Kicked by the Shin

Why vote for the lesser evil?

It’s been quite a week for candidates in the Burnaby South federal by-election embarrassing themselves. NDP sort-of-leader Jagmeet Singh was baffled by a question on CTV’s Question Period about the growing Canada-China feud, Liberal candidate Karen Wang quit the race after telling people to vote for her because of her race, and PPC candidate Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson is a candidate for the PPC.

Meanwhile, the guy running for my own party wants you to know that if you defend accused criminals in court, you’re basically a criminal yourself:

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh suggested his Burnaby South opponent, lawyer Jay Shin, had forgotten a basic principle of Canadian law after the Tory said Singh was “keeping criminals out of jail” in his days as a criminal defence lawyer.

Shin issued a press release accusing Singh of being soft on crime. The release came within hours of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announcing on Wednesday that there would be a byelection in Burnaby South and two other ridings on Feb. 25.

“While Jagmeet Singh has spent his pre-political career as a criminal defence lawyer keeping criminals out of jail, I have spent my legal career building Canadian businesses that create jobs and promote international trade,” wrote Shin, a business lawyer who has facilitated foreign investment in B.C.

[…]

Shin later told the NOW he wasn’t trying to discredit defence lawyers.

“They play an important role; everybody has a right to defence,” Shin said. “What I’m saying is he played that role: as a criminal lawyer, he defended criminals. That’s all I’m saying.”

Shin’s press release also said the NDP “go easy on criminals and have actively endorsed illegal immigration into our country.” 

Should Shin ever find himself charged with a crime, I trust that he will hold true to his principles, plead guilty and accept whatever the punishment the Crown asks for. Since the state is always right about such things.

I never thought an election in this country would see a worse selection of candidates than last year’s Ontario provincial contest. Sadly, I’m never pessimistic enough about such things.

Presumed drunk until proven sober

The USSR also didn’t care for impaired driving – or the presumption of innocence.

I despise drunk drivers – not just because of the lives they’ve destroyed, but because I’ve had to talk to so many of them at 2 in the morning when I’m on duty counsel for the night.  Take it from me: you don’t know true frustration until you find yourself trying to explain to an indignant, barely coherent drunkard his right to remain silent but also that it’s a criminal offence to refuse a police officer’s request for a breath sample.

Most people likely feel the same way, which is why no politician – even those who otherwise doubt the efficacy of “tough on crime” policies – ever lost votes by cracking down on impaired driving.   But even when everyone is agreed that the crime is inexcusable, it’s still possible for the government to go too far in fighting it.

And recent changes to Canada’s impaired-driving laws go way too far:

Canadians could now face criminal charges for driving with illegal amounts of alcohol in their system, even if they were stone cold sober while behind the wheel, under tough new impaired driving laws passed by Parliament, according to criminal defence lawyers.

Bill C-46, which came into effect last month, gives police wide-ranging new powers to demand sobriety tests from drivers, boaters and even canoeists.

Police no longer need to have any reasonable grounds to suspect you’re impaired, or driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of more than .08, which is 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, before demanding you submit to testing.

Refusing the test can result in a criminal charge.
But even drinking within two hours after you’ve stopped driving or boating could now get you arrested, if your BAC rises over .08.

[…]

Previously, if drivers could prove they weren’t yet over the legal limit  when they were stopped by police, a court could find them innocent.

The new law removes that defence.

“Its primary purpose is to eliminate risky behaviour associated with bolus drinking, sometimes referred to as drinking and dashing” Wilson-Raybould told Parliament.

But Brown calls the law a solution for a problem that rarely existed and claims it will “criminalize Canadians who have done nothing wrong.”

He points to number of scenarios where people park their cars with no intention of driving anytime soon, then start drinking.

If you drive yourself to a restaurant, bar or party and have a few drinks after you arrive, you can be found guilty of impaired driving. Even though you weren’t impaired when you were actually driving. I’m confident this will be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada eventually, but many innocent people may have their lives thrown into complete turmoil in the meantime.

Last summer, the federal government made applicants for a summer-jobs program sign an attestation that its “core values” aligned with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And now this same government is trampling on the presumption of innocence, regardless of what s. 11(d) of the Charter reads.

A Liberal government picking and choosing what sections of the Charter holds sacrosanct? Shocking, I know.

The “defence did not call any of its own evidence”

That’s the subhed to the CBC’s online story about Raymond Cormier’s acquittal on charges of murdering 15 year-old Tina Fontaine:

Screenshot from 2018-02-22 19-45-29

The trial, which began on Jan. 29, was originally scheduled to last five weeks, but the Crown rested its case after presenting evidence over the course of 12 days, and the defence did not call any of its own evidence.

In a criminal matter, the accused doesn’t necessarily have to call any evidence in his own defence.  For most charges – including murder – the burden of proof lies completely with the Crown, and it’s not enough to show that the accused probably did it.  Nothing less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.

