Some various thoughts, but first, I have acquired (thank you, Mr. Amazon for delivering) your most recent book and I recommend it to everyone. The examples that you offer in that book are, well, horrifying but, more importantly, are very thought provoking. Of course, our worsers in Ottawer (definitely not our betters) definitely won't bother with those thoughts.
Now, to your column. In a round about way, of course.
I used to watch Law and Order (the original version) and I recall that the prosecutor, Michael Moriarty at that time, used to say that any competent prosecutor could convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he so chose.
I also have heard it said (well, often written) by such "luminaries" as Conrad Black but also by others that in the US the law is so voluminous and complex that pretty much everyone is guilty of SOMETHING and can be successfully prosecuted simply because of that complexity.
Which brings me to your column. When the law is unclear or, more particularly, is applied or misapplied to advantage or disadvantage some group for some (let me be overly kind) "social" reason (one wouldn't want to use the adjective "political" would one?) reason then, as the saying goes, the law is an ass. Therefore today, in Canada, frequently the law is proven to be a total ass.
If you have the "correct" skin tone or the "correct" social/religious grouping or the "correct" cause you can break almost any law, short of murder. And perhaps the gendarmerie won't try too hard to solve even that crime if you have the "correct" motivation (and I don't mean the exceptions prescribed by the Criminal Code.
What we absolutely do know is that if you have those particular attributes, you can block rail lines, burn churches, terrorize (yes, I use that word) Jews and supporters of Jews (I am a gentile so I can say that), stop legal commerce, prevent people from ..... ah, Hell, why go on?
Therefore, all this additional bumph that has been added to the Criminal Code, all in the name of "clarity" and "fairness" you can be sure, is highly "questionable" and simply leads to confusion of the public and generates "exclusions" that favor some folks, particularly those who have the "right" kinds of lawyers.
Question: is the use of quotation marks "appropriate" in conveying anything? Just wondering.
There seems to be considerable redundancy within our legal structure, as well. When you read about people found to be in possession of firearms, for example, the list of charges can be as long as your arm, and seems to cover off every possible nuance. I don’t have an example right in front of me, but it’s not unusual to see people charged with illegal possession of a firearm, possession of an illegal firearm, possession of a firearm without a licence, improper storage of a firearm, transporting a loaded firearm, possession of a firearm while committing another offence (or planning another offence), possession of a firearm despite being banned from doing so, etc.
Sure, when matters come to trial, they’ll probably plead guilty to one or two of these offences, and the other charges get dropped. Nonetheless, in theory the police have to round up evidence to support the various charges, the prosecutors have to be prepared to argue the various charges, the defence lawyers have to be prepared to refute the various charges, and the courts have to set aside adequate time to deal with multiple charges. Presumably, at some point, bureaucrats prepared and legislators debated all these overlapping laws.
While I understand that we don’t want people getting away with having and/or using guns for evil purposes, there should be a way to write a criminal code that’s straightforward and clear, without so much redundancy.
Rick, I agree with you fully but do understand that lawyers don't want to be "unclear," well, except when they are.
For example, if a lawyer was to draw a sale agreement where I sell to you my building (house, warehouse, factory, whatever) then (s)he would create a document where I sell, dispose of, transfer, convey, etc., etc. The point is that lawyers want to ensure that there is no room for doubt. I, on the other hand, simply want clarity of language and don't need all the silliness.
And, as to your example of someone charged in firearms offences, it is quite common for an accused offender to be over-charged for two reasons. First reason is that if you over-charge, you can bargain with the defense to drop, say, three of four charges to get them to plead guilty to one offense. Second reason is that if there are, say, four charges all of which have just minute differences, then it follows that the defense has to work that much harder to refute all of them, leaving the possibility that they might be found not guilty of three charges but guilty of the fourth.
"The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the nation." - Tacitus (56-117 AD)
Trudeau's Charter emphasized group and positive rights which can only exist as infringements on individual rights. This has led to an unending opportunity to legislate (by the Legislatures and Judiciary) for the benefit of segments of the electorate at the expense of the taxpayers. Free speech is now being legislated away as group rights dominate. In the UK, online comments are now putting people behind bars while other more protected "groups" can publicly advocate for violence against minorities with impunity. Canada shares this pathology.
“Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners” - George Carlin
Now, having said that, we are all aware that I have the absolute and unfettered right to swing my arm but also that my right (left?) stops at your nose. The point being that all rights have limitations. Put differently, I don't have the right to kill you but I have the right to defend myself even if it might result in your death [very dangerous example, that, given Canada's police and courts today].
I offer a further comment, but please understand that I am not a lawyer.
In the pre-Charter days we had various rights but they were not enumerated in law (well, we did have Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights but that was pretty much a paper tiger, really) but were protected by good old fashioned English common law.
Since the Charter we have only those rights that are enumerated in the Charter - very Napoleonic - modified by the creepy, crazy interpretations "read in" to the Charter. So now we have a "modernized" version of the Napoleonic Code where judges continually increase the size of that Code in weird ways and we have all - but only - the rights that the judges say that we have.
That inconsistency is also an enabler of so much more, including the "right" to blockade railways in the name of indigenous issues; the right to protest God only knows what in our streets (pre-dating the Hamas inspired stupidity); the "right" to protest racial this, that and the other (whether accurate or relevant to the particular otherwise illegal action); and so forth.
In other words, this is not only the last year but has been ongoing since the Charter was enacted.
Some various thoughts, but first, I have acquired (thank you, Mr. Amazon for delivering) your most recent book and I recommend it to everyone. The examples that you offer in that book are, well, horrifying but, more importantly, are very thought provoking. Of course, our worsers in Ottawer (definitely not our betters) definitely won't bother with those thoughts.
