<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Macleans.ca &#187; Supreme Court of Canada</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/supreme-court-of-canada/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www2.macleans.ca</link>
	<description>Canada&#039;s only national weekly current affairs magazine.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 10:55:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Michael Bryant calls the casino industry’s bluff</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/21/playing-our-cards-right/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/21/playing-our-cards-right/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 18:29:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>macleans.ca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[casinos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=386104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["A casino is a factory of broken dreams — a scam for “recreational” gamblers, a shell game for taxpayers, and a rat trap for addicts"]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/21/playing-our-cards-right/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	"A casino is a factory of broken dreams — a scam for “recreational” gamblers, a shell game for taxpayers, and a rat trap for addicts"
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why the Supreme Court didn&#8217;t weigh in on fetal rights in R. v. Levkovic</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/03/why-the-supreme-court-didnt-weigh-in-on-fetal-rights-in-r-v-levkovic-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/03/why-the-supreme-court-didnt-weigh-in-on-fetal-rights-in-r-v-levkovic-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 18:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Gillis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Central]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charlie Gillis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News & Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fetal rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levkovic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=380309</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Charlie Gillis on a decision that won't reopen the abortion debate]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/03/why-the-supreme-court-didnt-weigh-in-on-fetal-rights-in-r-v-levkovic-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	Charlie Gillis on a decision that won't reopen the abortion debate
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court rules against B.C. doctor in botched birth case</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/04/04/supreme-court-rules-against-b-c-doctor-in-botched-birth-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/04/04/supreme-court-rules-against-b-c-doctor-in-botched-birth-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:41:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Canadian Press</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[From The Wires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=368123</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OTTAWA &#8211; The Supreme Court of Canada has restored a finding against a British...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/04/04/supreme-court-rules-against-b-c-doctor-in-botched-birth-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	OTTAWA &#8211; The Supreme Court of Canada has restored a finding against a British...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Flaky limits on free speech</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/12/flaky-limits-on-free-speech/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/12/flaky-limits-on-free-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Colby Cosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Whatcott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=357567</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its ruling on human rights commissions, at least the Supreme Court made the rules clearer]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/12/flaky-limits-on-free-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	In its ruling on human rights commissions, at least the Supreme Court made the rules clearer
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Could this be the end of &#8216;Mr. Big&#8217; sting operations?</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/28/supreme-court-to-hear-case-of-newfoundland-man-convicted-of-drowning-his-twin-daughters/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/28/supreme-court-to-hear-case-of-newfoundland-man-convicted-of-drowning-his-twin-daughters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:50:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Gillis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Central]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News & Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. Big]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nelson Lloyd Hart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newfoundland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=355419</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Supreme Court to hear case of Newfoundland man convicted of drowning his twin daughters]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/28/supreme-court-to-hear-case-of-newfoundland-man-convicted-of-drowning-his-twin-daughters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	Supreme Court to hear case of Newfoundland man convicted of drowning his twin daughters
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whatcott fallout: the Supreme Court upholds protections we don&#8217;t need</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/27/whatcott-fallout-the-supreme-court-upholds-protections-we-dont-need/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/27/whatcott-fallout-the-supreme-court-upholds-protections-we-dont-need/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:47:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Gillis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Central]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charlie Gillis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News & Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maclean's Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ottawa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[William Whatcott]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=354679</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canadian tolerance is less fragile than courts and human rights bodies think]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/27/whatcott-fallout-the-supreme-court-upholds-protections-we-dont-need/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	Canadian tolerance is less fragile than courts and human rights bodies think
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Abortion debate still rages 25 years after historic Supreme Court ruling</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/28/abortion-debate-still-rages-25-years-after-historic-supreme-court-ruling/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/28/abortion-debate-still-rages-25-years-after-historic-supreme-court-ruling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Canadian Press</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Need to know]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=343291</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OTTAWA &#8211; It&#8217;s been 25 years to the day since the Supreme Court of...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/28/abortion-debate-still-rages-25-years-after-historic-supreme-court-ruling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	OTTAWA &#8211; It&#8217;s been 25 years to the day since the Supreme Court of...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Re: The SCOC on &#8216;Lola and Eric&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/25/re-the-scoc-on-lola-and-eric/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/25/re-the-scoc-on-lola-and-eric/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:52:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Patriquin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Central]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Need to know]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=342158</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the “Lola and Eric” case today, upholding...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/25/re-the-scoc-on-lola-and-eric/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the “Lola and Eric” case today, upholding...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court to rule today on wearing a niqab can be worn while testifying</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/20/supreme-court-to-rule-today-on-wearing-a-niqab-can-be-worn-while-testifying/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/20/supreme-court-to-rule-today-on-wearing-a-niqab-can-be-worn-while-testifying/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:21:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Canadian Press</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Need to know]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=330496</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OTTAWA &#8211; The Supreme Court of Canada rules this morning on whether a Muslim...