Sunday, April 22, 2007

Justice is a myth in Canada

It is quite amusing really to hear the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverly McLachlin, say that it's a myth that Canadian courts are soft on crime. It is perhaps frightening to think that she might really believe it.

I guarantee that there is not a right-thinking person in this country who is not a criminal, a Liberal or a lawyer who would agree with the perspective spouted by McLachlin. It simply doesn't matter which case you look at in Canada, justice is never done. There is a legal system in Canada, but it can hardly be described as a justice system.

It doesn't matter whether we are talking about the courts in Manitoba who are blatently ignorant about the Hells Angels or the provincial court in BC who simply cannot or will not jail habitual criminals for anything longer than a couple of weeks despite dozens and dozens of previous convictions and in the face of the highest property crime rates on the continent, the courts in Canada are failing the citizens of this country day after day. And nothing the Chief Justice tries to spin will alter that fact.

A regular reader wrote to me this week after yet another judicial outrage. Here are his comments unedited.

When are we going to learn? When they blow up the CN Tower, the Lion's Gate Bridge at rush hour? Acts of terrorism are acts of war and must be treated as such if we are to have any hope of defending ourselves. Liberals like Bill Clinton characterize it as a law enforcement problem which should be addressed with the Marquis of Queensbury Rules.

What a beauty this judge is. I can't imagine how they missed appointing her to the provincial courts in BC. She allows the wife to go surety while at the same time noting that she has previously lied to the court and voicing concern that she will not carry out her responsibilities. Then she takes comfort in a Supreme Court of Canada decision that offers the 'suggestion' that the danger represented by a terrorist declines with the time he spends in custody. As Ed McMahon used to say on the Johnny Carson show, "I did not know that". I guess spending time in a Canadian correctional facility miraculously saps the rabid hatred these people have felt for us all their lives. Right. Like it rehabilitates ordinary criminals and makes them fear going back. I also didn't realize the learned judges of the Supreme Court have become such experts in international terrorism.

In addition to the obvious risk, there's the expense of the physical and technical surveillance required to monitor this individual and ensure he respects his 'extreme form of house arrest'. The liberals would have us believe that we should all be happy to foot that bill because by protecting Mr. Jaballah's rights we are simply protecting ourselves. I know they like to think that Mr. Jaballah and his ilk are drawn to Canada for its diversity, tolerance, and multiculturalism and, of course, have no axe to grind against us because, after all, we're not Americans. Call me suspicious, fascist, racist, whatever you like, but when it comes to terrorists I don't believe anything they do or anywhere they go is coincidental or without purpose.

Based solely upon what was written in this article, Mr. Jaballah should have been on his way home a long time ago and the judge had the benefit of a lot more evidence than that. It galls me that all that is keeping this killer here is the 'suggestion' (as opposed to 'evidence', 'high probability' , 'certainty') of torture should he be deported to his native Egypt. Sorry folks, but when the presence of a committed foreign terrorist (Read: 'enemy combatant) threatens Canada's Security and that of it's allies, in my mind the situation should be resolved in favor of Canada.

This is war and our rights trump his. Plain and simple.

Bob Cooper
Richmond, BC

The Chief Justice can spin all she wants. The evidence to the contrary is before us each and every day in our courts.

Leo Knight


Anonymous said...

typical right wing dreck-why don't you just emigrate to the States?Show some respect for Her Magesty traitor!

Anonymous said...

Let me illustrate how crime in Canada became a low-risk occupation. Indeed justice is a myth. For the person who couldn't spell 'Majesty' correctly, I've broken it down into numbered paragraphs for you to follow along.

Introduction of Parole:

1.The Parole Act, 1959
An enshrinement of the theory that early release from jail is absolutely essential to achieving
rehabilitation of convicts - even though it involves
high risk to their victims and the community. The parole of convicts is a function of the National
Parole Board, a bureaucratic quasi-judicial body that too frequently and without compunction
neuters penitentiary sentences imposed by trial judges.
Changes to the Criminal Code

#2 1969- Suspended Sentence,
including Probation - previously
restricted to first offenders, now
given general application
regardless of prior convictions.
#3 1972, conditional or
absolute discharge available to
offenders without prior convictions where the offence is without a minimum penalty and has a
maximum sentence less than 14 years. A discharge ends the proceedings one step short of a
conviction and sentencing.
#4 (1972) Bail Reform Act: introduced release of accused persons on a written undertaking to
appear in court; a process that virtually eliminated often-unattainable “cash” bail. The act initiated the concept of release on arrest; the use of
summons rather than warrants for arrest; limited
the ground for detention, and placed an onus on
the Crown to establish a basis for detention.
#5 (1976) Capital Punishment: repealed after 14 years of commutation of death sentences.
#6 (1977) preventive detention of habitual criminals - essentially a three-strikes law - repealed and replaced by a narrower dangerous offender designation.
#7 (1995) conditional sentence, a jail sentence of less than two years, to be “served in the
community” under conditions identical to probation.

#8 Establishment of Provincial Courts:

In the late `60s and early `70s the provinces ushered in provincial courts in place of the old
system of magistrates courts. Out with practical, common sense law-and-order magistrates. In with
independent judges drawn from the ranks of lawyers - elitist professionals increasingly inclined
to anything-but-jail sentencing.

In closing from 1975 to 2001 a Machiavellian deviation of our justice system from its historic constitutional obligation to shield us from crime, to a new orthodoxy based upon a visionary falsehood that imprisonment is a bar to rehabilitation.

The essence of this new orthodoxy was stated, chillingly and cold-bloodedly, in the House of
Commons on Oct. 7, 1971, by then Solicitor General Jean Paul Goyer: “From now on, we have
decided to stress the rehabilitation of individuals
rather than the protection of society.”

Anonymous said...

To illustrate my previous post I have included an example of how justice is a myth.

Sex offender Steve Ewanchuk.
Ewanchuk is 57 years old and has a criminal history of sex crimes that goes back to 1969. His latest crime in 2005 was the abuse of an eight year old girl.

The Crown made application to have
Ewanchuk declared a dangerous offender. Under that classification, he would have been sent to prison indefinitely. Instead the judge ruled that
Ewanchuk be classified as a long-term offender where he could be supervised in the community
for up to ten years.
sentence which Ewanchuk received was 16 years less 5 ½ years (2 for 1 credit) for pre-trial custody. He will be eligible for parole after half of his sentence is served. He could be out of prison and under supervision in the community by the
time he is 63 after having served only 5 ½ years.

Why was Ewanchuk not declared a dangerous offender you ask? Well..the judge ruled against that designation because of Ewanchuk’s age and - get this -
because he has been successfully supervised in the

Successfully supervised in the past??!
Explain that to the little girl who was abused. Explain that to
her parents. Explain that to the two 16-year olds he raped in 1969; to the 18-year old nursing student he raped in 1972; to the 11-year old girl he molested over a four year period in the early ‘80s;
the 14-year old he assaulted in 1989; the high school student in 1993; and the sexual assault
victim that spawned the “no means no” Supreme Court decision.

Explain that to Ewanchuk’s next
victims when he is released on parole to be supervised in the community.

The judge also stated that to have given a greater sentence would have gone against Canadian sentencing principles.

Anonymous said...

The first comment is your typical ass clown, "I disagree with you but have no logical rebuttal because I was up late watching Jerry and smoking Reefer so I can't think straight, hang on is it the last wenesady of the month? cause that when I get my welfare " response. Let me respond in a manner you can understand, Do us a favour and move to France surrender monkey!.