Latest news with #Charter
Irish Times
7 hours ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Women are lagging behind on AI but they can catch up
Women are more likely than men to be in jobs at risk of being automated, but they are also 25 per cent less likely than men to have basic digital skills, separate studies show. The findings, from the International Labour Organisation and the UN respectively, highlight an urgent challenge for women across the world. The artificial intelligence -driven industrial revolution ought to offer a unique opportunity for everyone to shape the future of work, but many women are already behind. A 2024 Danish study of 100,000 workers found 'a staggering gender gap in the adoption of ChatGPT: women are 20 percentage points less likely to use ChatGPT than men in the same occupation'. The researchers found the gap persisted when people in the same workplaces were compared. So how can women keep up with AI developments – especially those who might feel too busy to take time off for training within a part-time schedule, or who may be in denial about AI's all-consuming importance? The challenges are understandable: it is hard to know where to start. READ MORE A useful resource is research company Charter's Guide to AI in the Workplace. Instead of focusing on ideas and AI's 'maybe' impacts, this report has case studies on how some prominent companies are working with staff to share AI best practice. But small employers don't have anything like these resources and, as the UK's Pissarides Review into the future of work and wellbeing points out, 'good impacts – including upskilling and the substitution of routine tasks – cannot be assumed and must be proactively shaped'. So how can you use AI yourself, even when there is no corporate, or even team-level, push for change? The best advice I have seen is from Slack , the workplace collaboration platform, which recommends setting aside time for experimentation and learning. It is also good to be curious about AI, more generally. My recent reading includes 'AI will change what it is to be human. Are we ready?' by economist Tyler Cowen and Avital Balwit of AI software developer Anthropic. [ Are fears of an AI slash and burn of white-collar roles well founded? Opens in new window ] I am also experimenting. I asked the FT's ChatGPT Enterprise to tell me what is holding women back in adopting AI. It pointed to a 2024 study on women and generative AI by Deloitte, the consultancy. The researchers expected 'the proportion of women experimenting with and using gen AI for projects and tasks will match or surpass that of men in the United States by the end of 2025'. So it is not all doom and gloom. Caution is still good. As noted last month, generative AI chatbots such as ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude may sometimes demonstrate how 'the potential biases of those working at AI companies can seep into their models'. An FT reporter ran a series of questions about AI bosses through different chatbots, and each model was far more favourable about its own leader. Women make up just a third of the AI workforce, according to world Economic Forum figures. But that should give us all the more reason to learn more about large language models and AI-powered agents – and start to influence how to build knowledge in our own organisations. You will know the saying that 'AI is not going to take your job – someone using AI will'. That sounds reassuring for anyone who has mastered AI and validates those who are experimenting. Unfortunately, like many things in the AI spin cycle, even this idea may be outdated. Sangeet Paul Choudary, a tech author and adviser, says this idea is 'true, but utterly useless'. In his Substack newsletter, he says the statement 'directs your attention to the individual task level – automation vs augmentation of the tasks you perform – when the real shift is happening at the level of the entire system of work'. That difference takes some processing but is a useful way to see the bigger picture. If you have yet to use generative AI, don't panic. Time is on your side. Consultancy McKinsey has found that, despite the hype, only 1 per cent of leaders say their companies are 'mature' on AI deployment. The other 99 per cent? That's where the rest of us work. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Over 300 Organizations Unite To Demand Complete Withdrawal Of Bill C-2
