Kudos to Rants Derek for his suggestion to cover this topic. Derek is a Canadian YouTuber, with his own style of humour in creating videos. Go watch his stuff.
This topic has to do with a fairly straightforward topic: Do you need I.D. to vote? For extra information, here is more information on other countries.
There are “options” when it comes to showing I.D., the information is available here.
(Option 1) Show 3 pieces of I.D.
(Option 2) 2 pieces of “I.D.” as long as something has your address on it. These “forms” include: library card, utility bill, credit card bill, or a variety of other documents.
(Option 3) If you don’t meet the “requirements” of Option 2, you can just swear or affirm an oath, and get someone to vouch for you.
Note: Provinces have their own requirements, this just focuses on Federal elections.
Voting requirements appear to be left to the individual states to decide. Definitely a range:
(Option 1) Strict photo ID – Wisconsin, Kansas, Virginia
(Option 2) Non-Strict Photo ID — Arizona, North Dakota, Ohio
(Option 3) Photo ID Requested — Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas
(Option 4) ID Requested — Washington State, Iowa, Alaska
(option 5) No Documents at all — California, Nevada, Oregon
That is correct, in about 1/3 of states, no ID required at all to vote
Almost unbelievably, there are no mandatory voter ID laws, although there are pilot projects underway to change that.
However, that is currently being challenged.
In Australia, you are asked a few questions prior to voting, but ID isn’t required. Voting is mandatory, but ID is not required. Like the UK, efforts are being made to have a nationwide requirement for voting. And like the UK, that also is being challenged.
Like Australia, voting is mandatory for citizens and permanent residents. However, citizens away for 3+ years, and permanent residents away for 1+ years cannot vote. ID is not necessary, just present you voting card.
The above list covered 5 English speaking, Common Law countries. It seems a bit unsettling to see that, aside from some U.S. states, ID is not necessary.
Seems that this type of system is ripe for abuse. If no ID is required, or no photo ID needed, then what is to stop large groups of people from potentially altering elections?
Critics of photo ID requirements claim that it discriminates against poor and marginalized people, and that there is no documented cases of abuse.
However, those arguments do not hold water. (1) If people are to be entrusted with voting on the future of a nation, then are we to expect that legal residents cannot get any ID whatsoever? (2) There may be no documented cases of abuse. Though if voters are undocumented, as lefties like to call them, then how would there be any documentation in the first place?
Clearly, each nation will have their own ways of doing things, but it appears that some safeguard must be put in place to ensure that the integrity of democratic systems is intact.
Well, depending on where you go, you will get a very different answer. Do you have to be of good character? Can you currently vote while in prison? Do you even have to be a citizen?
This topic could fill several books, but this is just a starter piece. The article focuses on 2 main areas: criminality and non-citizenship
The Canada Elections Act of 1985 used to prohibit a person from being able to vote if they are serving a federal sentence (2 years or more). However, that was struck down in 2002. The Crown conceded it violated Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that everyone had the right to vote in elections to govern the country. To be fair though, the dissenting Justices thought that the violations were reasonable. As things stand now, even persons in custody are allowed to vote, and jail officials must make accommodation for them to do so.
The case of Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), held that the 14th Amendment, Section 2, was not violated in barring felons form voting (called felony disenfranchisement). Since then, the 50 states have written their own laws, and they widely vary widely, from Maine, which allows voting while incarcerated, to voting after release, to Idaho and voting after probation ends, to never voting, to Florida requiring a petition.
Things are a bit different here. For starters, voting is mandatory. There are arguments both for and against it. In the past, anyone serving a sentence of 1 year or more was unable to vote. As it stands now, only those serving a sentence of at least 3 years cannot vote until the sentence is finished.
The UK is having to revise their policies on letting prisoners and convicts vote, because of the European Court of Human Rights. Originally, they couldn’t, but that is changing. Interestingly, Members of Parliament can keep their seat if they have been sentenced to 1 year or less. So they could hold office, but not vote.
Much Europe has some restriction of voting rights, such as type of offense, and is the sentence fully served.
Laws vary widely around the world. However, the main argument against letting cons, or ex-cons vote is that they have violated the social contract with the people, and hence should not be a part of forming its laws.
