The Superior Courts of Canada that is.
Three…now make that four, more Recent Wrong Decisions amply attest to that. The first has been well publicized:
1. The Niqab caper -
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday that in some circumstances, a muslim woman can keep her Niquab on while giving testimony against an accused in Criminal Court. It will be left to the lower courts to determine what those ‘circumstances’ might be.
We all know that it is a fundamental Rule of Law that an accused can face his or her accusers. With this decision, the Court has opened the door to changing this fundamental right to read the right to confront a ‘covered face’.
The 2 Justices on the right of the Court not surprisingly believed correctly, that the accuser’s face needs be uncovered while giving testimony while left wing Justice, Rosalie Abella, not surprisingly sees nothing at all wrong with a Niqab clad witness – i.e. only her eyes are exposed – assuming they are female eyes that is – whose to know. I digress.
But what were the other 6 Jurists thinking?
Moreover, in such proceedings, the accused is to have the same rights as the accuser, so how long will it be before an accused comes to court ‘masked’. I can here it now – “witness, can you pick out the accused in the body of this court?” Dah.
I have nothing against the Niqab per se – I see women who wear it as being mere subjects of their male overseers – but that is their right to be stupid. We are after all a free society – albeit less so as time goes on.
If they want to wear a Niqab on the beach or on the street or when shopping – please do. But if they are driving, or getting government picture id docs – then no – take the Niqab off. And that pertains to Legal Proceedings as well. Cases are often resolved by lawyers / judges being able to ‘read’ faces – the Niqab simply stated prevents that from happening.
2. Christine Blatchford wrote an interesting column yesterday concerning a court case that has been in the works for nearly 20 years.
It pertains to the right of native fishers to harvest salmon out of season for ‘Food, Social and Ceremonial’ purposes only. You will notice the concept of ‘commercial’ is missing.
A group of non native fishers has been fighting this discrimination on the basis that an estimated 90% of the native fishers’ catch is sold commercially. This not only competes unfairly with the professional fishery but it seriously jeopardizes the sustainability of the stock.
For those who live back several hundred years and are still grieving about the hard done natives I sympathize with their feelings even though I believe they are misguided. That said, if our Society wants to continue to gnash its teeth regarding our ancestors’ historic wrongs – I suggest that laws be passed giving natives the right to do whatever they like – hunt, fish, pollute – whatever and whenever they wish as long as it is contained within their own reserves (i.e. not on crown land).
But while we pretend one thing –that natives cannot run a commercial fishery outside of season and then condone just that, it only leads to contempt for the law as it exists and increases resentment between natives and non natives.
So what does this have to do with the Supreme Court of Canada – you ask?
On Thursday of this week, the SCC threw out this decades old action with just the following three words – ‘Dismissed without costs’.
-and, to round out the triumvirate;
3. One of our distinguished citizens was caught in the United States transporting some 119 kilograms of cocaine. America, as you know, frowns upon this type of activity and quickly sentenced the poor chap to 10 years in jail (as an aside, had he kept his car on this side of the border, he might have got off with 2 years less a day, likely spent in house arrest but that is mere speculation on my part.)
The fact is though, he got sentenced to 10 years in an American slammer and immediately applied to Canada for a transfer back to serve out his sentence here.
Public Service Minister, Vic Toews, of whom I am not an ardent admirer, rightfully, in my opinion, turned down the poor chap’s application.
Enters the Federal Court of Canada which just ruled that Toews has but 45 days to reverse his decision and okay the transfer. The Court went on to classify Toews original decision as being ‘closed minded’.
It went on to note that ‘clear evidence existed which supported the transfer’.
I can just imagine what the ‘clear evidence’ might have been composed of – e.g. that he had cleaned up his life, had married, fathered a few kids, got a regular job and goes to church regularly.
Oh Yeah – I forgot, the guy has been in jail since his conviction. So what dear reader what would entail ‘clear evidence’ in that circumstance?
We elect Governments to do our bidding and part of that is to keep society safe. Toews from my perspective, was doing just that in denying re-entry. The Court, in contrast, was stepping on turf where it has no business.
and this one just in…
4. The Supreme Court of Canada just ruled in a case involving Prosecutors possibly ‘vetting’ juror selections, that “it was not serious enough to quash …conviction(s)’. (There were a number of other similar cases awaiting the Court’s decision.)
We all know that Justice must not only be done – it must also appear to be done, and in this case(s) it would be most difficult to say the second condition has been satisfied.
You can imagine if you were the defendant and attempted in any way to influence who would be on or not on your jury – you would be charged with contempt and likely jailed in the process.
So as for me, this all adds up to the Superior Courts going 0 for 4.
As I see it …
‘K.D. Galagher’
