Category: Types of Law

Posted on

Child Killer Gets Transfer to “Healing Lodge” Because of her Race

(Interrogation of McClintic)

(Interrogation of Rafferty)

(News on McClintic’s Transfer To Healing Lodge)

As cited in a previous article, see here, all defendants/prisoners are not equal in the eyes of the law. This is a racially discriminating practice that Canada has been involved in doing since the late 1990s.

Here is section 718.2(e) of the Canadian Criminal Code:

all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

Yes, one racial group is allowed to get what amounts to a race based discount. The 1999 Gladue ruling essentially paved the way for this to be normalized across Canada, while the Ipeelee decision expanded the scope to include long term offenders.

Here are the links to the Court decisions of Gladue (1997, 1999) and Ipeelee (2012).

R. v. Gladue, 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA)
R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC)
R. v. Ipeelee, [2012] 1 SCR 433, 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII)

While Indigenous people getting a race-based discount is nothing new in Canada, the transfer of child killer Terry McClintic to a “healing lodge” has the Canadian public flared up.

In 2009, 8 year old Tori Stafford was murdered by Terri McClintic, who was an accomplice to Michael Rafferty. In 2010, both McClintic and Rafferty received life sentences, with a 25 year custodial minimum. In 2014, McClintic was transferred to a medium security prison. Now, in 2018, McClintic is being sent to this “healing lodge”.

Not only is McClintic a child killer, but she viciously assaulted another inmate in 2012, and bragged that she only regretted not causing worse injury. Definitely a candidate for transfer from maximum to medium security prison.

Unfortunately, the federal parties are playing politics with it, while avoiding the real issue. The Liberals, now in government, blame the Conservatives for the 2014 transfer to medium security prison (when Stephen Harper was PM). The Conservatives blame the Liberals for not stopping this transfer. Both blame the other, while saying that they were not able to do anything — that Corrections Canada makes the decisions.

But the real issue that both Liberals and Conservatives dodge is that the entire law giving special treatment to Aboriginal/Indigenous/First Nations peoples. No group should receive “any” special treatment. Raced-based discounts are immoral.

What “should” be done is have the Gladue/Ipeelee rulings overturned. Yes, the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed this nonsense, but it can be stopped permanently using Section 33, the Notwithstanding Clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
Marginal note:
Exception
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
Marginal note:
Exception where express declaration
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Rafferty/McClintic have frequently been compared to Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka, another male/female child killing couple. Karla Homolka’s mere 12 year sentence outraged Canadians, as does the McClintic transfer now.

Rather than bickering about whose government dropped the ball, this soft bigotry of low expectations needs to end. Legislate this nonsense out of Canadian law.

Update on the Story: On October 3, the Liberals, NDP and Green Party voted against a Conservative motion that would have kept Terri-Lynn McClintic in prison. See this link.

Further Update on the Story
On November 8, the Liberals have announced they will make new rules to send McClintic back. However, it doesn’t address underlying racist nature of the law — different sentencing rules based on skin colour, or even on ”how someone identifies”.

Posted on

Silencing Free Speech in the UK

(Mark Meechan, a.k.a. “Count Dankula”)

August 8, 2018 — Mark Meechan, who goes by the nickname “Count Dankula”, was arrested for posting content that was deemed to be “grossly offensive” and that violated the Communications Act of 2003. Here is an exerp:

127
Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)
sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)
causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)
sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)
causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)
persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)
Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42))

Dankula had been arrested for posting indecent content in April 2016, when, as a joke, he taught his girlfriend’s dog to do the Hitler salute in response to the words “Sieg Heil” and “Gas the Jews”. A self described “shit poster”, stated repeatedly that he is not a Nazi, and only posted the video to annoy his girlfriend. As he said, “she would never shut up about it.”

Dankula was convicted in March 2018 seehere, and sentenced, fined £800 in April. The Court didn’t care that Meechan had done it as a joke, and merely to annoy his girlfriend. Not only was Count Dankula fined, the Court said he was lucky to not have actually received a prison sentence for doing this.