In this case, it certainly appears that the evidence – including conclusive proof that this young girl was actually murdered – simply wasn’t there:

The Crown had no forensic evidence or eyewitnesses directly linking Cormier to Tina’s death, and the cause of her death remains undetermined.

Instead, the Crown’s largely circumstantial case relied on secretly recorded statements made by Cormier, along with testimony from witnesses who said they saw Cormier and Tina together in the days before she disappeared from the Best Western Charterhouse hotel in downtown Winnipeg on Aug. 8, 2014.

The Crown had no forensic evidence or eyewitnesses directly linking Cormier to Tina’s death, and the cause of her death remains undetermined.

Instead, the Crown’s largely circumstantial case relied on secretly recorded statements made by Cormier, along with testimony from witnesses who said they saw Cormier and Tina together in the days before she disappeared from the Best Western Charterhouse hotel in downtown Winnipeg on Aug. 8, 2014.

[…]

Cormier’s defence lawyers, Tony Kavanagh and Andrew Synyshyn, challenged that evidence, arguing the Crown’s case was built on inferences made from recordings that are difficult to hear.

First, with no cause of death, Kavanagh argued in his closing remarks that the jury cannot know for certain that Tina died as a result of an unlawful act, and Cormier should be acquitted “on that alone.”

They argued those statements allegedly made by Cormier in transcripts prepared by police could not be verified by listening to the audio recordings and pointed out that at no point in the transcripts did Cormier admit to the killing.

Even if the jurors accept the accuracy of the words written in police transcripts, defence lawyer Kavanagh argued that rather than admissions of guilt, Cormier’s words should be interpreted as those of a man who feels guilty for not doing more to help Tina.

“That is the guilt that is eating him,” Kavanagh said.

They also challenged the memories of witnesses who said they saw Cormier with the duvet cover and suggested there are other potential suspects who might have harmed Tina.

“We say that justice for Tina Fontaine does not result in an injustice for Raymond Cormier,” Kavanagh said.

Coming so soon after the Gerald Stanley case – another in which a white man was acquitted of killing a young First Nations person – the anger over Cormier’s acquittal is already trending on social media.  For me, the real question is whether a defendant of aboriginal descent, charged with murdering a young white person, would have received the same same benefit of the doubt.

A Halifax couple’s adoption nightmare

After months of work and thousands of dollars spent, Adam and Pam Webber – a couple of good friends of mine – have had their worst dears confirmed:

A Halifax couple says their dreams of adopting a child have been crushed by Russian politics.

Pam and Adam Webber were in the final stages of a year-long adoption process. They thought they’d be flying to Russia this fall to bring home a toddler, but then they heard Canadian adoptions of Russian children were in limbo.

“It’s just heart wrenching and really hard to take,” said Pam.

International adoption was the end of the line for her. She and her husband tried fertility treatment and adopting from within the province with no luck.

“We wanted a family. We wanted a young family. We wanted a very involved family. I was the little girl who asked Santa for her own baby,” she said.

Adam Webber said they chose Russia because they heard the process is quicker.

“Quick being a year or two, as opposed to three or more years like a lot of places,” he said.

[…]

A Russian law banning adoptions by U.S. citizens was rushed through parliament in December and sped to President Vladimir Putin’s desk in less than 10 days in retaliation over a U.S. law calling for sanctions on Russians identified as human-rights violators.

Then, earlier this month, the country stopped adoptions to Sweden because it allows same-sex marriages.

But there was no word on Canada, so the Webbers prepared a toddler’s room and Pam quit her job so she could fly to Russia at a moment’s notice this fall.

Still, they braced for bad news. On Tuesday the Webber’s fears were confirmed by their Ontario adoption agency.

“It’s been a long couple of weeks trying to get answers and officially we found out today that Canada-Russia adoptions are suspended,” she said.

An increasingly nationalist Russia has been shutting the door on international adoptions for quite some time – first against the United States (ostensibly because of some admittedly heartbreaking cases in which adopted children were hurt or killed, but mainly as revenge) and now against other Western countries.  And this is what awaits them in their own country:

Russian authorities have ordered the arrest of two nurses they said severely beat three young children at an orphanage during a night of drinking. According to the authorities, they beat the children to get them to stop crying. One of the victims, a 7-month-old, was wrapped in a sheet and stuffed in a plastic container to muffle the cries.

The other children, a 3-year-old boy and a 10-month-old girl, were hospitalized with multiple injuries, Russia’s Investigative Committee said Thursday. The 7-month-old child was initially in a coma. Their current conditions were not immediately known.

[…]

…critics say little has been done to improve conditions at Russian orphanages or to promote adoptions domestically. More than 600,000 Russian children live outside the custody of their biological parents, many in foster homes. But about 130,000, many with physical and mental health problems, live in orphanages, where they are sometimes neglected and abused.

It was not clear how many children lived at the orphanage in the Khabarovsk region, or whether there had been a history of abuse there.

Investigators said the beatings began after several children awoke during the night and started crying. The children were not found until the next morning, when other workers arrived. Only then were they were taken to the hospital.

More at adoptanewattitude.com.