Steubenville, Nova Scotia

Today’s edition of The Chronicle Herald has a heartbreaking and shocking story about a young girl who took her own life after being raped and then relentlessly tormented by her peers.

It reminds me of the infamous Steubenville, Ohio rape case – except that it involves a school not far from my home, and that it resulted in a teenager’s death.  What’s really disturbing is that photos of the rape were distributed among this poor girl’s classmates, who then bullied her to death.

It’s at times like this I thank God the internet wasn’t around when I was in high school.

Rehtaeh Parsons had a goofy sense of humour and loved playing with her little sisters. She wore glasses, had long, dark hair and was a straight-A student whose favourite subject was science.

On Sunday night, the 17-year-old’s family took her off life-support.

Three days earlier, on Thursday night, she hanged herself in the bathroom.

It was 17 months before that when “the person Rehtaeh once was all changed,” her mother wrote Monday on a Facebook memorial page.

“She went with a friend to another’s home. In that home, she was raped by four young boys,” wrote Leah Parsons.

“One of those boys took a photo of her being raped and decided it would be fun to distribute the photo to everyone in Rehtaeh’s school and community, where it quickly went viral.”

Rehtaeh, a 15-year-old Cole Harbour District High School student at the time, was shunned, wrote her mother.

“They all go to the same school. She couldn’t go back to the school,” Parsons said Monday in an interview.

[...]

After Rehtaeh left her school, other kids were relentless.

“People texted her all the time, saying ‘Will you have sex with me?’” she remembered. “Girls texting, saying ‘You’re such a slut.’”

But then there is the question of how the adults handled the alleged sexual assault that Rehtaeh described to her mother.

RCMP spokesman Cpl. Scott MacRae confirmed the police are now investigating a sudden death involving a young person.

“An investigation into an earlier sexual assault was completed, and in consultation with the Crown, there was insufficient evidence to lay charges,” MacRae said.

Out of respect for the family, and because of privacy laws, he couldn’t discuss details of the investigation Monday, and the force sent its sympathy to Rehtaeh’s loved ones, he said.

Parsons said she was unhappy with what she saw of the investigation.

“They didn’t even interview the boys until much, much later. To me, I’d think you’d get the boys right away, separate them.”

When it came to the photo or photos taken that night, “nothing was done about that because they couldn’t prove who had pressed the photo button on the phone,” she said.

She was told that the distribution of the photos is “not really a criminal issue, it’s more of a community issue,” she said.

“Even though she was 15 at the time, which is child pornography.

“The whole case was full of things like that. We didn’t have a rape kit done because we didn’t even know (anything had happened) until several days later when she had a breakdown in my kitchen.

“She was trying to keep it to herself.”

I know from experience that criminal investigations can be much more complicated than they’re portrayed in the media, but it seems strange that none of the animals who did this were charged despite photographic evidence showing them raping her.

You can bet everyone who went to school with these guys knows who it was.

The gangster state

With North Korea back in the news for nuclear-fueled temper tantrums again, NPR’s excellent Planet Money podcast has rebroadcast a 2011 program about how the hermit kingdom earns hard currency.

 

North Korea does some legitimate trade with China, supplies cheap labor to South Korean companies operating factories in a “special economic zone,” and builds grandiose monuments in Africa.  But most of its earnings come from weapons, drug trafficking and counterfeiting:

To learn more about the country’s illegal exports, we spoke with Ma Young Ae, a defector who used to work as a North Korean spy. Ma now lives in Virginia where she runs a North Korean restaurant. But back in Pyongyang she was one of the country’s elites.

Ma worked for Kim Jong Il’s internal police force. Her job was was to track down drug smugglers. That sounds like pretty normal law enforcement, except for one difference. She was supposed to stop small-time Korean drug dealers in order to protect the biggest drug dealer in the country: the North Korean government.

Ma told us the North Korean government produced opium on a large scale. But it hid its poppy fields from most of the population. Ma only saw the fields because she was an insider.

After harvesting the fields, the government would put its empty factories to use. The government would turn on its production lines at night and process opium, Ma says. Then they would pack the product in plastic cubes the size of dictionaries and smuggle it out of the country through China.

This was in the mid-eighties, when opium was the big drug. These days the drug of choice for export out of North Korea is ice, also know as methamphetamine.

Ma never smuggled the drugs herself. But she did smuggle something else. When she traveled in China, tracking down those non-government-approved drug dealers, the government didn’t give Ma a corporate credit card.

Instead, she was given a wad of counterfeit dollars. This is another of North Korea’s exports: Counterfeit $100 bills known as super-notes.