In August, he had his appeal denied by Sheriff Appeal Court, see here, and here. The Appeals Court found that:

“This was a deeply unpleasant offence in which disgraceful and utterly offensive material was very widely distributed by the appellant. This was to the considerable distress of the [Jewish community] and — just as disturbingly — to the apparent approval of a large number of persons who appear to share the appellant’s racist views,”

Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court rejected Meechan’s claim that the video was meant as a joke. Instead, they claim that it was meant to stir up anti-Semitism and suggested that Meechan shared those views.

Meechan, for his part, claims he will not pay the fine, and would have to be forced to prison for non-compliance. He seems to prefer taking a principled stand rather than “bending the knee”, as he refers to it. He has gone very public on the matter, and is now a free speech champion.

It offers some consolation to Meechan that there is widespread public support for his challenge. See: (a) here; (b) here; (c) here; (d) here; (e) here; (f) here, (g) see here, (h) see here and (i) see here. Comedians, politicians, and commentators inside and outside the UK condemn such a crackdown on free speech. As distasteful as this stunt was, it does not warrant an arrest, nor a trial, conviction and fine. The wider public sees this video was meant as a joke.

Meechan/Dankula may be sent to prison if he refuses to either: (a) pay the fine; or (b) appeal further. This matter is not over it seems.

Bigger than this case, the Sentencing Council seems to be pushing for harsher punishment for what it deems “offensive“.

Other Instances:

Like most of the commenters about this story, this is shocking, though not surprising abuse of power. Agreed, teaching the dog to do a Nazi salute is of very questionable taste. However, in seeing Meechan online, it is far more likely that it is immaturity/bad humour, not actual promotion of hate. Admittedly, I had a chuckle at how juvenile this 30 year old man is. This is not worthy of criminal charges at all.

(1) Unfortunately, the UK is moving towards censoring of ideas, words and jokes deemed “offensive”. In March 2018, three activists: Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone, and Martin Sellner, were refused entry into the UK for “hate speech”. Southern was actually detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act. The trio are now suing the UK, on the grounds that they were discriminated against primarily based on political beliefs.

(2) Also in March, Tommy Robinson, had been arrested for livestreaming outside a UK Court, regarding the “Grooming Gangs” trial. The 13 month sentence and conviction is under appeal. Interestingly, Brittany Pettibone had gone to the UK to do an interview of Robinson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7eVJspnjnk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRGB2bfG72c

However, people should not be tricked into thinking the UK is an intolerant nation after all. Even if you fight for ISIS, you are still welcome back. But those with right-wing opinions, just stay away.

While it is depressing to see freedom being whittled away, I get some hope in seeing people fight back.

Posted on

European Union Censorship

(Provocative, but you get the point)

September 12, 2018 — the European Union passed this law, the “Copyright Directive”, in a 438-226 vote.

Other media on the subject can be found: here, here, here, and here.

The “Copyright Directive” was originally stopped in July of this year, primarily over concerns over Articles 11 and 13. And to a degree, the concerns were over the same thing. Responding to, or critiquing another’s work is very common, and makes way for advancement of discussion of ideas. As long as there is some educational, critical or reporting use (and not blatant copyright), then using portions of a person or institution’s work is fine. In fact, this very website, Chimeratsk.com, cites Canadian “Fair Dealing“, and American “Fair Use” provisions.

Article 11, a.k.a. the “link tax”, concerned ways for original content creators to get paid via taxes or royalties. In practice though, how would one know who the original content creator was? Perhaps the royalties would be going to someone who is at least in part responding to another person’s work.

Article 13 had to do with platforms such as Facebook and YouTube being blocked from sharing protected content. Apparently there is to be a huge database on protected material, which by itself sounds creepy. To be fair though, the law says that encyclopedia-type platforms like Wikipedia will be exempt. However, as many images, text and music can sound similar, how would the original creator be identified?

Further, copyrighted material does not last forever. For example, the book “1984”, written by George Orwell (a.k.a. Eric Arthur Blair was written in 1949, so after 1999, a Canuck should be free to use it freely. Under Canadian Copyright Law, 50 years after death, copyright protection would disappear. Yes, ironic to use the Orwewll book here. However, would this EU driven database(s) know when copyright on each image, unique, phrase, text, etc… lapse?

On a semi-related note: there is an academic database — turnitin.com which college and university students would upload digitial copies of essays and other papers. This is an anti-plagiarism site which was to ensure that students were handing in original work. The site would compare and contrast the student paper against millions of others and look for regions of overlap. Sounds great, except for problems those arose in this.