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/20/supreme-court-to-rule-today-on-wearing-a-niqab-can-be-worn-while-testifying/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	OTTAWA &#8211; The Supreme Court of Canada rules this morning on whether a Muslim...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Expect privacy at work? You&#8217;re not unreasonable, says Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/08/expect-privacy-at-work-youre-not-unreasonable-says-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/08/expect-privacy-at-work-youre-not-unreasonable-says-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:16:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jesse Brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Central]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jesse Brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=312915</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Their workplace, their gear, their company, their rules. So what about your rights? Jesse Brown explains]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/08/expect-privacy-at-work-youre-not-unreasonable-says-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	Their workplace, their gear, their company, their rules. So what about your rights? Jesse Brown explains
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court makes the right call on election — but only just</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/10/26/supreme-court-makes-the-right-call-on-election-but-only-just/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/10/26/supreme-court-makes-the-right-call-on-election-but-only-just/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:25:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emmett Macfarlane</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Central]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital Diary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maclean's Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=307502</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Emmett McFarlane: 'The closer I read today’s judgment, the less convincing I find the minority’s logic']]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/10/26/supreme-court-makes-the-right-call-on-election-but-only-just/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	Emmett McFarlane: 'The closer I read today’s judgment, the less convincing I find the minority’s logic'
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court set to rule on duty to disclose HIV to sex partners</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/10/05/supreme-court-set-to-rule-on-duty-to-disclose-hiv-to-sex-partners/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/10/05/supreme-court-set-to-rule-on-duty-to-disclose-hiv-to-sex-partners/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:25:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Canadian Press</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Need to know]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=300689</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada will issue a ruling today on whether it is a crime for people with extremely low levels of HIV to withhold that fact from their sex partners.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/10/05/supreme-court-set-to-rule-on-duty-to-disclose-hiv-to-sex-partners/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada will issue a ruling today on whether it is a crime for people with extremely low levels of HIV to withhold that fact from their sex partners.
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Vancouver sex workers can challenge prostitution laws: high court</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/21/vancouver-sex-workers-can-challenge-prostitution-laws-high-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/21/vancouver-sex-workers-can-challenge-prostitution-laws-high-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:49:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>macleans.ca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Need to know]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=296131</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OTTAWA &#8211; The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Vancouver sex workers can...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/21/vancouver-sex-workers-can-challenge-prostitution-laws-high-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	OTTAWA &#8211; The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Vancouver sex workers can...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harper v. The Judges</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/21/harper-v-the-judges/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/21/harper-v-the-judges/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Stobo Sniderman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephen Harper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=284093</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The biggest issues facing the country are being tackled not by Parliament, but in court]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/21/harper-v-the-judges/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	The biggest issues facing the country are being tackled not by Parliament, but in court
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The courts and Omar Khadr</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/01/the-courts-and-omar-khadr/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/01/the-courts-and-omar-khadr/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:27:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Wherry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond The Commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emmett Macfarlane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Omar Khadr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephen Neil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=279495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Elsewhere on Macleans.ca, Emmett Macfarlane gives the Supreme Court a share of the blame...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/01/the-courts-and-omar-khadr/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	Elsewhere on Macleans.ca, Emmett Macfarlane gives the Supreme Court a share of the blame...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Supreme Court is culpable in the Omar Khadr case</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/07/31/the-supreme-court-is-culpable-in-the-omar-khadr-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/07/31/the-supreme-court-is-culpable-in-the-omar-khadr-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:39:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>macleans.ca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Web Features]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charter of Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Omar Khadr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[repatriation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=279063</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Harper government is guilty of stonewalling-- but that’s largely because the Court allowed it]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/07/31/the-supreme-court-is-culpable-in-the-omar-khadr-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	The Harper government is guilty of stonewalling-- but that’s largely because the Court allowed it
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harper used to fret about &#8220;arbitrary&#8221; Charter rulings</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/04/17/harper-used-to-fret-about-arbitrary-charter-rulings/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/04/17/harper-used-to-fret-about-arbitrary-charter-rulings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:43:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Geddes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Geddes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pierre Trudeau]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephen Harper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=252924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stephen Harper hasn’t offered up any very detailed comment on his view of the...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/04/17/harper-used-to-fret-about-arbitrary-charter-rulings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	Stephen Harper hasn’t offered up any very detailed comment on his view of the...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beaten for a black belt and a deadly delay</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/14/beaten-for-a-black-belt-and-a-deadly-delay/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/14/beaten-for-a-black-belt-and-a-deadly-delay/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:56:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Warnica</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plenty of Fish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tae kwon do]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=244551</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<strong>British Columbia:...</strong> The family of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq is suing a]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/14/beaten-for-a-black-belt-and-a-deadly-delay/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<strong>British Columbia:...</strong> The family of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq is suing a
