ICYMI, start your Monday off with some of Law Street’s trending stories from last week!

Top 10 Schools for Environmental and Energy Law

In 2014, Law Street Media released its first set of law school rankings, in response to the changing legal education industry. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. Check out our top 10 law school picks for environmental and energy law.

Cannabis in America August 2017: Sessions’ Pot Task Force Recommends Status Quo

Check out our August Cannabis in America Newsletter for an exclusive interview with Erik Altieri, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), where he discusses NORML’s legalization efforts, when he expects we’ll see federal legalization, and more.

The Path to Cannabis in Canada: Eight Crucial Events

While the United States remains locked in an impasse between state and federal law, Canada looks to pass nationwide marijuana legalization this year and begin recreational sales in 2018. How did Canada get to this point? The path to legalization in Canada has been a haphazard one, driven largely by legal decisions. To make the recent Canadian cannabis developments easier to understand, check out these eight key court cases and regulations that shaped the current landscape.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

While the United States remains locked in an impasse between state and federal law, Canada looks to pass nationwide marijuana legalization this year and begin recreational sales in 2018. How did Canada get to this point? The path to legalization in Canada has been a haphazard one, driven largely by legal decisions. To make the recent Canadian cannabis developments easier to understand, below are eight key court cases and regulations that shaped the current landscape:

1996: Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”)

Provided for limited exemptions for the medical use of cannabis in Section 56, but legal access to dried marijuana for medical purposes was not provided until 1999.

2000: R. v. Parker (Ontario Court of Appeals)

Section 4 of the CDSA was found to be unconstitutional because prohibiting cannabis possession forced people to choose between liberty and health. The medical marijuana exemption in place was found to be unconstitutional because of the Minister of Health’s discretionary power.

2001: Marihuana for Medical Access Regulations (“MMAR”)

R. v. Parker led to the MMAR, which enabled individuals with the practitioner authorization to access dried marijuana for medical purposes by producing their own marijuana plants, designating someone to produce for them, or purchasing Health Canada supply.

April 1, 2014: Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (“MMPR”)

The MMPR replaced the MMAR, which was officially repealed on March 31, 2014. For the first time in Canada, the new system allowed for the production and distribution of cannabis for medical purposes, but still contained restrictions on certain types of marijuana.

June 2015: R. v. Smith (Supreme Court of Canada)

The Court decided the MMPR’s restrictions were unconstitutional and that individuals with a medical need have the right to use and make other cannabis products. To eliminate uncertainty, in July 2015 the Minister of Health issued section 56 class exemptions under the CDSA to allow licensed producers to produce and sell cannabis oil and fresh marijuana buds and leaves in addition to dried marijuana, and to allow authorized users to possess and alter different forms of cannabis.

February 2016: Allard v. Canada

A Canadian federal court found that restricting an individual’s right to home grow and requiring individuals to get their marijuana only from licensed producers violated liberty and security rights protected by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that individuals who require marijuana for medical purposes did not have “reasonable access” under the MMPR’s restrictions. Instead of striking certain portions of the MMPR or reinstating the MMAR, the court called for a new legislative framework for accessing medical marijuana.

August 24, 2016: Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (“ACMPR”)

The ACMPR, similar to the MMPR, provided for commercial production and distribution of quality-controlled fresh or dried marijuana or cannabis oil or starting materials (i.e., marijuana seeds and plants) and allowed for limited production by individuals. The two types of licenses to be aware of are: (1) Dealers License, issued under the Narcotic Control Regulations and permits activities with cannabis, including analytic testing and (2) Licensed Producers who are authorized to produce and sell cannabis under the ACMPR.

April 13, 2017: The Cannabis Act, Bill C-45 (the “Cannabis Act”)

On April 13, 2017, the Cannabis Act was introduced. If passed, it will provide Canadians with legal access to recreational cannabis nationwide. On June 8, 2017, after the second reading of the bill, the Act passed the House at a vote of 200 for and 76 against. The bill has now been referred to the Standing Committee on Health. The bill is widely expected to pass Parliament and take effect in the summer of 2018.

Canada is already a worldwide leader in the growing cannabis industry, with last year’s sales reaching over one billion Canadian dollars. With the passage of the Cannabis Act, annual sales are expected to increase to between five and eight billion in the first-year post-recreational legalization. And the total estimated annual economic impact could be as high as $23 billion. Given the size of the new market, anyone with an interest in cannabis should pay special attention to Canada and the eight key events listed above.

Amber D. Lengacher also contributed to this post.

Charlie Alovisetti

Charles Alovisetti is a senior associate and co-chair of the corporate department at Vicente Sederberg LLC. Prior to joining Vicente Sederberg, Charlie worked as an associate in the New York offices of Latham & Watkins and Goodwin where he focused on representing private equity sponsors and their portfolio companies, as well as public companies, in a range of corporate transactions, including mergers, stock and asset acquisitions and divestitures, growth equity investments, venture capital investments, and debt financings. He is a graduate of McGill University and Columbia Law School. Charlie is admitted to practice in Colorado and New York.

The post The Path to Cannabis in Canada: Eight Crucial Events appeared first on Law Street.

DOJ vs. Affirmative Action

The DOJ intends to direct its Civil Rights Division’s resources to investigate affirmative action policies, specifically what effects those policies have on white applicants. The DOJ may sue universities it believes are discriminating against white applicants. This is an odd use of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which was designed to address issues faced by minority groups in the United States.

Many have also pointed out the irony of the Trump Administration’s crusade against affirmative action:

The people who hate affirmative action because its ‘unfair’ are gonna be really mad when they find out how rich kids get into elite schools

— Ayatollah Cumonme (@Phonycian) August 2, 2017

The last time the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action policies was in 2016, affirming the University of Texas’ admissions policy was constitutional after white student Abigail Fisher sued the university. But that hasn’t stopped additional cases from moving forward. Two more, one against Harvard and one against the University of North Carolina, are pending. Unlike the Texas case, they both allege discrimination against African-American students.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Despite being separated by an over 5,000 mile-long border, the United States and Canada share a few commonalities, including an opioid crisis that is growing at an alarming rate. But how the U.S. and Canada have responded to the crisis shows a difference in how both countries approach a drug epidemic.

There were more than 2,400 opioid deaths in Canada last year, and the province of British Columbia alone is on pace for over 1,400 deaths this year. To tackle this issue, the Canadian government decided to create more safe places for addicts to shoot up. Health Canada, the country’s department of public health, announced in June that it would add three more “safe injection sites”–bringing the national total to seven–with the intention of building scores more in the future.

These sites give addicts clean syringes, medical supervision, and freedom from arrest. Addicts don’t get help in kicking their habit unless they ask for it, but the program dramatically reduces the chance of a fatal overdose or the transmission of blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis or HIV. Last year alone, Canada’s first injection site–built in 2003 and located in Vancouver–saw 214,898 visits by 8,040 individuals, with nurses intervening in 1,781 overdoses. The site says it has never had an overdose death. Health Minister Jane Philpott swears by the safe sites.

“They are absolutely known to save lives and reduce infections,” she said. “We have a very significant public health issue in our country.”

Professionally-staffed injection sites first began in the Netherlands in the early 1970s as “alternative youth service” for members of St. Paul’s church in Rotterdam. The government officially sanctioned these sites in 1996–despite years of receiving support from law enforcement and local officials–and countries like Switzerland, Germany, Spain, and Australia soon followed suit.

In the U.S., more than 59,000 people died from an opioid overdose last year, according to a study done by The New York Times. Drug overdoses became the leading cause of death among Americans under 50 in 2008, a CNN study found. In addition, heroin-related deaths increased 439 percent from 1999 to 2014, the study found.

While most of the western world saw the potential in safe injection sites, the U.S. has relied on state-level measures with varying results. Forty states, for example, have passed Good Samaritan overdose laws. But in states like Washington, only 33 percent of opioid users–and 16 percent of police officers–were aware of the policy. Only seven percent of officers could describe who the law protects.

Police have also decided to try and take this issue into their own hands. In New York City, nearly 40 percent of patients trying to get a daily dose of methadone said they’d been stopped and frisked by police outside of clinics.

One would think that with all of these methods in place, a safe injection site would be a natural evolution. But states and the federal government have fought against such sites. California Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman, a Democrat, introduced a bill in April 2016 that would make it legal for local and state health departments to allow the use of controlled substances in clinics. The bill did not pass.

President Donald Trump recently proposed a 95 percent cut to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, despite campaigning on a promise to help fix the opioid crisis.

There might still be hope, however, for public health advocates. Last week, the Trump Administration nominated Indiana state health commissioner Jerome Adams to be the next U.S. Surgeon General. Adams has received praise from addiction specialists for prioritizing the opioid crisis during his tenure in Indiana. He persuaded then-Governor Mike Pence to implement syringe exchange programs, despite Pence’s initial reservations, which caused the number of HIV cases in the state to drop 30 percent.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canada Could Provide a Treatment Blueprint for U.S. Opioid Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Dashcam Footage of Philando Castile Shooting Released

Police have released the dashcam video footage of the fatal shooting of Philando Castile by Officer Jeronimo Yanez last summer, and now many are even more stunned that the officer was recently acquitted. In the video, Yanez pulls Castile over to tell him his brake light is broken and asks for his driver’s license. But the polite conversation turns deadly in a matter of seconds, as Castile informs Yanez he has a gun in the car. “Don’t reach for it then,” Yanez says, while Castile assures him he isn’t trying to. Yanez is visibly nervous and keeps shouting at Castile to not reach for the gun as Castile and his girlfriend repeat that he isn’t reaching for it. But within seconds, Yanez fires seven times at Castile, while his girlfriend and her four-year-old daughter remain in the car.

The legal lynching of #PhilandoCastile. Video just released today.

An abomination. This officer is a murderer. Philando obeyed the law. pic.twitter.com/JNXA1XTlVk

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) June 20, 2017

At the trial, Yanez claimed he feared for his life, as he believed Castile was reaching for the gun. He also said he smelled marijuana and claimed that if someone is reckless enough to smoke in front of a child, he might also kill a cop. Understandably, not many people bought that explanation and are outraged that Yanez was acquitted by a jury.

I can’t help but mention the deafening SILENCE from the @NRA with regard to LEGAL GUN OWNER #PhilandoCastille being murdered by police.

— Leslie Mac (@LeslieMac) June 16, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, Emmanuel Macron won the French presidential election, defeating far-right populist and nationalist candidate Marine LePen. Once he is inaugurated on May 14, the centrist politician will have to address his constituents’ worries about unemployment and terrorism in a divided country.

But across the Atlantic Ocean, the most pressing concern for many Twitter users was whether or not Macron (who will become France’s youngest president at age 39) is more attractive than Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Congratulations @EmmanuelMacron! Let’s meet soon, and keep working to grow & strengthen the deep ties between Canada and France.

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) May 7, 2017

There are few things the Internet loves more than two good-looking, young-ish, and charismatic world leaders befriending each other–just look at the infatuation with Trudeau and former President Barack Obama. So when Trudeau congratulated Macron on his victory, the idea of two good-looking, young-ish, and charismatic world leaders, who also speak French befriending each other sent some people over the edge.

How is the internet going to cope when Macron & Trudeau eventually meet and discuss politics in French?

— cordney (@courtwhip) May 7, 2017

me when justin trudeau and emmanuel macron meet & speak french together pic.twitter.com/rM5WgPtNIh

— Dr. Mantis Toboggan (@beaarthur85) May 8, 2017

Let the Macron-Trudeau fan fiction begin! pic.twitter.com/NDvXsClpgb

— Jaime Woo (@jaimewoo) May 7, 2017

However, not everyone was enamored.

Trudeau has a 48% approval rating, and Macron’s agenda is unpopular and opposed by most French. But they’re good looking!

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) May 9, 2017

Some are hoping the two leaders can get together to accomplish more than just a photo op or bromance.

Emmanuel Macron x Justin Trudeau goodness (credit to my former schoolmate Sulaiman Daud) pic.twitter.com/WAnICRz2ZU

— Adibah (@mmonchatsplash) May 8, 2017

BEST TRUDEAU-MACRON FANFIC:

Trudeau: Hey, man lets do some policy and not blow the world up or be insane

Macron: Oui oui

— St. Lucia (@luciaannv) May 9, 2017

Though President Donald Trump also took to Twitter to congratulate Macron, chances of a friendship between U.S. and France may not be as high. Trump had previously called Le Pen the “strongest” candidate in the election, praising her positions on terrorism and borders.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Fantasizes About Eventual Meetup Between Macron and Trudeau appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Alabama banned judicial override in capital cases, Canada readied to legalize recreational marijuana, and China and South Korea teamed up against a nuclear North Korea. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street below!

Will Banning Judicial Override for Capital Cases Keep Alabama Out of Court?

As of April 11, Alabama no longer grants state judges the authority to override jury recommendations in capital cases. As one of her first acts as governor, Kay Ivey signed the SB16 bill into law and put an end to judicial override in capital cases in Alabama. The move was likely a preemptive response to shifting legal tides. Had Alabama not revised its laws, it would likely have faced fierce and ongoing battles in court.

Canada Set to Legalize Recreational Marijuana in July 2018

By the summer of 2018, recreational marijuana in Canada could be legal. Later this week, Parliament will take up a bill that would satisfy a popular campaign promise of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party: legalizing recreational marijuana in Canada. Medical marijuana is already legal in the country. But some government officials think the target date for legalization, July 1, is too ambitious, and implementation is more likely to begin in 2019.

Nuclear North Korea: Can China, South Korea, and the U.S. Unite?

As tensions on the Korean peninsula continue to heat up, Chinese and South Korean officials met in Seoul on Monday and agreed to strengthen sanctions on North Korea if the state continues to carry out nuclear tests. As the two parties finalized the agreement, South Korea had to respond to news that the United States Navy dispatched a strike group to the Korean peninsula. Many in the region, and throughout the world, fear the U.S. strike force might exacerbate an already fractious situation.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

By the summer of 2018, recreational marijuana in Canada could be legal. Later this week, Parliament will take up a bill that would satisfy a popular campaign promise of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party: legalizing recreational marijuana in Canada. Medical marijuana is already legal in the country. But some government officials think the target date for legalization, July 1, is too ambitious, and implementation is more likely to begin in 2019.

Details of the bill were reported by Canadian press outlets last week. The framework will largely follow the recommendations from a government-appointed task force. According to the bill, provinces will have a great deal of power in drafting the details of the legal framework. Provinces will determine the price of marijuana and how the drug would be distributed.

Federal officials will largely be responsible for issuing licenses and setting safety standards. Ottawa has set a minimum age limit of 18, but the provinces can increase that threshold if they choose. And in regard to homegrown cannabis, residents would be allowed to cultivate up to four plants per household. Though the proposed bill grants provinces a considerable amount of power and flexibility, Canada’s fast-track to legalization worries some provincial officials.

“We do support medicinal uses of marijuana, but we also know that there’s going to be some significant issues that arise as a result of legalization from a recreational perspective … not only with respect to impaired driving but with respect to a whole host of other issues,” Saskatchewan’s justice minister Gordon Wyant recently said.

Trudeau has made it clear that until a law is passed that legalizes recreational marijuana, possessing or selling the drug remains illegal. “Until we have a framework to control and regulate marijuana, the current laws apply,” the prime minister said last month. March saw a number of raids on dispensaries in Toronto, with authorities arresting a number of marijuana business owners, including Canada’s “Prince of Pot” Marc Emery.

Some members of Trudeau’s party, despite being in favor of legalization, would like to see the target legalization date of July 1 moved back. Canada celebrates its independence on that day. “I’m probably out on a limb on this one but … I don’t believe July 1 should be an implementation date for anything; it is a day of celebration for the anniversary and founding of our country,” Bill Blair, a Liberal lawmaker, recently told the Canadian press. “I don’t think that’s an appropriate date.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canada Set to Legalize Recreational Marijuana in July 2018 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

New “Extreme Vetting” Could Force Tourists to Hand Over Cellphones and Passwords

According to Trump Administration officials, the government is considering adding “extreme vetting” to the security check process at airports. Tourists and visitors could be forced to reveal their phone passwords to allow border agents to look through their contacts, social media profiles, and whatever other information they keep on their phones. Visitors could also face inquiries about their “ideology,” including questions about honor killings and the “sanctity of human life.” They could even be forced to hand over financial records. Officials said that the rules could also apply to the countries currently enrolled in the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries to travel to the U.S. without applying for a formal visa.

