What we in Canada should not be subjected to is a selective application of the law.
I am troubled this morning, and despite the full bodied flavour of my coffee, I can’t seem to shake the feeling that is at the root of my concern.
Yesterday we learned that former Member of Parliament, Rahim Jaffer, once thought to be a rising star within his party had been given a wrist slap $500.00 fine for driving under the influence of alcohol, speeding and cocaine possession.
There are many things that are troubling about this story, not the least of which is Jaffer’s personal fall from grace. What tops the list for me is the fact that this man has been given a “privileged” deal that almost certainly wouldn’t be given to the vast majority of other Canadians. It is hard not to conclude that this privilege was given because of his past and current political connections.
Yesterday an old friend told me about an incident that happened to him a short time ago in Nanaimo, British Columbia. He had been out celebrating with his wife and realizing that they were over the legal limit called his daughter and asked her to pick them up. With a ride coming, he left the private club and walked to his car which was in a restricted but uncovered parking lot. He planned to move it into a space that was under cover and more secure for the night.
Before he had driven the short distance across the parking area, a police car pulled up, and a young police man demanded he get out of his car. My friend is elderly with knee replacements and can’t move quickly. Impatient, the policeman grabbed him and pulled him from his vehicle, causing him to land face first in the dirt.
He was charged with DUI, his driving privileges were removed, and he was given a hefty fine.
In my friend’s case, he hadn’t even entered a public highway; unlike Jaffer he wasn’t speeding through a restricted zone and was not in the possession of cocaine, which is a criminal offense in Canada. Canadians should wonder why the difference in treatment?
The other concerning aspect of all of this is noting how the media are covering the story.
I spend ten years in elected office in British Columbia and have an idea or two about how the media cover certain stories. Anyone who followed my political career, or that of my wife Judi, will remember the unrelenting front page stories, and radio and television coverage, all well documented in Judi’s book Political Affairs, over a love affair, divorce and marriage, none of which are illegal in Canada.
The treatment that Jaffer is receiving in the mainstream media is reminiscent of the coverage given to Premier Gordon Campbell after his arrest for drunken driving in Hawaii. That was “taken care of” with a simple apology, seemingly enough for the pack journalists and their editors who quickly quashed coverage of the real events of that night.
Few of us are naive enough not to know that the owners of our media and many who write for them have political interests. That becomes obvious as much by what is not written as by the opinions expressed on the editorial pages and by columnists.
What we in Canada should not be subjected to is a selective application of the law. When I read the statement of Mr. Justice Doug Maund who said he could read “between the lines” of the evidence presented to him, and the judge told Mr. Jaffer “I’m sure you can recognize a break when you see one” there is real cause to be concerned.
Let’s be clear, driving drunk and cocaine possession are both offences under the Criminal Code of Canada. What Mr. Jaffer avoided was a criminal conviction which would have been a very real detriment if he has any further political ambition, and would serve at the very least, to be a very real embarrassment to his wife, Helena Guergis, who is the Minister of State (Status of Women) in Stephen Harper’s Cabinet.
The lines between the judiciary and the body politic are increasingly becoming blurred. I was amongst the very few who thought it unacceptable that in British Columbia, the most highly charged partisan politician, the House leader, should be the same individual as the Attorney General whose job it is to provide independent legal counsel to Government.
Decisions taken by Crown prosecutors, such as the one that took Rahim off the hook, always require scrutiny. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for not proceeding with charges, but decisions to amend a charge once laid are less frequent. It is imperative if the general public is to have any confidence in the independence and fairness of the judicial system that there be no hint of privilege.
In February of this year, North Vancouver-Seymore MLA Jane Thornthwaite was stopped in a RCMP road check at one in the morning, and her breath sample was allegedly over the limit. Ordinarily that would bring a charge of impaired driving, just like my friend in Nanaimo. What’s more, this political figure was driving on a public highway, not moving her car in a private parking lot.
On March 5th the Solicitor General for British Columbia Kash Heed said the province will move to get more drunks off the road with legislation that includes immediate sanctions against impaired drivers, and will introduce legislation that will drop the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05 per cent from 0.08.
In Thornthwaite’s case, the incident is “under careful review”. In light of Kash Heed’s tough language, Gordon Campbell’s free pass and Rahim Jaffer’s wrist slap, albeit in a different jurisdiction, it will be interesting to see how the events unfold.
March 10th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
I really hope that the double-standard that the Conservatives and the Campbell “Liberals” is throughly exposed and shown for what it is: hypocrisy at its finest. Tough on crime…but only for our opposition and “ordinary” people. The progressive parties must hammer this message repeatedly in the upcoming months and in the next elections at both the provincial and federal levels.
As to the state of the media, perhaps it is time for progressive citizens and groups to buy out and take control over some of these papers and media outlets (the Sun, Province, etc.) and to change the media landscape of this province. For too long, corporate interests and neoliberal ideology have pushed out fairer reporting and responsible journalism.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
My dad was killed by a drinking driver at the age of 32 in the middle of the afternoon 33 years ago. The person, who worked a high position within the Municipality was charged and his punishment was a 6 months driving supsension and 750 dollar fine. Can you imagine that. He also was shuffled out of town to the lower coast with yet still a job with the a local government.
Another story I have of a high positioned gov’t worker happened a few years back. I was working at the golf course and came to work just after a 36 hole tournament. A member who usually called his wife to pick him up after mens nights and tournaments after a few too many, left the club. He drove. a short while later we heard the sirens and we knew it was him after we went and looked and his work truck was gone. He was done by the time I got to work and the others assumed his wife was coming as he had just got off the phone with her a few minutes earlier, so thought nothing of making sure he didn’t drive. It ended up being him, he crashed his truck was thrown through the window, but was lucky that day. We took off to the hospital and went in just as the police were leaving. We thought for sure, as the emergency room stunk of alcohol, that he would be charged and probably lose his job. A nurse came in and said your boss from Vancouver called and said not to worry, he was calling the local detachement. Now here is a man that could have killed someone or himself driving a gov’t truck, pissed drunk, his buddy, a retired staff seargent in the room with him and you know what happened to him..NOTHING not a damn thing. He did get a brand new gov’t truck though to drink and drive around in.
I would like to think that things change regarding this issue of drinking and driving, and how people are punished, but I know it won’t.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Wow – your personal connection to this subject is powerful, Wendy. It does seem that those who have connections are treated differently than those that don’t. We can only hope that at some level things are changing.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:39 pm
One of the things we can change is the way people are elected, and who is elected. We need to start at the grass roots level, that is, municipal elections. There is too much hanky-panky going on here, with corporate and union donations deciding who is going to be the victor. This leaves the small guy (the potential voter) shaking his head and saying, “What’s the point? My vote isn’t going to make any difference.” And so he or she doesn’t make the effort to get out and vote. We need to advocate changes that we think necessary through the only means the Campbell gov’t has given us–through the Local Elections Task Force. And we don’t have much time. I would ask that every reader of this site take the time and ask yourself, “Why didn’t I vote in the last local election?” Perhaps with this opening, that is only going to last mid-April, you can come up with some suggestions to change the Local Election Act and pass them on to the Task Force. The apathy that exists among voters today is reducing what could be a meaningful democracy into an oligarchy. This is not what we need or want.