Voting by Non-Citizens
While this list is too extensive to go through, many countries do allow permanent residents to vote if they have lived their for a long enough period.
One argument against letting non-citizens vote is that it weakens what it means to be a citizen. What then, distinguishes a citizen from a resident? A second is that the longer time to obtain citizenship is necessary to fully adapt to the new homeland. A third is that it leads to divided loyalty from Members of Parliament/Congress, who will look towards future voters more than current ones. All have some merit.
A push over the years from leftist politicians has been to let “undocumented immigrants” (a.k.a.) “illegal immigrants” vote in elections, as well as to reduce or eliminate voter identification requirements.
Note: Women are now allowed to vote in Western countries as well as many others. New Zealand and Australia led the way.
However, things do, or at least should have a limit.
(1) There have been many challenges to Voter ID laws, claiming that it discriminates against people who can’t get identification. The usual claim is wither poverty, or that the community lacks these services. Really, a legal citizen, or at least permanent resident can’t get I.D.?! Of course, if they are “undocumented”, that may be why they can’t get “documents”.
(2)So-called “Sanctuary Cities” are letting illegal immigrants vote which seems bizarre. Why should people in the country illegally be helping to vote in people to draft laws? Seems like a serious conflict of interest here.
It seems that items (1) and (2) are very much linked. Could objecting to voter I.D. requirements be to enable, or help cover up, illegal immigrants voting? Hard to say, there is no “documentation”. Could it be to help “elect” candidates who would push for more immigration and easier citizenship paths?
As for convicts voting, obviously everyone has different ideas. My personal choice would be: (a) not while in jail or parole; and (b) not for serious crimes such as murder/treason/terrorism/drug trafficking/sex offenses.
The original article, along with partial audio is available here. Posted by Andrew Lawton.
Apparently, discussing abortion critically, is not permitted. Their former teaching student, Valerie Flokstra, seen above, found that out the hard way. Flokstra was called into a meeting with various faculty members, Nancy Norman, and Vandy Britton, to discuss how ideas are “potentially harmful”. University of the Fraser Valley, (British Columbia, Canada), openly promotes social justice in their teaching program. See below. Oddly, no written commitment to free speech, or open inquiry.
The case is widely being compared to Lindsay Shepherd, who in November of 2017, was summoned to such a meeting at Wilfrid Laurier university (WLU), for showing a TVO clip of Jordan Peterson debating gender pronouns related to transgender persons. The inquisitors were: Nathan Rambukkana, Hernert Pimlott, and Adria Joel. See below.
In fact, Valerie Flokstra cites Lindsay Shepherd in her decision to record this meeting with the faculty. Seeing how badly Shepherd was treated forced Flokstra to take defensive measures.
Another key difference is that Shepherd released the recording of her meeting immediately to the media. She found there to be various forms of retaliation and hostility to her at Wilfred Laurier University. Flokstra, on the other hand, waited until she graduated to avoid such retaliation.
Some have observed, it seems moronic that these professors wouldn’t have any reservation about holding such a meeting, and playing these games. In the Shepherd case, Professors Rambukkana and Pimlott effectively had their academic careers and reputations destroyed. Given the international coverage Shepherd got, it seems highly implausible that the UFV wouldn’t all know about it.
In the Flokstra matter, she had claimed that premature births were contributing to autism diagnoses. She questioned that women who have abortions but have children later in life more often have premature births. Statistics were cited, see here. And this led to a reasonable suggestion that abortions will lead to higher autism risks later.
If A = B, and B = C, then does A = C? Makes sense.
If prior abortion ==> higher risk of premature births later, and
If premature births ==> higher risk of autism, then
Does prior abortion ==> higher risk of autism? Seems like a reasonable conclusion. At least is cannot be dismissed out of hand.
However, Professors Norman and Britton would have none of that. They questioned Flokstra for bringing it up, and attributed a variety of negative motivations for doing so, such as pressing her own religious beliefs.
Norman and Britton engaged in Orwellian double speak. Instead of the “critical thinking” that many champion, Flokstra was told she needed to engage in “critical mindfulness“.
