

Why Chinese Mothers are Superior WSJ 8 Jan 2011

Amy Chua's article, (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html),  has sparked a debate in the Wall Street Journal, as well as in parenting and psychology literature. There is an articulate rebuttal by a Jewish mother http://abcnews.go.com/Health/jewish-author-responds-wsj-chinese-mothering-controversy/story?id=12623592. Parents have a hard job and as this psychologist suggests, : http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-the-wild-things-are/201101/chinese-parent-western-parent-superior-parent-have-we-figured-i, a balance between disciplinarians and laissez-faire is necessary for optimal results

As someone who was raised with "Asian values" along what I will call a cultural faultline (Caucasian-caribbean-indian) and lived to tell the tale, the story she tells is pretty accurate (minus the 3 hours of piano a night), but one-sided. The problem with her model is that it is traumatic for children to live with the culture-bashing, allegations of assimilation and berating between parents and parents and children. Is it worth it to yell til you're hoarse just to demonstrate to the world that you can mimic antiquated hallmarks of elitism? I don't think so. And when does telling your daughter "stop eating so much fatty" stop exactly? From my experience it doesn't because those horrible things live on long after they're said and because parents have diffculty distinguishing their grown 22 year old daughter from the 7 year old in their mind, they feel like they can 1. always say those things and 2. get away without consequences from saying those things because of parental immunity. Kids in this environment grow up accepting and not questioning until they are pushed to their limit; living in perpetual fear, irrationally seeking control, and self-flagellating with blame and guilt. This manifests itself in eating disorders, higher suicide rates between the ages of 15-24 (as the rebuttal cites), obsessions with materialism, and an inability to adapt and deal with the chaos  intrinsic to human life. By understanding the cultural differences and deconstructing them, I have overcome this behaviour and have banished the shame and silence it requires to be effective. There are constructive ways to raise children to be determined, thoughtful, self-sufficient confident members of society, and this isn't it. What's more is all that yelling is in vain: the parenting research illustrates that parenting has very little to do with how your child turns out; personality and friends determine that, and forbidding friends, striking down sense of self-worth have the reverse effect (ie. kids go running to the wrong types of people who give them what they can't get at home). Secondly, in order to curb adolescent rebellion and inspire self-sufficiency, we need to give children a meaningful stake in contributing to society.

Also striking to me is her willing stereotypical bifurcation of cultures, although she tries to smooth it out by combining Asian values with Indian, Caribbean and irish values. But these mothers exist in all races, in all cultures in all eras and I think she sets up a straw man argument that is easily dismantled with ethnography and longitudinal surveys.

Finally, I think parents should be aware of the assault scheme in Canadian criminal law if they are going to use some of the tactics advocated by Ms. Chua. Section 265 of the Criminal Code states:

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

Application

(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.

Consent

(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

Accused's belief as to consent

(4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused's belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

Appealing to parental authority is not a defence, as evidenced by subsection 3(d). Furthermore, parents should also keep the principles outlined by the Supreme Court in Canadian Foundation for Children, youth and The Law v. Canada in mind when punishing children. Punishment or parental strongarming must be corrective but reasonable and not be "outbursts of violence motivated by anger or animated by frustration" and must be the "education or discipline of the child". The child must be able to benefit from the application of force; if incapable of doing so, the application of force is void. Any force, verbal or physical, must be reasonable. Parents can also be sued for battery and negligence for tortious conduct in childrearing. Parents should and must be accountable for the choices they make in raising their children and I disagree with the parental immunity Chau implies and supports.  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child  "requires state parties to ensure that '[n]o chld shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." These are important limits and guidelines for parents to remember as they impose their own limits and guidelines on their children.

Bilingualism of Supreme Court Justices

The debate about possible limits of Canada's bilingualism laws has re-emerged in the debate over its Supreme Court justices. Lysianne Gagnon published an article in the Globe and Mail about the potential problems with the proposed legislation that would compel SCC judges to be bilingual, or limit appointments to bilingual candidates.

The SCC judges are currently appointed and hold the post until the age of 75.

Law School

On Monday, April 19, I was offered admission to the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law's English Common Law Program, to commence studies in Fall 2010.

This is a prestigious programme with incredible opportunities to grow, including the opportunity to pursue a joint Juris Doctorate program in the United States.

I am extremely excited about embarking on this new phase in my career.

Democracy in Africa and its effect on Refugees

 

Photo of Darfur Refugee Camp in Chad, taken by Mark Knobil, 2005 via Wikimedia Commons

I attended a talk recently by Professor James Milner at Carleton University which examined how responses to refugees varied before and after the end of the Cold War. The lecture is part of  a series hosted by the Political Science department which examines how the world has changed since the end of the Cold War.

