Mediaboss Marketing

As the leaders of the worlds wealthiest nations wrapped up their first in-person summit since the outbreak of the pandemic, they released a joint communiqu on Sunday, underscoring areas of solidarity and the differences that remain when it comes to tackling a host of global crises.

The group, including President Biden, did not reach agreement on a timeline to eliminate the use of coal for generating electric power, a failure that climate activists said was a deep disappointment ahead of a global climate conference later this year.

The leaders sought to present a united front even as it remained to be seen how the plans would be executed.

The agreement represented a dramatic return of Americas postwar international diplomacy, and Mr. Biden said it was evidence of the strength of the worlds democracies in tackling hard problems.

Speaking to reporters after the summit, Mr. Biden said the leaders endorsement of a global minimum tax would help ensure global equity and a proposal to finance infrastructure projects in the developing world would counter the influence of China, providing what he said was a democratic alternative.

Those initiatives, he said, would promote democratic values and not an autocratic lack of values.

Everyone at the table understood and understands both the seriousness and the challenges that we are up against and the responsibility of our proud democracies to step up and deliver to the rest of the world, Mr. Biden said.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, who hosted the summit, said that the gathering was an opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of democracy.

That would start, he said, with agreements to speed up the effort to vaccinate the world, which he called the greatest feat in medical history.

Asked about the failure to go further on climate policy by setting firm timelines, Mr. Johnson said that the general criticism was misplaced and failed to take into account the full scope of what was achieved during the summit.

I think it has been a highly productive few days, he said.

Mr. Biden hoped to use his first trip abroad to show that democracy, as a system of government, remained capable of addressing the worlds most pressing challenges.

The communiqu issued on Sunday fleshed out some of the proposals that have dominated the summit and was explicit in the need to counter the rise of China.

Three years ago, China wasnt even mentioned in the G7 communiqu, according to an administration official who briefed reporters on its contents. This year, there is a section on China that speaks to the importance of coordinating on and responding to Chinas nonmarket economic practices and the need to speak out against human rights abuses, including in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

The communiqu promised action against forced labor practices in the agricultural, solar, and garment sectors.

It also noted the need for supply chain resilience and technology standards so that democracies are aligned and supporting each other.

At the same time, the nations agreed to an overhaul of international tax laws, unveiling a broad agreement that aims to stop large multinational companies from seeking out tax havens.

The administration official called it a historic endorsement to end the race to the bottom in corporate taxation with a global minimum tax that will help fund domestic renewal and grow the middle class.

But for all the good will and declarations of unity, there were questions about how the proposals would be translated into real-world action.

For instance, on the tax laws, a number of hurdles have yet to be overcome.

The biggest obstacle to getting a deal finished could come from the United States. The Biden administration must win approval from a narrowly divided Congress to make changes to the tax code, and Republicans have shown resistance to Mr. Bidens plans.

See the article here:
Biden: Summit Offers Democratic Alternative To Chinese Influence. - The New York Times

(Washington, DC) The United States Congress should swiftly pass two critical laws needed to protect and advance the right to vote, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For the People Act, Human Rights Watch said today. Both pieces of legislation are essential to protecting US democracy.

Since the troubled transition from the administration of former President Donald Trump, state legislators throughout the US have introduced hundreds of bills that would restrict access to voting, many of them echoing Trumps false claims about the 2020 presidential election results. These state laws represent backsliding in the US from voting systems historically aimed at upholding the rights of voters and respecting the will of the people. Without federal action, the rights of voters will be seriously impaired, particularly those of Black, brown, and low-income voters, Human Rights Watch said.

Two laws pending before Congress would help the United States ensure that the will of the people, not of politicians, determines the outcome of an election, said Nicole Austin-Hillery, US director at Human Rights Watch.Passage of both the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For The People Act would be a crucial step toward guaranteeing every American a baseline level of voting access, free from efforts to hamper, dilute, or nullify their votes.

The United States has along history of discriminationagainst Black and brown people exercising the right to vote. Even after the federal enactment of the US Voting Rights Act in 1965, which aimed to reduce discrimination in voting, Black, Latinx, and Native American citizens experienced many obstacles to voting. Changes by some states in recent years, including those enabled by a 2013 US Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder, which eviscerated federal oversight under the act have made voting harder, not easier. The Covid-19 pandemic hasexacerbated these problems. Trumps promotion of a false narrative about the results of the 2020 election, echoed by his allies, is a serious attack on the concept that every vote should count. It also harms the millions of voters of color who came out in record numbers to speak through the ballot box.

The decentralized administration of elections in the United States means thatno state administers elections in exactly the same way as another state. Each US state has a chief election official who has ultimate authority over elections, but which official holds this power varies from state to state. For example, many states rely on their secretary of state as their chief election official, some require governors to appoint top election officials, and others use appointed bipartisan election commissions. It is a patchwork quilt of voting systems.

