Canada, Justice and equal rights for all? Sort of

As Canadians we like to think that our justice system treats all individuals equally and fairly regardless of their heritage, gender, or religion. Canada is a country where the law is applied impartially to all of its people and we take pride in the fairness of our justice system. In fact the average Canadian takes great offense when we feel that an individual is being unjustly treated or harshly sentenced based on a perceived bias against the individual or a group they belong to.

After all, "Justice is Blind" right?

Well, partially anyways, it appears that recently Canada's Supreme Court has instructed our justice system to "keep one eye open"  when meting out justice to individuals of a certain heritage. How can this be in a country that prides itself on fair handed treatment for all, why would one group be singled out for specific punishment? This racist undertone is not something any of us would expect from Canadian courts.

By now your undoubtedly wondering what any particular group of people did to be treated in such a harsh manner, why would the courts unfairly base sentencing on a persons heritage, and what can be done to prevent this miscarriage of justice against these poor unfortunate individuals.

Well dear reader do I have a surprise for you.

Apparently this is called "Justice" in Canada...

Mark your calendars folks, this week is a truly sad one for Canada's Justice System, although it is not the first such occasion nor do I suspect it will be the last. What has taken place this week has been described by many as a travesty, personally I don't feel that is a strong enough word to describe the transgression of justice that occurred and as a Canadian I hold my head in shame. I only hope that this is a call to action that echoes through the halls of parliament and one that motivates our politicians to create laws that set the standards for the rest of the world.

Earlier this week we witnessed one more example of how truly broken the system is and how a criminal's needs and rights generally supersede those of their victims. In our current legal system at times it seems that even when the crime is heinous and the victim is violated in ways that will have lingering consequences, the judicial attitude appears to lean in the direction that "too harsh" a sentence for the convicted will only ruin another life. The recent conviction of pedophile Graham James earlier this week is just one more classic example of how our system fails to protect society from the "worst of the worst". Just how bad are things?

Robocalls, Is that anything like Robcop?

Over the last couple of weeks it seems the "talk of the town" for Canadian news media has been the "robocall election scandal" and who is responsible for it.

Was the Conservative government behind it?
Was it perpetrated by a third party to discredit the ruling Conservatives?
Were riding's that were in a tight battle for votes specifically targeted?
Is this a plot to destabilize Canada?
Could extraterrestrials (ET's) be involved? (I threw this one in myself for fun)

Now before I go any further with this, just in case any of you are wondering what I am referring to, here it is in a nutshell. It has come to light that during the last election  thousands of automated pre-recorded calls (thus the name "robocalls") were made that allegedly misdirected Guelph-area voters to non-existent polling stations. On top of this allegations have been made that all kinds of telephonic dirty tricks were used, including everything from live callers who made harassing phone calls to Jewish voters on the Sabbath, and others who promised to drive voters to polling stations, and then never showed up.

How serious is the issue? Well, within just the last couple of days Elections Canada has reported a steady stream of complaints from Canadians since the robocall scandal first broke, so far 31,000 and counting. This will almost certainly grow as the opposition parties keep this as their focus and plead with Canadians to report any such calls they may have received to Elections Canada.

Now while the media is busing running this as their lead story every day (I assume due to the lack of any other news that might be important to Canadians?), parliament is also embroiled in the scandal. Virtually every day accusations are flying across the floor of the house with one party blaming the other, with suggestions being made that this may have changed the outcome of the last election (I imagine that's a lot easier for the Liberals to accept than the real reason they got skunked), and so on and so forth. It inspires me with confidence to see our elected officials focusing on the most critical issues of the day.....sheeeh! Shouldn't this investigation be the responsibility of Elections Canada, or maybe the RCMP? Once the facts are determined then parliament can spend time debating it, until that point they are simply wasting time (and taxpayers money) discussing innuendo and rumors (oops , what am I thinking based on that alone, it is business as usual for parliament).

Now trust me, I don't have any inside information as to who is responsible for all of this and as a Canadian I can only hope that the guilty party is determined and brought to justice. After all as Canadians we are proud of the fact that we are a democracy that holds honest elections, not some third world banana republic where the election outcome is announced before the votes are counted. However I do have a solution to prevent this from ever taking place again, and in fact it is very simple.

Come on Peter, just take your medicine like a big boy....

Peter Goldring (right) meeting with the
Prime Minister, prior to his troubles.

In late December 2011 Peter Goldring, an MP representing Edmonton ran into a little trouble that made headlines across the country. Apparently Mr Goldring after having attended a fund raiser was making his way home for the evening when he was pulled over by a police patrol as part of a routine Checkstop program.

