July 2011 - Welcome to the draft informational website. The website is still UNDER CONSTRUCTION- FILLER CONTENT FOLLOWS

Innocent until proven Facebook: Vancouver Hockey Riot 2011

BY KENT-DANIEL GLOWINSKI, VANCOUVER SUN JUNE 21, 2011

When I worked for the Ontario Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in 2006, the commissioner would regularly warn young Canadians about the possible dangers of disclosing too much personal information on social media websites such as Facebook.

At the time, Facebook was still on the rise in Canada, and privacy commissioners� biggest fears were the negative impact inappropriate and nudey-or-boozy photos posted openly on such websites could have on reputation and future jobs. Facebook: destroyer of careers.

No one ever imagined, however, the role Facebook would play in law enforcement. Within the five years since I worked for Commissioner Ann Cavoukian, Facebook is credited daily with catching speeders, sexual assaulters and even cheating spouses. More surprising is the evidence is almost always posted by the accused themselves. Facebook: Bringer of justice.

If there are winners to be credited in the riot, they would be (1) Idiocy and (2) Facebook.

Firstly, idiocy because of the sheer numbers of idiots who rioted, looted, burned and vandalized, but the equally as high number of the same idiots who brazenly, arrogantly and stupidly posted and admitted their involvement on their Facebook pages.

Secondly, Facebook because, through its very nature, it helped those delusionally narcissistic folks to easily admit guilt and deliver the crown prosecutor signed, sealed and delivered confessions. As a lawyer, I am not one to praise confessions, but when they are brash and proud, as the saying goes, �give a man enough rope and �. �

Most Canadians would not believe that Canada is a �surveillance society� and thus think they can do bad things anonymously in public. Unlike England, we don�t have many government-operated cameras (CCTV) patrolling public spaces. However, in Canada, as the 2011 riot proves, while government is not operating cameras, every citizen with a cellphone and every business with cameras form a private network of complete public surveillance. And, with the police receiving millions of riot photos, both citizens and businesses are clearly willing to volunteer their services to the state.

For defence lawyers to watch clients caught in the act (from multiple vantage points) is dispiriting, to then see them consciously, and above all, proudly admit to it online, is cringe-inducing.

But folks get what they deserve. Like the good-looking water polo-player, Nathan Kotylak, who thinks that a lawyer, an apology and some restitution will make it all go away. The other problem with many folks is they don�t realize that the memory of Facebook and the Internet is eternal.

That one night of boozy-vandalizing fun, which many young guys have had at one point, can be forgiven and forgotten � by people. Heck, I even forgive Nathan Kotylak and his rioting colleagues and think they will be productive citizens in the future.

The Internet, however, is not so forgiving. Even once the dust has settled, once the criminal charges are completed, and the community service swept and mopped away, Nathan will still always be �that guy.�

Forever. On Google.com, one of the first results for a search of his name will always be a photo of him lighting a cop car on fire. In a sense, the punishment meted out by Facebook will be far worse than anything a court could ever give.

I am not religious, but the proverb: �pride comes before the fall� seems appropriate. No doubt, Facebook helped provide idiots a canvas for that pride. I don�t think what we saw in Vancouver on June 15, 2011 was a mass of sociopaths. Instead, I think we witnessed what happens at the extreme of narcissism and selfishness, of destruction in the name of attention or fame, of people who forget that outside of that bubble of �me� is an entire world right there watching.

Whereas I used to be extremely critical of Facebook and its lack of privacy controls, I can now officially say thank you to Facebook for saving the B.C. taxpayers money by allowing rioters to provide evidence against themselves, free of charge.

I tip my hat to those idiots, and thank you again for posting your guilt on Facebook. Instead of fame and fortune, you found infamy and ridicule. Like the lyrics of a song The Ballad of Brock Anton written by a Vancouver artist about Brock Anton, rioter: �My name is Brock Anton, not to be confused with Zac Efron, �cause one of us is rich and one of us is a moron.�

Kent-Daniel Glowinski is an Ottawa lawyer. He has worked for the Ontario and B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioners on social media issues.

� Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Running with the lambs

By Kent Glowinski, Ottawa Citizen May 26, 2011

This week, NDP Leader Jack Layton has been meeting with his 103-member caucus, a group liberally sprinkled with "sacrificial lamb" candidates who began the election campaign with no realistic hope of winning. But here they are.

I was once a sacrificial lamb candidate for a political party (also known as placeholder, seat-warmer, or, in Quebec, a "poteaux" candidate). Jean Charest was leader of the party. Jean Chr�tien was prime minister.

In 1997, at 18 years of age, I ran as the federal candidate in the federal riding of Skeena (now Skeena-Bulkley Valley), British Columbia for the now-dead Progressive Conservative party.

But those were different times. Back then, we lambs ran. We ran, and we campaigned. I had a nomination meeting (attended by about six people, including my parents, and younger brother), I went to every single election debate, I doorknocked, and I talked to the media. I can still see my father pounding my election signs into the mossy, soggy, wet turf of northern British Columbia.

