Exceptional Justice

In Manitoba a man who has made a career of criminality opted for exercising his ingenuity in pursuing his life of crime by persuading a six year old girl to accompany him from a playground, to rape the child. It's an old story, but one that never fails to horrify ordinary people, that a trusting child will be cajoled into believing some pathetic story to elicit her interest, and that simple act of trust will victimize her beyond imagination.

The man's defence argues that because the rapist came from a disadvantaged background he should not be considered wholly responsible for his choices in life. That his decision to formulate a plan to separate a little girl from her brothers in a public play ground and lure her to a place where she would be vulnerable to attack should be considered in light of his own misfortune.

An aboriginal child raped by an aboriginal man; he will be partially excused, handed a lighter sentence in view of his background, and she will live forever with her agony.

An enlightened Supreme Court had earlier, in another case, come to the decision, setting a precedent in Canadian law, that some First Nations offenders deserve lenient sentences reflecting the hardships encountered during their lives. Empathy for the violator, little thought given to the enduring well-being of the violated.

In this instance, Sharon Rosenfelt of Victims of Violence fame, herself of aboriginal descent, had something to say about the case: "But the line is drawn when it comes to the rape of a child by an adult". As an advocate for victims she has had her own personal experience in the loss of a son, and as a counsellor at a native alcohol and drug abuse treatment centre.

At the other end of the country, a francophone man perfectly comfortable and conversant with both English and French, his mother tongue, was acquitted by a New Brunswick judge who claimed his rights under provincial law were abrogated when he was not offered the option of being arrested in English, when he was charged with a drunk-driving-related offence.

A constable with the RCMP found Donat Robichaud passed out in his truck in a predominately francophone area. On waking, Mr. Robichaud spoke to the RCMP officer in French. He was then charged, in French, with failing to provide a breath sample. He had the right, under New Brunswick law, to be served in the language of his choice.

He was not given his 'choice'. French may be his mother tongue, he responded in French, but he reserved the right to be served in English.

Bilingualism being utilized as a handy tool for legally escaping responsibility for dangerously illicit acts. If the "active offer" is overlooked, to be served in either French or English, because too much is assumed, the law and justice are circumvented.

A language rights expert in Moncton,lawyer Christian Michaud: "What's appalling, unfortunately, is that police forces have still failed to comply with the active offer. That's where the people should be frustrated, not toward the people who access their rights."

That's an interesting perspective; that the failure to comply with the 'active offer' is appalling, not that people of their own free will choose to present as a danger on the roads because of their drinking and driving habit, and then seek shelter from prosecution under a risible pretext; that truly is appalling.

On to Quebec, where the Quebec human rights commission and a government-paid lawyer, issued their determination that condo owners were to pay another condo owner $10,000 for insufficient sensitivity to their neighbour's disability. And another of the condo owner's neighbours was to give up her legal and preferred parking space and hand it over to someone she had previously refused.

Marise Myrand, weighing almost 400 pounds, unsurprisingly with diabetes and heart and respiratory conditions, informed her condo association she should have a parking space closer to the door of the building. None were available, all taken by other condo owners. Ms. Myrand specifically had in mind one owned by another woman who happened to be herself infirm and who worked late hours, needing the convenience of her parking spot.

For those reasons, and because she liked her ownership of that parking spot, she refused to surrender it on request to Ms. Myrand. Who then went to the human rights commission, who found that the neighbour had 'discriminated' against Ms. Myrand by failing to give up her parking spot to accommodate her neighbour's handicaps, while her own handicaps and needs were ignored.

In all these instances, and more, far more, since these are merely haphazardly representative, courts have found in favour of a malefactor or someone dissatisfied with reactions to their demands, and in favouring them, they have victimized others.

Call it what you like, it is most definitely not the rational administration of justice.