Nobody was going to just accept a brand-new $100 dollar bill from a North Korean. Instead, the Chinese would give the North Koreans sixty real U.S. dollars for every fake $100 bill.

It was during these trips that Ma noticed that the Chinese across the river had a much better standard of living than the North Koreans. So, when she had the chance, she defected.

Besides the illegal drugs and the counterfeit currency, North Korea is believed to deal in lots of weapons: rifles, missiles, perhaps even nuclear technology. Just a couple of weeks ago in Lybia, the rebels found a bunch of North Korean rocket launchers in a box labeled “bulldozer parts.”

The most accurate film title in history

A low-budget British movie called A Landscape of Lies was actually made as part of a tax scam:

The criminals claimed they were making a £20m gangster film called A Landscape Of Lies so they could claim £1million in tax credits and VAT repayments. 

When HMRC became suspicious former property developer Bassar Al-Issa, 33, film producer Aoife Madden, 31, Tariq Hassan, 51, Ian Sherwood, 53, and Osama Al-Baghdady, 50, cobbled together a script and cast to try and convince investigators the project was real. 

[...]

At least ten versions of a the script were drafted, pre-production work was done to try to con HMRC investigators but it failed, Southwark Crown Court was told. 

‘The documents were mere window dressing, they were produced to fool HMRC and the accountants who acted on their behalf to claim film credits that there was a film being made’, said prosecutor Shane Collery.

‘It was a fiction, they were intended to deceive. The work had not been carried out to anything like the level set out in the invoices.’

The Landscape Of Lies website boasts: ‘This gritty British drama is a complex exploration of lives that will draw you into their seedy world of power, lies, and betrayal. 

‘The dark themes are subtly illuminated by the characters’ poignant stories, The storyline challenges peoples notions of what’s right and what’s wrong.’ 

Al-Issa was found guilty of two counts of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue. 

Hassan, Al-Baghdady and Sherwood were each found guilty of a single count of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue but cleared of a second conspiracy charge. 

Madden, born in Newry, Northern Ireland, earlier admitted the two conspiracy charges.

Al-Issa, a bankrupt former construction company boss from Iraq, dreamt up the scheme while studying at the University of East London.

 

In a hilarious twist, the patched-together “fake” movie actually won a “Silver Ace” at the Las Vegas Film Festival, though festival organizers now say that was little more than a participation award.   How is a (real) movie about this not already in production?

It’s dirty work (and lawyers get to do it)

Canadian Lawyer‘s Gail Cohen praises the late Doug Christie for representing people many lawyers wouldn’t touch:

Christie, often called The Battling Barrister or Counsel for the Damned, became notorious for his defence of some of the most reviled hatemongers in the country. His clients included holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, former Nazi guard Michael Seifert, fascist John Ross Taylor, and white supremacist Paul Fromm. Christie studied law at the University of British Columbia and rose to prominence in the mid-1980s defending James Keegstra, a schoolteacher fined $5,000 for willfully promoting hatred against Jews by teaching his students the Holocaust never happened and that a Jewish conspiracy controlled world affairs.

Christie was strongly criticized by anti-racists, had rocks thrown at him, and his office windows were smashed so many times he had to board them up. Once, someone drove a truck through his office. He was a polarizing figure, there’s no doubt. Christie, along with Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman, were the subjects of Canadian Lawyer’s March 2009 cover story “War of the Words,” which looked at the battle between the free speech advocate and the push for laws outlawing hate. Warman would not consent to have his photograph taken with Christie, going as far as insisting we note in the article that the two men had been photographed separately.

Many of his critics insisted Christie held the same repugnant beliefs of those he defended in the courts but other than his desire to separate the Western provinces from the rest of Canada, his personal beliefs were never really out there on display. Until the end, Christie insisted he was defending those who others wouldn’t. In one of the last interviews he gave before passing away, he told Canadian Lawyer writer Jean Sorensen, “I take cases on principal – I don’t care how long they take or if it costs me.”

[...]

Even the professional regulator saw that Christie was willing to do what most other lawyers weren’t. When the B.C. lawyer got into trouble with the Law Society of British Columbia over some questionable subpoenas, his contribution to society was recognized. Christie was found guilty of professional misconduct but in assessing costs, the hearing panel tried to keep them as low as possible so it didn’t affect Christie’s ability to practise. “The Panel recognizes the Respondent’s valuable contribution to our free society and wants to enable him to continue with his work, which he has often done pro bono or for greatly reduced fees.”

Whether you agreed with Christie or not, he played a pivotal role in the free speech debate in Canada. There have to be lawyers who are willing and able to fight for those no one wants to fight for. It’s the essence of a free and tolerant society. Who, now, will rise up to take his place and defend those people, even if it means possibly being on the wrong end of a thrown rock?