Flokstra was told that if she had strong opinions, she was free to write them down and hold onto them, but always to consider any potential harm that may come to students rather than saying them.
Norman and Britton also tried to explain that Flokstra shouldn’t be “shutting down students” by bringing up certain opinions. However they were dismissive when repeatedly told that “they were the ones currently shutting her down. The mental gymnastics of the pair….
Norman and Britton tried to explain that they weren’t trying to “shut down” Flokstra, but rather that they just didn’t want her to speak about various topics. Telling someone politely to shut up is apparently not shutting them down.
Norman and Britton were also dismissive of Flokstra’s assertion that these were university students in her class, not high school students, and that a higher degree of discussion should be expected of them.
Normal and Britton explained that they were (not) shutting her down, not because of the actual harm that was coming from having topics such as abortion discussed. Rather, she was (not) being shut down because of potential harm that could come from discussing these topics.
In both the Flokstra and Shepherd cases, absurd comparisons were made. Shepherd was told that showing a video uncritically of Jordan Peterson was like neutrally playing a speech by Adolf Hitler. Flokstra was told that sharing certain views in a way was like a KKK (Ku Klux Klan) group on campus. Rather than make factual, logical arguments why certain topics are “off-limits”, ridiculous rhetoric is used.
Only a partial audio (8 minutes out of almost an hour long meeting) is available for article. The summary of the meeting is that the 2 professors spent the entire time trying to shut Valerie Flokstra down, but then using double talk and word games to deny that is what they were actually doing.
Benjamin Boyce, a YouTuber in Washington State, released this fine review of the fiasco. The College Fix also did a great piece, and more are coming out.
A thought on universities: If people are going to be shut down in this manner (or any manner), a little honesty would be nice. Drop the word games (a la Shepherd and Flokstra), and just be upfront that this is what you are doing. If schools are places that do not support free speech and open inquiry, then just say so. Start calling yourselves “INDOCTRINATION CENTERS” instead of “HIGHER LEARNING CENTERS“. Ideas cannot be analyzed properly if the cannot be discussed openly.
But of course, if such honesty were used, admissions would pretty much stop altogether.
Funny, this problem is non-existent in trade schools. But then, they actually provide skills.
(Conservative writer and YouTuber, Dr. Steve Turley, promoting his new book)
“The New Nationalism, How the Populist Right is Defeating Globalism and Awakening a New Political Order” was just released and is available online. The title is pretty self explanatory, as nations across the world are pushing hard to maintain their identities and sovereignties. Not only do nations and people want autonomy over their lands, they want to see their own cultures intact and thriving. It is a fairly quick at 78 pages, but is packed with information. While he acknowledges that globalists do make occasional advances, they are more of the exception, and that the general trend is towards nationalism.
Before getting too much into the book, let’s take a moment to acknowledge 2 sets of ideas hotly debated currently:
In many ways they are same argument: Is a nation defined as “who the people are” or by “what they believe”?
Those pushing for a greater unity, ethno-nationalist, argue that who the people are matters, be it: heritage, culture, common language, traditions, way of life, and often ancestry, are the necessary elements for a cohesive society. EN is commonly thought to be a racial supremacist ideology, but that just isn’t the case.
Those pushing for greater freedom and individuality, civic nationalist, are much more likely to believe in the multicultural way of life. The cohesive unity that ethno-nationalists stress is not nearly as important as more abstract beliefs such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and acceptance rather than assimilation of newcomers.
Civic nationalists claim (rightly), that their society promotes tolerance and diversity. Ethno nationalists claim (rightly), that there is nothing that holds them together, and that people will just form groups which do reflect their identities. These 2 ideologies are in fact arguing different things.
Within ethno-nationalism, there is a segment that believes that blood is the single biggest unifier (race). This is often referred to as “the Alt-Right”. Another group believer that other shared traits (culture), are what holds societies together, sometimes called “the Alt-Lite”. One group believes the other to be racist, while the other believes that group to be unrealistic.
In the book, “The New Nationalism”, Dr. Turley is quite clearly arguing a form of nationalism that focuses on a shared culture and traditions, while race itself is not important (Alt-Lite).