If the goal is to deter/eliminate foreign travel to the US, this would definitely do it: https://t.co/n8QG7jlCj3

— brianweeden (@brianweeden) April 4, 2017

A lot of people were pretty upset by this news and called the move intrusive and crazy. Dozens of human right groups came together and issued a joint statement saying that the new rules would enable unjustified scrutiny and invasion of privacy. It would also deter travelers from coming to the U.S., which could harm the American tourism industry.

If as reported, “extreme vetting” would be extremely destructive to our long term competiveness and global standing. https://t.co/gPSQ24xyY4

— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) April 4, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 5, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

What do banned airport leggings and messed up immigration policies have in common? They are both stirring up some controversy, topping the list of stories our readers couldn’t get enough of last week. ICYMI, catch up on these top stories with Law Street’s best of the week below!

Seattle Joins the Sanctuary Cities Fight

Seattle sued the Trump Administration on Wednesday over its strict immigration policies, and its threats to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. Arguing that the administration’s warnings are unconstitutional, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said federal authorities “cannot force our local police officials to be involved in federal immigration activities.”

United Prevents Girls Wearing Leggings from Boarding Flight

United Airlines is receiving criticism, after it was reported that two young girls were prohibited from boarding a flight because they were wearing leggings. The girls were reportedly traveling from Denver to Minneapolis when three of them were stopped for their outfits. One changed out of the leggings and was let on the flight, and the other two were prohibited from boarding.

The Other Border: Pushback Against Illegal Immigration in Canada

As the Trump Administration cracks down on illegal immigration in the U.S., immigrants have been crossing the border into Canada. In 2016, 1,222 immigrants fled the U.S. to Quebec alone–a fivefold increase from prior years–and there have been similar spikes in British Columbia.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Sessions Threatens Sanctuary Cities

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said yesterday that the White House will follow through on the executive order to withhold federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities, meaning cities where local law enforcement officials limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Sessions made this announcement during the daily press briefing at the White House yesterday, which some saw as a sign that Trump wants to move on and divert attention from the failed health care bill. “They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on our streets,” he said.

Democratic officials in states like California and New York forcefully spoke out against the AG’s comments, with California State Senator Kevin de Leon saying that he uses “unconstitutional threats and blackmail to prey on anxieties.” There are also worries that a crackdown on undocumented immigrants will make immigrants less likely to report crimes to police, for fear of retaliation. The total amount of money withheld could be more than $4.1 billion. In New York, a lot of that federal money is used to prevent terrorist attacks, so the order could make cities less secure.

#JeffSessions and @WhiteHouse continue #AlternativeFacts streak. Truth is sanctuary cities are less dangerous than nonsanctuary cities.

— Kevin de Leόn (@kdeleon) March 27, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

As the Trump Administration cracks down on illegal immigration in the U.S., immigrants have been crossing the border into Canada. In 2016, 1,222 immigrants fled the U.S. to Quebec alone–a fivefold increase from prior years–and there have been similar spikes in British Columbia.

Stories of frostbitten immigrants crossing into remote, unmarked border towns this winter garnered international attention and set conservative Canadians on the warpath, demanding stricter regulation of the border. But the rise of illegal immigration has also led to calls for alterations to (and even the repeal of) the Safe Third Country Agreement, which states that refugees must apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in. Many immigrants who were hoping to seek shelter in the U.S. are crossing into Canada illegally because they believe their asylum claims will be denied in the U.S. but upheld in Canada. If the act was repealed or suspended, immigrants could request asylum at official border crossings and enter the country legally.

In the Justin Trudeau era, Americans tend to glamorize Canada as the last moral outpost on the continent but the nation is not quite the united front we assume it to be. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week, nearly half of respondents want to send illegal immigrants crossing the Canadian border back to the U.S. and a similar number of respondents disapprove of how the government is handling illegal immigration. The subsets that were most in favor of deportation were men, adults without a college degree, higher income individuals, and older individuals. This is by no means a perfect representation of Canadian attitudes. Yet in an era where xenophobia is encouraged and even enshrined by executive orders, it’s important to keep an eye on shifts in public opinion.

The U.S.-Canada border has historically been a “soft” one but as illegal immigration rates climb, Canada appears to be moving slowly toward a more hardline stance. Trudeau has defended proposed legislation that would allow U.S. customs agents to question, search, and detain Canadians on Canadian soil. Trudeau publicly stated in February that the government would not take steps to quell irregular migration–yet by giving more power to U.S. customs agents, he is essentially passing the buck. Policing the border is a cooperative effort between the two countries and if Trudeau steps away from that responsibility, he will be enabling the Trump Administration.

Trudeau met with Trump earlier this year in a carefully coordinated encounter that let Trudeau hold strong on all of his positions without actively attacking Trump. While it is diplomatic common sense not to antagonize an ally, Trudeau could take a stronger stand against the Trump Administration through legislative action–such as scrapping the Safe Third Country Agreement. Trudeau has done outstanding work with the Syrian refugee population, striving to fast-track their entry into Canada so that tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have now been granted asylum in Canada–but can he keep it up?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Other Border: Pushback Against Illegal Immigration in Canada appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Monday Law Streeters! We hope you enjoyed your weekend. ICYMI, we had some pretty great stories last week. From cell phone plans that give to charity, to South Dakota passing discriminative laws against LGBT couples, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

New Career, New Phone, New Cause: 5 Reasons to Check out TPO Mobile

Any change in life–whether it be a graduation, a new job, or a move, always comes with a hefty to do list. TPO Mobile wants to help make that to do list a little shorter–by helping you find the perfect cell phone plan. And not only will TPO Mobile help you save some money with a reasonably priced and reliable phone plan, it will also help you check off one other thing on that to do list: making sure you set aside some money for charity.

South Dakota Passes Law Legalizing Discrimination Against LGBT Couples

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed SB-149 on Friday, a law that protects private foster and adoption agencies from being sued for refusing to place children with an LGBT couple. While other states have similar laws, South Dakota is the first to enact one since the SCOTUS decision that legalized gay marriage in 2015.

What’s Going on with Canada’s Cannabis Raids?

Months before lawmakers in Canada are expected to take up marijuana legalization legislation, police in Toronto have been raiding dispensaries; a number of individuals have been charged at this point. Just last week, police raided dispensaries across three cities. The targets were all Cannabis Culture branches, the popular chain owned by Canada’s so-call “Prince of Pot” Marc Emery. Emery and his wife were arrested at an airport last week and charged with drug trafficking, conspiracy, and possession. They were en route to a cannabis festival in Spain.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Months before lawmakers in Canada are expected to take up marijuana legalization legislation, police in Toronto have been raiding dispensaries; a number of individuals have been charged at this point. Just last week, police raided dispensaries across three cities. The targets were all Cannabis Culture branches, the popular chain owned by Canada’s so-call “Prince of Pot” Marc Emery. Emery and his wife were arrested at an airport last week and charged with drug trafficking, conspiracy, and possession. They were en route to a cannabis festival in Spain.

The cannabis raids have been going on for months, in what Toronto police are calling Project Gator, an effort to clamp down on dispensaries which, under the current law, are illegal. But opponents of the crackdown argue that Canada’s marijuana law is hardly black and white. The laws aren’t consistently enforced, leading to confusion and ambiguity for dispensaries and consumers.

“Just because there’s not a grey area when it comes to the law in the books doesn’t mean there’s not a grey area in practice in terms of what’s happening on the ground,” said lawyer Gerald Chan. Canada’s criminal justice system is “overburdened,” Chan said, and police should focus their attention on graver, potentially more dangerous crimes. In Ottawa, some people accused of committing murder were recently allowed to walk free after the justice system’s resources dried up.

Toronto police are not backing down from Project Gator, however. “The dispensary advocates want you to believe … there’s a grey area,” said Mark Pugash, a spokesman for the Toronto police. “There isn’t.” Pugash added: “The fact is, however you try to shine this, it is against the law.”

Last week was not the first time Emery, the “Prince of Pot,” was arrested on marijuana-related charges. After he was convicted of selling marijuana seeds in the U.S. in 2007, Emery spent seven years in prison. On Friday, soon after they were arrested at the airport, the Emerys were released on bail. Jodie Emery, Marc’s wife, said the arrest was “appalling,” adding that she was “quite disturbed by the fact that we are innocent until proven guilty, yet Cannabis Culture, which is a magazine, head shop, vapor lounge, it’s a movement.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said recently that lawmakers will be looking at marijuana legalization legislation this summer. But, as the recent raids in Toronto indicate, that does not mean the current law will go unenforced. “Until we have a framework to control and regulate marijuana, the current laws apply,” Trudeau said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on with Canada’s Cannabis Raids? appeared first on Law Street.

Canadian Judge Robin Camp has resigned after his comments during a 2014 rape trial when he asked the woman testifying why she didn’t “keep her knees together.” Camp’s language and comments during the trial implied that he thought the woman could have prevented being assaulted if she had wanted to. He faced backlash for his condescending and wrongheaded behavior pretty much immediately and a 15-month investigation by the Canadian Judicial Council began.

On Thursday, the council released its findings and stated that Camp was “manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence.” The council urged that he be removed from office, and a few hours later Camp announced that he would resign.

The case involved 29-year-old Calgary man Alexander Wagar and an anonymous 19-year-old woman, who accused Wagar of raping her in the bathroom during a house party. The judge’s behavior was also inappropriate; throughout the trial he acted as if the alleged rape victim was to blame. He repeatedly referred to her as “the accused” even though that was the proper term for Wagar.

Why couldn’t this guy keep his lips together? He was obviously asking for it. https://t.co/gZsU5j9Zgt

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) March 10, 2017

Camp also claimed that young women “want to have sex, particularly if they’re drunk.” He stated that for women, “some sex and pain sometimes go together,” which is not necessarily a bad thing.” He even went as far as telling the woman that she could have avoided being raped if she had moved her pelvis “slightly.”

As expected, Camp acquitted the man. But the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the decision and ordered a second trial with another judge. Judge Gerry LeGrandeur said that although neither the accuser nor the accused sounded completely reliable during their testimonies, he couldn’t say without reasonable doubt that a sexual assault had actually occurred. After his second acquittal, Wagar’s attorney claimed that he was “the true victim.”

Repeat, he is one person. We need to look at the systemic issues of victim blaming in the criminal justice system. https://t.co/EBgX07DH4g

— Farrah Khan (@farrah_khan) March 9, 2017

The woman in the case said that her experience throughout trial left her with suicidal thoughts, including Camp’s inappropriate questioning. “What did he get from asking that?” she said at a hearing during the inquiry into Camp. “He made me hate myself and he made me feel like I should have done something… that I was some kind of slut.” Camp, who had been nicknamed the “knees together judge,” showed remorse and admitted that he had been rude and had used “facetious words.” In the middle of an apology he had to correct himself, when he said, “The thing I feel worst about is the questions I asked of the accused.” He then quickly corrected, “the complainant.”

Camp’s daughter also took part in the hearing and said she is a rape survivor herself. She said that although her father’s comments were “disgraceful,” she claimed to have seen him develop an understanding and empathy for those who have experienced trauma. Camp also pointed to how he has spent a lot of time educating himself about sexual assault, met with feminist scholars, and underwent sensitivity training. But in the end, that was too little, too late. The council wrote in its report, “his apologies and efforts at remediation do not adequately repair the damage caused to public confidence.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Who Asked Rape Survivor Why She Didn’t “Keep Her Knees Together” Resigns appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday everyone! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Sean Spicer Goes Full Melissa McCarthy

Sean Spicer’s press briefing yesterday had many people comparing it to Melissa McCarthy’s now-famous impersonation of him, for obvious reasons. He was extremely defensive when asked questions by the press and kept talking over the reporters and ignoring their follow-up questions. There were a lot of questions about the president’s recent negative comments about the federal judiciary, but Spicer said that President Donald Trump isn’t “going to hold back when he feels passionate,” and that the branches have critiqued one another since the start of our nation.

When reporters asked how the president had time to address Nordstrom’s dropping of Ivanka Trump’s clothing line on Twitter, but didn’t mention the recent deadly attack at a Quebec mosque, Spicer had enough and called the question “the silliest thing I’ve heard” before cutting the reporter off. The relationship between the White House and the press doesn’t seem to be thawing anytime soon.

Sean Spicer: “You’re equating me addressing the nation here and a tweet? That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard” https://t.co/PJGTf9bzP3

— CNN (@CNN) February 9, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump revived the Keystone XL pipeline on Tuesday, creating a quandary for Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. How does he balance support for the climate, a cornerstone issue for him, while also supporting a job-creating project that environmental groups–in Canada and the U.S.–generally oppose? This is a question that had the usually tranquil leader a tad flustered during a town hall meeting at the University of Calgary on Tuesday evening.

A man in a “Make America Great Again” cap told Trudeau, who supports the pipeline project, but signaled the need to “phase out” drilling in Canada’s oil sands, he is either a “liar” or “confused.” Trudeau replied: “If you know the oil sands, sir, you know the kinds of innovation, the kinds of advances, the kind of high technology, and research that’s being done, right here at the University of Calgary.”

This is the balancing act that Trudeau has found himself performing in a country rich in oil reserves yet with an equally rich tradition of environmental protection. A former executive at TransCanada, the company that is building the Keystone XL pipeline, told The New York Times the prime minister must strike a delicate balance. “The country needs to find a balance between a credible carbon policy and seizing this economic opportunity,” Dennis McConaghy said.

Trump revived the pipeline with an executive order on Tuesday. He promised to “renegotiate” the contract with TransCanada. While there is a long way to go before construction on the pipeline resumes, Trump’s executive action signals a new U.S. stance on the issue. President Obama, who initially supported parts of the pipeline, shelved the project in 2015. The pipeline would transfer 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the Alberta oil sands to Nebraska, where existing pipelines would shuffle it to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. Thousands of temporary jobs would be created if construction resumes.

Trudeau seems confident the project is a responsible way to bolster Canada’s economy while protecting its environment. “I have repeatedly said that yes, the responsibility of any Canadian prime minister is to get our resources to market and yes, that includes our oil-sands fossil fuels,” Trudeau said at Tuesday’s town hall. “We need to get those to market. I’ve also said we need to do that in a responsible, sustainable way. You cannot separate what’s good for the environment and what’s good for the economy.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Keystone XL Revival Puts Canadian PM Justin Trudeau in a Bind appeared first on Law Street.

This spring, Canada’s Parliament is expected to consider a recreational marijuana legalization measure. At the top of the new year, cities in Alberta and British Columbia are bracing for the impact of legal marijuana, and the effects it could have on the workplace and in communities, by considering a slew of legislative responses.

In Edmonton, Alberta, the Chamber of Commerce is pursuing policy ideas that would help workplaces adapt to a legal marijuana market across Canada. Janet Riopel, CEO of the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, which represents 2,400 businesses, told CBC that “employers have said marijuana use is inconsistent with safe work places.” She added: “employers want to know what employees’ rights are. Because employees have a right to a safe working environment.”

According to Edmonton City Councilor Mike Nickel, the move is meant to prepare for the inevitable legalization, rather than react to the federal government. “When we are trying to play catch up, that’s when the negative effects of any kind of policy tend to hit the streets first,” he said. “And with the potential legalization of marijuana, it’s clear we want to get in front of this issue, not behind it.”

In Richmond, British Columbia, city officials are working on legislation to prohibit marijuana dispensaries, even when marijuana is allowed to be sold in a legal storefront. The Richmond City Council is looking at a bylaw that would effectively bar dispensaries in the town. “Legalization doesn’t mean to say we have to follow suit,” Councilman Bill McNulty told The Globe and Mail.

Last spring, government officials, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, signaled that Canada will be looking at legalization measures sooner rather than later. At the United Nations last April, Canadian Health Minister Jane Philpott called for “drug policy that is informed by solid scientific evidence and uses a lens of public health to maximize education and minimize harm.”

Philpott added: “Our approach to drugs must be comprehensive, collaborative and compassionate. It must respect human rights while promoting shared responsibility. And it must have a firm scientific foundation.” In December, a government task force released its findings about how Canada’s marijuana market should be regulated. It recommended creating a 30 gram possession limit, and a minimum purchasing age of 18.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Cities are Preparing for Recreational Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Law Street.