The groundswell of new state laws began early this year with the introduction of253 bills proposing voting restrictions across 43 statesas of February 19, according to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice. That number rose to at least 389 bills in 48 states as of May 14, the Brennan Centerreported recently. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For The People Act would increase federal oversight of state laws that might restrict the right to vote and quell the voices of the most vulnerable voters.

The US should urgently take action to protect the rights of voters, Austin-Hillery said. In the words of the late Congressman John Lewis, the vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have. No voter should be blocked from using it.

Here is the original post:
US: Action Needed to Protect Democratic Rights - Human Rights Watch

The strength of a nation depends on its institutions, which must be independent and display intellectual integrity and vigour in performing their duties. India is a functioning parliamentary democracy, but its institutions seem to buckle before challenges. We must make institutions stronger, and therefore more effective, writesB K CHATURVEDI,former cabinet secretary and member of the erstwhile Planning Commission.

-

THIS week, at a G-7 conference, India reaffirmed its commitment to democracy in a joint statement. The statement, which India has signed, says, We are at a critical juncture, facing threats to freedom and democracy from rising authoritarianism, electoral interference, corruption, economic coercion, manipulation of information including disinformation, online harms and cyber-attacks, politically-motivated internet shutdowns, human rights violations and abuses, terrorism and violent extremism.

While the statement contains very clear affirmations of our values, several Indian policies have raised concerns in the international media.

Also read:India signs joint statement at G-7 for freedom of expression: Internet curbs threat to democracy

The 2021 World Press Freedom Index produced by Reporters without Borders (RSF), a French NGO, again placed India at 142nd rank out of 180 countries. The report mentioned that with four journalists killed in connection with their work in 2020, India is one of the most dangerous countries for journalists trying to do their job properly.

When Freedom House, an organisation based in the US, released its report on the functioning of democracies in March, it had downgraded Indias ranking from free to partly free. It observed, Rather than serving as a champion of democratic practice and a counterweight to authoritarian influence from countries such as China, Modi and his party are tragically driving India itself toward authoritarianism.

There may be issues with these assessments, and one may legitimately contest the views of these organisations, but they are one indicator of how some in the international community view the functioning of democracy in India.

Quite apart, the strength of a nation lies in how independently and with how much intellectual integrity the different parts of its democratic institutions carry out their responsibilities.

Also read:Freedom in the World 2021

Despite more than seven decades of a functioning parliamentary democracy, several institutions have not taken strong roots in our country. Some institutions have often not shown intellectual integrity when faced with challenges. A major issue is that corruption remains high, which weakens institutions and their effectiveness.

The recent Assembly election in West Bengal highlighted several major weaknesses in the working of some institutions. Our Election Commission has, over the years, acquired an image of a very strong and independent body. Unfortunately, it did not manifest in the West Bengal election. The polls were announced to be held in eight phases. Given the presence of a large number of paramilitary forces there, this schedule was difficult to understand.

There were allegations that it was done to favour the party ruling at the Centre so that its leaders could campaign in most of the constituencies right till the end. Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the image of a very popular leader, a long campaign was important for the BJP if it wanted to win this election. Further, the election was held when the country was going through one of the worst epidemics.

The Election Commission ought to have been really strict in implementing safety norms during the West Bengal election, but there was very little evidence of this. Large political meetings were allowed with blatant disregard for social distancing or wearing of masks.

The recent cyclone in West Bengal and the visit of the Prime Minister to review the losses in the state was yet another occasion when our institutions did not act in the spirit of the Constitution, as they must in a mature democracy. In our setup, the Prime Minister generally visits states ravaged by floods or other natural disasters.

During these visits, it is customary to hold meetings with the Chief Minister and other officials, including the Chief Secretary. Generally, meetings with public representatives are also held. It would have been appropriate if this was done. Unfortunately, it seems the bitterness of the elections affected the visit.

After handing over the papers to the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister chose not to stay back any further. She returned to the cyclone-affected areas along with the Chief Secretary.

While it was unfortunate that the West Bengal Chief Minister left the meeting with the Prime Minister early, the orders of the central government calling the Chief Secretary to report to the Government of Indiaissued immediately after this incidentviolated the All India Service Rules.

No concurrence of the state government or the officer was taken and, only a couple of days back, the government of India had agreed to his extension as Chief Secretary for three months. The entire incident did not reflect mature institutional functioning.

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial forum in the country. Sometime back, four of its judges held a press conference to express concerns about its functioning. When Article 370 was abolished in Jammu and Kashmir and many public representatives were put behind bars under various laws, several Habeas Corpus petitions were filed. Such petitions require urgent hearings as human freedom is at stake in them. Sadly, these petitions were kept pending for months. The courts did not take cognizance of them.