The book covers in depth 9 countries across the world: (1) Hungary; (2) Poland; (3) Bulgaria; (4) Italy; (5) Denmark; (6) Russia; (7) Turkey; (8) India; and (9) the United States. Now, for some key passages:
2. Quotes From Book
All over the world, a nationalist revolution is underway. In the past 17 years, the actual number of nationalist and populist parties across the European continent has nearly doubled, growing from 33 to 63.1 And these parties are seeing extraordinary electoral success. The share of votes won by populist parties in Europe has tripled in the course of such time, from 8.5 percent of the European vote to nearly 25 percent.
FIRST TAKEAWAY: The opening paragraph gets right to the point. Using Europe as a model, nationalism is on the rise, and that the # of political parties is rising, as is the % of the popular vote they are receiving. In fact, the first five Chapters deal with European countries where nationalism is still rising: Hungary; Poland; Bulgaria; Italy; and Denmark.
>However, for what I’m calling here the New Nationalism, the communist threat is of course gone, as is any notion of biological racial superiority.
SECOND TAKEAWAY: That the growing nationalism here is built on shared customs, cultures, etc… and that race is not the driving motivation.
Because globalization eclipses the nation-state with wider transnational economic and political processes, many scholars believe that globalization is bringing an end to the whole concept of distinct nations.
THIRD TAKEAWAY: Globalism is a threat to nations because it attempts to break down what actually makes nations distinct.
…. that Orban wants to create an authoritarian theocracy. In fact, nothing can be farther from the truth. As Orban makes clear, Christian democracies absolutely affirm a separation of powers between church and state. The church and the state are wholly unique and distinctive institutions. But what makes Christian democracies different from globalist societies is that while they recognize a separation of powers between church and state, they don’t recognize a separation of purpose.
FOURTH TAKEAWAY: While nations like Hungary may want to maintain a Christian nation, it will not lead to autocratic rule.
open borders mean open values. And so, what does this mean for the EU’s immigration quotas? Very simply, mass unfettered immigration fulfills the political precondition for more liberal democratic social policies. The less secure a nation’s borders, the less secure a nation’s customs and culture.
FIFTH TAKEAWAY: Mass immigration will actually lead to the break down of society. If any and all people and their customs are welcome, then what makes a nation unique? This is actually the main argument against multiculturalism.
However, Poland has no shortage of detractors, particularly in Brussels. One critic accused Poland of “abdicating” its leading role in Central Europe by refusing to bend to the EU’s demands on migrant quotas and internal judicial reforms. But in the process of making these observations, she ended up admitting that the nation of Poland poses a greater existential threat to the EU than does Brexit.22
When the Poles didn’t, Article 7 was enacted to try to strip Poland’s voting rights away.
SIXTH TAKEAWAY: Interesting, that for all the praise that the EU gives to diversity and multiculturalism, it seems they have to force member states like Poland to comply. This is an attempt to overrun their sovereignty and impose laws on them. How exactly is Poland an independent country if it “bends the knee”?
What Salvini is advocating here is but the latest chapter of a history of what scholars call the internationalizing of the nationalist right. While leaders in the nationalist right have focused primarily on local and national elections, they all recognize that transnational politics are in many ways just as equally important, because the ultimate adversary in all of this is globalization, and globalization is by definition transnational.
SEVENTH TAKEAWAY: While individual nations are taking back their autonomy, there is a collective good in such nations working together to do so.
>With communism dead, something even more compelling, more deeply rooted in the Russian soul would have to take its place. And that is the real contribution of Vladimir Putin; he found that the way forward for Russians would be a return, a retraditionalization that would involve reawakening Russia’s pre-Soviet history, her culture, traditions, customs, and Orthodox religion that would serve as the foundation for a rebirth and renewal of Russian civilization.
EIGHTH TAKEAWAY: Russia, facing more and more break off portions, was able to keep itself fairly intact because it focused on what the various regions and people had in common. Putin has said many times, “we are of many ethnicities, but we are Russian first.”
Putin does not celebrate a secularized vision of human rights irrespective of culture; he doesn’t affirm a notion of civil rights that favors certain races, genders, and sexual orientations. Rather, the rights, protections, and freedoms experienced by citizens of the Russian Federation are the direct result of a distinctively Russian culture, religion, society, and sentiments.