At its core, the Copyright Directive seems to nullify what may be considered Fair Dealing/Fair Use exemptions (by listing the original content creator as the copyright owner of any and all of its content, and responses. CLICK HERE, for an article on the proposed revisions of Article 11 and 13.

Some accidental incidents of censorship occurred here, here, and here.

While the E.U. has passed this Copyright Directive, there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic:

First, even if nothing is done, this seems absurd on its face to implement. (See the earlier criticism on logistical issues). Yes, content is still getting blocked, even the most innocuous stuff. While this is done under the guise of “protecting” creators, the complications that will arise will cause more and more headaches. Oddly, creators will “lose” money if research and ad revenue plummet.

Second, the law will undoubtedly face legal challenges and be tied up in the courts for years.

Third, each memberstate will implement their own version of this law, and that will likely not happen for a year or 2. Harder to enforce when the rules aren’t uniform. And on a related note: what about the UK, who is leaving the E.U.? What about any other member who may leave? What happens if governments change and their successors don’t agree with what they see? And won’t any inconsistencies in member laws make it easier to challenge the law?

Fourth, what if any E.U. members decide to just ignore the directive altogether? The EU has shown itself to be rather toothless in enforcing its own rules and orders.

Fifth, how will this be enforced when using material from, or creating new content in countries that do not have these laws, or subscribe to this version of them?

Online creators decry this EU directive, and they do have reason to be worried. However, there are many options available to fight it, and many hurdles it will face.

Posted on

Review of the Book ”An Advocacy Primer”

(3rd edition of the book by Lee Stuesser)

This book was released in 2005 by Lee Stuesser, a law professor at the University of Manitoba. It is basically a reference book for how to litigate different types of cases.

The book itself was written for law students in how to work for clients. However, the information provided is very straightforward, and many self-represented persons could get a leg up simply by reading through and following along. Self representation, as discussed here, is possible by many people, on the more simplistic cases.

”An Advocacy Primer” details: (a) how to go about the many steps in litigation; (b) gives many tips on how to prepare documents; (c) organize arguments; and (d) common pitfalls to avoid.

A brief outline of the book:

Chapter 1: Developing a Trial Plan
Chapter 2: Draft of the Pleadings
Chapter 3: Civil Case — Disclosure
Chapter 4: Criminal Case — Discovery
Chapter 5: Making Submissions
Chapter 6: A Trial Notebook
Chapter 7: Running a Civil Trial
Chapter 8: Running a Criminal Trial
Chapter 9: Opening Arguments
Chapter 10: Closing Arguments
Chapter 11: Your Case — Direct Examination
Chapter 12: Using Exhibits
Chapter 13: Principles of Cross Examination
Chapter 14: Impeachment
Chapter 15: Objections at trial
Chapter 16: Special Witnesses
Chapter 17: Appellate Advocacy
Chapter 18: Ethics of Advocacy

Stuesser’s work can be used in one of two ways. First, it can be read straight through as a non-fiction book. Second, it can be used in pieces, as needed for a representative in a legal matter. This 475 page book also gives many templates of legal forms, and exact wordings to include.

The second option is obviously far more practical. The first is possible, although it would be a very tedious read to do in one sitting.

Overall, the book is great source of information, both for self-reps and other legal enthusiasts.

Posted on

E.U. Punishes Memberstates for Daring to Exercise Soverignty

Hungarian Parliament Building

(September 12, 2018), The European Union has triggered Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Many reasons were given, but it is widely believed that the main one has to do with immigration. Hungary has blatantly refused to accept forced migration quotas, and has run on a “Hungary for Hungarians” platform. While Victor Orban’s policy is extremely popular, and helped his re-election in April, the E.U. is angered at the open defiance.

Nationalism is alive and well in Europe. Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are 4 central European nations known as the “Visegrad 4”. They are against open borders. Sebastian Kurz in Austria and Matteo Salvini in Italy recently won on populist platforms. Hungary is hardly alone.

While the E.U. professes outrage, Orban is actually running on the agenda he specifically set out to do. He sealed Hungary’s borders and stopped 99% of the illegal immigration. He has also stopped all funding for illegal migrants, and banned NGOs from aiding and abetting. While claiming these to be “human rights abuses”, it seems there is little the E.U. can do about it.