In January, the Supreme Court-appointed a committee to look into the problems faced by the farmers in light of their agitation. All the members appointed to this committee were generally seen to be in favour of the three central legislations that the farmers are opposing.

Similarly, the question of electoral bonds is still pending in the Supreme Court since 2017, although it has significant implications on the flow of funds to various political parties. The expeditious listing and hearing of the bail application of a pro-government TV anchorand subsequent relief to him has given rise to the belief that there is a strong influence of the government over the courts.

Also read:Farm laws: Supreme Court-appointed committee submits report

Day-to-day administration in our country is carried out by the executive. There are major chinks in the armour of this arm of government. For example, the functioning of the governors of states has been a cause of worry for a very long time. Over the years, chief ministers have complained about the conduct of several governors.

In July 2016, the conduct of the governor of Arunachal Pradesh, who imposed Presidents rule, was criticised heavily by the Supreme Court. Sometime back, the Governor of Maharashtra administered the oath of office to the Chief Minister at 8 am, after the President was woken up even earlier in the morning to revoke Presidents rule!

Also read:Maharashtra: How things played out on a day marked by intrigue

Electoral processes need to be free. However, recently, it has been noticed that before elections, the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate, and the income tax authorities launch investigations or carry out raids on the candidates of Opposition parties. The timing of these raids raises questions about their independence and fairness.

The functioning of the legislatures of states and Parliament, too, raises questions. The most basic question is the number of days our parliamentarians sit to discuss issues. Sadly,neither Parliament nor the state legislaturesare meeting enough.

According to recent reports, 19 state Assemblies met, on average, for 29 days a year. The last time our Parliament was in session for more than 100 days in a year was in 1988! Unless legislators meet and hold the executive accountable, democracy cannot be strong.

What independent institutions can achieve was evident some months back in the United States presidential election. It is remarkable that despite nearly 50 challenges to the election coming from different states, all the judges expeditiously rejected them.

According to reports,86 judgesand theUS Supreme Courtrejected the suits that challenged the election. The executive also responded very independently to the election process.

Even where President Donald Trump intervened personally and wanted a state governor to withhold the election result or ensure it is not certified, the governors refused. Arizona Governor Doug Hobbs, who is Republican, refused all pressures and certified the results.

After the 2020 election result, the US executive acted under the rules and laws despite pressure and did not delay decisions, nor did it just sit on papers. Even the investigating agency in the US, the FBI, and the Attorney General stood firm.

United States Attorney General William Barrsaid, To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election. Within days of his comment, he announced his resignation.

What is important for our democracy is to be strong, its institutions to function independently and with intellectual integrity. This approach must get strong support from all political parties. This will have strong positive results for the rule of law. It will make our nation strong.

(The author is a former Cabinet Secretary and former member of the Planning Commission. The views are personal.)

Read the rest here:
Indian Democracy is only as strong as its institutions - The Leaflet

Breadcrumb Trail Links

The notwithstanding clause is a dangerous and altogether unnecessary tool

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Canadas democracy has always been considered resilient and well immunized against the democratic backsliding that is occurring in other liberal democracies. Yet there is one feature of Canadas Constitution that undermines this rather smug assessment: Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the infamous notwithstanding clause which permits Parliament and the provincial legislatures to provisionally suspend the operation of the charter with respect to certain fundamental rights and freedoms.

In recent weeks, we have seen two provincial premiers resort to the notwithstanding clause in order to insulate legislation from charter scrutiny. In Ontario, Premier Doug Fords Progressive Conservative government announced that it plans to invoke the notwithstanding clause in order to restore parts of the Protecting Ontario Elections Act that restricts third-party election advertising and that had been struck down by a judge for infringing freedom of expression.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

And in Quebec, the Coalition Avenir Qubec government of Premier Franois Legault has invoked the notwithstanding clause as part of Bill 96, which seeks to amend Canadas Constitution to identify Quebec as a nation and make French its official and common language. In 2019, the Legault government also resorted to the notwithstanding clause when it passed Bill 21, An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State, which is intended to eradicate religious symbols in most of the public sector.

Back in 2018, Premier Ford introduced legislation cutting the size of Torontos city council in half, and announced that he would be prepared to invoke Section 33 in order to save the law in the event that it was found to violate the charter. In the face of public opposition, both Ford and his attorney general cavalierly defended the proposed use of Section 33 by touting their access to all the tools in the toolbox.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The willingness of our leaders to resort to the notwithstanding clause is cause for concern. Although the invocation of Section 33 does not offend the rule of law because the notwithstanding clause is, indeed, in the constitutional toolbox, it nevertheless poisons the liberal-democratic well from which free citizens draw their water.