Actually, there’s not much doubt that Christie did indeed support the causes promoted by his extreme-right client base.  But he did what a lawyer is supposed to do: stand up against the power of the state when that state threatens to infringe upon someone’s liberty.

In most cases, this is precisely what lawyers are doing when they take on clients who have engaged in particularly repugnant behavior.  Another example: the Ohio attorneys trying to keep convicted killer Steven Smith from being executed for an undeniably appalling crime.

Condemned killer Steven Smith’s argument for mercy isn’t an easy one. Smith acknowledges he intended to rape his girlfriend’s 6-month-old daughter but says he never intended to kill the baby.

The girl, Autumn Carter, died because Smith was too drunk to realize his assault was killing her, Smith’s attorneys argued in court filings with the Ohio Parole Board, which heard the case Tuesday. And Ohio law is clear, they say: A death sentence requires an intent to kill the victim.

“The evidence suggests that Autumn’s death was a horrible accident,” Smith’s attorneys, Joseph Wilhelm and Tyson Fleming, said in a written argument prepared for the board.

They continued: “Despite the shocking nature of this crime, Steve’s death sentence should be commuted because genuine doubts exist whether he even committed a capital offense.”

Smith, 46, was never charged with rape, meaning the jury’s only choice was to convict or acquit him of aggravated murder, his attorneys say.

However, rape was included in the indictment against Smith as one of the factors making him eligible for the death penalty. Under Ohio law, an aggravated murder committed in the course of another crime — such as burglary, robbery, arson or the killing of a police officer or child — is an element that can make someone eligible for capital punishment.

The Richland County prosecutor said Smith continues to hide behind alcohol as an excuse and calls Smith’s actions “the purposeful murder of a helpless baby girl.”

I’m opposed to the death penalty because of the possibility – make that certainty – that innocent people will be executed.  That doesn’t mean some people don’t deserve to be put to death, however, and it’s hard to imagine what other punishment would suffice for a scumbag like Steven Smith.

That said, his lawyers have a point.  Murder is a crime requiring specific intent – the killer must intend to kill, not just harm, his victim.  Impairment by alcohol is not a defence to most criminal charges, but if Smith was so intoxicated that he couldn’t have formed the intent to kill, then under Ohio law he shouldn’t be on death row.

The state shouldn’t have the power to kill.  But if it does, at the very least it’s the lawyer’s job to ensure that this power is only carried out in the limited circumstances allowed.  Steven Smith might be the most loathsome defendant imaginable, but next time it could be someone someone more sympathetic – or innocent.

The rise of “gray divorce”

Sociologist Susan L. Brown, in the L.A. Times, examines the reasons for the increasing number of older Americans (and Canadians, if my practice is representative) choosing to end their marriages:

Until recently, it would have been fair to say that older people simply did not get divorced. Fewer than 10% of those who got divorced in 1990 were ages 50 or older. Today, 1 in 4 people getting divorced is in this age group.

It turns out that those high-profile breakups of Tipper and Al Gore, and Maria Shriver and Arnold Schwarzenegger, were part of a trend. Baby boomers, who drove the huge increase in divorce that began during the 1970s and persisted through the early 1980s, are at it again. Just as they have transformed other arenas of U.S. social life, boomers are now reshaping the contours of divorce.

The rise in “gray divorce” is a product of dramatic changes in the meaning of marriage in America over the last half-century. Today, we live in an era of individualized marriage, in which those who wed have high expectations for marital success. Americans expect marriage to provide them not simply with stability and security but also with self-fulfillment and personal satisfaction. Roles are flexible; the traditional breadwinner-homemaker model is no longer the status quo. Good spouses engage in open communication and are best friends. This is a high bar for many to achieve, let alone maintain over decades while juggling work and child-rearing.

If a marriage is not achieving these goals, then divorce is an acceptable solution, according to most Americans. As Ann Landers famously advised those considering divorce, simply answer the question, “Are you better off with or without your spouse?”

[...]

The more complex marital biographies of many boomers thus have enduring consequences, potentially placing them at heightened risk of a later-life divorce. Another factor in the growing rate of late-life divorces includes an increased tendency of couples to reassess their unions at life turning points, such as an empty nest or retirement. Lengthening life expectancies can play a role too. Men and women who are 65 can expect to live 20 more years, a long time to spend with someone you may not like so much anymore.

The consequences of this gray divorce revolution are largely unknown. Because relatively few older adults divorced in the past, there is little research on the implications of later-life divorce for the well-being of individuals, their families and society at large.

