Harper’s income-splitting program isn’t great policy, or good politics

Today Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a massive change to the way we assess and collect income tax in this country.  In 2011, the Conservative Party platform promised “the Family Tax Cut” that would give “spouses the choice to share up to $50,000 of their household income, for federal tax-purposes,” when the books were balanced, at a cost (they projected) of $625 million in this fiscal year and $2.5 billion in the next.  The platform argued income-splitting would “ensure that the federal income tax system respects and supports the choices that families make.”  Fun-fact: the only other federal party to promise income-splitting in 2011 was the Green Party.

Stephen Harper’s income-splitting plan would shortchange Ontarians

It’s not merely unfair, but unaffordable. And unfathomably un-federal.

Not to split hairs, but income-splitting is perhaps the most indefensible and insidious campaign gimmick ever conjured up by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

It’s not just a bad tax break. It’d be a bad break for Ontarians in particular, who would pay the highest price for a discriminatory Tory ploy that could make the rich richer and the poor poorer while impoverishing the province.

Washington Lawmaker Introduces Religious, Gay Discrimination Bill

Legislation proposed in Washington state this week would allow businesses to deny service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population and others, based on religious differences.

Under the terms of the bill, businesses in the state could refuse service to anyone whose religious or philosophical beliefs differ from their own. They could not, however, refuse service based on areas protected under federal law, which does not include the LGBT community.

France's Islamic Veil Ban: 6 Women Fined Since April

PARIS -- France's interior minister says that since a ban on face-covering Islamic veils took effect in April only six women have been convicted and fined.

Claude Gueant said in an interview with the daily Le Monde published Monday that no woman has been sent to a citizenship class – another potential punishment.

Controversy surrounded the law. Muslim leaders, most of them opposed to burqa-style veils, say the it stigmatizes all followers of Islam.

Gueant says police cited a total of 237 women but only six were convicted. He expressed surprise that nearly a quarter of the women police questioned had converted to Islam.

Backers say the law is aimed at ensuring France's secular values and gender equality and nipping radical Islam in the bud.

Original Article
Source: Huff 

Defiant Hungary adopts controversial laws

Hungary defied international concern and adopted Friday central bank reforms and other controversial measures that threaten to leave the country isolated just as its economy needs a bailout.

"Nobody can interfere with Hungarian legislative work, there is no one in the world who might tell the elected deputies of the Hungarian people which act to pass and which not to," Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on public radio ahead of the parliamentary session.

The raft of changes to many laws has triggered criticism at home and abroad about the threat to democracy in the former communist EU state where Orban's centre-right Fidesz holds an overwhelming majority in parliament.

Its grip on the legislature has allowed the party to push through reforms of media, judiciary and electoral laws, as well as the appointment of Fidesz loyalists to key posts and a new constitution which takes effect on Sunday.

Critics say the central bank measure -- which prompted the EU and IMF to walk out of talks this month on a possible bailout for Hungary worth 15-20 billion euros ($20-25 billion) -- will increase government influence over monetary policy.

News of the vote sent the florint tumbling to near historic lows against the euro, hitting more than 315 forint to the euro.

Ohio's Union-Busting Bill Is on the Ropes

It is D-Day for Gov. John Kasich's anti-union law. Ohioans go to the polls today in one of the most anticipated off-year elections to decide Issue 2, a referendum on whether to repeal Kasich's law that curtails collective-bargaining rights for public-sector workers. Voters will also approve or reject Issue 3, a misguided constitutional amendment intended to exempt Ohioans from a federal health insurance mandate. Unions, businesses, trade groups, and out-of-state political outfits have spent more than $30 million to sway the vote on both measures. Polls show Issue 2 losing by double digits and Issue 3 passing by a modest margin.

Beyond those parochial controversies, a question looms: How will these fights impact the 2012 election? President Obama scored a crucial victory in Ohio in 2008, edging out Republican John McCain by 4 percentage points. But with Ohio's economy stuck in the doldrums, one of Obama's biggest challenges next year is clinching another win in a swing state where now only 44 percent approve of his performance. That number sinks to 34 percent among coveted independent voters. Would a defeat of the anti-union law known as SB 5 buoy Obama in Ohio? Would a win for Kasich and his allies undercut a key component of Obama's base—the unions—and in effect defund the Democratic Party?

You Have the Right to Remain Silent…After Questioning

Anyone who has ever watched a cop show on TV knows how Miranda rights work. After a suspect is apprehended, the arresting officer alerts that person to his or her rights—specifically, the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel. The warning protects suspects from incriminating themselves and the state from later introducing inadmissible evidence.

Easy enough, right? Well, it's never been that simple for immigrant noncitizens, whether they're legal permanent residents or undocumented. When noncitizens are arrested by, say, local law enforcement, they are read their rights like anyone else. But when they're picked up by immigration officers (Border Patrol or Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents), there are separate but similar Miranda-like procedures those officials must follow.

At least, there used to be. On August 11, in a surprising and precedent-setting decision (PDF), the country's highest administrative tribunal on immigration decided that noncitizens arrested without a warrant do not need to be read their rights until after entering formal deportation proceedings—that is, until well after questioning by immigration officers. From the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision:

Until an alien who is arrested without a warrant is placed in formal proceedings by the filing of a Notice to Appear (Form I-862), the regulation…does not require immigration officers to advise the alien that he or she has a right to counsel and that any statements made during interrogation can subsequently be used against the alien.

The nonprofit American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center was quick to condemn the ruling. "This decision epitomizes the substandard system of justice that's been created and imposed on immigrants in the United States," said Melissa Crow, the center's director, in a statement. "The Board's ruling renders the advisals practically meaningless and makes immigrants less likely to remain silent when questioned and less likely to assert their right to counsel."

The case deals with a legal US resident from Guatemala who was caught by Border Patrol officers in 2004 trying to sneak his nephew into the United States. In the eight hours that passed between his arrest and the initiation of formal proceedings, the man "admitted that he knowingly used his son's birth certificate to try to smuggle his nephew into the United States." The man was ordered removed from the country, and the case was in appeals until the BIA handed down its ruling, deciding that the eight hours of detention did not qualify as the start of formal proceedings.

In a phone interview Wednesday, Crow said that both the timing of the ruling and the decision itself were unexpected. "To give you a criminal-case analogy, it would be like not receiving Miranda rights until indictment," she said, adding that while it was her understanding that the lawyer in the case was planning an appeal, "there's not a lot of wiggle room" at this stage in the process.

Bill Hing, a law professor at the University of San Francisco and a contributor to the ImmigrationProf blog, says that while the ruling is important, it might not change the reality for many noncitizens apprehended by ICE. "The truth is, even before the decision, the vast majority of people the Border Patrol or ICE believed to be deportable never got advisals of right to counsel," he says. "Most of the time it wouldn't make a difference. [Authorities] know the people have a criminal record or that they're undocumented."

But, Hing says, asking for counsel often means fielding fewer questions from immigration authorities. In some cases, then, an advisal at the time of arrest could make the difference between being deported and being released. "If they don't have enough information to prove you're deportable," he says, "they give you information about counsel, or they let you go." Without that advisal, detained immigrants are more likely to reveal incriminating information—and more likely to be deported.

Still, the decision has drawn little attention, and in a way, that makes sense. Few people understand the BIA, and last week was a big one for other immigration-related news: On Thursday, the Obama administration announced that it will review 300,000 pending deportation cases, and earlier in the week a federal judge ordered the release of hundreds of "embarrassing" emails that highlight the Department of Homeland Security's doubts about its controversial Secure Communities program.

Origin
Source: Mother Jones