Section 1 of the charter already anticipates that there will be circumstances in which rights and freedoms may lawfully be curtailed. But the courts have imposed a rigorous, multi-pronged test under Section 1 that requires the government to establish that the law or action responds to a matter of pressing and substantial concern, that its objective is rationally connected to the abridgement of a charter right, that the impairment of the right must be minimal and that there must be proportionality between the benefits of the law and the deleterious effects of the impairment.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

With Section 33, however, governments are not required to satisfy a judge that any of these conditions are present. Except to the extent that a governments purpose is articulated in legislative debate, the exercise of justifying the abridgement of constitutionally protected rights and freedoms can be dispensed with altogether when such an exercise risks producing an inconvenient or embarrassing result for the government.

The notwithstanding clause is the product of some heavy-handed, high-stakes bargaining amongst federal and provincial negotiators during the constitutional negotiations of 1981. The insistence by then-premiers Peter Lougheed, Allan Blakeney and Sterling Lyon on the inclusion of such a constitutional override clause was crucial in securing the requisite provincial support for the patriation package.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The principal justification for such an override was perhaps best articulated by constitutional law scholar Peter Russell: A belief that there should be a parliamentary check on a fallible judiciarys decisions on the metes and bounds of our fundamental rights and freedoms. However, almost four decades after the inclusion of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canadas Constitution, we have had the benefit of a rich and well-developed jurisprudence under Section 1.

It is high time we recognize that the escape hatch of Section 33 undermines Canadas commitment to protecting civil liberties, erodes the legitimacy of our democracy, renders it vulnerable to democratic backsliding and compromises Canadas credentials as a global champion of human rights and liberal-democratic values.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The problem is not that first ministers will be tempted to use all the tools in the constitutional toolbox, but that Section 33 is a dangerous and altogether unnecessary tool. It simply has no place in the constitutional toolbox of any mature and robust liberal democracy. It ought to be repealed.

National Post

Peter L. Biro is the founder of Section1.ca, a democracy and civics education advocacy organization, a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and chair emeritus of the Jane Goodall Institute, Global. He is a lawyer, business executive and the editor of Constitutional Democracy Under Stress: A Time For Heroic Citizenship.

Listen to our new podcast, COVID Conspiracies, on Apple Podcasts or Spotify

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read the original here:
Peter L. Biro: Section 33 has no place in a liberal democracy. It ought to be repealed - National Post

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland delivers remarks on voting rights at the Department of Justice on Friday. Tom Brenner/Pool/Getty Images hide caption

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland delivers remarks on voting rights at the Department of Justice on Friday.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday offered a fierce defense of voting rights, which he described as an indisputable "cornerstone" of American democracy, as he outlined a series of measures meant to protect those rights.

"There are many things open to debate in America, but the right of all eligible citizens to vote is not one of them. The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, the right from which all other rights ultimately flow," Garland said during remarks to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

Following former President Donald Trump's baseless claims of a stolen 2020 election, many Republican-led legislatures across the country have in recent months sought to pass restrictive voting measures that critics have argued are often designed specifically to disenfranchise racial minorities and the poor.

Garland noted that at least 14 states have passed new laws this year to make it harder to vote. Those states include Georgia, Florida and Arizona.

"To meet the challenge of the current moment, we must rededicate the resources of the Department of Justice to a critical part of its original mission: enforcing federal law to protect the franchise for all eligible voters," Garland said.

As part of this mission, Garland said the Justice Department would double the number of voter enfranchisement lawyers in the Civil Rights Division and more closely scrutinize laws that relate to the right to vote, including examining state legislation for possible disenfranchisement against Black voters and other people of color.

Garland also said the department would examine recent reviews of state 2020 election results. The Department of Justice has already raised concerns about a GOP-led review of ballots in Maricopa County, Arizona.

The attorney general said his department's ability to protect voting rights was hampered by a 2013 Supreme Court decision that struck down a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Garland called on Congress to advance two bills on voting rights that have the backing of most Democrats but seem unlikely to pass.

As the nation's chief law enforcement official, Garland also vowed to combat disinformation campaigns that may deter people from voting, as well as publish guidance for how states should move forward with mail-in ballots a topic that became a focal point of the partisan divide during the 2020 race.

"Nearly two and a half centuries into our experiment of 'government of the people, by the people, for the people,' we have learned much about what supports a healthy democracy," Garland said. "We know that expanding the ability of all eligible citizens to vote is the central pillar. That means ensuring that all eligible voters can cast a vote; that all lawful votes are counted; and that every voter has access to accurate information. The Department of Justice will never stop working to protect the democracy to which all Americans are entitled."

Later Friday, Vice President Harris, who's been put in charge of the Biden administration's efforts on voting issues, lauded new measures signed into law in Nevada, where state Democrats there pushed for expanded voting access.

More here:
AG Garland Vows To Defend Voting Rights As The 'Cornerstone' Of American Democracy - NPR