The aspect I found most profound in his talk was the effect of democratic transition in African countries  on protracted refugee situations within countries, such as Tanzania. Protracted refugee situations have been used as leverage in political campaigns. As quickly as one leader can promise expulsion to garner a majority of votes, thus scapegoating refugees - many of whom only know life in a camp - another leader uses the opposite rhetoric and hands out citizenship in mass ceremonies, clearly admitting that refugee populations have significant and meaningful contributions and ties to a particular region. I came away curious about the arbitrary choices between expulsion and naturalization that some of these countries demonstrate. If it's so easy to naturalize citizens, why isn't it a widespread practice? What does naturalization actually mean for the refugees who have spent one or two generations in a camp? How are they, in fact, received by host populations? What are the economic calculations, if any, to naturalize, deport, or resettle refugees? I believe these are the questions we need to be seriously considering as we reconsider  the future of the refugee regime and the inadequacy of present responses in light of changing characteristics of forced migration.

One sinister theme that emerged from Professor Milner's presentation was the growing restrictions, including freedom of mobility within the receiving country,  guaranteed by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Less developed countries follow the example of developed countries and impose stringent and illegal restrictions on Convention refugees. The disturbing pre-emptive measures (such as carrier restrictions, interception, and extraterritoriality meaning that you have to be cleared by an embassy in your home country and not crossing an international border which is central to the 1951 Convention definition of a 'refugee') taken by such countries as Canada, the UK, the US and the EU to restrict flows of refugees has been extrapolated in such places as Thailand and Tanzania so that refugees are under lock-down situations in contravention of international law.

 

This photograph is of a United States Coast Guard cutter, that intercepted and transported the Haitian refugees who fled the turmoil in their country, in the port at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in 1992. More than 14,000 refugees attempted to reach the United States by boat and were picked up by the Coast Guard in international waters and transported to the base at Guantanamo Bay. Courtesy of Wikimedia images - this image was taken by a US Official during  duty and is therefore in the public domain.

SCC Decision on Omar Khadr

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned what could have led to the repatriation of Omar Khadr from the Guantanamo Bay detention centre where he has been held for more than 6 years. (CBC News).

While deeply dismayed at the continuing injustice, what the SCC called Khadr's "[continued violation] of rights to life, liberty and security of person", the SCC reflected an hesitation to overstep its jurisdiction. It concluded that the precedent of forcing the government to overstep its boundaries in international relations outweighed Khadr's Article 1 Charter rights. The SCC outlined the severity and urgency of the situation, as well as the initial violation of Khadr's rights at the initial stages of interrogation including the exchange of information to American authorities that resulted in his imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay. There is late-blooming public outcry to release Khadr from US custody and have him tried in Canada. It is hoped that the government, in light of the evidence, will make the decision to return Khadr to Canada.

There are disturbing implications for the SCC decision. First, in light of questionable interrogation tactics, charges of torture, extraordinary rendition and the persistence of the death penalty, it is shocking that Canada would have handed over Khadr to American authorities, let alone allow him to remain in their custody. The arguments articulated in opposition to the Safe Third Country Agreement are absent in this case it would seem. It is hypocritical that Canada maintains its reputation as a refuge from US extradition for Americans facing the death penalty or the draft, while simultaneously refusing to help one of its own citizens - regardless of his actions.

Secondly, there has been little or no action taken on the basis that Khadr was charged as a minor and should, therefore, be entitled to be treated as such, including protection under laws governing the rehabilitation and prosecution of child soldiers, in accordance with the principles set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Third, the government's inaction, similar to the inaction on the Kazemi and Arar cases, is a further reminder that no Canadian anywhere or at anytime can be assured of their protection by Canadian authorities overseas. Furthermore, the indication that the Khadr case will continue to be a political football flies in the face of our civic values and demonstrates the shameless self-promotion of Canada's political parties.

One wonders at the ability of the SCC to, on the one hand, strike down the use of security certificates but draw the line at Khadr.

The Supreme Court decision indicates that balance of power is alive and well in Canada, and that healthy debate about the future of human rights and civic values is still to come. This is coming at a very high cost to the action taken on human rights law. Similar to the Arar case, it seems like the Court is only delaying the inevitable reparations the Canadian government will have to make for the wrongful betrayal and imprisonment of one of its own by not sending a stronger message to the government to repatriate Omar Khadr.

New Horizons

It was a busy fall. With proroguement nigh, I am looking forward to getting back to working on resubmitting my Master's thesis for journal publication.

I submitted my law applications to seven schools in North America, so I should hear back in the Spring. I am hoping to specialize in Public International Law and/or Human Rights. With the applications under my belt, I am working on scholarship applications to offset the cost of law school.

I joined Amnesty International's RefNet in September and was pleased to assist with research on my first case over the holidays.