A judge in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, recently ruled that dogs can’t be treated like children, as part of a divorce case. And while I’m as big a fan of puppies as the next person, Justice Richard Danyliuk’s argument makes a lot of sense.

Here’s the backstory: a divorcing couple–married 16 years–were dealing with a “custody” case involving their two dogs, Kenya and Willow (a.k.a. Willy). The wife wanted the dogs, with only visitation rights for the husband, and vice-versa. They argued that this should be treated like a “traditional” custody argument, one that would usually include human children.

This whole dispute ended up in front of Danyliuk, who seemed pretty annoyed that this landed in his courtroom, saying: “To consume scarce judicial resources with this matter is wasteful. In my view such applications should be discouraged.” Danyliuk also expressed frustration that the legal filings by the couple included a lot of extraneous information, including the wife’s claim that her husband had not been very attentive to their cats earlier in their relationship.

But Danyliuk also made a few different compelling arguments why dogs simply aren’t children:

In Canada, we tend not to purchase our children from breeders.

We tend not to breed our children with other humans to ensure good bloodlines, nor do we charge for such services.

When our children are seriously ill, we generally do not engage in an economic cost/benefit analysis to see whether the children are to receive medical treatment, receive nothing or even have their lives ended to prevent suffering.

When our children act improperly, even seriously and violently so, we generally do not muzzle them or even put them to death for repeated transgressions.

Danyliuk pointed out that pets aren’t legally treated exactly the same as traditional property, as there are laws that protect them from abuse and harm, but at the end of the day they are, for all intents and purposes, property.

So, despite how  much you might love your furry friend, they aren’t going to be treated like children in the courtroom–at least in front of this one Canadian judge.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Judge Rules That Dogs Aren’t Children appeared first on Law Street.

When Canadian journalist Ed Ou headed to North Dakota recently to cover the pipeline protests at Standing Rock, he didn’t expect the drama to start as soon as he reached the U.S. border. But border officials decided to detain him for over six hours and confiscate his cellphones, something that is uncomfortable for anyone, but critical for a journalist. He compared having the contents of his phones scrutinized with a doctor giving up confidential information about his patients. If Ou’s sources who have given information on the condition of anonymity are revealed, their lives could potentially be in danger.

The U.S. border agent officers asked Ou to tell them how and why he had traveled to every single country he has visited for the past five years, and if he had seen anyone die. Ou has spent 10 years covering the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia, which could explain the unusual questions. The agents asked to see his phones to make sure he was “not posing next to any dead bodies.” When he refused, explaining that he is a journalist and needed to protect his sources, they simply took them anyway. When he got the phones back later, it looked as if the SIM cards had been tampered with. Agents also photocopied pages from his personal diary. In the end, Ou was denied entry into the U.S. and put on a plane back to Canada, with no other explanation than that his name matched that of “a person of interest.” One officer said that his refusal to cooperate with the phones “did not help.”

The United States Customs and Border Protection declined to comment on the event. But in a statement it said, “Keeping America safe and enforcing our nation’s laws in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully examine all materials entering the U.S.” If the authorities think that that means looking into the contacts of a well-published journalist and then refusing him entry with no valid reason, that is a huge problem for freedom of the press in the U.S.

The incident has been criticized by advocates for press freedom as well as by other journalists.

Journalists don’t get much braver or more talented than Ed Ou. What happened to him at the US border is shameful. https://t.co/4jCjUUqMaw

— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) December 2, 2016

The way journalists are being treated at the US borders is truly alarming. This happened to photographer Ed Ou https://t.co/ZZi1bNNmB8

— Liz Sly (@LizSly) November 30, 2016

Does the United States believe in freedom of speech? Apparently not @CustomsBorder, which bars entry to accomplished photographer @EdOuphoto

— Neil MacFarquhar (@NeilMacFarquhar) November 30, 2016

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, wrote a letter to Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security, signed by attorney Hugh Handeyside, in which it called the detention and treatment “harassing and exceptionally intrusive.” It said that border agents should have realized that Ou was a renowned journalist, who had often traveled to the U.S. as he has well-established professional connections with major news outlets such as Reuters, the Associated Press and the New York Times. The letter stated:

We believe that C.B.P. took advantage of Mr. Ou’s application for admission to engage in an opportunistic fishing expedition for sensitive and confidential information that Mr. Ou had gathered through his news-gathering activities in Turkey, Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere.

Ou was on his way to cover the Standing Rock protests on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which the agents were apparently aware of. But individual border officials should not have the power to affect what ends up in the media. The director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Trevor Timm, said that the practice of forcing journalists who have worked in the Middle East to give up their confidential sources just to get into a country puts the U.S. in a very bad light. “If this is requisite for journalists who are not U.S. citizens to enter the U.S., that is an enormous violation of press freedom,” he said.

An important reminder to #journalists that your #data is not safe at the US Border https://t.co/oqEbH8Xz6q @ACLU @edouphoto pic.twitter.com/jvQiO113tN

— MuckRock (@MuckRock) December 1, 2016

For all intents and purposes, the Fourth Amendment does not apply when you’re at the border. Walking on the street, a police officer likely can’t go up to you and randomly search you without a warrant or arrest order. But in an airport or at a border control stop, agents can search you and your electronic devices without reason or permission from a judge. This is because of a loophole in the law that mentions bags and personal property, but was written in a time before most people had their entire private lives stored in a cellphone. A policy from 2009 says that the owner of a digital device needs to be present when agents perform a search, but that rule can be interpreted very loosely. According to the policy, agents can make copies of data, but they need to be erased within a week unless a crime is suspected or there is a probable cause to keep the data.

This incident raises a deeper question, about press freedom and Freedom of Speech in the U.S., as well as what the role of the CBP should be. As Hugh Handeyside from the ACLU said, “conditioning foreign journalists’ admission to the United States on their willingness to agree to intrusive searches encourages similarly abusive treatment of American journalists in other countries.” To treat journalists like this at borders will discourage them from reporting on important events, and stem the flow of information.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Journalist Ed Ou Detained and Denied Entry to the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

After the devastating news that Donald Trump will be the next president, so many Americans looked into moving to Canada that the country’s main immigration website crashed. New Zealand was also a popular choice for American citizens looking to flee the country. The Canadian website was down several times on Tuesday night as it became clear that Trump was taking the lead.

The Canadian Immigration website has crashed. Seriously. #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/XXSfCorTd1

— Cause We’re Canadian (@MadelnCanada) November 9, 2016

Lisa Filipps from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada told CNN that the website crashed due to the high number of visitors, but that they were working on getting it up again. It topped Google’s search statistics, along with “how to impeach a president.”

”How to move to Canada” and “how to impeach a president” were just some of the breakout Google queries last night https://t.co/Lw8ATkiyNQ pic.twitter.com/fIYNSfxyoJ

— Fast Company (@FastCompany) November 9, 2016

Many celebrities, like Amy Schumer, Cher, Lena Dunham and Samuel L. Jackson, have threatened to move north if Trump won. On Tuesday night, comedian Ben Schwartz was going to joke about an overloaded immigration website, only to realize it was actually happening.

I was gonna write this as a joke but found out it was real. “The Canada Citizenship and Immigration site crashed around 8 PM” #electionnight

— Ben Schwartz (@rejectedjokes) November 9, 2016

And some Canadian towns even started marketing themselves at Americans, like the island of Cape Breton on the east coast that promoted itself as a safe and quiet refuge for Americans wishing to escape in case Trump won. New Zealand’s main immigration website received 1,593 registrations from the U.S. since November 1, more than 50 percent of what it usually sees over the course of a month.

But it’s not as easy as you may think to just “go move,” even if you are an American. The rules are pretty similar to immigration laws in the U.S. You need a job offer, a spouse, to be wealthy, or a winning ticket in a citizenship lottery. And first of all–you need to get on to the website.

Some Trump supporters had their own ideas about where to go if Trump didn’t win.

I’M MOVING TO RUSSIA IF TRUMP LOSES

— MADAME (@MagicRoyalty) August 23, 2016

But as some people pointed out, you could make more of a difference not by fleeing but by moving to a swing state.

Hey liberals: don’t move to Canada.
Move to Ohio, Florida, North Carolina.

— Dred (@MildredVon) November 9, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If you Want to Move to Canada, Don’t Check Out the Canadian Immigration Website appeared first on Law Street.

Canada’s biggest pharmacy chain is hoping to be the first in the country to sell legal medical marijuana over the counter. Shoppers Drug Mart has confirmed that it applied to the Canadian government earlier this year to become a licensed medical marijuana distributer.

In email statement Tuesday, Shoppers Drug Mart spokeswoman Tammy Smitham confirmed the news adding, “We have no intention of producing medical marijuana, but we do want the ability to dispense medical marijuana to our patients in conjunction with counseling from a pharmacist.”

Under Canadian federal law, patients with prescriptions are only able to purchase medical marijuana directly from one of a few dozen licensed producers. Producers are required to securely ship pot directly to the patient by mail order only.

“We believe that allowing medical marijuana to be dispensed through pharmacy would increase access, safety, quality and security for the thousands of Canadians who use the drug as part of their medication therapy,” explained Smitham. “We are hoping that the Government of Canada will revise the current regulations to allow for the dispensing of medical marijuana at pharmacy.”

Canada currently has an exceptionally large number of medical marijuana users; experts estimate that there are approximately 80,000 to 90,000 registered marijuana patients in the country.

In August, the Canadian Pharmacist Association argued in favor of clinical oversight from pharmacists to minimize harms associated with use of all forms of marijuana in its submission to the federal task force studying marijuana legalization and regulation.

“We know that these medications are potent, we know that marijuana is potent and that there can be drug interactions with medical marijuana,” said spokesman Phil Emberley, adding:

The other reason to have it available through pharmacies is that pharmacies can potentially have it paid for through a third party payer. If a physician prescribes it, a pharmacist dispenses it, then their insurance program could potentially pay for it, which I don’t think is going to be possible on the recreational side.

Shoppers has more than 1,200 locations across Canada. If approved, it could set the tone for other pharmacies to follow suit in expanding to serve medical marijuana over-the-counter. Its competitor Rexall told CNNMoney that it is monitoring the situation, but not applying for a distribution license at this point.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canada’s Top Pharmacy Chain Wants to Sell Medical Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

Canada Tells Us We’re Great!

Some of our neighbors up to the North thought Americans needed a little pick-me-up after all the controversy and negative news surrounding the election. Canadian PR firm The Garden started a little campaign called “Tell America it’s great,” where they asked a bunch of Canadians why America is so awesome.

We love you guys, and we’re really sorry you’re going through a tough time. Thank you for being our cool big bro #TellAmericaItsGreat

— Kel H. (@Venomous_Bear) October 15, 2016

obama: oh god this country is going to shit i can’t even watch…
trudeau: i know, i’m so sorry bro pic.twitter.com/NxQKQep5j7

— jennifer (@jramseyxo) October 10, 2016

The result was a bunch of tweets under the hashtag #TellAmericaItsGreat, and a short video. The Garden’s workers wrote they were a little nervous before beginning, considering America is not perfect and its relationship with Canada often focuses on making fun of each other’s imperfections. But the results are pretty heartwarming and almost tear-jerking.

Thanks, neighbors!

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 18, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Instagram has been deleting accounts that contain pictures of marijuana, even if the location where the account is based has legalized the drug in some form. Two companies in Canada, where medical marijuana is legal, recently had their accounts shut down by the social media giant after featuring pictures of legal weed.

Lift Cannabis Co. is a Canadian website that reviews legal strains of weed through licensed producers. A Lift representative told VICE that his company’s Instagram account was deactivated last week.

“Nothing we’re sharing is against the law,” said Lift communications director David Brown. “Instagram is a US-based company. I suspect they don’t really understand the rules involving Canada.”

Lift isn’t the only Canadian company whose Instagram account has recently been taken down.

Tweed, Canada’s largest licensed producer of medical marijuana, used its Instagram as a vital piece of its marketing strategy since advertising medical marijuana in Canada is not permitted. Its account has been shut down twice.

“The work it takes to build an online community isn’t worth it if there’s the constant risk of it disappearing,” Tweed spokesman Jordan Sinclair told VICE. He said Tweed will not open another Instagram account, but will rebuild its social presence on Snapchat and Massroots as alternatives.

Instagram’s community guidelines state: “Offering sexual services, buying or selling firearms and illegal or prescription drugs (even if it’s legal in your region) is also not allowed. Remember to always follow the law when offering to sell or buy other regulated goods.”

However, there are accounts that have pictures of marijuana plants or promote illegal weed that haven’t been deactivated. Cannabis Culture, which sells recreational weed (which is still technically illegal) in parts of Vancouver and Toronto, has an operational account. Leafy and Weedmaps, smart phone apps which review dispensaries and use GPS technology to locate them for the use, both have operating Instagram accounts as well.

Brown is dumbfounded by the seemingly arbitrary account take downs.

“So a company that operates with the entirely legal medical cannabis space in Canada gets deleted, twice, but a company that cover the federally illegal recreational culture in the US and around the world gets a pass,” Brown said. “No rhyme or reason.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Instagram is Censoring Accounts With Pictures of Legal Weed appeared first on Law Street.

Medical marijuana in Canada: there’s an app for that. Aurora Cannabis, an Alberta-based producer, launched a mobile app, believed to be the first legal app of its kind. Medical marijuana patients can now order “Sentinel,” “Snow Dome,” or other strains from their smartphones and tablets, streamlining the consumption process for the 80,000 to 90,000 Canadians with a prescription for pot.

“The fact is that people live on their phones and tablets,” said Cam Battley of Aurora Cannabis. “They use them to shop for everything from consumer products and health products to medicine. It is an acknowledgment of the reality of how people operate today.”

The app includes pictures, product descriptions, and lists the price per gram of the different strains. Customers in parts of Alberta, a western province in Canada, will receive same-day delivery, and customers everywhere get free delivery for orders of five grams or more. Cannabis is legal for medical purposes in Canada, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is expected to legalize recreational marijuana next Spring.

Presenting the first mobile app for buying federally legal medical marijuana!
Registered Aurora clients only #acmpr pic.twitter.com/sazrxUh5wA

— Aurora Cannabis Inc (@Aurora_MMJ) September 12, 2016

Aurora Cannabis is one of 35 licensed producers of medical marijuana in the country. At its production facility in Cremona, Alberta, Aurora has ten rooms in which it cultivates its plants. The company has 7,700 registered patients. Health Canada, the government arm that regulates and oversees the marijuana industry, does not allow producers to advertise their products, but they can provide basic information on their websites, and now, their mobile apps.

In an email to Canada’s CBC News, a Health Canada spokesman said his department “does not have any concerns at this time” regarding Aurora’s app.

There are other weed-related apps on the iTunes store. Weedmaps is a marijuana directory, providing customers with the locations of doctors and dispensaries. Leafly also has a map function, but it also acts as a compilation of information regarding the thousands of strains of the drug. But according to Battley, his company’s app is the first to directly connect consumer to producer.

As cannabis laws continue to loosen in Canada and the U.S., expect to see more pot apps pop up in the near future.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First Medical Marijuana App Launches in Canada appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re caught using too much water in Prince Albert, Canada, you could be fined up to $1,000. Need to get your car washed or go to the laundry mat? You’re out of luck, they’re all closed. Prince Albert and the surrounding communities in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan are under a state of emergency that was declared Monday following an oil spill on the North Saskatchewan River, the area’s main water source.

Prince Albert city council has declared a local state of emergency due to #huskyoilspill. https://t.co/T8SuMIWD9r pic.twitter.com/mlEMj3sT7T

— 350 Canada (@350Canada) July 26, 2016

The city is coping with the disastrous oil spill by rolling out an emergency waterline that will connect the South Saskatchewan River, the next biggest water source, to Prince Albert and the other communities who are under strict water restrictions. The temporary waterline will extend a little over 18 miles, and will feed clean water into Prince Albert’s water plant by Tuesday evening. On Monday, Mayor Greg Dionne said the waterline was about halfway complete.

“Once we get the [waterline] up and running we’ll be in a different situation,” Dionne said. “There’s enough water delivered on that line to get our plant fully up to capacity and that’s key, because we’ll be able to put everyone back in business.”

So just how bad was the oil spill? About 66,000 gallons of heavy oil and natural gas, enough oil to fill about a tenth of an Olympic-size swimming pool, spilled into the North Saskatchewan River. But that figure is nothing compared to the 2010 BP oil spill where 200 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf Coast, enough oil to fill 302 Olympic-size swimming pools.