NINETH TAKEAWAY: Identity politics is bad. Focusing on collective identity is good. Simple enough.
However, there is one section that seems puzzling.
For example, there have been reports of forced conversion attempts on Christian families in Indian villages by Hindu nationalists, the desecration of churches, and actual physical violence and assaults against Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists. These are of course unacceptable in any humane society. But what we have to understand is that, unfortunately, such acts of religious persecution are really just par for the course given the fact that secularism is seen more and more as that ideology that persecutes a nation’s dominant religious identity….. To just defer to good ol’ fashioned secular human rights such as religious freedom, as our Western elites like to do, does absolutely nothing to remedy this problem, but I believe has the reverse effect; it employs rhetoric that only exasperates it.
Perhaps I am missing something, but wouldn’t this be a compelling argument in favour of secularism? If physical violence and religious persecution are “par for the course”, wouldn’t taking religion out of the way of life make things safer for everyone? For example, the Western World has seen repeatedly what “devout practitioners” from Islam are capable of doing.
3. Overall Impression
The New Nationalism is a very informative read. 9 countries are gone through in depth, although many more are mentioned in the introduction. The author has clearly put a lot effort into the research and presentation. While there are exceptions, the overall path seems to be towards nationalism and against globalism.
4. Relevance To This Site
Canucklaw.ca is founded on the idea of discussing and examining comparative law. As such, ideas and systems — good and bad — are looked at. If nationalism is to be the major trend (and the evidence says it will), then new laws are certain to be introduced. Likewise, there are likely to be many court challenges and appeals, as the nationalists and globalists fight it out. This should be a fertile source for research and commentary.
Back to the Nationalism (Identity) v.s. Multiculturalism (Values) mentioned earlier, it was mused that globalists don’t want an identity, that there only be certain “values”. However, it seems that many don’t even want “values”, as they would require logic and consistent standards to apply them.
Canada has a federal election on October 19, 2019. If there is a nationalist candidate who might win, it would look something like this, or this, or this, or possibly this or this or this, or this, or maybe this.
Canada needs a rise in nationalism. If multiculturalism actually worked — anywhere — we would not need an ever expanding set of laws telling us how to live, and how to accommodate radically different people. Perhaps Dr. Turley can one day do such a book (or a second edition) on Canada
(Screenshot of the Main Page of New Zealand’s “Clean slate Scheme”)
What happens to a person long after committing a criminal offense? Once a person has paid all obligations (prison, probation, fine) the charge still follows them around, right? Well, yes and no. While the convictions themselves do not disappear, there are options for getting the person back into society. Since a record limits people’s prospect for travel, work, education, adoption, etc… there are ways to get around this depending on the circumstances.
This article looks at 5 Common Law Countries: (a) UK; (b) US; (c) Canada; (d) Australia; and (e) New Zealand.
(a) UK: Spent convictions
Here is a link to the U.K. branch. The 1974 rehabilitation of offenders act refers to charges as ”spent” or ”unspent”. Spent charges are to have no impact on the person in most circumstances.
The waiting period differs. For example, community orders are spent a year after they are completed. Custody sentences range from 2 years, to 4 years, to 7 years, to permanently ineligible.
Also, the act has been amended. It used to be 30 months was the cut off period for charges being spent. It is now 48 months (4 years).
This is still largely a political process, and can be done at the State level (by a Governor), or at the Federal level (by the President). Critics however believe that it largely leads to political and connected people getting the break. Those with minor charges do still get them often.
For summary (misdemeanors) it is 5 years after the sentence is served
For indictable (felonies) it is 10 years after sentence is served.
In 2010 the rules were changed to prevent longer term and series criminals from getting their records sealed. Notorious pedophile Graham James discovered to have gotten one. This was 2010, and the rallying cry for reform became ”pass these reforms, or Karla Homolka also gets a pardon”.
However, those have been struck down for Ontario and BC residents, at least as far as those who finished a sentence before 2010. See here.