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another year&#8217;s federal politics in 12 chapters</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/12/30/another-years-politics-in-12-chapters/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/12/30/another-years-politics-in-12-chapters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:07:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Geddes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Geddes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attawapiskat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brig.-Gen. Dean Milner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian Election 2011]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Doug Finley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jack Layton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jim Flaherty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kandahar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Carney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Ignatieff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephen Harper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vic Toews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=231713</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stages in the legislative process that make a bill law in the Canadian Parliament;...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/12/30/another-years-politics-in-12-chapters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	Stages in the legislative process that make a bill law in the Canadian Parliament;...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>On the Supreme Court rejecting a national securities regulator</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/12/22/on-the-supreme-court-rejecting-a-national-securities-regulator/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/12/22/on-the-supreme-court-rejecting-a-national-securities-regulator/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:12:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Geddes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Geddes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jim Flaherty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national securities regulator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=230852</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The court doesn’t doubt that valid reasons for national securities regulation exist. But that’s not the point.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/12/22/on-the-supreme-court-rejecting-a-national-securities-regulator/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	The court doesn’t doubt that valid reasons for national securities regulation exist. But that’s not the point.
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>&quot;To be &#039;open to Quebec&#039; is to insist on a clear majority for secession&quot;</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/31/to-be-open-to-quebec-is-to-insist-on-a-clear-majority-for-secession/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/31/to-be-open-to-quebec-is-to-insist-on-a-clear-majority-for-secession/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 16:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Wherry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond The Commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clarity act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jack Layton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quebec]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[referendum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stéphane Dion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=194700</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Liberal MP Stephane Dion counsels Jack Layton.
In its opinion on the secession of...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/31/to-be-open-to-quebec-is-to-insist-on-a-clear-majority-for-secession/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
	Liberal MP Stephane Dion counsels Jack Layton.
In its opinion on the secession of...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partisan judges, how the Supreme Court runs our lives—and why it should be an election issue</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/19/partisan-judges-how-the-supreme-court-runs-our-lives%e2%80%94and-why-it-should-be-an-election-issue/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/19/partisan-judges-how-the-supreme-court-runs-our-lives%e2%80%94and-why-it-should-be-an-election-issue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Luiza Ch. Savage</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Interview]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[A Mighty Judgment: How the Supreme Court of Canada Runs Your Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyers Gone Bad: Money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philip Slayton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex and Madness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=183889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Philip Slayton in conversation with Luiza Ch. Savage]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/19/partisan-judges-how-the-supreme-court-runs-our-lives%e2%80%94and-why-it-should-be-an-election-issue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>68</slash:comments>
	Philip Slayton in conversation with Luiza Ch. Savage
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pointed comments on the kirpan: &quot;above all a religious symbol&quot;</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/21/pointed-comments-on-the-kirpan-above-all-a-religious-symbol/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/21/pointed-comments-on-the-kirpan-above-all-a-religious-symbol/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:47:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Geddes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Geddes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colby Cosh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Louise Charron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kirpan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=168140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My colleague Colby Cosh says I was &#8220;sowing nonsense&#8221; when I wrote that the...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/21/pointed-comments-on-the-kirpan-above-all-a-religious-symbol/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>70</slash:comments>
	My colleague Colby Cosh says I was &#8220;sowing nonsense&#8221; when I wrote that the...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>That non-weapon sure is pointy</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/21/that-non-weapon-sure-is-pointy/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/21/that-non-weapon-sure-is-pointy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:23:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Philippe Gohier</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Colby Cosh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kirpan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[louise charron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navdeep Bains]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious accommodation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security theatre]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sikh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sikhism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zero tolerance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=168119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reciting "It's not a weapon" won't allow us to avoid the debate]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/21/that-non-weapon-sure-is-pointy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>112</slash:comments>
	Reciting "It's not a weapon" won't allow us to avoid the debate
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beverley McLachlin in conversation</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/29/beverley-mclachlin/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/29/beverley-mclachlin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:30:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>macleans.ca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Interview]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beverley McLachlin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chief Justice of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=159994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On gender balance on the court, whether judges are too soft, and lawyers working for free]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/29/beverley-mclachlin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