To give some perspective, there are many more legal hurdles to clear before anything actually happens. Poland, for example, had Article 7 triggered against it in December 2017, almost a year ago, see here, and also see here. Yet nothing has actually happened.

But ultimately, Hungary could lose its voting rights within the E.U. (as could Poland). Should this happen, they would be subjected to laws which they have no say in enacting or repealing.

Critics have loudly advised Hungary and Poland should just leave the European Union altogether. In 2016, the UK invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty in order to begin to leave the EU. Nigel Farage of the UK, and Marine Le Pen of France openly mock the E.U. as violating the will of sovereign European nations.

More insight to the European Union and their laws will be given on a future article.

    Author’s Views

: From my perspective as a Canadian tourist, an integrated Europe and common currency does make travel, movement, and purchasing easier. However, it is disappointing to see how much sovereignty is eroded in the name of “unity”. A nation should be able to control its own borders, currency, language, culture, economy and way of life. While this union may have at one time been useful, it is undermining the autonomy and independence of the host countries.

Posted on

Ontario Gov’t Using Notwithstanding Clause to Shrink Toronto City Council (Bill 5)

Ontario Premier Doug Ford. (Source: HuffPost)

Ontario’s new Conservative Premier Doug Ford is attempting to shrink the Toronto City Council almost in half (from 47 to 25 members).  The main argument is that the ever expanding size of the council does nothing to actually improve representation and effectiveness.  Rather, it just leads to increased staff and costs for taxpayers.

Faith Goldy, currently running for Mayor of Toronto in October 22 election posted a YouTube video seen HERE, commenting on it.  An amusing video.

On July 30, 2018, Bill 5, the “Better Local Government Act” got its first reading.  August 14 saw it receive 2nd and 3rd readings and be passed.  However, the Toronto City Council voted to proceed with a legal challenge against it in court.

The Council claimed that the bill violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  See HERE for a link to the text of the Charter.

On September 10, an Ontario Superior Court Judge ruled that the Provincial Government’s decision violated Section 2(b) of the Charter, which states: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: …… (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;”.  Specifically, the Judge ruled that the Bill violated Torontonians’ right to “freedom of expression”.

To put it in more detail, because of the ongoing Mayoral and Council elections, cutting the Council size, it substantially interfered with municipal voters’ freedom of expression and the “right to cast a vote that can result in effective representation”.

However, the Ontario Government has decided to re-introduce the Bill, and instead rely on a different part of the Canadian Charter, Section 33, which is the “Notwithstanding Clause”.  In short, this provision allows a Provincial or Federal Government to pass laws even though a Court considers them unconstitutional.  33(1) reads as follows:

“33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.”

To be fair, Section 33(3) of the Charter states that legislation passed this way will cease to have effect after 5 years.

The “Notwithstanding Clause” has been a part of the Charter since its inception, but has very rarely been used.

Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

There is an interesting twist to this story: The Charter effects both the Federal Government, and the Provinces and Territories. (See above for Section 32). However, Canada is also governed by the Principle of Paramouncy. In short, in the cases of competing laws, the highest power will succeed. Put plainly, Federal law tops Provincial law, and Provincial law tops Municipal law. There is a good deal of logic to this, as Federal law would mean nothing if cities and Provinces could simply legislate their way aroung it.

An exception to this of course: is that the various levels of power cannot legislate if doing so steps outside their legal boundaries. Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution spell out exactly whose powers are whose.

Hypothetically, the Federal Government could invoke “their” Notwithstanding Clause in order to override “Ontario’s” Notwithstanding Clause. But that doesn’t seem to be happening, at least for now.

A very interesting use of the Notwithstanding Clause. Shows at least the Ontario Government is serious about cutting the size of government. We shall keep an eye on it.

AN UPDATE TO THE STORY: On, September 19, 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeals stayed the order of the Ontario Superior Court, effectively giving Premier Ford the go ahead to shrink Toronto City Council. An interesting note here — while the Court of Appeals did say that shrinking the Council in the middle of a municipal election was unfair, unfairness by itself is not a reason to stop Bill 5.