18 June 2025 In an unprecedented show of unity, over 300 civil society organizations from across the country are on Parliament Hill today demanding the complete withdrawal of Bill C-2, the so-called "Strong Borders Act" as it enters into second reading. Four major coalitions representing a broad cross section of refugee rights, civil liberties, gender justice, and migrant advocacy have joined forces to oppose this assault on human rights and civil liberties. The four coalitions held a joint press conference today to present their unified opposition to this sweeping legislation, which represents a further, dangerous shift toward Trump-style anti-immigrant policies and attacks on the rights and freedoms of all residents. "Bill C-2 is the expansion of a deportation machine that will put hundreds of thousands of people at risk. With 1.2 million people already unable to renew their permits this year due to recent immigration cuts, this bill's sweeping new powers to cancel immigration status without individual evaluation will force more people into conditions of abuse, exploitation and even death,' says Karen Cocq, spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network. 'Prime Minister Carney was elected on a promise of standing up to Trump but his very first bill is the same scapegoating of migrants and refugees that we've witnessed south of the border." Bill C-2 allows for unprecedented expansion of surveillance powers. Tim McSorley, National Coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, warned: "Bill C-2 would undermine more than a decade of Canadian privacy-related jurisprudence to enable a massive expansion of domestic surveillance. Without a warrant, police and spy agencies could demand information about our online activities based on the low threshold of 'reasonable suspicion.' This shockingly broad system is ripe for abuse and appears deliberately designed to prepare Canada for controversial data-sharing obligations with the United States and other countries." Matt Hatfield, Executive Director of OpenMedia, said: 'Bill C-2 is anti-privacy, anti-rights, and anti-Canadian. It solves border problems that don't exist; and breaks rights that do. Canadian voters want our government to keep its elbows up to defend our privacy and freedoms, and that requires a full withdrawal of Bill C-2 now.' 'Bill C-2 reflects a wholesale shift in how Canada responds to refugees seeking our protection, including enabling their deportation back to danger without even a hearing,' said Gauri Sreenivasan, Co-Executive Director of the Canadian Council for Refugees. 'It is a shocking abandonment of rights protected under our Charter and International law, providing none of the fairness and due process that Canadians fully expect from our government in immigration matters. In many respects it sinks lower than US policy. The Bill must be withdrawn '. Organizations working with survivors of gender-based violence have raised particular alarm about the bill's impact on vulnerable populations. Deepa Mattoo, Executive Director and Lawyer of the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic agrees, adding "Bill C-2 is a policy misstep—it is an attack on the rights and safety of survivors of gender-based violence. It ignores the lived realities of those fleeing abuse and trauma, and risks turning Canada's borders into instruments of harm. We must uphold our commitments to human rights and ensure that no one is denied protection because of how or when they arrive." Debbie Owusu-Akyeeah, Co-Director of Policy and Advocacy at Action Canada for Sexual Health & Rights, stated: "Survivors fleeing gender-based violence abroad are learning about legal processes while living with profound trauma, often under the control of abusive partners who restrict their access to information and support. Imposing strict time limits on these most marginalized refugees ignores Canada's commitments to gender equity and safety. Denying survivors access to protection based on how or when they arrived in Canada is not only unjust—it is dangerous." Four statements denouncing Bill C-2 from a broad cross-section of civil society The four coalition statements demonstrate the breadth of opposition to Bill C-2: "Withdraw Bill C-2" - Initiated by the Migrant Rights Network, Canadian Council for Refugees and International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, with endorsements from 176 organizations including the Canadian Labour Congress; Canada's national housing rights organization - National Right to Housing Network; Canada's largest Climate coalition - Climate Action Network Canada; as well as The United Church of Canada, Oxfam Canada, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and others. "Joint Call for the Withdrawal of Bill C-2" - Led by OpenMedia and signed by 39 prominent organizations including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and Canadian Anti-Hate Network, plus 122 individual legal experts and academics. This statement focuses on the bill's degradation of privacy rights and its preparation for controversial data-sharing with foreign governments. "Open Letter: Canada puts refugee claimants at risk with Bill C-2" - Initiated by OCASI (Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants) and endorsed by 71 refugee and settlement organizations, as well as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and YWCA branches nationwide. The letter details how the bill violates international refugee law and puts vulnerable claimants at grave risk. "Statement: Bill C-2 Risks Undermining Canada's Commitments to Gender-Based Violence Survivors" - Supported by 48 organizations including the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, Canadian Women's Foundation, Women's Shelters Canada, and YWCA Canada. This