	On gender balance on the court, whether judges are too soft, and lawyers working for free
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why our highest court seems afraid to take on the Harper government</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/12/benched/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/12/benched/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:20:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>macleans.ca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Omar Khadr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephen Harper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=141518</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Legal expert Philip Slayton on the Supreme wimps]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/12/benched/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	Legal expert Philip Slayton on the Supreme wimps
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>An undeniable win for Parliament</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/30/an-undeniable-win-for-parliament/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/30/an-undeniable-win-for-parliament/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Geddes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghan detainee docs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frank Iacobucci]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house of commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Ignatieff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parliament]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peter milliken]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rob Nicholson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephen Harper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=122818</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The detainee papers ruling leaves the Tories no easy options]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/30/an-undeniable-win-for-parliament/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>117</slash:comments>
	The detainee papers ruling leaves the Tories no easy options
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>A missed opportunity for diversity</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/25/a-missed-opportunity-for-diversity/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/25/a-missed-opportunity-for-diversity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Steyn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mark Steyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aboriginal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diversity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joni mitchell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kahnawake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mohawks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opening ceremony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political correctness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vancouver Olympics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[welfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=109586</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mark Steyn on the opening ceremonies: Where was the genuinely bizarro cavalcade?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/25/a-missed-opportunity-for-diversity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>228</slash:comments>
	Mark Steyn on the opening ceremonies: Where was the genuinely bizarro cavalcade?
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another expert on why the top court didn&#039;t go further on Khadr</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/04/another-expert-on-why-the-top-court-go-further-on-khadr/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/04/another-expert-on-why-the-top-court-go-further-on-khadr/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Geddes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Geddes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Omar Khadr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prof. Gerald Gall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=105552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[News that the Canadian government won’t try to bring Omar Khadr home from Guantanamo...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/04/another-expert-on-why-the-top-court-go-further-on-khadr/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
	News that the Canadian government won’t try to bring Omar Khadr home from Guantanamo...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>A veteran court-watcher on the Khadr issue: a fine balance</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/04/a-veteran-court-watcher-on-the-khadr-issue-a-fine-balance/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/04/a-veteran-court-watcher-on-the-khadr-issue-a-fine-balance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:16:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Geddes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Geddes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eugene Meehan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guantanamo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Omar Khadr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=105403</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling last week in the Omar Khadr case,...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/04/a-veteran-court-watcher-on-the-khadr-issue-a-fine-balance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>73</slash:comments>
	After the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling last week in the Omar Khadr case,...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>And another one on responsible communication</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/27/and-another-one-on-responsible-communication/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/27/and-another-one-on-responsible-communication/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:38:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Colby Cosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Colby Cosh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grant v. torstar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jeffrey dvorkin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quan v. cusson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsible communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsible journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ryerson university]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=99129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Q: Is Jeffrey Dvorkin&#8217;s analysis of the new defamation-law scene the product of expired...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/27/and-another-one-on-responsible-communication/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	Q: Is Jeffrey Dvorkin&#8217;s analysis of the new defamation-law scene the product of expired...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the devil does business</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/23/how-the-devil-does-business/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/23/how-the-devil-does-business/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:34:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Colby Cosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Colby Cosh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aerosmith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conrad murray]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gossip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grant v. torstar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national enquirer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paparazzi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qualified privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quan v. cusson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsible communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsible journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[steven tyler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tmz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=98990</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As the content of the Supreme Court&#8217;s &#8220;responsible communication&#8221; ruling propagates, I am seeing...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/23/how-the-devil-does-business/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