However, the amount is still enough to cause headaches among city officials who are already expecting complications and problems. Depending on how well Prince Albert residents save water, the city’s reservoir could last anywhere between 48 hours and a week. The city is depending on that reserve of water until the 18-mile temporary waterline is completed. But, it will not be all smooth sailing when the waterline is completed. At about every mile of the waterline, there will be a pump in order to facilitate water flow from the source to Prince Albert. In case there is a problem with that, the city is already exploring secondary water supply options like ponds from private land owners and using the city’s retention ponds.

Globs of oil floating down #NorthSaskRiver #huskyenergy #oilspill #PrinceAlbert #Saskatchewan #WaterIsLife #water pic.twitter.com/YG5RQDTeLn

— Shelley Essaunce (@shelleyshell4) July 26, 2016

It’s unclear when Prince Albert will rely on its primary water source, according to Dionne.

“We could have it up as long as two months. It all depends on the river, how much oil has sunk in the river, where is it pooled, because at the end of the day, we can’t start a water plant up if there’s still pools of oil out there that can damage our plant.”

Authorities have cleaned up about 40 percent of the spill as of Tuesday afternoon. Husky Energy, the company responsible for the spill, and the Canadian government teamed up to create booms to catch more of the leakage. Jeff Da Silva, manager of public works with the city, said consultants have been hired to test the water in the river and the water coming out of the water treatment plant to see if any hydrocarbons are present.

So just how many people are impacted by the spill? Prince Albert has about 35,000 residents, and in the surrounding communities there are about 1,200 rural properties that currently have no water because of the shutdown. A representative from Husky Energy, Al Pate, said the company would try and do everything they could for those affected.

“We’re deeply sorry this has happened,” Pate said. “We accept full responsibility for the event and the cleanup and we will make things right.”

However, since the oil spill happened on Thursday, Husky Energy has yet to send a representative to Prince Albert. But, the CEO of Husky has assured the mayor of Prince Albert that the company will cover all costs incurred by the city because of the spill.

“This waterline alone is costing over $1 million,” Dionne said. “Husky have given us assurances that they’re going to make us whole and that they’re going to fix whatever has to be fixed, and I take them for their word.”

Pate said the cause of the oil leak is unknown, and it may take weeks or even months to understand the causes.

When will we learn?? We continue to live with zero responsibility as if there are no consequences.#huskyoilspill #environmentaljustice

— Khaled خالد (@KhaledAlwaleed) July 26, 2016

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State of Emergency Declared In Canadian Town Due to Oil Spill appeared first on Law Street.

“If _____ gets elected, I’m moving to Canada!” Sound familiar? This “threat” casually seems to get thrown around every election cycle in the U.S., but has seemingly become more common in this year’s tense political climate. Even corporations have gotten in on the joke: Esurance’s April Fools Day ad jokingly offers “election insurance” to anyone who feels the need to escape for the next four years. A tourism campaign for Cape Breton Island in Canada offers refuge to people who fear an America under Donald Trump.

With the possibility of a Trump presidency becoming realer and scarier by the day, a move to Canada is seeming less like a bad joke and more like a genuine option for many Americans. After Trump won a string of Super Tuesday victories this past March, Google reportedly received a 350 percent surge in searches related to moving to Canada. According to NPR, thousands of Americans already move to Canada for political reasons, and there’s no telling how that number could rise if Trump is victorious in November.

While the land that brought the world Drake and Tim Horton’s looks much more appealing with the potential of an impending Trump regime, don’t pack your bags yet: it’s a lot easier said than done. The Canadians may be known for their hospitality, but they’re not just going to let anyone waltz through their doors.

If you really are seriously considering an escape to the Great White North, you probably should start planning now, because immigrating to Canada will take a considerable investment of time and will require you to make some serious life decisions. Here’s some options to earn your ticket in:

Find a job or start a business in Canada

Get your employment locked down now, because competition may become fierce once the influx of Trump-related immigration hits its peak. For skilled workers, Canada’s Express Entry program allows an expedited path to permanent residence for select candidates, and you can also use the Government of Canada’s Job Bank to help line something up.

The Canadian government is also very supportive of entrepreneurship: the country offers a start-up Visa to anyone who has a business idea that could benefit the country. Certain Canadian provinces also have their own respective business immigration programs called Provincial Nominee Programs.

If you’re a wealthy individual with some money lying around, you can also invest it in Canada’s economy to earn your permanent residence.

Marry a Canadian

Not exactly a straightforward solution, but if you can find yourself an eligible Canadian bachelor/bachelorette, they will be able to sponsor you for immigration.

How can you find this special person? There’s an app for that: Maple Match is an app specifically designed for “Americans to find the ideal Canadian partner to save them from the unfathomable horror of a Trump presidency.”

One of the (many) downsides to this option is that it will take a long time, so you will probably be stuck in the U.S. potentially living under Trump’s presidency while your spouse is working to bring you over. Do not recommend this option.

Become a student in a Canadian school

Many Canadian universities are highly ranked globally, making this a good solution for anyone looking to go to school. However, this will only work so long as you are still enrolled in school. Once you graduate, you will need to find another way to stay (see above options).

You will also need to go through the admissions process to earn your place in one of these universities, so this also a time-consuming and tedious option.

Alternatively, don’t go

Don’t just run away from the burning house, help put the fire out! While the thought of a Trump America  may be terrifying, having a large number of people flee the country is not going to help solve any of our problems. And moving to Canada, as shown here, is probably not going to be a quick and easy solution. (It’s also highly unlikely you will be able to claim political asylum, sorry).

In the case that Trump wins in November, don’t let fear force you out of your home. If you still decide you want to make the leap and become a Canadian, you should probably start your immigration applications and your Maple Match profile now.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post How to Actually Move to Canada if Trump Gets Elected appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Bolivian Government Won’t Take Bill Gates’ Chickens

Bill Gates, billionaire and philanthropist, has made it his life’s mission to provide aid to impoverished countries. In his most recent efforts, he planned to donate 100,000 chickens to the country of Bolivia, as a part of an initiative called Coop Dreams.

But the response he received was less welcome than expected. The minister of land and rural development in Bolivia told The Financial Times: “[Bill Gates] does not know Bolivia’s reality to think we are living 500 years ago, in the middle of the jungle not knowing how to produce. Respectfully, he should stop talking about Bolivia, and once he knows more, apologize to us.”  Ouch, need some ice water for that burn, Bill?

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The parents of 19-month-old Ezekiel Stephen were found guilty of letting their child die after he contracted bacterial meningitis in 2012.

David Stephan, 32, and Collet Stephan, 36, who live in Lethbridge, Alberta in Canada, walked out of an emotional courtroom Tuesday after hearing their fate. They won’t, however, be held in custody, and will return to court in June for their sentencing hearing.

They were charged with “failing to provide the necessaries of life,” under Section 215 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

The courtroom was overtaken with emotions when the verdict was read. Collet began to sob, as did multiple people in the courtroom and on the jury bench.

The maximum sentence the Stephans could get for not providing these necessaries of life would be five years in prison, but according to some lawyers, that doesn’t seem like a likely scenario.

“It’s not like they were not feeding their child or they were purposely withholding medication that they knew would assist the child but didn’t,” Shannon Prithipaul, former president of the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association, said to CBC News.

The jury comprised of eight women and four men was told that the parents took Ezekiel to a naturopathic clinic when he was too stiff to sit up in his car seat and had to lay on a mattress instead.

This is what Crown wants Canadians to learn from trial of Ezekiel Stephan’s parents (he’d died of meningitis) pic.twitter.com/enHFgsu0wb

— Kate Adach (@KateMedia) April 27, 2016

“They definitely, definitely loved their son but as stated in our closing arguments, unfortunately sometimes love just isn’t enough,” Crown prosecutor Lisa Weich said to the Toronto Sun. “Parents still have to follow a standard of care as set by criminal law.”

The parents faced criticism following Ezekiel’s death because of their decision not to vaccinate him.

According to the CDC, “The most effective way to protect you and your child against certain types of bacterial meningitis is to complete the recommended vaccine schedule [sic].”

The CDC also said there are roughly 1.2 million cases of bacterial meningitis per year worldwide.

In addition, “Without treatment, the case-fatality rate can be as high as 70 percent, and one in five survivors of bacterial meningitis may be left with permanent sequelae including hearing loss, neurologic disability, or loss of a limb.”

The parents testified that they did not understand the severity of his condition and thought that he had the croup or the flu. The CDC also reported “[the parents] treated him for 2½ weeks with remedies that included hot peppers, garlic, onions and horseradish and a product from a naturopathic doctor aimed at boosting his immune system.”

The Stephans finally called 911 when Ezekiel had stopped breathing and he was taken to the local emergency room and later flown to Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, where he was later pronounced brain dead and taken off of life support.

“I was in tears like everybody else,” said Eric Sveinson, brother-in-law, to the Toronto Sun. “I was angry, frustrated. We’re very disheartened and very disappointed and hope that the world can see that a beautiful family was unjustly charged today.”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anti-Vaccine Parents Found Guilty of Not Providing ‘Necessaries of Life’ appeared first on Law Street.

In a controversial ruling, Canadian radio host Jian Ghomeshi was found not guilty on multiple accounts of sexual assault and one count of choking based on the allegations of three women. In his judgment, Justice William B. Horkins cited “serious deficiencies in the evidence” that left reasonable doubt in the case.

Ghomeshi was the host of the popular radio show “Q,” but was fired from his position at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) last October after the network claimed to have seen evidence of him causing “physical injury” to a woman. Around the time of his dismissal, multiple women came forward to the Toronto Star with various allegations of violence and sexual harassment against Ghomeshi (there would end up being over 20 accusations total). This particular trial involved incidents occurring in 2002-2003 involving three women, two who chose to remain unidentified during the trial; the third was Canadian actress Lucy DeCoutere.

While it may hold true that there was not enough evidence to garner a conviction for Ghomeshi, the real outrage surrounding the acquittal seems to stem from the actual judgment released by Justice Horkins, which tore apart the testimonies of the alleged victims and addressed any inconsistencies in their recollections of the events as being “outright deception.” Horkins also claimed that the evidence provided included “questionable behaviour” by the witnesses.

Judge in Ghomeshi trial called witness’s behaviour “odd.” Yup! When you’ve been sexually assaulted, things can seem “odd” #IBelieveSurvivors

— DeAnne Smith (@DeAnne_Smith) March 24, 2016

The judge’s comments in #Ghomeshi case uphold that rape culture and victim-blaming is alive and well. #IBelieveSurvivors

— Janet Mock (@janetmock) March 24, 2016

Witness 1 shared rxn to #Ghomeshi verdict w/ @Chatelaine: “He called us all liars. This was an insult to women.” pic.twitter.com/levQxBF1TV

— Sarah Boesveld (@sarahboesveld) March 24, 2016

Further, Horkins hit upon the fact that witnesses failed to disclose information that he believed would be “significant” to the trial, such as the fact that DeCoutere engaged in multiple “kissing sessions” with Ghomeshi the night of the assault, and the fact that victims had engaged in “flirtatious” behavior with him. This response by the judge seemed to imply that this behavior by the witnesses were indications of consent on their part.

Ghomeshi himself was never put on the stand; however, after his firing by CBC he responded in a now-deleted Facebook post, indicating that his aggressive sexual behavior was consensual. He wrote:

Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. But that is my private life. That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life.

After the news of the verdict broke, protests broke out in front of the courtroom in Toronto, and people gathered to rally in support of the accusers. There were also calls by many for legal reform in sexual assault cases within the Canadian legal system. Ghomeshi’s fight is not completely over yet; he will be back on trial in June to face one of the other charges levied against him.

Actress Zoe Kazan also released a series of tweets yesterday, alleging that Ghomeshi had acted inappropriately towards her:

Before we went on air, he told me I was “just his type.” “Funny, sexy, just the right amount of damage,” he said (after talking abt 3 mins).

— zoe kazan (@zoeinthecities) March 24, 2016

Later he showed up @ party I was at & wdnt leave me alone. His unwanted attention made me feel like I’d “asked for it.” I felt dirty & sad.

— zoe kazan (@zoeinthecities) March 24, 2016

This behavior is insidious, but so is a culture that condones it, by turning a blind eye, or shaming the victim. We internalize these mores.

— zoe kazan (@zoeinthecities) March 24, 2016

Ghomeshi may have been set free by the Canadian legal system, but in the court of public opinion, it looks as if his reputation may be tarnished for good.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Jian Ghomeshi’s Acquittal Provokes Debates on Victim-Blaming and Consent appeared first on Law Street.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was welcomed to the United States today by President Barack Obama. Trudeau’s trip is the first time a Canadian Prime Minister has made an official visit to the U.S. in 19 years–it’s also the first time in about as many years that the U.S. and Canada have both been controlled by liberal heads of state.

The mood between Obama and Trudeau seemed friendly, as the two leaders began the visit with a joint statement on climate change. They also delved into some remarks about Canada’s efforts to aid the Syrian refugees, and spoke about how the two countries will work together to combat the new threat of the Zika virus.

Obama and Trudeau–both relatively young progressives–paint a striking picture side by side. Some news outlets have already released coverage of the two premiers’ “bromance”–see this homage to their chemistry courtesy of the Washington Post, for example. Here are a few more instances of the two being pals, both during this visit and in the past:

Here are some Internet-friendly photos of Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau being best bros https://t.co/0YMgB3V8sD pic.twitter.com/WFIOvRRoyA

— GQ Magazine (@GQMagazine) March 10, 2016

Twitter hails #Obama / Trudeau ‘bromance’ https://t.co/EQFIkyOoxP pic.twitter.com/Vad65d9PWf

— Live News Cloud ⭐️ (@livenewscloud) March 10, 2016

Trudeau and Obama start a heavy bromance at the APEC summit : https://t.co/SuV5UQIXllpic.twitter.com/v3XdTsswmt

— VICE Canada (@vicecanada) November 19, 2015

The friendly rapport extended to their conversations–Obama even mocked Trudeau about the fact that the Stanley Cup currently resides with an American team, the Chicago Blackhawks. It’s certainly a different relationship than the slightly frigid one between Obama and former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. A particular sticking point between Obama and Harper was their disagreement over the Keystone XL Pipeline. 

Obama and Trudeau seem intent on putting any animosity (although even with Obama and Haper’s relationship, there was little) behind them. Obama stated today about Trudeau: “I am grateful that I have him as a partner … When it comes to the central challenges that we face, our two nations are more closely aligned than ever.”

Trudeau’s comments were along the same vein; during their join statement he said: 

We’ve faced many challenges over the course of our shared history, and while we have agreed on many things and disagreed on a few others, we remain united in a common purpose. [..] Whether we’re charting a course for environmental protection, making key investments to grow our middle class or defending the rights of oppressed peoples abroad, Canada and the United States will always collaborate in partnership and good faith.

However, despite the relationship between Trudeau and Obama now, it’s entirely possible that we could have a conservative in the White House in a little under a year. If that’s the case, this harmonious relationship may not last too long, given Trudeau’s stated progressive agenda. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Visits Washington appeared first on Law Street.

Emma Donoghue‘s novel “Room,” and subsequent movie of the same name, is allegedly inspired by real-life criminal Josef Fritzl, who imprisoned and raped his daughter, Elisabeth Fritzl, for twenty-four years. The novel and movie feature Ma and her son Jack as prisoners of Old Nick–Ma’s kidnapper and rapist. When Jack turns five, Ma executes a successful escape plan.

A 2010 article written by Sarah Crown, and published on The Guardian’s website, quotes Donoghue as saying her book was not based on the Fritzl case but, rather, “triggered” by it. Similarly to Ma, Elisabeth Fritzl was imprisoned, raped, and impregnated. The major differences include:

• Fritzl’s captor and rapist was her father.
• Fritzl was imprisoned for 24 years.
• Fritzl’s prison was in her home’s cellar–Ma’s prison was in a garden shed.
• Fritzl had multiple children in her prison while Ma raised one child.

People accused Donoghue of taking advantage of the shocking case for self-gain in the form of a book deal. Donoghue states she did not intend this and views the book, partly, as a reflection on the complexities of parenthood.

Since the trial, Elisabeth Fritzl and her family withdrew from society, adopted new identities, and began “anonymous” lives. So, it’s hard to imagine she is glad that her story has regained notoriety with the film’s creation and award nominations.