Based on what Edmonton police spokesman Chad Orydzuk told the Edmonton Journal  Mr.Goldring was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample using the roadside screening test.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, it is an offense to Refuse to Comply with a Valid Screening Device or Breath Test Demand (often referred to as "refusing to blow"). In plain English this means that if a police officer makes a demand for you to provide a breath sample, or blow into a screening device, and you do not comply, you may be charged criminally under cc. 254(5).

Now this is where it gets interesting, although Mr Goldring refused to blow he has publicly stated he is pleading "not guilty to the charge", although he has not said why he refused to blow. Now, I know that at times the law can seem complicated, particularly to those of us who are not MP's or do not have the benefit of years of legal education. But please, there are only two options here, you blow, or you don't.

Now while Mr Goldring refuses to say why he would not blow, he has no problem stating loud and clear that he was not impaired or under the influence, that he had "only one beer". In his own defense Peter has stated that the fact he was not charged with impaired driving speaks to his innocence. Peter, Peter, Peter, there is a flaw in that logic, you were charged because you refused the test, not because you were impaired. No test, no evidence of impairment to lay charges of driving under the influence.

Unfortunately, Peter seems to have missed the point, he is not charged with being impaired, in fact what he did or did not drink has no relevance on his charges. He is charged with "refusing to blow", so Peter either you did or you didn't. The reason the "refusing to blow" law exists is so that the impaired can not dodge charges by simply not taking the test.

Now maybe Peter has an agenda we have yet to see, this is the same man that in 2009 posted on his website a letter he wrote opposing a proposal supported by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers that would allow police officers to use breathalyzer tests even if they didn’t suspect drunk driving. In his letter he stated civil liberties and the right to not self-incriminate had to be protected (on the surface, generally a concept I agree with). As well, just hours before Goldring was charged, he had been publicly debating Edmonton-Castle Downs PC MLA Thomas Lukaszuk on the merits of proposed Alberta legislation that would create harsher punishments for people suspected of impaired driving.

So, is Peter trying to prove a point about the merits and legalities of roadside checks and harsher penalties? Only time will tell, however if he is it is a risky road to travel. If he admits that this is a stunt to question the legality of the approach the government has taken to deal with drunk driving, then he risks a serious backlash from the Tory party, As well, considering his position as an MP he should know better than anyone that you don't break the law to change it, you work within the guidelines of the system. On top of that is the damage the incident and his virtual disappearance since the information went public in December  have done to his political career and family. In a recent interview , while holding back tears Peter stated “It’s been terrible,” Last but not least, if this is a stunt, it is an ill conceived one that will cost the court system (taxpayer) time and money and something that any responsible individual would have enough common sense not to undertake.

Peter currently sits as an independent member of the House of Commons. His parliamentary webpage lists his affiliation as Independent Conservative, but he has asked to be recognized as a "Civil Libertarian"

My money on this one is that Peter is scrambling to cover his own ass after bending his elbow a few too many times on the evening in question, but time will tell as his court appearance is scheduled for February 15.

Occupy Vancouver being evicted, all it took was a death.

This certainly adds to the
beauty of Downtown Vancouver

It appears that the Occupy Vancouver had its second drug overdose just days ago, unlike the first one this one proved fatal. Following the news of 23-year-old Ashlie Gough's death, Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson said Occupy protesters would be forced to vacate as soon as possible. He said it's clear the encampment is no longer safe and has to go. "When lives are lost, we clearly have to take steps," Robertson told reporters. "I have directed the city manager to expedite the appropriate steps to end the encampment as soon as possible."

Crime and Punishment in Canada

Everyday as I read the paper I come across articles about crime in Canada that literally make me wonder if as a society we are entitled to refer to ourselves as civilized. All manner of crime and abuse are perpetrated on the innocent and our ever evolving legal system at times appears to be more concerned about the legal rights and treatment of those that commit the crime than about the the actual victims. At times our legal system and particularly our courts and prison system act as revolving doors. Even worse is that while in prison many criminals are provided with an education that would rival that which many universities provide, unfortunately they receive it from their peers and the end result is that they emerge better trained and equipped to further their criminal careers.

Now don't get me wrong, I have the greatest respect for law enforcement, particularly for the men and women of police forces across this country who place their lives on the line everyday. What frustrates me (and I imagine the cops on the streets) is that our legal system does not support their efforts in many cases.

I could dwell on the above for days, weeks, months, years, in fact I have been most of my adult life, so for right now lets cut to the chase. My question for today is simple......