	As the content of the Supreme Court&#8217;s &#8220;responsible communication&#8221; ruling propagates, I am seeing...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>An irresponsibly quick reaction to &quot;responsible communication&quot;</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/22/an-irresponsibly-quick-reaction-to-responsible-communication/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/22/an-irresponsibly-quick-reaction-to-responsible-communication/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:53:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Colby Cosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Colby Cosh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grant v. torstar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quan v. cusson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsible communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsible journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=98916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don&#8217;t expect much from your journalism elite today, citizens: we&#8217;ll be busy celebrating our...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/22/an-irresponsibly-quick-reaction-to-responsible-communication/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>42</slash:comments>
	Don&#8217;t expect much from your journalism elite today, citizens: we&#8217;ll be busy celebrating our...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Commons: &#039;This is an exceptional case&#039;</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/13/the-commons-this-is-an-exceptional-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/13/the-commons-this-is-an-exceptional-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:18:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Wherry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond The Commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Omar Ahmed Khadr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Omar Khadr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pierre poilievre]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephen Harper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=92476</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Inside the Supreme Court for the matter of Prime Minister of Canada vs. Omar Ahmed Khadr]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/13/the-commons-this-is-an-exceptional-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
	Inside the Supreme Court for the matter of Prime Minister of Canada vs. Omar Ahmed Khadr
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#039;Complicit in the abuse of a Canadian citizen&#039;s rights&#039;</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/31/complicit-in-the-abuse-of-a-canadian-citizens-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/31/complicit-in-the-abuse-of-a-canadian-citizens-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:42:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Wherry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond The Commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Omar Khadr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rob Nicholson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=78842</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Globe and Mail editorial board laments the government&#8217;s decision to appeal the Federal...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/31/complicit-in-the-abuse-of-a-canadian-citizens-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
	The Globe and Mail editorial board laments the government&#8217;s decision to appeal the Federal...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada v. Khadr, the Empire Strikes Back</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/25/canada-v-khadr-the-empire-strikes-back/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/25/canada-v-khadr-the-empire-strikes-back/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:49:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Wherry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond The Commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guantanamo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guantanamo Bay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Omar Khadr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephen Harper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=77573</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After the jump, the official statement from Foreign Affairs on the government&#8217;s second appeal...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/25/canada-v-khadr-the-empire-strikes-back/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
	After the jump, the official statement from Foreign Affairs on the government&#8217;s second appeal...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Soft Power: Exporting Canadian Jurisprudence</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/09/17/soft-power-exporting-canadian-jurisprudence/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/09/17/soft-power-exporting-canadian-jurisprudence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:12:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Luiza Ch. Savage</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Savage Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adama Liptak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial policy-making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://macleans.wordpress.com/?p=8517</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The NYT&#8217;s Adam Liptak has an interesting article on the declining influence of American...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/09/17/soft-power-exporting-canadian-jurisprudence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
	The NYT&#8217;s Adam Liptak has an interesting article on the declining influence of American...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>BREAKING: Supreme Court *unanimously* finds Canada bound by principles of fundamental justice and international law</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/05/23/breaking-supreme-court-finds-canada-bound-by-principles-of-fundamental-justice-and-international-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/05/23/breaking-supreme-court-finds-canada-bound-by-principles-of-fundamental-justice-and-international-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 14:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kadyomalley</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Central]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inside the Queensway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fundamental justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Omar Khadr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://macleans.wordpress.com/?p=1211</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<strong>Canada (Justice) v. Khadr DISMISSED...</strong>
The principles of international law and comity of nations,]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/05/23/breaking-supreme-court-finds-canada-bound-by-principles-of-fundamental-justice-and-international-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<strong>Canada (Justice) v. Khadr DISMISSED...</strong>
The principles of international law and comity of nations,
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Speaking of Canada&#039;s legal obligations in the Khadr case &#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/05/16/speaking-of-canadas-legal-obligations-in-the-khadr-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/05/16/speaking-of-canadas-legal-obligations-in-the-khadr-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 19:19:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kadyomalley</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Inside the Queensway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutional rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[khadr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://macleans.wordpress.com/?p=1082</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision on this case next week:...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/05/16/speaking-of-canadas-legal-obligations-in-the-khadr-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	The Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision on this case next week:...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hoosiers, starring Barack Obama</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/04/30/hoosiers-starring-barack-obama/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/04/30/hoosiers-starring-barack-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:08:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>selley</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Central]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biofuels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equalization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[in-and-out]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indiana primary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newfoundland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sniffer dogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tobacco marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US election]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://macleans.wordpress.com/?p=561</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<strong>Must-reads: ...</strong>Dan Gardner on tobacco advertising; Thomas Walkom on our elusive recession; John Ivison]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/04/30/hoosiers-starring-barack-obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<strong>Must-reads: ...</strong>Dan Gardner on tobacco advertising; Thomas Walkom on our elusive recession; John Ivison
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
