April Reign

Speak your mind even if your voice shakes

justice system

Rights, the Right doesn’t believe in them

by

Can you afford your rights?
Can you afford your rights?
In April of last year I blogged about the Court Challenges Program and this quote;
Rainer Knopff, a political scientist at the University of Calgary, said the program was “a biased boondoggle that had gone well past its `best before’ date.”

The program only funded groups on “one side” of the political spectrum while “socially conservative groups never got any money. Not a penny, as far as I know,” said Knopff.
He also echoed then-Treasury Board president John Baird’s suggestion, made in defending the decision to kill the program, that it made no sense for Ottawa to spend public money helping groups challenge its own legislation.
“I don’t want to pay for surrogate litigants,” said Knopff, arguing public interest groups should raise their own money for Charter cases. “If they can’t raise the money – tough.”

Today CTV has a story about the further erosion of rights in Canada;

OTTAWA — A Montreal court may be about to make Canadian legal history in a case that could see offenders considered guilty until proved innocent.

A bail hearing at the court this week is believed to be the first involving so-called “reverse onus,” in which a defendant must prove why they deserve less time behind bars and why they should be released on bail pending trial.

This ‘test case’ involves gangs. Naturally one chooses the circumstance least likely to garner public sympathy to launch such an attack. It goes without saying that any argument to democracy and rights will be met with an allegation of supporting gangs and violence. It being the case, unfortunately that some cannot hold more than one thought in their mind at a time. This law may start out as being about gangs and gun crime but it will not end there.

Image via Wikipedia

Dave Schroder of Edmonton’s Guardian Angels network thinks the reverse onus rule is “long overdue.”

“When somebody has demonstrated their lack of respect for Canadian law, we do have the right to expect them to be put away,” he said.

We certainly do have a right to expect criminals to be “put away”, right after they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers.

I say this as someone whose life has been touched by violent crime. The criminals never even charged. While I still am affected by these crimes, I don’t believe the Canadian criminal system should be built upon whatever revenge fantasies I may hold.

Our rights and freedoms are being stripped away by those who value sound bite over substance, authoritarianism over democracy and big brother over individual freedom. It is time for us, all of us, to speak up before our right to speak is taken too.

Related articles by Zemanta
  • Controversial ‘reverse onus’ law faces first test

Freedom from Religion

by

True story: man kills wife, stabbing her in the neck 19 times with a steak knife, is convicted of first-degree murder and appeals on basis that she was unfaithful and, as a devout Muslim, he was protecting family honour.

Nice try, and maybe elsewhere in the world Adi Abdul Humaid might have been acquitted. But the United Arab Emirates citizen made the mistake of murdering Aysar Abbas in Ottawa in 1999 and, ultimately, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected his appeal.

Superior Court Justice J.A. Doherty said that had Humaid killed his wife for religious beliefs, that alone would have been “a motive for murder.” But it was a moot point because Doherty didn’t buy Humaid’s new religious devotion and, in his 2006 ruling, concluded the story lacked credibility.

Nevertheless, the judge was concerned enough about the nature of the defence argument to write: “The alleged beliefs are premised on the notion that women are inferior to men and that violence against women is in some circumstances accepted, if not encouraged. These beliefs are antithetical to fundamental Canadian values, including gender equality.”

[Read more…] about Freedom from Religion

Happy Anniversary

by

CharterWho’s afraid of the big bad charter?

The rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter include:

fundamental freedoms (section 2), namely freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.
democratic rights: generally, the right to participate in political activities and the right to a democratic form of government:

Section 3: the right to vote and to be eligible to serve as member of a legislature.
Section 4: a maximum duration of legislatures is set at five years.
Section 5: an annual sitting of legislatures is required as a minimum.

mobility rights: (section 6): the right to enter and leave Canada, and to move to and take up residence in any province, or to reside outside Canada.
legal rights: rights of people in dealing with the justice system and law enforcement, namely:

