Dogged By An Ass

Sometimes, the law - or the way it's interpreted - has been observed to be contrary to the public interest. That old observation: "The Law's an Ass" proves on occasion to be quite so.

And when enough people within any population feel that way it's time something be done about it. When the law issues responses contrary to the public weal, something is obviously wrong. And with the recent Supreme Court ruling on the use of police sniffer dogs in certain arenas representing as inimical to the Charter of Rights, the law does appear stubbornly donkey-like.

Braying their superior position in interpreting the Charter of Rights under section 8, a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court have disallowed the legality of sniffer dogs being used in schools and other public areas to assist police in obtaining evidence of illegal activity. Good grief, society has an unendurable problem with drug addiction. We've homeless people, hopelessly addicted to drugs. To feed their habit they resort to prostitution, to stealing into peoples' homes, to violence.

Human dignity is far beyond their experience at this degraded time in their lives. Which also leaves them vulnerable to disease and life-threatening illness. Let alone violence on the streets. Yet there are young people in high schools bringing illicit drugs into that public venue to entice other youngsters to try out drugs, and to entrap them finally as habitual drug users.

Doesn't society have a responsibility to protect our young from this kind of harmful exposure to drug use and availability?

Yet a young man attending a Sarnia, Ontario high school whose principal had invited the local police with their canines into the school for the very purpose of identifying drug dealers felt sufficiently entitled to protest the charge levied against him, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The school exercised a well-publicized "zero tolerance" atmosphere. The school represents a public arena. The school is seen as a safe learning environment for young people.

Yet a majority of the justices considered that case, as well as that of a man who was caught by police in a Vancouver bus terminal, on appeal. The Vancouver drug carrier, Gurmakh Kang-Brown, had caught the eye of police because of his nervous demeanor. Which caused police to deter him, and to have their sniffer dog deployed in identifying the contents of his backpack. He was subsequently arrested for possession of and/or trafficking in drugs.

The student, underage, and not identified other than by initials, was charged with possession of marijuana and magic mushrooms for the purpose of trafficking. Only one judge, Justice Bastarache - unfortunately standing down from the High Bench at an early age, thus making the wisdom of his interpretation unavailable in short order - found the final judge had erred in excluding the evidence.

As far as he could see, the trafficking charges were serious and valid; more so in a school settings, so he would have allowed the evidence to stand.

In both cases the Supreme court of Canada delivered a 6-3 split in both decisions. They chose to uphold the right to privacy of the individual guaranteed by the Charter. Yet in both these instances where drugs were being conveyed for the purpose of trafficking, they were detained in a public space. And the charges were extremely serious.

The point is, of course, that Canadians are guaranteed freedom from intrusion into their privacy. And that's just fine. But when people are prosecuting activities meant to harm some members of the public, and they are going about that business in the public sphere, who should be protected? The purveyor of dangerously illicit materials, or his victims?