But when “fiction” lives so close to reality, it’s not strange to wonder: did the film and the book need to purchase Elisabeth Fritzl’s life story rights? Seemingly not, as most courts recognize that there is a difference between retelling a true story and being inspired by one to create a work of fiction. There are significant differences between Donoghue’s stories and the real crimes, therefore it is not viewed as a true depiction of the Fritzl case.

While the use of Elisabeth Fritzl’s trauma as literary and cinematic inspiration may feel distasteful to some, Donoghue’s works do not use the crime’s details for shock factor, but rather as a way to explore how strength and family function. In fact, the most gripping part of Donoghue’s screenplay is the intelligence and resilience of major, and minor, female characters. For example, how a woman could endure a constant trauma for seven years and raise a son, without breaking down mentally is unimaginable even when it is performed in front of you. What motivated Ma to maintain a daily routine for Jack? Perhaps the love and sense of responsibility she had for her son surpassed the atrocities she endured. Or perhaps it was the hope she would one day see her mother and father again and return to her childhood home, which she describes to Jack in an attempt to explain the outside world to him.

Another extraordinary woman appears in the female police officer who responds to the 911 call when Jack escapes. While she only emerges in one scene, her ability is striking. She patiently questions Jack in an attempt to learn his story. While gentle in tone and manner with Jack, she does not back off from her questions when he refuses to speak. Instead she pushes him to give her all the information he can. The male officer, her partner, only gets in her way, telling her she won’t get anything out of the boy and to give him time. But she ignores the other officer and from Jack’s disjointed tale of escape is able to deduce the location of Jack’s prison and rescue Ma quickly. Her part may have been meant to move the plot along rather than to applaud women who excel at their jobs, but, still, her heroism is lasting.

Despite privacy concerns, the story of “Room” remains important. It’s important that two such heroic, female characters exist as recognitions of real, strong women and as role models for every person. And finally, it’s important that this story features women doing the saving rather than being saved.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Real Woman in the “Room” appeared first on Law Street.

As many Americans continue to move toward more conscious eating that places an emphasis on consuming responsible, organic foods, we’ve seen more labels in our supermarkets. The country-of-origin labeling rule (COOL), first authorized in 2002, mandated that our meat labels list the country where the product was produced. However that provision was repealed in the budget bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama late last week–which means that country-of-origin labels will no longer appear on meat, specifically beef and pork, sold in the United States.

But this move on Congress’s part isn’t about a departure from increased labeling–it’s about the possible international affairs and economic side effects of continuing the labeling. The COOL labeling has been controversial on the world stage from the beginning, because other countries feared it could cause American consumers to discriminate against their meat products for no reason other than that competitors’ products were produced in the United States. Last week, the World Trade Organization (WTO) authorized Canada and Mexico, two of the U.S.’s major trading partners, to tax American products to make up for the cost of the COOL regulations.

The concerns over those costs, as well as the fact that these taxes could be extended to other products, caused Congress to repeal the provision specifically on beef and pork, but labeling will remain on other products. Any meat that comes into the United States from another country will still be inspected by the USDA before it makes it into consumers hands. However, many Americans are unhappy with Congress’s choice to change the labeling requirements overall. Most notably, this comes in contrast to what Americans seemingly want. According to a 2013 study by the Consumer Federation of America:

Eighty-seven percent (87 percent) of adults favored, either strongly or somewhat, requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born, raised and processed. Similarly, ninety percent (90 percent) of adults favored, either strongly or somewhat, requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born and raised and the fact that the meat was processed in the U.S.

Supporters of COOL have floated particular concerns about Brazilian beef, because the country has had an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease as recently as 2014. According to Willy Blackmore, of TakePart, “there could soon be between 20,000 and 65,000 metric tons of fresh or frozen Brazilian beef—about 1 percent of U.S. beef imports—coming into the country annually.”

So, the vote was kind of a lose-lose for Congress–either way it was going to make some people mad. But for now, we won’t be seeing country-of-origin labels on our beef or pork–we’ll have to see how long that change lasts.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where’s Your Meat From? Congress Repeals Country-of-Origin Labeling appeared first on Law Street.

Steve Montador, who played for six different NHL teams over a 13-year career, died earlier this year at the age of 35, due to undisclosed causes. An autopsy conducted seven months ago found that he had CTE, or chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the same degenerative brain disorder that has led to criticism of the NFL’s head injury policies in recent years. In light of that discover, Montador’s family is now suing the NHL, claiming that the league failed to provide Montador with accurate information about the long term risks of consistent head trauma.

During Montador’s 13-year NHL career playing for the Calgary Flames, Florida Panthers, Anaheim Ducks, Boston Bruins, Buffalo Sabres, and Chicago Blackhawks spanned a grand total of 641 regular season and playoff games. He was involved in 69 fights during his time with the NFL, and the lawsuit alleges that he sustained thousands of hits to the head. He suffered from fifteen documented concussions; including four over a three month span when he played for the Blackhawks.

One of the Montador family’s lawyers, Thomas Demetrio, stated:

The NHL still refuses to accept the fact that its game creates permanent, progressive brain damage. Instead, the NHL disingenuously gives its players a false sense of security by leading them to believe that repetitive head trauma in the NHL will not cause brain damage or resulting addiction or depression issues

CTE, which can be caused by repeated head injury, can lead to memory loss, changes in mood, and behavioral changes. However, it can only be diagnosed after someone who has it has died. It’s been associated with sports that can lead to repeated instances of head trauma, including boxing, football, stunt cheerleading, and hockey. The NFL has particularly received criticism for its handling of players’ brain injuries over the last few years. In 2013, the NFL settled a lawsuit to the tune of $756 million with over 4,500 former players and/or their families. “Concussion,” a movie about Dr. Bennet Omalu, the doctor who is credited with discovering CTE is coming out this December, reigniting concerns about the effects of repeated head trauma on NFL players.

The NHL hasn’t had quite as high profile attention placed on it as the NFL when it comes to CTE and brain injuries, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been party to lawsuits on the issue previously. A federal class action lawsuit on behalf of former players was filed in October of last year, and is still ongoing. Like Montador’s family, the players allege that the NHL didn’t keep them reasonably safe, or provide them with proper information about the dangers of repetitive brain injury.

Another attorney from the firm working on Montador’s case told the Chicago Tribune:

By burying its head in the sand on the issue of brain damage among its retired player population, the NHL is doing a disservice to the players who gave their blood, sweat and tears to the game. It is high time for the league to recognize that many former players are suffering, and the NHL should step up to take care of these men and their families. The NHL’s body count is growing — how many more players will die with CTE before something meaningful is done to help those suffering?

It’s a tough contention–we’ll have to see if the case filed by Montador’s family makes any difference.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Steve Montador: Family of Deceased Hockey Player Sues the NHL appeared first on Law Street.

The infamous hacker group “Anonymous” reportedly conducted an attack against the Canadian government on Wednesday. This attack made multiple government websites go dark, including Canada.ca and the websites for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Transport Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and Justice Canada. This hack was supposedly in protest against the government’s controversial new security legislation. Bill C-51, or the Anti-terrorism Act, that would broaden the mandate of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). Exact ramifications of the attack are unknown, but it’s almost certainly the latest in a string of efforts by Anonymous to protest increased surveillance in various nations.

The act would give the agency new powers to disrupt perceived security threats and make it easier for federal agencies to increase surveillance and share information about individuals. Anonymous believes that this bill is not in its favor, stating as much in a video posted on YouTube. The video said the anti-terrorism law violated human rights and targeted people who disagree with the government, saying:

A bill which is a clear violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as removing our legal protections enshrined in the Magna Carta for 800 years. Perhaps it was fate that the day the Magna Carta arrived in our country to go on display to the populace that our corrupt government was symbolically pissing upon it and us all.

Soon after the hack,  Twitter user @Blakeando10 took credit for the cyberattack. He is pictured on his account as wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, which is usually associated with an act of this sort committed by Anonymous.

It was your move senators, now it’s ours. http://t.co/Fs67YrqOTH#cdnpoli#Opcyberprivacy#opC51 Huffpostcanada

— SplendidMass29 (@blakeando10) June 17, 2015

evasiv3 Your sites were not secure. A gov that can’t protect its own cyberspace can’t protect yours. Get it?

— SplendidMass29 (@blakeando10) June 17, 2015

Treasury Board President Tony Clement confirmed that the government’s servers were hit with a denial of service attack. “I can tell you, I’ve just been through a briefing on it. There has been an attack on Government of Canada servers, GC servers. It is as a result of a, of a — what we would call a cyberattack,” he said. By 3 PM, most of the websites were back online, although exact damage was still unknown. Liberal Defense critic, Joyce Murray, believes that this cyber attack should be a wake-up call for the Canadian government. Nadeem Douba, who has previously advised governments on security issues, told iPolitics the hack was not a very sophisticated one.

It definitely is more about optics than anything else. If we were looking at a denial of service attack similar in nature to StuxNet, where critical infrastructure was impacted, then I would consider it more of a security threat. The same could be said if the attack were able to create any kind of political unrest or economic instability. However, as far as we know now, this attack is more of a nuisance than anything else.

Government websites should be some of the most secure in the world. There is no reason why a group of people should be capable of hacking into them, especially if these sites hold valuable information. Steven Blaney, the public safety minister, criticized the cyber-attackers, telling reporters that there were many other more democratic ways for Canadians to express their views. Blaney also said the government is implementing efforts to improve its cyber security. Hopefully that’s not too little, too late.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anonymous Strikes Again: Canadian Government Experiences Security Breach appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court of Canada has just ruled that the users of marijuana for medical purposes now have the right to bake the drugs in cookies, take it in lozenge form or as tropical oils in addition to smoking it. The unanimous ruling against the federal government expands the definition of medical marijuana beyond the “dried” form, and speaks volumes about the changes happening in the marijuana industry.

The Court found that the current restriction to dried marijuana violates the right to liberty and security “in a manner that is arbitrary and hence is not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice.” Restricting medical access  in Canada to marijuana in a dried form has now been declared “null and void.” That renders sections four and five of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, which prohibits possession and trafficking of non-dried forms of cannabis, unenforceable.

This decision supports earlier rulings by lower Courts in British Columbia that said they went against a person’s right to consume medical marijuana in the form they choose.

Medical marijuana patients don’t always want to expose themselves to the effects of smoking the drugs. Inhaling marijuana could present health risks, and is said to be less effective for some conditions that administer cannabis derivatives. With inhalation being a large issue, the smoking process is said to irritate the lungs, which is why smokers are more likely to have an ongoing cough or other health problems like chest colds and lung infections.

A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems, including an increase in cough, sputum production, airway inflammation, and wheezing–similar to that of tobacco smoking. 

Some medical marijuana users wanted to avoid those side effects. But other methods like brewing marijuana leaves in tea or baking weed into brownies left patients vulnerable to be charged with possession and trafficking under the law.

“This is monumental,” said David Posner, CEO of Nutritional High, a Canadian company that has been testing marijuana-infused candy and drinks for sale in the United States later this year. “Another market the size of California just opened up for our products.”

So what does this mean for the U.S. exactly? Four states–Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and Alaska, as well as Washington D.C.–have legalized marijuana, while a total of 14 states have decriminalized certain amounts of possession. Legal marijuana is said to be the fastest-growing industry in the U.S. According to ArcView, over the next five years, the marijuana industry is expected to continue to grow. They are predicting that 14 more states will legalize recreational marijuana and two more will legalize medical marijuana. At least ten states are already considering legalizing recreational marijuana in just the next two years through ballot measures or state legislatures.

In that context, Canada extending its medical marijuana market, and the U.S.’s current growing market promise continued growth. Non-traditional ways to consume marijuana will continue to rise–this week’s decision was just the beginning.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weed Trend Grows: Canada Legalizes Medical Edibles appeared first on Law Street.

One of the perils of doing a live news broadcast is that something could go horribly, horribly wrong. In fact, there are entire corners of the internet developed to chronicling the weird things that happen on news broadcasts–particularly smaller stations with fewer resources and less security. Usually they’re pretty hilarious:

But there’s been an incredibly bizarre and very offensive trend taking root in North America and the United Kingdom for the past year or so when it comes to photo or video-bombing local news broadcasts. The name of the movement is “FHRITP” and fair warning, it’s incredibly NSFW.

FHRITP stands for “F**** her right in the p*****.” The trend basically consists of running up to a newscaster–usually one standing on a city street reporting on something–grabbing their microphone, and yelling the above phrase. It can also involve yelling the phrase as you run by or drive by in a car. Here’s a compilation of some of the incidents, although you really don’t need to watch more than a few to get an idea.

While the prank seems harmless to some, it has incredibly weird roots. It started in January 2014 when a video went viral. It showed a young male reporter supposedly talking about a missing 20-year-old girl, and he proclaims that he would like to “FHRITP” when she’s found. The video was later discovered to be a hoax, created by a filmmaker named Justin Cain, although bizarrely, what purports to be the official “FHRITP” website still claims that the incident really did happen. As the legend goes, then a man named “Fred” in Cincinnati, Ohio, yelled the phrase twice during two different news broadcasts. It’s become clear now that those were also hoaxes orchestrated by Cain.

The entire thing appears to have been a ploy to get famous/sell a bunch of FHRITP merchandise. But, that hasn’t stopped people from still repeating the same phrase for the last year and a half. Seriously, people are still doing this incredibly childish prank. It’s caused a lot of problems for newscasters. After all, they’re broadcasting live, and children are sometimes watching the news with their parents. No one really wants to have to hear “FHRITP” screamed into a news broadcast, particularly when its on a topic that requires respect.

So, in order to combat the stupid sort of fake internet trend that won’t die, there have been a few different developments lately. First, about a week and a half ago, Canadian CityNews Reporter Shauna Hunt confronted a bunch of the men harassing her by yelling FHRITP as she was covering a soccer game in Toronto. Check it out in the video below.

Hunt is now being lauded for speaking out against the inappropriate trend. Hunt’s confrontation of the men who were harassing her opened up an international dialogue about how demeaning the trend really is.

As a result of the recent resurgence in dealing with this, Canadian police in some cities have begun ticketing those who shout the obscenities at reporters. While they don’t think they’d necessarily hold up in court, they think the charges will serve as deterrents, and hopefully finally put an end to the disgusting viral hoax. Police have explained that it’s usually very easy to figure out who the people yelling the phrase are, given that they’re caught on film.

So there does seem to be some progress toward stopping the incredibly stupid and annoying practice. While right now most of the fighting back appears to be occurring in Canada, hopefully the U.S. will follow suit. Newscasters don’t deserve to have obscenities yelled at them just because they’re doing their jobs.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FHRITP: Will the Offensive Internet Trend Ever Die? appeared first on Law Street.

Fashion is meant to be a form of self expression, but if you’re currently a teenage girl in high school that expression might be seriously limited due to strict dress code restrictions. Of course making sure there are no visible butt cracks, nipples, or genitals is a must for school administrators, but when bare shoulders, backs, and thighs are considered just as taboo there’s a serious problem. In the past week alone I’ve read two stories about obscene dress code restrictions and sexist double standards in both the New York Times and Buzzfeed that call for some rant worthy commentary.

Now about 100 years ago it was positively scandalous for a woman to show a bare ankle in public, but it’s not the Victorian era anymore. Unlike the oppressed women back then, we have the right to vote, serve in the military, obtain an education, and take birth control, just for starters. So you’d think that with all of these advancements in women’s rights, women would have the right to decide for themselves what to wear, right? Wrong.

The New York Times wrote a very interesting piece discussing the issue after speaking with high schools girls who were told by administrators that the expensive dresses they’d purchased for prom weren’t acceptable and either needed to be altered or they wouldn’t be permitted to attend. In their piece Kristin Hussey and Marc Santora write:

Girls have been told to cover up shoulders, knees and backs. They have been reprimanded for partially exposed stomachs and thighs and excessive cleavage. They have been ordered to wear jackets, ordered to go home and suspended.

For one girl in the article, that meant a dress and alterations that cost $400 on top of the $90 prom ticket. Some schools have even begun to require girls to take pictures of their gowns and submit them to administrators for approval before they’re even able to buy a ticket to the dance. When asked why the rules are so strict, one superintendent they spoke with said “We want our young ladies to be dressed beautifully; we want them to be dressed with class and dignity. But we are going to draw the line relative to attire that would be deemed overexposing oneself.”