Section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Section 8: right from unreasonable search and seizure (only if the authorities believe someone is a threat to another, to society or to themselves, is such a search justified).
Section 9: freedom from arbitrary detainment or imprisonment.
Section 10: right to be informed of reasons for arrest including the right to retain counsel upon arrest.
Section 11: rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Section 12: Right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
Section 13: rights against self-incrimination (this is most seen during plea bargains between the accused and the crown)
Section 14: rights to an interpreter in a court proceeding.

equality rights: (section 15): equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
language rights: generally, the right to use either the English or French language in communications with Canada’s federal government and certain provincial governments. Specifically, the language laws enshrined in the Charter include:

Section 16: English and French are the official languages of Canada and New Brunswick.
Section 16.1: the English and French-speaking communities of New Brunswick have equal rights to educational and cultural institutions.
Section 17: the right to use either official language in Parliament or the New Brunswick legislature.
Section 18: the statutes and proceedings of Parliament and the New Brunswick legislature are to be printed in both official languages.
Section 19: both official languages may be used in federal and New Brunswick courts.
Section 20: the right to communicate with and be served by the federal and New Brunswick governments in either official language.
Section 21: other constitutional language rights outside the Charter regarding English and French are sustained.
Section 22: existing rights to use languages besides English and French are not affected by the fact that only English and French have language rights in the Charter. (Hence, if there are any rights to use Aboriginal languages anywhere they would continue to exist, though they would have no direct protection under the Charter.)

minority language education rights: (Section 23): rights for certain citizens belonging to French or English-speaking minority communities to be educated in their own language.

Harper it would seem.

However, the Charter has often been the subject of intense debate. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated in the past his concern about the power of the Charter. Soon after he became prime minister, he suggested that judges should “apply the law, not make it.”

The current Conservative government has no plans to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Charter.

Regardless of the fact that our New Canadian Government™ does not support rights and freedoms for all of Canada’s citizens, A Very Happy Charter Day to you all!

Rights for the Rich only

by

The Star has an article on the Charter today,

A quarter-century later, the Charter is at a crossroads. While there may be much to celebrate, the process of using it to establish rights is time-consuming and expensive, almost entirely dependent on government subsidies and the benevolence of lawyers to bankroll cases, sometimes costing millions of dollars.

Restrictions on legal aid and a decision last fall by the Conservative government to kill the Court Challenges Program, which helped fund individuals and citizen groups fighting for constitutional protections, have made the Charter more inaccessible than ever.

Today, many experts are pessimistic about its future as a tool in battling for equality and fending off unwarranted government intrusions into people’s lives. Like fine champagne, the Charter is in danger of becoming a luxury many never taste.

Interesting quotes from a conservative on rights for the average Canadian.

Rainer Knopff, a political scientist at the University of Calgary, said the program was “a biased boondoggle that had gone well past its `best before’ date.”

The program only funded groups on “one side” of the political spectrum while “socially conservative groups never got any money. Not a penny, as far as I know,” said Knopff.
He also echoed then-Treasury Board president John Baird’s suggestion, made in defending the decision to kill the program, that it made no sense for Ottawa to spend public money helping groups challenge its own legislation.
“I don’t want to pay for surrogate litigants,” said Knopff, arguing public interest groups should raise their own money for Charter cases. “If they can’t raise the money – tough.”

Apparently conservatives feel rights are for those that can afford them. Not that this is surprising, however, it is nice to have it so neatly laid out.

One can only hope that during an election campaign these words along with those of Harper saying that ordinary Canadians aren’t protesting complete with scenes of farmers and seniors and youth out protesting, find major play in party ads.

Conservatives new childcare plan

by

The government is considering possible changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that would sharply increase the number of young offenders sent to adult jails, according to a memo obtained by CTV News.

The memo sketches a “preferred option” that would “give the Crown discretion to use adult criminal justice procedures for youths aged 16 and 17 who are charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault.”

Judges currently decide whether young offenders should be charged as adults; the option outlined in the memo would strip them of that power.

Lots going on just in that short passage.

Put kids in jail instead of providing educational,work and other opportunities that might make for a future. Not to mention instead of providing decent wages and childcare programs to help steer them in the right direction.

Wonder how many of the kids “adult streamed” will be visible minorities? [Read more…] about Conservatives new childcare plan