The unlikely champion of same-sex marriage

Ted Olson, the lawyer arguing in favor of marriage equality before the Supreme Court of the United States – the sixtieth time he’s appeared before America’s highest court -  has the background you’d least expect:

Certain law partners no longer call Theodore B. Olson for lunch. Old friends no longer come to dinner at his sprawling house in the woods near the Potomac. One of his best friends died in December, somewhat estranged.

All since Olson — the conservative legal hero, crusader against Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, defender of George W. Bush — signed on to fight for same-sex marriage in California, a battle that he will take to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday when he challenges Proposition 8, the state measure that banned gay marriage.

Olson will argue that gays and lesbians should have an equal right to marry, a view that, if shared by the justices in a ruling after Tuesday’s hearing, would strike down the California ban.

“They feel a little rebuffed, that their leader has turned on them,” said Olson’s wife, Lady Booth Olson.

Olson, 72, brushes aside the shunning. The marriage case, the 60th case that he will have argued before the nation’s highest court, has been a transformative experience, he says. He speaks with passion, and sometimes a tear, about the gay men and women, including Republicans, who reach out to thank him.

[...]

…it was the election to replace President Clinton in 2000 that made Ted Olson a conservative hero. He persuaded the Supreme Court in Bush vs. Gore to block a planned re-count of presidential votes in Florida. The legal coup handed the White House to the Republican. Bush rewarded Olson by naming him solicitor general, the government’s chief representative at the high court. The nomination sparked a three-month confirmation battle. Worse lay ahead.

On Sept. 11, 2001, shortly after 9 a.m., Olson was in his Justice Department office preparing for the Supreme Court term that would begin in a few weeks. Barbara called, sounding anguished. She was on an American Airlines flight to Los Angeles. It was his 61st birthday, and she had delayed her trip to be with him the night before.

The plane had been hijacked, Barbara said, and she asked what she should do. The call was cut off. She called back, staying on the line long enough for them to exchange quick words of love. Ten minutes later, the plane crashed into the Pentagon.

Was Olson changed by his wife’s tragic murder and subsequent remarriage?  Maybe, but David Frum – another Republican heretic on this issue (and many others) – insists that he supported the idea well over a decade ago:

I vividly remember a dinner with Ted and Barbara Olson in February 2001. In those days, my in-laws spent most of the month of February in Florida, and they always stopped to see their grandchildren and (afterthought) my wife and me on their drives south and north from Toronto. The Olsons kindly invited the four of us to dinner during the stopover, which is how I can be so sure of the month; I can be sure of the year because the dinner was the last time my in-laws saw Barbara. She was murdered in the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 77 on September 11, 2001.

I don’t remember how or why the issue of same-sex marriage arose during the dinner, but it did. The balance of opinion at the time was 4-1 against Ted, with Barbara mostly preserving a discreet (and unusual!) silence on the subject. Ted argued very passionately that gays were entitled to every right of straight Americans, and drove home his point by itemizing instances of antisemitic discrimination that he, a Gentile, had battled at the beginning of his legal career. This is no different, he insisted. Near the end of the discussion, he predicted that the country – and everybody at the table – would come round to his view sooner or later, probably sooner.

They certainly did.

Life Without Google Reader

With my usual impeccable timing, I wrote an article for the CBA small firm, solo and general practice newsletter encouraging lawyers to start using Google Reader – just before Google announced it was canceling the service.

Fortunately, there are several viable alternatives available, according to Canadian Lawyer‘s Danielle Lemon:

Since the pronouncement of Google Reader’s death sentence, blogs and web sites have helpfully offered lists of alternative RSS (really simple syndication) tools and news aggregators to replace Reader:

•    Feedly, a web-based RSS service, has had 500,000 new users sign up for its service in a week and is offering helpful migration tips to bewildered and grieving Google Readerites.

•    The Old Reader is catering to the most change-resistant of Google Reader users with a tool whose main claim to fame is that it is “just like the old Google Reader.”

•    Social news outfit Digg has immediately gone to work creating its own RSS reader, Digg Reader, which will “identify and rebuild the best of Google Reader’s features.”

•    The Online Journalism Blog created a spreadsheet weighing the pros, cons, features, and limitations of no less than 53 alternatives to Google Reader.

After I’d had a few days to mourn, I realized the death of my beloved Google Reader may, I daresay, be a blessing. It’s re-invigorated interest in a rather un-glamorous but oh-so-necessary technology (RSS), and got people thinking about the most useful, effective, and user friendly ways to aggregate content. It’s allowing users and developers alike to have conversations about what aspects of Google Reader they like and want to keep, what can be improved, and what features can be scrapped altogether in favour of something new.

Feedly lets you automatically migrate your Google Reader account, and has Android and iPhone apps available.  I signed up this morning, and so far it seems to be working well.