This idea that schools need to protect girls from overexposing themselves isn’t restricted to just the U.S. Take 17-year-old Canadian teen Laura Wiggins, for example. Laura looked in her closet one morning and decided she wanted to wear a full-length halter dress to her high school in New Brunswick. Her legs weren’t showing. Her belly button wasn’t hanging out. Her breasts weren’t on display. The ensemble did, however, showcase her bare arms and a semi-bare back.

A Canadian Teen Wrote The Best Rebuttal After Getting Detention For Wearing A Halter Dress http://t.co/hS4WHTHsf0 pic.twitter.com/hfZSXjghbB

— BuzzFeed Canada (@BuzzFeedCanada) May 13, 2015

That was apparently enough for Laura to receive a detention for being a “sexual distraction” to her male classmates, because if there’s anything that gets a teenage boy all hot and bothered, it’s a back. Isn’t that what Justin Timberlake meant when he said he was “bringing sexy back?”

But it’s the way that Laura dealt with the situation that is truly amazing. Instead of taking the detention quietly, she chose to write a letter to her school’s vice principal and it was very eloquent, impressive, and inspiring. I won’t quote the whole badass letter, but here are two passages that particularly stood out to me:

In today’s society, a woman’s body is constantly discriminated against and hypersexualized to the point where we can no longer wear the clothing that we feel comfortable in without the accusation and/or assumption that we are being provocative.[…]

Then she continues with,

So no, Mr. Sturgeon, I will not search for something to cover up my back and shoulders because I am not showing them off with the intention to gain positive sexual feedback from the teenage boys in my school. I am especially not showing them to receive any comments, positive or negative, from anybody else besides myself because the only person who can make any sort of judgment on my body and the fabrics I place on it is me.

So instead of focusing on what causes boys to be “distracted” my advice to schools would be to try teaching them self control. These young men will need that in the real world, especially with all these empowered girls walking around in yoga pants everywhere.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are Schools Going Too Far with These Dress Code Rules? appeared first on Law Street.

Another day, another Uber controversy. It seems like the popular ride-sharing app will never see the end of its legal struggles. Some of the buzz is positive–Uber recently announced that it’s expanding and beefing up safety features. However, other recent headlines about the company cannot be considered anything but incredibly negative. For example, yet another rape accusation has come to light. Overall, as Uber continues to grow, so do safety concerns, and seemingly, safety features.

Read More: Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015

A Philadelphia woman has come forward with allegations that she was raped by her Uber driver on February 6, and then essentially held captive in the car while he drove around for two hours following the assault. While she evidently brought the claims to the police, Uber claims that it didn’t learn about it until much later. A rep for the company told Philadelphia Magazine, who broke the story:

Our thoughts and prayers are with our rider. Upon learning of the incident, we immediately reached out to the Philadelphia Police Department to assist in their investigation and support their efforts in any way we can. As the investigation continues, the driver’s access to the Uber platform has been suspended.

New controversies for Uber aren’t just popping up here in the states. Two Uber drivers in Ottawa, Canada, recently pleaded guilty to operating unlicensed taxis. There have also been very high profile sexual assault allegations in France and India.

It’s in response to all of these developments, as well as others like them in the past and potential for more in the future, that Uber is launching new programs and initiatives focusing on safety. The additions to Uber’s safety measures will include things like incident response teams to investigate anything that may happen over the course of an Uber ride, and further review of things like quality assurance. The company will also expand its work with law enforcement, including in India where there will be a button programmed into the Uber app allowing riders to directly call law enforcement.

While some of these features seem promising, Uber still sometimes struggles to follow through, as evidenced by the United Nations Women’s partnership debacle from a few weeks back.

Read More: Uber’s New hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back Women

Uber and UN Women announced a plan to work together to create jobs for female drivers and released a jointly signed letter on Uber’s website. However, after some backlash and safety concerns, UN Women pulled out of the agreement. Some of that backlash included a statement from the International Transport Workers Federation, which stated:

The creation of one million precarious, informal jobs will not contribute to women’s economic empowerment and represents exactly the type of structural inequality within the labor market that the women’s movement has been fighting for decades. Uber’s practices are defined by an aggressive informalization of an industry that was already deregulated three decades ago

It’s clear that Uber wants to make changes, but it’s certainly struggled to do so in the past. Perhaps it’s a side effect of being a young company that experienced a lot of growth very quickly, or just inherent to the nature of a business as informal as ridesharing. Either way, Uber needs to reform–and let’s hope that it sticks this time.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Adds More Safety Features, But Will They Be Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz announced Monday morning that he will be running in the 2016 presidential race, making him the first Republican candidate to officially declare his bid for the presidency.  But if you thought all election birth certificate drama ended with Obama, you were wrong. This time Cruz’s citizenship is under scrutiny, causing some people to wonder if the Canadian-born U.S. Senator can actually become president.

It’s common knowledge that according to the Constitution you must be a “natural-born-citizen” in the United States in order to become its president or vice president. Sorry Arnold Schwarzenegger. But how is it possible for Canadian born Senator Cruz to run for office?

For starters Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Canada to an American mother and Cuban émigré father, received U.S. citizenship from his mother, but also maintained Canadian citizenship by way of birth. In 2013 when he was being considered as a potential candidate, questions regarding Cruz’s citizenship began to surface, prompting him to release a statement:

Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter.

Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth, and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American.

Cruz’s became “All-American” in 2014 when he signed his official “Canadian Renunciation Letter” absolving him of his Canadian citizenship. Despite this, some conservatives like Donald Trump have continued to question Cruz’s eligibility, albeit quite passively, calling it a “hurdle” for Cruz. That’s a stark difference from the attack dog-like aggressiveness from birthers like Trump who not too long ago demanded to see Obama’s birth certificate with their own eyes. That group went so far as to claim that the president was really born in Kenya and his birth certificate was a forgery.

In case you were wondering, Cruz isn’t the first presidential candidate to be born outside of the United States. ABC News was quick to point out that both John McCain and George Romney ran for president, despite being born in the Panama Canal Zone and Mexico, respectively.

So just to make it clear yes, Cruz is American and yes, he is allowed to run for President. Whether or not he’ll even become the Republican nominee is another story, but for now lets put an end to another round of trivial “birth certificate drama.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz’s Presidential Bid: Will There Be Citizenship Questions? appeared first on Law Street.

Bad news for cheap wine lovers and broke 20-somethings everywhere–many beloved budget wine brands just got slammed with a class-action lawsuit filed yesterday in California. Allegations are being made that some of those wines include unsafe levels of arsenic.

The brands named in the lawsuit include Franzia, Menage a Trois, Sutter Home, Wine Cube, Charles Shaw, Glen Ellen, Cupcake, Beringer, and Vendage. These are all pretty popular brands–Franzia actually call itself “the world’s most popular wine,” and consistently has extremely high sales.

The arsenic contamination was found by a company called BeverageGrades, founded by Kevin Hicks, who previously worked in the wine distribution business. The Denver-based company started running tests on different brands of wine to see what sorts of ingredients are found in the most popular ones. The lab looked at 1,300 different kinds of wine and terrifyingly, approximately one quarter of them tested for a high level of arsenic.

Hicks did say that there were some odd trends in the wines that tested positive, however. The cheaper the wine, the more arsenic Hicks’ lab detected. Also, the problem appeared to be with white wines from the aforementioned brands, but not necessarily from the red.

Hicks filed the class-action lawsuit after he claims that he tried to bring the issue to the attention of the wine producers, and they ignored him. The lawsuit alleges that the companies misrepresented themselves to customers.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does allow some arsenic in water, as small amounts aren’t necessarily harmful. Some of the wines though had up to 500 percent of what the EPA allows in drinking water. However, the wine producers argue that using water as a comparison doesn’t make much sense. After all, we drink a lot more water than we do wine, so overall arsenic intake from wine won’t be as high. While our federal government doesn’t regulate how much arsenic can be in wine, Canada’s does. The arsenic levels found in the American wines would have passed under the Canadian standard, even though it’s above the EPA standards for water. That doesn’t necessarily mean that those levels of arsenic are acceptable. Allan Smith, associate director of the Arsenic Health Effects research program at U.C. Berkeley, told CBS that arsenic, even in very small amounts, is very dangerous.

Whether or not this lawsuit will actually go anywhere remains to be seen as it was just filed this week. There are certainly some questions about the validity of Hicks’ claims as well, as when CBS News tried to check his results, they didn’t yield nearly as much arsenic as he claimed.

The companies will presumably be arguing against the allegations. Some of the companies involved in the suit, including Trader Joes, have already said that they are in compliance with all existing regulations.

It’s no surprise that cheap wine isn’t the best thing out there for you, but the fact that it has quite that much arsenic is somewhat surprising. If anything, maybe this lawsuit will push the U.S. government toward more regulation of the wine industry.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawsuit Claims That Your Favorite Wine Contains Arsenic appeared first on Law Street.

A Canadian couple decided to go on a nice, warm visit to Hawaii. Jennifer Huculak and her husband Darren Kimmel were three months away from the birth of their daughter when they came to the U.S. on vacation. Unfortunately, a few days after their arrival, Huculak went into labor and gave birth to a baby girl. Because their daughter was born premature, they racked up some expensive hospital bills. Well, actually, expensive is kind of an understatement. To be more precise, they are being charged $950,000 for the medical care they received.

Now, despite being our friendly neighbors to the North, there are many differences between the U.S. and Canada. They have poutine, their milk sometimes comes in bags, and they have free health insurance. As a result of the extreme differences in healthcare provisions, Canadian tourists are required to buy health insurance for their travels here.

That’s exactly what Huculak and Kimmel did. Before going on the trip they not only got permission from her doctor to travel, but also purchased insurance through Blue Cross.

Unfortunately, just a few days into the trip her labor was induced by a bladder infection, which was not only unforeseeable, but even her doctor in Hawaii explained that this kind of thing “just happens.” Huculak’s daughter, Reece, is now healthy, but had a lot of complications due to her premature birth. She spent two months in an intensive care unit, and Huculak spent time in the hospital as well.

Blue Cross is flat out refusing to pay the $950,000 bill, arguing that Huculak had a “pre-existing condition,” which their policy does not cover. She did not have a pre-existing condition or a high-risk pregnancy, both of which her doctor has confirmed and tried to convey to Blue Cross. Kimmel and Huculak even claim that they specifically talked to a Blue Cross Representative who told them that they were covered. Of course, Blue Cross’ response to the media has been pretty unhelpful; a representative said in response to CTV News:

We review each claim carefully and are confident that our decision to decline this claim was done in a considered manner based on the contract terms, the situation which resulted in this emergency medical claim, and a review of recent medical history.

It seems like Kimmel and Huculak are now seriously considering bankruptcy, because they really have no other choice. They simply can’t pay the $950,000 medical bill. Their other option is to continue fighting Blue Cross, but that also is tough given that they’ve been on that path for what would seem to be about a year now and clearly not much progress has been made.

A case like this comes down to the fact that insurance is a fundamentally difficult process to negotiate, particularly health insurance. Even when you think you take all the necessary steps–purchase what you’re supposed to, speak to a representative, and travel after getting advice from a doctor–it’s still possible to basically get screwed by the insurance company. Kimmel and Huculak learned that lesson a very, very hard way.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet the World’s Most Expensive Baby appeared first on Law Street.

Ottawa, Canada, is on high alert after reports of multiple shooters near the National War Memorial and the Canadian Parliament building early today. Details are still largely unknown, but what is almost certain at this point is that there were at least two active shooters in Ottawa today. It is believed that they were together.

One Canadian soldier has been killed while standing guard in front of the War Memorial. Although bystanders attempted to save him, his gunshot wounds were too much to overcome. The shooter from the War Memorial is believed to still be on the loose.

A second shooter, inside the Canadian Parliament building, may have been shot and killed by the police. Eyewitness Marc-Andre Viau told i24 news — a Canadian site — that he saw a shooter run into a caucus room while police pursued. Then he heard a number of shots, estimating the number to be between ten and 20. Other estimates put the number of shots in the Parliament building from 30-50.

Large parts of the surrounding area have been put under lockdown until more details are known. Here’s a visual of the situation:

https://twitter.com/CNNJason/status/524955622765494272/photo/1

Overall, the reaction from Canadians seems understandably horrified and upset. Canada does not often see such levels of violence.

This stuff doesn't happen in Canada. I'm shocked, angered, sad. Let's keep this country safe.

— Brian G  (@brimau5) October 22, 2014

And some are concerned that this is terrorist action, especially after an accused jihadist in Canada ran over a soldier and then was shot.

Others believe that while this unprecedented shooting may change things for Canada, it’s important to focus on endurance right now:

While access to Parliament may change, we won't change as a people. We are Canada. We are some tough Canucks. Our way of life will endure.

— Jason Carlin (@the2scoops) October 22, 2014

Further details and motives are still obviously unknown, but our thoughts go to those in Ottawa right now. Hopefully the second shooter will be detained soon.

Check back here for more details as the story develops.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Developing: Active Shooters in Ottawa, One Soldier Dead appeared first on Law Street.

The story of Rehtaeh Parsons was a compelling one that hit the media, particularly North American media, last year. She was a young woman from Nova Scotia who was raped in 2011 by four teenage boys while at a party when she was fifteen. A photograph of the assault was taken, and then actively passed around her high school. After the abuse she suffered at the hands of her peers, Rehtaeh Parsons committed suicide last year, but the trial of those involved in her assault and the circulation of the photograph is going on now.

Now if I were in Canada, I could be in a lot of trouble for writing that previous paragraph. The reason why is that there’s a Canadian law that bans the identification in the media of anyone involved in a child pornography case. The media has had to refer to Rehtaeh Parsons’ case essentially in code, writing things like “the victim” or the “the girl” and then describing the case against the young men who sexually assaulted her and then distributed the picture.

It has also forbid the media from mentioning her parents’ names, and the names of the two young men currently on trial for the actions they took against her. But the ban didn’t go into effect until recently, when certain points in the proceedings were reached against the young men. Well after many people around the country had heard Rehtaeh Parsons’ terrifying story.

The ban exists to protect those who are involved in child pornography cases — obviously an incredibly sensitive subject. But in this case, Rehtaeh Parsons’ name was already out there, and her parents think that the ban is actually in place to protect the authorities, who they claim did not do nearly enough to protect her from the beginning.

When the Parsons family first approached the police about a week after her assault and after the photograph was taken, they looked into it for almost a year before deciding to not press charges. They allegedly didn’t do anything to try to stop the spread of the photo. The Parsons family claims that at the time they were told that the photo didn’t even qualify as child pornography. Now their daughter’s name can’t be published anywhere for that exact reason.

The Parsons family also argues that Rehtaeh’s name has taken on a life of its own, and that she would have wanted to be able to speak up for herself and on behalf of future victims. Her parents emphasize the potential strength that Rehtaeh’s name, picture, and identity have as a rallying cry. Leah Parsons, Rehteah’s mother, stated that not being able to use her identity “diminishes the impact and the connection people have with the issue. When people hear her name and see her face, they realize it could be anybody’s daughter.”

The Parsons brought the gag rule before a judge who decided that while Rehtaeh’s name has reached a status much different than the usual child pornography victim, the law stands.

If the facts are indeed what the Parsons allege, I have to agree with them. The law does make sense — in the correct context. This is not the correct context. In an already highly publicized case where the victim’s name has inspired legislation and advocacy, the law seems unnecessary and cumbersome.

But most importantly it takes away Rehtaeh’s voice, which when you think about it, is the exact same thing that happened when her rapists assaulted her, spread that picture, and tortured her. They took away her identity. She deserves it back — even in memoriam — and this gag order law is doing nothing to help her or other rape victims who could find strength in her story.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [val.pearl via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Does the Gag Order on Rehtaeh Parsons’ Name Really Help? appeared first on Law Street.

A men’s rights movement has gained momentum within the last several years with the goals of reclaiming rights for men in society. One offshoot of the movement, the Red Pill, is accused of being inspired by a largely misogynistic attitude. This accusation is based on the attacks on women for using and abusing men, and essentially being the “evil” of the sexes. In addition to its major presence on social media, Men’s Rights activists have attempted to gain awareness through conferences and rallies. The Men’s Rights Movement, still controversial in nature, has legitimate goals in that it is working to gain equal rights by advocating for the equal treatment of boys and men in professional, educational, and legal situations. Some feel that this is a hidden effort to disguise prejudice against women, yet men continue to protest their desire to be “equal” citizens in a society where they believe that women currently have all the power. Read on for more information about the Men’s Rights movement and its Social Media counterpart, the Red Pill Movement.