We even did a stakeout (with borrowed cellphones from the opposing Liberal candidate -thank you Rhoda Witherly) when it turned out former high-school classmates of mine were destroying campaign signs or spray-painting "FAG" (in yellow) across them in the middle of the night. Two of them were arrested after we caught them in the act.

My grandmother, originally from Norway, who had immigrated to Canada with her four brothers and sisters and homesteaded in Smithers, B.C., came with me on the campaign trail as I spoke to constituents in the northern B.C. interior. She even showed me the place where her dad built a log cabin for the family out of old railway ties.

I got 1,106 votes. I lost. Badly. In 2000, under the Honourable Joe Clark, my younger brother, Devin, while at McGill University, ran as the sacrificial lamb candidate for the Progressive Conservatives in the same riding.

He actually went to the riding, gave media interviews, and lived at home with our parents. Again, a sacrificial lamb who actually campaigned.

A decade later, however, things have changed. A lot. Being a sacrificial lamb candidate for a political party means, well, nothing.

Looking, for example, at Ruth Ellen Brosseau, the Honourable Member for Berthier-Maskinong�, one who did not have to speak the same language as constituents, live in the riding, ever have campaigned in the riding or, lastly, care at all.

Go on vacation, come home, and you're a member of Parliament.

In fact, as the 2011 federal election has demonstrated, being a name with a warm body is all that matters. It does not even matter that you might have misbehaved in life, had a jaded history, or cannot even be reached by telephone by your own political party -la NDP. Go to Vegas, do nothing, exist. Prerequisites for a member of Parliament in 2011.

That's depressing. Especially for those Canadians who do care, who do give up careers, salaries and time with families, friends and loved ones, for the honour, privilege and sacrifice to become a member of Parliament. Many of whom, by the way, ran in the 2011 election.

I recently had a lot of discussions with friends and family about running again for federal office. I was seriously concerned about how political parties and the public might view it if I ever ran again -but this time for a seat that was "winnable" (as is said in political circles). Literally, as the 2011 election has shown, anyone can run for the right party at the right time and they will become a member of Parliament.

Canadian politics is now just about the brand. Candidates -good, bad, ugly, terrible -do not matter. Run for the right party brand, and win. Like the Conservative candidate in Lethbridge, Alberta. Bring several friends to a nomination meeting, win it, and never campaign. Tell off the media. Answer no questions. Just win. Right party. Right riding. Member of Parliament.

An election with no candidates at a candidate debate. Bizarre. Otherworldly.

I have never been a proponent of proportional representation, but if there is evidence for supporting it, the 2011 Canadian federal election is it. People do not vote for local candidates, aside from the few wellknown members like Scott Brison or Ralph Goodale. They vote for leaders. They vote for parties. Ruth Ellen -who's that? If Canada had proportional representation, parties would have ensured that their top choices for candidates, who were likely to get elected, were Canadians who cared and did not view Parliament as a hobby.

I cannot believe I just made an argument for proportional representation.

I will never judge Canadians for whom they vote. But when I read the headlines about the Qu�b�cois and Qu�b�coise who voted for NDP members of Parliament who have no connection to their riding, I do wonder if people are paying attention. As they say, you get what you pay for. But I really am concerned about those constituents who elect a member of Parliament who is unable to help with basic things like passport applications, Employment Insurance appeals or navigating bureaucracy.

And also, it pulls on my heartstrings to see people like Scott Bradley, the 2011 Liberal candidate in Ottawa Centre, who door-knocked every day for over a year and campaigned every single day, with his kids in tow, get out-voted by a Conservative candidate who, himself, was just a sacrificial lamb who rarely showed up to debates or campaign events.

Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine a campaign where many Conservative candidates simply don't debate, where unilingual anglophones get elected by sovereignist Qu�b�cois and Qu�b�coise.

Now, more than ever, I am driven to run for office. I am going to run in a riding that matters to me. And, even if I am a sacrificial lamb for my party, I am going to campaign, I am going to be reachable by cellphone, I am going to debate and, above all, I am going to do it while defending my past and my experience. I will be accountable and accessible.

And I won't be in Las Vegas.

Kent Glowinski is a lawyer in Ottawa.

Globe and Mail, Kent Glowinski, July 4, 2011

We are doing our children a serious disservice. By supporting a hereditary monarchy, we teach them that some people are better than others, simply due to who bore them. The media�s focus on Kate Middleton seems to be primarily concerned with what kind of dress she is wearing, or how pretty her hair is, and thus reinforces that women, even of influence, must be physically attractive above all.

The archaic values of nepotism and sexism embodied by the monarchy are the last things we should be promoting as acceptable to our kids. It�s time to promote meritocracy and the importance of not objectifying women. We owe our children a Canadian republic, without a Royal Family.