statement highlights the disproportionate and dangerous impact Bill C-2 would have on survivors of gender-based violence who face additional barriers while dealing with trauma. Notes: What Bill C-2 Would Do Impact on ALL Canadians: Mass Surveillance Without Warrants: Police and CSIS can demand to know whether you have an online account with any organization or service in Canada, along with information like how long you've had it for or where you've logged in from, with no warrant required. A lower bar for more data: Law enforcement with a warrant can demand production of your online data, unencrypted emails, and browsing history from any company based only on "reasonable suspicion"— not the current standard of reasonable belief. Forced Corporate Spying: Companies must keep records of your personal data under secret government orders, with blanket immunity for privacy violations for handing over more than they should. Foreign Access to Your Data: Bill C-2 makes necessary changes to prepare Canada to endorse the US CLOUD Act and additional protocols of the Budapest Cybercrime Convention. These treaties would allow US authorities and other foreign governments to make similar data requests to Canadian entities, undermining Canada's constitutional protections and data sovereignty. Inadequate Legal Recourse: Only five days are allowed to challenge secret surveillance orders, with blanket civil immunity for companies that comply, ensuring even excessive orders go unchallenged. Refugee and Immigration Measures: One-Year Refugee Deadline: Bill C-2 blocks anyone who has been in Canada more than one year from seeking refugee status—even if their home country becomes dangerous after arrival. This applies retroactively to everyone since June 2020, and is fundamentally inconsistent with international humanitarian law. Eliminates US Border Exception: Previously, those crossing from the US between official ports could apply for refugee status after 14 days. Bill C-2 removes this completely, trapping vulnerable people under Trump's xenophobic policies. Mass Deportation Powers: The Immigration Minister gains authority to cancel permits for entire groups without due process—including revoking permanent residency applications and cards already submitted. Migrants could lose status overnight with no legal recourse. Privacy Protections Removed: The bill allows unrestricted information sharing about migrants across all government levels. Undocumented workers asserting labour rights could face deportation when employers report them to border enforcement.
Montreal Gazette
20 hours ago
- Montreal Gazette
Judge temporarily halts dismantling of Notre-Dame St. encampment
By A Quebec Superior Court judge has temporarily blocked the dismantling of the homeless encampment Notre-Dame St., ruling that it could pose 'enormous risks' to the people living there. The encampment, which is on land owned by Quebec's Transport Department, was slated to be dismantled on June 11. A legal clinic that works with unhoused people had brought the issue to court. 'In the present circumstances, the inconveniences on the lives and dignity of the people affected by the eviction outweigh all the interests that the MTQ have raised before me,' Judge Babak Barin ruled on Wednesday. Barin granted the Clinique juridique itinérante's request for a 10-day injunction, ordering the Transport Department to stop any attempts at dismantling the camp or clearing out the area. The clinic's larger argument that encampments should be permitted when homeless shelters and resources in the city are at capacity will be debated at a later date. It's believed about 30 people are living in the encampment. The clinic had argued that clearing out the area violates their Charter rights, and that dismantling the camp would leave them even more isolated in dangerous situations. Especially so, it argued, given that all of Montreal's homeless shelters are already operating at capacity, turning away dozens people each night. Representing the Transport Department, the Quebec government had argued the camp presents safety risks for those who live there. It also presented evidence from Mercier—Hochelaga-Maisonneuve borough officials that more than 20 calls had been made to the Montreal police department regarding the camp since January. The city's fire department also had to intervene on 27 occasions during that time period, it noted. The grassy area along Notre-Dame St. was the site of another large encampment in 2020 that was ordered dismantled after a fire broke out and nearly spread to a propane tank. Tents have come and gone in the area ever since. Another eviction was carried out there in December, after the legal clinic had managed to have it postponed. The city of Montreal has said it can't tolerate encampments because they pose a safety risk and it would rather persuade people to stay in shelters, where there is oversight and access to services. A city-commissioned report published this year stressed the negative consequences of dismantling encampments and called on the city to establish a clear protocol on the issue.