Now, to your column. In a round about way, of course.
I used to watch Law and Order (the original version) and I recall that the prosecutor, Michael Moriarty at that time, used to say that any competent prosecutor could convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he so chose.
I also have heard it said (well, often written) by such "luminaries" as Conrad Black but also by others that in the US the law is so voluminous and complex that pretty much everyone is guilty of SOMETHING and can be successfully prosecuted simply because of that complexity.
Which brings me to your column. When the law is unclear or, more particularly, is applied or misapplied to advantage or disadvantage some group for some (let me be overly kind) "social" reason (one wouldn't want to use the adjective "political" would one?) reason then, as the saying goes, the law is an ass. Therefore today, in Canada, frequently the law is proven to be a total ass.
If you have the "correct" skin tone or the "correct" social/religious grouping or the "correct" cause you can break almost any law, short of murder. And perhaps the gendarmerie won't try too hard to solve even that crime if you have the "correct" motivation (and I don't mean the exceptions prescribed by the Criminal Code.
What we absolutely do know is that if you have those particular attributes, you can block rail lines, burn churches, terrorize (yes, I use that word) Jews and supporters of Jews (I am a gentile so I can say that), stop legal commerce, prevent people from ..... ah, Hell, why go on?
Therefore, all this additional bumph that has been added to the Criminal Code, all in the name of "clarity" and "fairness" you can be sure, is highly "questionable" and simply leads to confusion of the public and generates "exclusions" that favor some folks, particularly those who have the "right" kinds of lawyers.
Question: is the use of quotation marks "appropriate" in conveying anything? Just wondering.
I too have David’s book and can echo your sentiment.
There seems to be considerable redundancy within our legal structure, as well. When you read about people found to be in possession of firearms, for example, the list of charges can be as long as your arm, and seems to cover off every possible nuance. I don’t have an example right in front of me, but it’s not unusual to see people charged with illegal possession of a firearm, possession of an illegal firearm, possession of a firearm without a licence, improper storage of a firearm, transporting a loaded firearm, possession of a firearm while committing another offence (or planning another offence), possession of a firearm despite being banned from doing so, etc.
Sure, when matters come to trial, they’ll probably plead guilty to one or two of these offences, and the other charges get dropped. Nonetheless, in theory the police have to round up evidence to support the various charges, the prosecutors have to be prepared to argue the various charges, the defence lawyers have to be prepared to refute the various charges, and the courts have to set aside adequate time to deal with multiple charges. Presumably, at some point, bureaucrats prepared and legislators debated all these overlapping laws.
While I understand that we don’t want people getting away with having and/or using guns for evil purposes, there should be a way to write a criminal code that’s straightforward and clear, without so much redundancy.
Rick, I agree with you fully but do understand that lawyers don't want to be "unclear," well, except when they are.
For example, if a lawyer was to draw a sale agreement where I sell to you my building (house, warehouse, factory, whatever) then (s)he would create a document where I sell, dispose of, transfer, convey, etc., etc. The point is that lawyers want to ensure that there is no room for doubt. I, on the other hand, simply want clarity of language and don't need all the silliness.
And, as to your example of someone charged in firearms offences, it is quite common for an accused offender to be over-charged for two reasons. First reason is that if you over-charge, you can bargain with the defense to drop, say, three of four charges to get them to plead guilty to one offense. Second reason is that if there are, say, four charges all of which have just minute differences, then it follows that the defense has to work that much harder to refute all of them, leaving the possibility that they might be found not guilty of three charges but guilty of the fourth.
All quite crazy.
"The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the nation." - Tacitus (56-117 AD)
Trudeau's Charter emphasized group and positive rights which can only exist as infringements on individual rights. This has led to an unending opportunity to legislate (by the Legislatures and Judiciary) for the benefit of segments of the electorate at the expense of the taxpayers. Free speech is now being legislated away as group rights dominate. In the UK, online comments are now putting people behind bars while other more protected "groups" can publicly advocate for violence against minorities with impunity. Canada shares this pathology.
“Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners” - George Carlin
I agree to all that you have said.
Now, having said that, we are all aware that I have the absolute and unfettered right to swing my arm but also that my right (left?) stops at your nose. The point being that all rights have limitations. Put differently, I don't have the right to kill you but I have the right to defend myself even if it might result in your death [very dangerous example, that, given Canada's police and courts today].
I offer a further comment, but please understand that I am not a lawyer.
In the pre-Charter days we had various rights but they were not enumerated in law (well, we did have Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights but that was pretty much a paper tiger, really) but were protected by good old fashioned English common law.
Since the Charter we have only those rights that are enumerated in the Charter - very Napoleonic - modified by the creepy, crazy interpretations "read in" to the Charter. So now we have a "modernized" version of the Napoleonic Code where judges continually increase the size of that Code in weird ways and we have all - but only - the rights that the judges say that we have.
Very thoughtful . Thank you . The sheer growth in the size of the written code is a red flag to me .
Good article. The inconsistency of enforcement is actually acting as an enabler of some of the recent pro-Hamas protests.
That inconsistency is also an enabler of so much more, including the "right" to blockade railways in the name of indigenous issues; the right to protest God only knows what in our streets (pre-dating the Hamas inspired stupidity); the "right" to protest racial this, that and the other (whether accurate or relevant to the particular otherwise illegal action); and so forth.
In other words, this is not only the last year but has been ongoing since the Charter was enacted.
So very true! As you say, the laws are there (if you can understand them) but the inconsistency in how they’re applied is frustrating.