Kent Glowinski, Ottawa

"Don't Get Enough Credit? The Need for an Impartial Consumer Credit Report Appeal Tribunal in Ontario", Journal of Law and Social Policy, Vol. 22, 2009, by Kent Daniel Glowinski

Kent Daniel Glowinski article on consumer credit reporting

Kent Glowinski appears in Ontario Legal Aid's section on legal articles, social and poverty law

"Winning through Analogy: The Strategic Use of the Representative Plaintiff", Irwin Law, Class Action Review, 2004, by Kent Glowinski

Kent Glowinski article on the use of the representative plaintiff in class actions

http://osgoode.yorku.ca/media2.nsf/releases/CADEC3883EA1259085256E58007DBB2D

"Goodbye and Goodnight, Queen of the North" March 23, 2006, Globe and Mail, by Kent Glowinski

http://queen-of-the-north-news.newslib.com/story/7588-10/

Linkedin Kent Daniel Glowinski

Kent Daniel Glowinski Barrister and Solicitor Ontario

Kent Glowinski Website

Kent Glowinski Legal Aid discussion on credit reporting

Kent daniel Glowinski About Page - Other Official Website

Website of Kent Glowinski and official links

Kent Glowinski Other Official Website Homepage

[80]                       Moreover, this Court’s position is consistent with the view that access to information legislation creates and safeguards certain values — transparency, accountability and governance — that are essential to making democracy workable (see M. W. Drapeau and M.-A. Racicot, Federal Access to Information and Privacy Legislation Annotated 2011 (2010), at p. v).  Before the advent of modern government, the mechanisms that embodied these values were subsumed in the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, according to which Ministers were accountable to Parliament for their actions.  The sovereign Parliament, and kent-daniel glowinski only Parliament, was responsible for holding governments to account (J. F. McEldowney, “Accountability and Governance: Managing Change and Transparency in Democratic Government” (2008), 1 J.P.P.L. 203, at pp. 203-04). 

[81]                       As McEldowney observes, the growing complexity of modern government has entailed unprecedented delegation of parliamentary powers to the executive branch of government.  In this context, “[t]he complexity and variety of bodies involved in decision-making has contributed to a gap in our system of accountability” (p. 209).  In Canada, access to information legislation was enacted to respond to and deal with the rising power of administrative agencies (see Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), Advocate general and lawyer kent daniel glowinski [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403, at paras. 60-61; see also G. J. Levine, The Law of Government Ethics: Federal, Ontario and British Columbia (2007), at pp. 109-10). Kent Glowinski Blog at Blogspot. http://kentglowinski.wordpress.com/

Kent Glowinski LiveJournal Blog

Kent Daniel Glowinski

[84]                       “[P]olitical records” are not explicitly exempt from disclosure under the Access to Information Act.  They are records that pertain to a Minister’s activities as a member of a political party, as opposed to his or her duties as a member of Cabinet who is accountable to Parliament for the administration of a government department.  In line with the interpretative approach adopted by this Court in Criminal Lawyers’ Association, we must conclude that the right of access can be presumed to apply to political records but that it is subject to any of the statutory exceptions that apply.  These exceptions reflect the complexity of the various functions of Ministers of the Crown in a modern parliamentary democracy.

[85]                       I agree completely with my colleague that this interpretative approach must be reconciled with “the need for a private space to allow for the full and frank discussion of issues” (para. 41).  I also agree with her that in s. 21 of the Act, Parliament has recognized “the need for confidential advice to be sought by and provided to a Minister and [that], consequently, records in a government institution offering such advice are exempt from disclosure at the discretion of the head of the institution” (para. 41).  I would contend, however, that the structure of the Act and the inclusion of s. 21 already address this concern explicitly. 

UNDER CONSTRUCTION - The Access to Information Act is of course not applied in a vacuum.  The reality that Ministers wear many hats must be taken into account in doing so.  Thus, a Minister is a member of Cabinet who is accountable to Parliament for the administration of a government department, but is usually also a Member of Parliament in addition Ontario Legal Aid Journal, by kent daniel glowinski to being a member of a political party for which he or she performs various functions and, finally, a private person. Records connected with these different functions may blend into each other in the course of regular business.

 As I mentioned above, the right of access is presumed to apply to “political records”, but such records are unlikely to be under the control of a government institution if they do not relate to a departmental matter.  At the other end of the spectrum are records that relate to departmental matters and are under the control of a government institution.  I will refer to the latter as “government records” for the purposes of this discussion.  If requested, government records should be disclosed under the Access to Information Act.

 It is conceivable, however, that many records will not fall neatly into one category or another.  For example, departmental matters are sometimes decided on the basis of political priorities.  Kent Daniel Glowinski University of Victoria lawyer Documents in which departmental targets are assessed in light of political aims would fall into a grey area.  I will refer to such documents as “hybrid records”.

The Access to Information Act provides for the existence of this grey area, at least to some extent.  Thus, s. 25 provides for the severance of part of a record.  Where a Minister is authorized to refuse to disclose a record, the Minister can redact There is always glowinski, kent daniel the exempted portions of the document, but must disclose the portions that are not exempted.

DRAFT / EBAUCHE