Vancouver Sun
2 days ago
- Politics
- Vancouver Sun
Federal Court closes door on safety in Canada for fleeing Afghan advisors' families
As an Ottawa man who helped the Canadian Armed Forces during its NATO mission in Afghanistan waited for a decision from the Federal Court in a bid to bring his family to safety in Canada from the Taliban's revenge, he heard distressing news from his sister. She had fled Afghanistan when her husband was shot dead after receiving threatening phone calls from Taliban fighters and was living abroad waiting for a family reunification in Canada, but she had just heard she might be ordered deported to Afghanistan at the end of this week, he said. 'She called me crying,' the man told National Post from his home in Ottawa. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Then his hope that she could soon join him in Canada collapsed when he heard the decision Monday from Canada's Federal Court on a case launched in 2023 by him and two other Canadians who all are trying to bring their family to join them in Canada after helping Canada's military in Afghanistan. 'The situation is very serious. After she has been running for years, we heard this very devastating and unfortunate decision by the court,' he said. With a deportation threat looming from her temporary home and Canada's court closing their escape path to Canada, the family is devastated. 'She said, 'Tell me where should I go? What should I do?' I said, to be honest with you, I can't tell you anything. I don't know what to tell you. And it's all because of the government's decision to put such rigid criteria on that public policy that denied her application.' The three men sued the federal government, saying an immigration policy that gives easy entry to Canada to Ukrainian families fleeing Russia's invasion should also apply to them. All three were born in Afghanistan but had moved to Canada. They returned to Afghanistan to serve as Language and Cultural Advisors (LCA) for the Canadian military in Afghanistan, where they had top-secret security clearance while variously assisting troops from 2007 and 2011. The three men complained to the court that Canada's fast-track Ukraine policy didn't have the same limitations that kept their families out, which violates their Charter rights by giving preferential immigration benefits based on race. They asked the court to strike out the words Ukraine and Ukrainian from the government's fast-track policy so they could benefit from the same rules. Section 15 of the Charter says: 'Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.' The three men had their identifies protected by the court because of danger to them and their relatives for working with the International Security Assistance Force, known as ISAF, the NATO-led military mission in Afghanistan. The one who was interviewed by the Post asked that his name not be published for fear it could be used to target his family. After Afghanistan was retaken by the Taliban, Canada announced a special policy to help LCAs bring family here. It included rigid conditions that limited who was eligible. All three men had family denied. In the case of the man interviewed, his sister had fled the country with her children before the fall of Kabul, which made her ineligible. 'I was a Canadian citizen. I went there and people found out that I work with Canadian forces, so they targeted my family members there,' he said. 'She fled Afghanistan before the Taliban took over because her husband got killed by the Taliban. Her kids were threatened to be assassinated by Taliban, so she had no other choice but to flee Afghanistan because of my job with the Canadian forces.' Canada's Ukraine special policy was introduced in March 2022. The Afghan LCA special policy was introduced on Jan. 30, 2023. The lawsuits claimed differences in the policies rekindle racist immigration policies in Canada's past that gave preference to some migrants, primarily white or from European countries, and limited or discouraged immigration from others, primarily brown or black or from Asian, African and Caribbean countries. The government told court that immigration exemptions have long been a part of Canada's response to various crises in different countries. Several, over the years, gave immigration exemptions for foreign nationals fleeing conflicts other than those in Ukraine or Afghanistan, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hong Kong and Sudan. The three former LCAs got their answer from the court on Monday; because the Ukraine policy expired on July 15, 2023, their lawsuit was dismissed. 'In my view the application is moot, and in the exercise of its discretion, the Court will not hear the application. Therefore, the application will be dismissed,' wrote Justice Henry S. Brown in his decision. Mootness means that a decision of a court can no longer resolve the issue being argued; that no matter what a judge ruled it would have no practical impact on the problem. Nicholas Pope, lawyer for the three men, said the decision that it is too late for the men to benefit from the Ukraine policy because it has expired was upsetting because the delay came from the government and the courts. 'Essentially, the federal government has immunized itself from Charter scrutiny of temporary immigration policies by failing to properly fund the Federal Court,' Pope told the Post. 'The executive branch should never be allowed to avoid accountability by inhibiting a court's ability to do its job.' 'The applicants' family members are still at serious risk of death, torture, and targeted assassination by the Taliban because of the applicants' service to the Canadian military,' he said. • Email: ahumphreys@ | Twitter: AD_Humphreys Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
