Having recovered from the chaos of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, below you will find a few thoughts on the process and being a Canadian internationally:
The learning experience was incredible; for me, the chance to interact and discuss with others from around the world is probably the most valuable aspect of attending an international conference as a non-governmental observer.
What I found unfortunate though, was that so many of the sessions geared toward observers, side events, as they were called, did not address the ways in which countries could/should/would work together. There were many fabulous presentations about what country x was doing and how others might mimic their actions. A couple of really interesting talks on the role of regional and municipal governments (something Canada is actually praised for on the international stage, go us!). But not a whole lot about how all this can fit into a global system.
Presumably that was left for the plenary sessions – discussions for government leaders to have. Passes were extremely limited for these sessions so unfortunately I did not get to attend any. The question then is, if the plenary is too full, why were side events not created to focus on similar challenges?
I think that if we are going to find a global solution to these environmental challenges we are going to have to really consider the NGOs role and ensure the COP proceedings reflect that. This means observers need to be able to observe the crucial discussion, to learn about what can be done, to be able to bring these ideas back to their respective homes and help their governments find ideal solutions.
Before I wrap up, I’d like to bring up one last thing – being Canadian internationally, and working with our government and other organizations. I am Liberal so you can probably guess how I feel about the current government, but I am a proud Canadian. And I believe climate change is a crucial issue TODAY, so you can probably guess how I feel about our inaction, still, I am a proud Canadian.
I have a big problem with Canadians going abroad and saying they are “ashamed to be Canadian” – What’s worse is that it was Canadians telling other Canadians to be ashamed.
Yes it is bad that Canada won so many fossil of the day awards, yes it is bad that we do not have a concrete plan for reducing emissions, yes it is bad that we are not stepping up to the plate and taking a leadership role.
But it is good that we have municipalities and provinces who praised for their environmental advancements, it is good that we have some of the worlds experts on climate change right here in Canada and it is even better when we help each other promote the good rather than attack each other over the bad.
We are Canadians and we are better than being bullies.
We are Canadians and we have the capacity to produce strong policy.
We are Canadians and we can be leaders.
Thanks for your time!
Elizabeth Dubois
Delegate Lead: Young Liberals of Canada,
for International Federation of Liberal Youth,
to COP-15
@lizdubois
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
29.1.10
Omar Khadr and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Case of Omar Khadr
Today (January 29, 2010) The Supreme Court of Canada, unanimously ruled that the Harper government has violated Mr. Khadr’s Charter rights, and that the constitutional breach “continues to this day".
The Court is not insisting that Mr. Khadr be repatriated from Guantanamo, out of respect for the separation of powers and an appropriate reluctance of the courts to intervene in foreign policy affairs. However, the Court has sent a clear message that the government must rectify its infringement of Mr. Khadr’s Charter rights, but is “leaving the government a measure of discretion in deciding how best to respond”. The Court has also clearly warned that it has the power to act more strongly if the government fails to take action.
In my view:
- The Supreme Court’s decision was appropriate. It found that the Harper government has violated, and continues to violate, Mr. Khadr’s Charter rights. It was also appropriate that it respected the separation of powers and the government’s role in foreign affairs—as the Court said, it was “leaving the government a measure of discretion in deciding how best to respond”. I am heartened, however, that the court also made it clear that it is prepared to take stronger action if the government fails to take action.
- Omar Khadr and members of his family have acted and spoken in ways that are offensive to many Canadians. Me included. But our legal principles, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the rights of Canadian citizens, and Canada’s adherence to principles of international law on the protection of child soldiers*, must take precedence over whether we happen to “like” or “approve” of someone or not. Indeed, our principles are easy to uphold when we are dealing with sympathetic people----it is exactly when it isn’t so easy that the value and importance of upholding those principles are the greatest. If they only apply when it’s easy, they aren’t really true principles.
- An additional note on child soldiers: Mr. Khadr was only 15 at the time (now 7 years ago!); he was a child soldier under international legal definitions. International law, to which Canada has adhered*, would keep Mr. Khadr from prosecution. He should have been repatriated to Canada from Guantanamo. Last year, however, Stephen Harper said, “To be a child soldier, you have to be in an army.” It is extraordinary to suggest that it’s OK to have the world protect children who are forced into “official” armies, but to NOT afford similar protections to those children who are forced into guerrilla squads or terrorist groups. The law refers to "armed conflict". The world is, unfortunately, full of situations where children are forced into armed conflict—“official” or not. As a country, Canada has both an international legal obligation, and a principled one, to help and protect those children whenever and wherever possible. Even if the children, or their families, behave in ways that many of us do not like or approve of.
* UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, New York, 25 May 2000, http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11-b&chapter=4&lang=en
Today (January 29, 2010) The Supreme Court of Canada, unanimously ruled that the Harper government has violated Mr. Khadr’s Charter rights, and that the constitutional breach “continues to this day".
The Court is not insisting that Mr. Khadr be repatriated from Guantanamo, out of respect for the separation of powers and an appropriate reluctance of the courts to intervene in foreign policy affairs. However, the Court has sent a clear message that the government must rectify its infringement of Mr. Khadr’s Charter rights, but is “leaving the government a measure of discretion in deciding how best to respond”. The Court has also clearly warned that it has the power to act more strongly if the government fails to take action.
In my view:
- The Supreme Court’s decision was appropriate. It found that the Harper government has violated, and continues to violate, Mr. Khadr’s Charter rights. It was also appropriate that it respected the separation of powers and the government’s role in foreign affairs—as the Court said, it was “leaving the government a measure of discretion in deciding how best to respond”. I am heartened, however, that the court also made it clear that it is prepared to take stronger action if the government fails to take action.
- Omar Khadr and members of his family have acted and spoken in ways that are offensive to many Canadians. Me included. But our legal principles, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the rights of Canadian citizens, and Canada’s adherence to principles of international law on the protection of child soldiers*, must take precedence over whether we happen to “like” or “approve” of someone or not. Indeed, our principles are easy to uphold when we are dealing with sympathetic people----it is exactly when it isn’t so easy that the value and importance of upholding those principles are the greatest. If they only apply when it’s easy, they aren’t really true principles.
- An additional note on child soldiers: Mr. Khadr was only 15 at the time (now 7 years ago!); he was a child soldier under international legal definitions. International law, to which Canada has adhered*, would keep Mr. Khadr from prosecution. He should have been repatriated to Canada from Guantanamo. Last year, however, Stephen Harper said, “To be a child soldier, you have to be in an army.” It is extraordinary to suggest that it’s OK to have the world protect children who are forced into “official” armies, but to NOT afford similar protections to those children who are forced into guerrilla squads or terrorist groups. The law refers to "armed conflict". The world is, unfortunately, full of situations where children are forced into armed conflict—“official” or not. As a country, Canada has both an international legal obligation, and a principled one, to help and protect those children whenever and wherever possible. Even if the children, or their families, behave in ways that many of us do not like or approve of.
* UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, New York, 25 May 2000, http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11-b&chapter=4&lang=en
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