Note: to Canadian traveller’s going to the US — Homeland Security specifically says it does not recognise a Canadian pardon/suspension and a waiver must still be applied for.
One other thing of note: there are restrictions on those who can get one, (a) anyone serving a life sentence; (b) anyone declared a dangerous offender; (c) those with 3 or more felonies if they resulted in 2+ years in prison; (d) sex offences are still flagged in vulnerable persons checks; (e) drug trafficking if still flagged in U.S. access.
This scheme only refers to NZ society, and acknowledges that it isn’t recognized in many other places.
In order to be eligible, no jail sentence must ever have been imposed.
This looked at 5 Common Law Countries: UK/US/Australia/New Zealand and Canada. While the result is much the same, one major difference is that the US system seems to be politically based.
Still, good news for those looking to move on. Doing something stupid (any fairly minor), shouldn’t be a lifetime hinderance for people looking to rebuild their lives.
In almost all circumstances, a pardon/suspension/spending can be revoked if the person commits more crimes. Makes sense, as its intended use is for people who have moved on. According to sources within the Canadian justice system, 96% of people who get a record seal do not commit other crimes. That is 24 out of every 25 people. Being able to clear a record is helpful for the vast majority of people.
Understandably, it does upset some people that ex-cons are able to seal or move on afterwards. In particular, many victims and their families take issue with this. And depending on the circumstances, they are absolutely right. However, these options seem much more geared towards minor offences and not towards serious, repeat offenders.
The 5 Common Law countries listed here all have this option, to varying degrees. Not sure where else it exists, but worth a close look.
As cited in a previous article, see here, all defendants/prisoners are not equal in the eyes of the law. This is a racially discriminating practice that Canada has been involved in doing since the late 1990s.
Here is section 718.2(e) of the Canadian Criminal Code:
all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
Yes, one racial group is allowed to get what amounts to a race based discount. The 1999 Gladue ruling essentially paved the way for this to be normalized across Canada, while the Ipeelee decision expanded the scope to include long term offenders.
Here are the links to the Court decisions of Gladue (1997, 1999) and Ipeelee (2012).
R. v. Gladue, 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA)
R. v. Gladue,  1 SCR 688, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC)
R. v. Ipeelee,  1 SCR 433, 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII)
While Indigenous people getting a race-based discount is nothing new in Canada, the transfer of child killer Terry McClintic to a “healing lodge” has the Canadian public flared up.
In 2009, 8 year old Tori Stafford was murdered by Terri McClintic, who was an accomplice to Michael Rafferty. In 2010, both McClintic and Rafferty received life sentences, with a 25 year custodial minimum. In 2014, McClintic was transferred to a medium security prison. Now, in 2018, McClintic is being sent to this “healing lodge”.
Not only is McClintic a child killer, but she viciously assaulted another inmate in 2012, and bragged that she only regretted not causing worse injury. Definitely a candidate for transfer from maximum to medium security prison.
Unfortunately, the federal parties are playing politics with it, while avoiding the real issue. The Liberals, now in government, blame the Conservatives for the 2014 transfer to medium security prison (when Stephen Harper was PM). The Conservatives blame the Liberals for not stopping this transfer. Both blame the other, while saying that they were not able to do anything — that Corrections Canada makes the decisions.
But the real issue that both Liberals and Conservatives dodge is that the entire law giving special treatment to Aboriginal/Indigenous/First Nations peoples. No group should receive “any” special treatment. Raced-based discounts are immoral.
What “should” be done is have the Gladue/Ipeelee rulings overturned. Yes, the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed this nonsense, but it can be stopped permanently using Section 33, the Notwithstanding Clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
Exception where express declaration
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
Rafferty/McClintic have frequently been compared to Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka, another male/female child killing couple. Karla Homolka’s mere 12 year sentence outraged Canadians, as does the McClintic transfer now.
Update on the Story: On October 3, the Liberals, NDP and Green Party voted against a Conservative motion that would have kept Terri-Lynn McClintic in prison. See this link.
Further Update on the Story
On November 8, the Liberals have announced they will make new rules to send McClintic back. However, it doesn’t address underlying racist nature of the law — different sentencing rules based on skin colour, or even on ”how someone identifies”.