What is the Red Pill Movement?

The Red Pill Movement is comprised of a group of men who hold a certain animosity toward women, believing them to be manipulative, unfaithful, and narcissistic. They band together primarily through social media and rant about their hatred of the opposite sex. Men who “take” the red pill are choosing to live a life free of emotional attachment to any a woman for fear that she will use him for his status, money, or emotional stability. The term red pill has its roots in the 1999 movie “The Matrix.” The red pill symbolizes the consumption of the truth, whereas taking the blue pill results in pure ignorance. Advocates for the Red Pill Movement believe that by taking the red pill, or consuming this eye-opening knowledge, they are becoming aware of women and their antics.

Social Media

Reddit, a social media site where individuals can share information such as texts, photographs, and personal opinions, is the main platform of the Red Pill Movement. Here men rant about their misunderstanding of and hatred for the opposite sex. The theme of most threads is how women are cheating, lying, manipulative, and narcissistic. Members often communicate in a verbally violent and insulting manner toward females and share their negative experiences of being taken advantage of, used, and insulted by women.

The Men’s Rights Movement

While the Red Pill Movement is based on the belief that women are wicked in nature, the Men’s Rights Movement actually does have some concrete goals that members would like to accomplish. According to the Huffington Post, goals of  the pro-men’s rights group Canadian Association for Equality, are mainly to bring awareness about “shared custody of children, unhealthy perceptions of masculinity, declining rates of university enrollment, spousal abuse, and suicide.” Since the Men’s Rights Movement is fairly new, there hasn’t been any policy or legislation enacted yet. The main goal of the group is to draw attention to the issues that men face in a society that tend to focus more on gaining women’s rights and recognition.

Rape

The Men’s Rights Movement emphasizes how often they believe men to be wrongfully accused of rape. Members argue that society has created a stigma that victimizes women and paints a picture of men as violently sexual predators. Many posters and arguments of the movement highlight the idea that women are partially responsible for any sexual acts that occur, in that they consume alcohol and choose to have sex with a man who they then turn around and accuse of rape.

Child Custody

The movement argues that women often receive custody in divorce, and men are unfairly assigned the monetary responsibilities.

#Feminist single motherhood in a nutshell #feminismisawful #NoMRA #MRA @Typhonblue @JudgyBitch1 @AlyssMajere @icmi14 pic.twitter.com/uFyOcaWrIL — Chloé J.F. Berg (@ChloeShell18) July 17, 2014

Domestic Violence

The Men’s Rights Movement accuses society of labeling domestic violence as one sided, in that men commit of all of the abuse. Advocates for men’s rights argue that women are just as responsible for violence in the home, yet it goes unrecognized because of the negative stigma attached to men.

Suicide 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Suicide among males is four times higher than among females and represents 79 percent of all U.S. suicides.” The Men’s Rights Movement aims to prevent this alarming epidemic in men. By providing support and encouragement to young men, members believe that this could eliminate some of the suicides that occur in response to emotional and mental disturbances and abuse.

A Voice for Men

A Voice for Men is a website that compiles information on the Men’s Rights Movement. The organization’s argument revolves around the theory of gynocentrism, the belief that males have bent to the demands of women for centuries. In addition to the organization’s website, the group has a social media presence on Facebook and Twitter dedicated to the Men’s Rights Movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxcXldIFsbQ

The International Men’s Rights Conference 

The Men’s rights movement is increasingly gaining popularity on the grounds that women are the more powerful sex. According to activists, men face the adverse effects of a certain stigma that society has ingrained into them throughout history. At the first International Men’s Rights Conference held in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, both men and women gathered to discuss the issue. Men’s rights activists believe that men face difficulty in society, which has forced them to live out life as “second-class-citizens,” and that men are continuously blamed for rape. According to conference attendee Barbara Kay,

“The vast majority of women crying rape on campus are actually expressing buyer’s remorse from alcohol-fueled promiscuous behavior involving murky consent on both sides…It’s their get-out-of-guilt-free card.”

Men also blamed their feelings toward women on their early childhood experiences. According to Stefan Molyneux, “If we could just get [women] to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases.” Molyneux continued to say that women are responsible for choosing the abuser-types, or in his word “a-holes.” “Women worship at the feet of the devil and wonder why the world is evil,” he adds later. “And then know what they say? ‘We’re victims!”

Watch a spoof video below satirizing how women react to men at bars. All jokes aside, this comedic video is indicative of many of the views expressed by members of the Red Pill Movement.

This movement is not just in the United States but many other countries, as well, particularly in the East. Where feminism empowers women, the Red Pill or Men’s Rights  movement cripples them. In a disturbing piece written by Kim Tong-hyung, a professor of medicine at Seoul National University in Korea, Lee Yoon-seong blames women for the rape epidemic. Yoon-seong says:

“If there is money on the street, somebody will pick it up. If there is a woman walking around with sexy clothing, there will be somebody who rapes her …”

The Men’s Human Rights Rally

A men’s rights rally was organized in Toronto, Canada on September 28, 2013. Participants claimed that men are just as likely to face domestic abuse, have a higher rate of suicide, die earlier, and drop out of school as women. They argued that men make up “90 percent” of the prison population and are less likely to get a job after graduation. Thirty people fought for the movement to gain acceptance and recognition. This was a controversial rally, in that some people felt that it was simply a blow to women and masking an underlying current of misogyny.

Case Study: Elliot Rodger and the Santa Barbara shootings

In May 2014 a 22-year-old Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree in Isla Vist, California that was fueled by his resentment of the women who rejected him and the men who received their affections instead. Rodger left behind a video in which he stated, “You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it.”

Watch the chilling video of Elliot Rodger before his killing spree.

Rodger was reportedly driven to murder because of the rejection he felt from most women. He complains of being a “22-year-old virgin,” and blames his lack of sexual success on the opposite sex. Clearly, there are other mental health issues that contribute to his feelings of rage, yet his outlet is to target what he believed was the source of his depression and anger for a good portion of his life. Rodger was not the only one who had these hostile feelings toward women; Men’s Rights advocates band together to speak of their negative experiences with women and rant about how they have caused them to live a life of misery and deceit. Some of the arguments are extreme, unreasonably blaming an entire sex for the source of a man’s unhappiness in life.

Rape as a Tool

Case Study: Rape Internationally

According to CNN, “rape has too often become the weapon of choice for frustrated young men who blame women, increasingly visible in the workplace, for their unemployment, and who hope to regain jobs by frightening women back home through sexual violence.” Men are being fueled by their anger toward women; they may feel threatened or humiliated by them and are using the most powerful tool that they have to attack in the most sexually aggressive and destructive way possible. Between 2006 and 2011, rape cases in India rose by twenty-five percent. Even more disturbing, only one quarter of the rapists were convicted. Rape is an increasing normality in India and indicative of the lack of support that women receive in the predominantly patriarchal society. Similarly, according to the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, in the United States, 97 percent of violent rapists will not be convicted and 54 percent of cases are not even reported.

The International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence

The International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence works to alleviate some of the gender violence conducted against women internationally, specifically in times of war and conflict. Its main goals are to increase services offered to individuals who have been victims of violence and rape, gain justice for victims, and ultimately stop the aggression toward women.

Battling the Red Pill

Social Media to Combat the Red Pill Movement

In response to a society that seems to breed rape culture, the Twitter movement #YesAllWomen has emerged on Twitter. According to Time, the #YesAllWomen hashtag was created “to criticize the way society teaches men to feel entitled to women at the expense of their health, safety and, in [the Santa Barbara shooter] Rodger’s case, lives.” The online campaign was created to empower women, and expand on the belief that women are worth more than their physical appearance. It also brings awareness to how women are constantly placed in sexually offensive and uncomfortable situations. A recent post links to a list of (in)appropriate responses to cat-callers on the street. Tweets such as this one:

Because tweets like this should not exist #YesAllWomen pic.twitter.com/Ng84ItSXjD — Izabella (@izabellaanna_) July 14, 2014

Organizations Against Rape Culture

Organizations such as People Against Rape Culture, are fighting back by attempting to educate, collaborate, and advocate so that people will become more aware of rape culture. There are also organizations that include man’s involvement. Men Can Stop Rape has compiled a list of Men’s Anti-Violence Organizations. The group has also used collaborative methods, such as the Strength Campaign, to educate boys in middle schools, high schools, and universities and assist them in working on relationships with peers, teachers, family members, and members of their community.

Conclusion

Everyone is entitled to a personal opinion, therefore whether or not the Men’s Rights Movement results in any legislation is irrelevant to its existence as a legitimate movement. This holds true for the Red Pill Movement, as well; however, that it is breeding an extreme sense of animosity toward an entire gender. Governments must continue to educate and prosecute those people who violently and sexually violate women, no matter where the source of that anger comes from.

Resources

Business Insider: Inside Red Pill, the Weird New Cult For Men Who Don’t Understand Women

WorldNews Network: Deadly California rampage: Chilling video, but no match for reality

Washington Post: Men’s Rights Activists, Gathering to Discuss All the Ways Society Has Done Them Wrong

Times of India: Low Conviction Rate Spurring Sexual Assault Cases in India

TIME: The Most Powerful #YesAllWomen Tweets

RAINN: 97 of Every 100 Rapists Receive no Punishment, RAINN Analysis Shows

TIME: What I Learned as a Woman at a Men’s-Rights Conference

Southern Poverty Law Center: Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women

Ms. Foundation: Stopping the Violence Against Women 

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Red Pill and the Men’s Rights Movement appeared first on Law Street.

The British Columbia Law Society just voted 3,210 to 968 to reverse its  April decision accrediting the new Trinity Western University Law School. The original accreditation decision came under fire because Trinity has a Christian covenant that serves as a mandatory contract students and staff are required to sign. The problem with this covenant? It blatantly discriminates against the LGBT community.

Under the covenant, all school affiliates are prohibited from a sexual relationship “that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.” If they are found to have violated this covenant, or even fail to report violations by fellow students or staff, they may be expelled or terminated. The school has used a freedom of religion argument to defend its offensive and harsh rule.

In the most recent vote, 77 percent of the BC Law Society voted against TWU Law receiving accreditation, and although this vote is non-binding, it definitely affects the final decision. The BC Law Society is not alone in protesting the school’s covenant. The Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario also voted against the accreditation. The Nova Scotia Barristers Society only granted conditional acceptance; the terms of that acceptance were that TWU either changes the covenant or gives students the option to not sign it.

TWU contends that its freedom of religion allows it to enact this covenant, and even launched court actions in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Ontario to defend it. Statements made by the institution have gone so far as to say that the provincial law societies rejecting the school’s accreditation are denying the concept that lawyers can participate in society while holding any religious beliefs. They also argue that the rulings are based solely ony public opinion, making them inherently unfair. But three different provincial law societies amount to thousands of votes, which seems like a very popular opinion, so the school’s argument seems a bit far fetched to me.

A similar case came before the Canadian Supreme Court in 2001 concerning the accreditation of TWU’s graduates and the court ruled in the school’s favor. Bob Kunn, Trinity’s president, even used this fact as a defense for the school’s covenant, saying, “the Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the country, comprised of the best legal minds, and their decisions should be respected.” I find this point especially laughable given that the school’s covenant is discriminating against an entire community that has been protected by that same court for eleven years. How can Trinity preach about freedom of religion when it forces students and staff to sign a contract that specifies their personal beliefs and punish students for violating the beliefs it deems correct?

Even more alarming is what this covenant could mean for Trinity’s future law graduates. In my eyes, this anti-gay covenant promotes further discrimination beyond just school enrollment. It has the potential to subliminally teach graduates that the LGBT community is somehow not worth their time as lawyers. Even worse, these future lawyers may have an extra barrier to employment in British Columbia, where gay marriage is now commonplace.

It is important to note that Trinity Western is not alone in its initiative to exclude the LGBT community from enrollment. In the United States, the supremely Christian Liberty University earned fifth place on a list of the top five most conservative schools in the United States. In addition to teaching youth earth creationism, the school also bans the admission of openly gay students. Many other universities with anti-gay policies, such as Patrick Henry College, are home to a silent underground LGBT community. Queerphc is a blog specifically dedicated to gay Patrick Henry students that states, “Patrick Henry College maintains a requirement of non-advocacy for enrolled students in regards to LGBTQ issues.”

Although this discriminatory spirit against homosexual and transgender students exists all over North America, the tides seem to be changing for the better in America. President Obama just announced that he will sign an executive order prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination. Many people, myself include, haven’t paid much attention to this announcement because frankly, we thought it was already established. Although there’s plenty of progress that needs to be made, both the US and Canada are on the right track in most respects. Hopefully Canada can take a lesson from its southern neighbor, use its constitutional history of LGBT acceptance as a basis, and show Trinity Western that discrimination in any form is both illegal and wrong.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Syowoe via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Law Societies Reject Trinity Western’s Anti-Gay Policies appeared first on Law Street.

While the city of Toronto collectively wonders where in the world its mayor, Rob Ford, is today — Rehab? The U.S? Eating a sandwich at the corner deli? — we thought it’s the perfect time to take a walk down memory lane. Are Rob Ford’s 15 minutes of fame winding down? Doesn’t seem like it — this most recent sparkling example of stupidity was just released today.

The Toronto Sun released this video showing our favorite beleaguered crack head mayor ranting in a bar. It’s quite spectacular, especially it means that Ford has apparently mastered being in two places at once, given that he’s currently supposed to be in rehab and his family claims that he has not left rehab since being admitted. Rob Ford is saying some pure gold in this video, my favorite being: “I’m nodding here. I’m in f—ing divorce and going to the f—ing doghouse and going in a hotel. (Inaudible) I don’t know what to say.”   

Unrelated but awesome.

Oh yeah, Rob Ford’s doing as well as always. And if you like that video, make sure to check out 15 other ridiculous Rob Ford moments below.

Click here to read the original post published November 20, 2013.

Bumbling Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has made waves in recent weeks for the revelation that he once smoked crack while “in a drunken stupor” this February. I’d love to say that this was the only dumb thing Mayor Ford has ever done, but where would the fun be in that? Let’s look at a countdown of Mayor Ford’s oddest, most embarrassing, and downright idiotic moments.

15. That one time the Toronto City Council tried to strip him of his power after the crack smoking scandal and he compared his side of the story to…The Gulf War.

“This, folks, reminds me of when — and I was watching with my brother — when Saddam attacked Kuwait. And President Bush said, ‘I warn you, I warn you, I warn you, do not.’ Well, folks, if you think American-style politics is nasty, you guys have just attacked Kuwait. Mark my words, friends, this is going to be outright war in the next election, and I’m going to do everything in my power — everything in my power — to beat you guys.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: C’mon, Mayor Ford. The Gulf War, really? I hope we’re not talking about that Gulf War where tens of thousands of people were killed. You’re comparing your reelection campaign to a deadly war? A+ for complete lack of sensitivity.

14. In 2002, when Mayor Ford was a City Councilor, there was a discussion about putting a homeless shelter in his district. Mayor Ford made the always eloquent point that instead of having a “public meeting” about said homeless shelter, maybe a “public lynching” would be more appropriate.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Do I even have to answer this one? This wasn’t Mayor Ford standing up for his constituents like he claimed, it was him being a gigantic jerk about a legitimate proposal. That doesn’t really incite compassion in the hearts of those who should be voting for him.

13.  In 2006, Mayor Ford went to a Toronto Maple Leafs game. Mayor Ford got wasted. Mayor Ford then got kicked out of the Toronto Maple Leafs game. He got kicked out because he was screaming at, berating, and swearing at a nice couple from out of town.

(Image Courtesy: Wikimedia)

Why it’s cringeworthy: Why was he screaming at some random Toronto visitors? Did they root for the other team or something? Now, I’m not going to pretend I know that much about Toronto tourism, but it seems to me like that is not a good way to get anyone to visit your city.

12. Number 12 on my list is a nice followup on Number 13. After the news broke that Mayor Ford was kicked out of a hockey game, he had a great excuse: he claimed he was never even at the game. He originally told the Toronto Star: “This is unbelievable. I wasn’t even at the game, so someone’s trying to do a real hatchet job on me, let me tell you.” Eventually he had to admit that he was there, and just said that he had been irresponsible and wasn’t perfect.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Dude, we live in a world where everyone has a camera, or a camera phone, or something. It’s pretty hard to deny that you weren’t at a public event. It’s not even a good try.