Global News
2 days ago
- Global News
Woman who spent 16 days in ‘dry cell' confinement settles civil lawsuit
A woman who says she endured cruel and unusual punishment in a Nova Scotia prison has settled a civil lawsuit she filed against the federal attorney general almost five years ago. Lisa Adams filed the lawsuit after she was placed in solitary confinement in what is commonly referred to as a dry cell for 16 days. Dry cells have no toilet or running water. They are used to monitor inmates to determine if they have ingested contraband or hidden it inside a body cavity. Adams' lawyer issued a brief statement confirming the settlement, but Mike Dull said he could not disclose terms of the settlement or details about financial compensation. '(Adams') advocacy around the use of dry cells in Canadian correctional facilities — an invasive, degrading and ultimately unlawful practice — has resulted in a national shift,' Dull said Monday in a statement. 'Thanks to her bravery, this harmful practice has now been banned across Canada.' Story continues below advertisement In a statement of claim filed in November 2020 with Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Adams says she was locked in a dry cell after correctional officers at the Nova Institution for Women in Truro, N.S., wrongly accused her of hiding drugs in 'balloon-like packages' in her vagina. The statement says conditions in the cell were 'harsh, humiliating and harmful.' In a separate court case, a Nova Scotia Supreme Court justice ruled in November 2021 that Adams' constitutional rights had been violated, and he ordered Ottawa to reform provisions of corrections law that discriminate against women. Justice John Keith's decision determined the law did not take into account that a substance suspected to be hidden in a woman's vagina wouldn't necessarily be expelled during detention. He said that created a risk that women would be unjustly detained. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Though Adams won that case, it was a Charter challenge that answered a question of law. As a result, she was not awarded compensation. In the 2020 statement of claim for her civil lawsuit seeking damages, Adams says that she was sent to the prison in Truro after she was accused of using crystal meth at a community residential facility in Cape Breton on May 2, 2020. The statement says her well-documented history of mental health issues were exacerbated by her lengthy stay in the dry cell. Story continues below advertisement 'On the first day of her placement (on May 6, 2020), the acting chief of health services (at the prison) … expressed concern … that a prolonged stay in such an environment would likely result in a deterioration in mental stability,' the statement says, adding that Adams repeatedly denied possessing any contraband. Adams started having suicidal thoughts as her mental health declined, according to a health worker whose observations were ignored by prison staff, the statement of claim says. Six days into her stay in the dry cell, Adams was taken to a hospital for an X-ray, but a doctor turned down the request because it wasn't considered a medical procedure, the statement says. The next day, a doctor was summoned to the prison to conduct a pelvic exam on Adams, but the physician cancelled the exam because Adams was suffering from hallucinations and incoherent speech. On Day 14 of her incarceration, another doctor conducted a pelvic exam and found 'no foreign bodies' in her vaginal cavity or elsewhere on her body. Still, Adams was forced to stay another two days in the cell before she was released back into the prison's general population. The statement of claim says Adams was placed in the cell without lawful justification and was subjected to unacceptable conditions that included: constant exposure to bright lights; constant monitoring of all showers and toilet usage; denial of meaningful human contact; denial of outdoor privileges and constant observation from behind a glass wall. Story continues below advertisement The lawsuit says Correctional Service Canada owed Adams a duty of care, but instead it was negligent by failing to safeguard her physical and emotional needs, as well as 'permitting cruel, unusual and excessive punishments.' The lawsuit goes on to say prison officials also disregarded medical evidence of substantial harm. In a statement of defence, the attorney general of Canada said that a urine sample taken after Adams was placed in the dry cell indicated she had ingested methamphetamines after arriving at the prison. And the document says Adams had reasonable access to legal counsel and medical care. It also says Adams declined body cavity and X-ray searches on May 12-13, 2020. The statement, however, goes on to say the federal government 'acknowledges that the confinement of the plaintiff in a dry cell in the circumstance of this case was regrettable.' In April 2022, the federal government announced it would ban dry celling for inmates suspected of carrying contraband in their vaginas. And in October 2024, Ottawa introduced regulations to limit the duration of dry cell detentions, improve inmate monitoring and begin using body scanners to detect contraband. 'While the civil case has been resolved, the impact of (Adams') actions will be felt far beyond her own experience,' Dull said. 'She stood up not just for herself, but for the rights and dignity of women across the country.'