11. At that same City Council Meeting where Mayor Ford compared his life to the Gulf War, he absolutely plowed into a woman while trying to walk.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Nothing says “let me keep running this city” and “I’m totally not on drugs” like being really, embarrassingly, uncoordinated.

10. In 2007, Mayor Ford said that if a bicyclist gets hit by a car it’s definitely the bicyclist’s fault. He also compared bike lanes to “swimming with the sharks.” My favorite part of this clip, though? Definitely the last sentence: “My heart bleeds for him when I hear someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Lack of understanding about the difference between sharks and humans driving cars aside, there is a huge logical fallacy to Mayor Ford’s argument. He says roads are dangerous and people shouldn’t be cycling. Then he goes on to say that therefore, the implementation of bike lanes, which would make this all safer, is a bad idea. Mayor Ford, that is not how logic works, but good try!

9. Mayor Ford’s use of the term “Orientals.” He stated:

“Those Oriental people work like dogs … they sleep beside their machines. The Oriental people, they’re slowly taking over … they’re hard, hard workers.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Are you kidding me?

8. In 2011, a Canadian comedian showed up at his door pretending to be a journalist and asking him satirical questions. It’s also probably important to note that she was dressed like Xena, Warrior Princess. Weird comedy show aside, a rational response to this is not to call the police, as Mayor Ford did. In an expletive-filled 911 call, he claimed he was “attacked.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Because it displays he has no sense of humor. Because it also displays a complete overreaction to a comedic stunt. And, because he apparently said to the dispatcher, “”Don’t you f***** know? I’m Rob f****** Ford, the mayor of this city.” Oof.

7. A former mayoral candidate, Sarah Thomson, ran into Mayor Ford at a political function about 9 months ago.  Ms. Thomson is a pretty woman, and no one seems to appreciate that more than Mayor Ford. He reportedly grabbed her butt and then told her she should have joined him in Florida a week earlier, because his wife wasn’t there. She later posted this picture to her Facebook:

Why it’s cringeworthy: At first I thought I was going to make a comment about not grabbing women’s butts in public, but I think Thomson covered it with her Facebook comment. So let’s all take a minute to appreciate the face he’s making in this picture instead.

6. Speaking of Rob Ford and women….he’s had a veritable plethora of problems with his wife and other female members of his family. On Christmas day in 2011, his mother-in-law had to call the cops because he was drunk, threatened to kidnap the couple’s children, and bring them to Florida.

Why it’s cringeworthy: A) Doesn’t he have better things to do? Like, I don’t know, run a city? and B) She made the call sometime between 4 AM and 5 AM. Who in the world is drunk and trying to go to Florida at 4 in the morning?

5. …To continue number 6, there have been multiple calls from Mayor Ford’s house alleging domestic abuse. On at least one occasion, both he and his wife may have been drunk or under the influence of drugs when the police showed up.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I seriously considered not including this one on the list, I really did. It’s about domestic abuse, and domestic abuse is not something that should ever be joked about it. But I did include it, because as funny and snarky as this list is supposed to be, there is a point. Mayor Ford is an idiot. He is unfit for office, and he should be embarrassed by the things he’s done. ALL of the things he’s done. And not shaming this man for his actions against his family and women…well that’s just unacceptable.

4. He used his mayoral letterhead to try to solicit donations for his high school football charity. In my opinion, that’s a little illegal, and a judge agreed.

Image Courtesy: Flickr

Why it’s cringeworthy: Mayor Ford’s defense? He didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to use his position to solicit funds from his own charity. In a bizarre move, an appeals judge actually agreed with that argument, and he was ultimately not removed from office.

3. As a Councillor in 2006, Rob Ford rallied against an AIDS prevention program, stating about the disease, “It is very preventable. If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you will not get AIDS probably, that’s the bottom line. These are the facts.”

Image courtesy: Toronto Life

Why it’s cringeworthy: When I first started making this list, I was calm and sitting on my couch. I’m still sitting on my couch, but now I’m not calm and I’m working my way through a very large pile of leftover Halloween candy to soothe my soul. It’s not working, because I keep running across statements like this. These are not the facts, Mayor Ford. They are not. And you should stop talking, forever.

2. That time that Mayor Ford tried to find a drug dealer to buy OxyContin on the street for a constituent. In 2010, a phone call happened where a man claimed his doctor would not prescribe him Oxy. Comments like this were made by Mayor Ford:

“I’ll try buddy, I’ll try,” the councillor replied. “I don’t know this shit, but I’ll f****** try to find it.” A few moments later Mr. Ford asked: “What does OxyContin go for on the street, so I have an idea?”

Image Courtesy: WikiMedia

Why it’s cringeworthy: One hand, decent job trying to help a constituent. On the other, logical, hand, how could saying that ever seem like a good idea?

1. This.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I. Can’t. Stop. Laughing.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Shaun Merritt via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where in the World is Rob Ford? 15 Minutes of Fame, 15 Dumb-Ass Things appeared first on Law Street.

College students are kind of stupid. As this groundbreaking and Pulitzer worthy (LOL, just kidding) Fox News piece showed us recently, they like to get drunk and high and occasionally both.

Because, you know, Spring Break is a new thing. No one has ever done this exact piece before. Never.

And apparently we are constantly finding new ways to get messed up. Every couple years there are new, crazy trends to get all screwed up. Now these trends that media outlets inevitably have a mental breakdown over are rarely legitimate or widespread. Instead, they tend to be the product of one or two weird and unfortunate hospitalizations or arrests.

One recent particularly disturbing/amusing/curious trend is “butt chugging.” For those of you who don’t know what that is, it’s exactly what it sounds like. This is much too civilized of a forum for me to go into too much depth, but if you’d like more information, you can read an account of some brave soul attempting butt chugging here. A kid at University of Tennessee was hospitalized with a BAC of .4 after supposedly butt chugging at a Pi Kappa Alpha party. The frat was eventually suspended from campus. If you need a quick laugh, please watch the press conference their lawyer held. It’s hilarious. This poor man with a law degree had to say the word butt chug about 398792 times.

In a similar vein, apparently vodka tampons are a thing. I will not describe the process of this trend, because again, I would assume it’s self-explanatory. Again, also probably not a widespread trend, but it’s still something for our concerned news outlets to get their panties in a proverbial bunch about.

And most recently, teens are apparently smoking coffee, although why anyone would demean my beautiful and vivacious friend coffee that way is unknown. Here’s a first hand account of someone trying it. Unsurprisingly, it didn’t go well because smoking coffee is incredibly stupid.

OK, so some Americans, particularly some young Americans, are incredibly stupid. They make reckless decisions and experiment with dangerous ways to do drugs and drink alcohol. OK. But my question is, does this happen in other countries? Because here’s my logic — you would think this happens in the countries that are similar to us. Canada, right? The UK? Australia? France? Spain? Anywhere?? Does anyone else butt chug?

From what I can tell the answer is no. Now don’t get me wrong, European kids party. They party hard, probably harder in some cases. But they don’t appear to butt chug, or use vodka tampons, or smoke coffee grounds — maybe because they have more respect for the glorious caffeinated mecca that is coffee.

Brb, Starbucks run.

So why are we so stupid? Well, there are a few possible reasons. Let’s start with the least probable.

Possibility #1: We’re dumber than kids in other countries. 

I highly doubt that this could be true. The United States has only been around a couple of centuries, and we’re a melting pot. I don’t think there’s any sort of gene, or lack thereof, that makes American kids look at a beer and say, hey, maybe I’ll shove that up my ass in an attempt to get drunk more quickly.

And if that is the case, Americans are going extinct anyway, so this article is for naught.

Possibility #2: The American culture of consumption. 

As Americans, we consume things. A lot. We are 5 percent of the world’s population, but use 24 percent of its energy. On average, Americans have larger house sizes than Europeans by quite a bit — we average about 2,300 sq. ft.; the French are at about 1,216 sq. ft.; and British houses average 818 sq. ft. We also consume a lot more food than our European friends. In general, we have a culture of consumption in the United States, that isn’t absent from other countries, but is certainly not quite as pervasive.

And that culture of consumption kind of tells that moderation is bad. Think back to that Fox News “expose” on Spring Break goers. Those kids were unabashedly telling the camera that they wanted to get as messed up as physically possible. They were drinking cheap alcohol, obviously not for the taste, but for the pure and unadulterated purpose of getting hammered. They were consuming to excess, because that’s the culture of those Spring Break trips.

But that still doesn’t answer my question. Why does this happen here, but not evidently, other places? I mean obviously Europe has Ibiza, and giant music festivals, but in searching, I can’t find a single example of butt chugging, or vodka tampons, or anything else that ridiculous. I also can’t seem to find any concerned media exposes on young drinking culture.

And that brings to me to my most likely theory:

Possibility #3: It’s a product of the US drinking age. 

Anyone who’s been to Europe can see that drinking is, for the most part, a facet of the culture. Depending on where you are, having a beer or glass of wine with dinner is not uncommon, even if you’re a teen. Teens are eased into it, and allowed to test their limits. Unlike in the US, there’s no awkward period of time between 18-21 when you’re a full adult in every way, except for the ability to order a glass of wine with dinner. Drinking isn’t treated like some secret exclusive club.

I think that’s why ridiculously stupid things like butt chugging happen. Drinking underage in the US emphasizes getting drunk as cheaply and quickly as possible, because there are limited resources. If an underage kid is going to a bar and wants to drink, they know that they will have no access to alcohol there, so they take as many shots as physically possible before going to make sure that they’ll be on the same level as others. There’s no emphasis on learning what you actually enjoy, or learning limits.

Now there is danger in lowering the drinking age, of course. But I think the issue we have is one that resides in the murky intersection between law and culture. Our culture teaches us to consume as much as possible, but our law restricts said consumption until a seemingly arbitrary birthday. I think there’s value in the European approach.

So next time you meet a European, please ask, “Have you ever butt chugged?” I bet you 5 bucks they’ll just look at you like a crazy person, and probably file a restraining order.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dear American Underage Drinkers, Why is Butt Chugging a Thing? appeared first on Law Street.

This just in: prostitution is now very much legal in Canada.

In the Great White North, the actual physical exchange of money for sexual acts has always been legal. However, most prostitutes still broke the law because many prostitution related activities, such as solicitation, keeping a brothel, or living on the avails of prostitution were against the law.

For years, advocates hoping to improve the living conditions for sex workers have been arguing that these laws violates the guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and security. Thirty-four years ago, the last time such a suit made it to the Supreme Court, the justices ruled that the prostitution laws should stay in place.

But today, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the laws did in fact violate the Canadian Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedom, and they were struck down, making it much, much easier to take part in legal prostitution. The challenge was brought to the court by three women who formerly participated in the sex trade. It made it to the Supreme Court as the result of a ruling in an Ontario-based court last year. The Supreme Court upheld the decision. The logic behind the Court’s ruling is that the laws in place endanger the lives, health, and safety of the women who make their living doing an activity that is, in itself, legal.

The counter argument to that point of view was that it is a given woman’s choice to engage in prostitution, and so the laws should not be written to protect her for her own choices. But the justices strongly disagreed with that argument. Justice Beverly McLachin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada stated, “whether because of financial desperation, drug addictions, mental illness, or compulsion from pimps, they often have little choice but to sell their bodies for money”. As a result, the choice argument was simply not valid.

It’s important to note that the decision does not allow prostitution permanently. It gives the Legislature one year to draft replacement laws that are not as sweeping and protect the men and women who work in the sex trade.

Among Canada’s peers and allies, there are a wide range of prostitution laws. Some nations, like the United States, flat out ban prostitution and any related activities (with the sole exception of some jurisdictions in the state of Nevada). In contrast, nations such as the Netherlands and Germany have legalized prostitution by women who are of a consenting age. Prostitutes are recognized as legitimate workers, and they are registered.

It’s pretty much accepted that prostitution will happen–there’s a reason that it is called the oldest profession in the world. Whether or not legalizing prostitution has beneficial or negative effects is hotly debated. While legalizing prostitution may lead to more human trafficking, and more organized criminal activity, it does allow a country to keep a registry of sex workers and tax the acts sold.

There were very mixed reactions to the ruling. Canadian sex workers were very pleased. A former sex-trade worker who brought the case, Terri-Jean Bedford stated, “now the government must tell Canadians, all consenting adults, what we can and cannot do in the privacy of our home for money or not. And they must write laws that are fair”.

On the other hand, there are groups that are decrying the change in prostitution laws. Kim Pate is the Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. The Elizabeth Fry Societies advocate for the right of women and girls. Pate stated, ” it’s a sad day that we’ve now had confirmed that it’s OK to buy and sell women and girls in this country. I think generations to come — our daughters, their granddaughters and on — will look back and say, ‘what were they thinking?'”

The decision of the Canadian Court is interesting,  because it indicates that the Justices didn’t necessarily want to make it easier for prostitution to occur, they just wanted to protect the women who are forced into the trade. By giving the Legislature a second chance to write constitutionally appropriate laws, the reprieve for sex workers will probably not last long. However, it is safe to say that the laws will never be quite as restrictive as they were before today’s ruling.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Paul via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Big Change to Canadian Prostitution Laws appeared first on Law Street.

This is Rob Ford.  He is the current mayor of Toronto, the largest city in Canada.

Courtesy of West Annex News via Flickr.

He has been in the news for the past few days following an admission on November 5 that he had smoked crack cocaine while in office.

There’s more: the crack smoking is allegedly on tape.

There’s even more: Mayor Ford says that he has no plans to resign from his mayorship.

Mayor Ford doesn’t plan on stepping down because he “loves his job.”  He plans on finishing his current term, and next year he will run for reelection.

Backstory

On May 16, 2013, Gawker published an article which describes in great detail its investigation into the claims of Mayor Ford’s drug use.  Their research includes travel to Toronto, secret meetings in cars, and a cell phone video of Ford with a crack pipe in his mouth.  In fact, Gawker was so invested in securing this video as proof of their claims that they set up an Indiegogo for $200,000, the amount of money that the owners of the video said it would cost for them to sell.

Keep in mind these claims were made six months ago.  At the time, Ford vehemently denied that he had ever smoked crack.

He’s now changing his tune.

In reference to Canadian crackgate, Ford now says that reporters did not ask him the correct questions initially.  His exact words were, “you didn’t ask the correct questions…No, I’m not an addict.  And no, I do not do drugs.  I made mistakes in the past and all I can do is apologize.”

It’s all a technicality, you see.  During an impromptu press conference, he said he does not smoke crack cocaine, just that he has smoked crack cocaine.  Get it?  Semantics.

That’s not all, though.  Ford now says that he did smoke crack cocaine, but that it occurred at a time when he was in a drunken stupor.  He goes further, and implores the various members of the press to provide him with a copy of the video.  Due to the severity of this particular drunken stupor, he has no idea as to what this video contains.   He wants to watch the video with all of Toronto so that everyone can be on the same page.

Unsurprisingly, the Toronto City Council wants Mayor Ford gone sooner rather than later.  There has been a motion made for Ford to take a leave of absence, and other Canadian political figures have also voiced their lack of confidence in the Mayor’s ability to effectively lead the city.

Regardless of how other politicians feel, Ford feels like 1,000 pounds is off his back now that the secret’s out in the open. Phew! The admission of a little recreational crack will surely do wonders for Ford’s reelection campaign (which could probably use some donations right about now).

Why this matters

I don’t know much, if anything, about Canadian politics.  What I do know is that most municipalities prefer to have confidence in the leadership qualities that their Executive branches of government possess.

I also know that I’m a part of a generation that is routinely warned of the dangers of having a picture tagged on Facebook with a beer in my hand, lest that one beer lead someone somewhere to surmise that I’m a raging alcoholic with dangerous propensities and a terrible work ethic.

I know that though I am a recent law school graduate with a job, there are thousands of similar people out there with no job prospects despite high grades, bar passage, and the common sense to not get drunk enough to smoke crack.  So if you’re unemployed, you can always consider a career in politics.

 —

Featured image courtesy of [sari dennise via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Toronto Mayor Rob Ford Admits to Smoking Crack Cocaine While in Office appeared first on Law Street.