Quotulatiousness

May 26, 2010

More on the Michael Bryant case

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Media — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:17

It’s rather surprising how strongly this Globe and Mail editorial expresses the paper’s approval of the decision not to press charges against former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant:

Everyone deserves justice, even a former Ontario attorney-general driving an expensive car who finds himself in an altercation with a cyclist in which the cyclist is killed. Irrespective of whatever wealth, power or connections Michael Bryant may have, he was an Everyman. Anyone might find himself in his place one day, reacting in fear and panic to a wild, unexpected aggressor, and subject afterward to police charges and condemnation by the community. When criminal charges were dropped against him yesterday, it was a good day for justice.

Much of what was publicly believed about Michael Bryant’s fatal encounter on Aug. 31, 2009, with Darcy Sheppard turns out to have been false. He did not swerve across a street and ram Mr. Sheppard into a light post or tree or mailbox. He was not speeding along at 60 to 100 kilometres an hour.

Nor were any of the terrible events that night emblematic of the problems that car drivers and cyclists have sharing the road. Mr. Sheppard was simply a man out of control. Given that he paid for his actions with his life, it may seem an unnecessary further blow that he now be publicly judged. But it is necessary, because another man, Michael Bryant, was facing up to life in prison if convicted of criminal negligence causing death. He, not Mr. Sheppard, had the power of the state lined up against him. And everything that happened proceeded inexorably as a result of Mr. Sheppard’s own actions.

Other than the initial flurry of interest in the case immediately following the incident, I didn’t follow the details. This is an excellent example of media coverage severely biased against the defendant: what little I thought I knew about the case made it seem to be an open-and-shut case of vehicular manslaughter. As the Globe editorial points out, very little of what I “knew” about the case (from the media) turns out to have been true.

May 25, 2010

Charges against Michael Bryant unexpectedly dropped

Filed under: Cancon, Law — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:53

Just in from National Post:

All criminal charges have been withdrawn against former Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant.

Special prosecutor Richard Peck made the surprise announcement in a Toronto courtroom Tuesday morning.

Mr. Bryant was charged after an altercation with a cyclist in downtown Toronto last summer; the cyclist, Darcy Allan Sheppard, died in hospital afterwards.

If the speculation went wild after a former backbench federal Conservative MP got off with a (relative) slap on the wrist, it’ll pale in comparison to the outrage this development is likely to provoke.

Initial discussion of the incident here and here.

May 17, 2010

QotD: Standing up for freedom

Filed under: Cancon, Liberty, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 17:19

The Drug Wars in general, and the case of Marc Emery in particular, are a litmus test for those who say they believe in freedom. Everyone is for freedom, their own. It’s everyone else’s that makes them uncomfortable. It is easy to be for low taxes and light government regulation, when you run a business. It is easy to be for freedom of speech, when your livelihood depends on your keypad and fingers. It is easy enough to feel sympathetic for those whose freedom is taken away, when they are like you, when you can see yourself in their position. There, but by grace, go I. But this is not advocacy of freedom. It is nothing more than special pleading. The businessman who demands low taxes, and government subsidies, is not for freedom. The journalist who cries out when some powerful politician tries to silence him, then turns around and supports the Human Rights Tribunals, is not for freedom. The ordinary citizen, who is also the member of a minority ethnic group, who becomes indignant when the rights of his group are threatened, but shrugs his shoulders when those of other groups are trampled upon, he is not for freedom.

Publius, “Martyr to Freedom”, Gods of the Copybook Headings, 2010-05-17

May 13, 2010

To the drug warriors, this isn’t a bug: it’s a feature

Filed under: Law, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:32

Jacob Sullum urges against the adoption of DUID (driving under the influence of drugs) laws:

Under these laws, a driver who has marijuana metabolites in his urine is automatically considered impaired, even though he probably isn’t. Because marijuana metabolites can be detected in urine long after the drug’s effects have worn off (up to two weeks for occasional users, months for frequent users), a “zero tolerance” DUID standard punishes pot smokers who have not harmed or endangered anyone. It is a way of imposing an extra punishment for marijuana use under the guise of traffic safety, sending unimpaired drivers to jail as public menaces because they smoked pot days or weeks before getting behind the wheel. It’s like arresting someone for drunk driving on a Wednesday because he drank a few beers the previous Saturday. And it is completely unnecessary, since a standard based on THC in the blood (analogous to the standard for DUI) would be a much better indicator of impairment.

All this is sensible, logical, and totally irrelevant to the mentality of most “drug warriors”: they love the idea of being able to punish drug users out of proportion to any harm they cause (or, in the vast majority of THC-intoxicated users, total lack of harm to the public).

April 23, 2010

QotD: Seeing the justice system through different eyes

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Quotations — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:59

By revealing how a city employee seemed to spend virtually all his time following her in a city truck, she has directed much-needed attention to city’s supervisory practices.

That’s in addition to highlighting, by explaining what it is like to be stalked, the nature of — and remedy for — a crime that can be devastating in its psychological effects, even if nothing worse happens.

De Blois, 40, who works at Youth Court, told The Gazette’s Katherine Wilton that at first she thought she could handle the situation herself. But in the months before the stalker, 49-year-old André Martel, was arrested, De Blois said she felt terrorized. She lost 23 pounds and had trouble sleeping.

Even after Martel pleaded guilty to criminal harassment and was conditionally released on bail, he continued to follow De Blois, she says. The lawyer suddenly saw the justice system through different eyes. “I can’t imagine what it must be like for a regular person who is not a lawyer, who doesn’t have contacts with a police officer or a crown prosecutor,” she said.

“Why were taxpayers subsidizing a stalker?”, Montreal Gazette, 2010-04-23

Senator McCain’s latest assault on “due process”

Filed under: Law, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:02

Whenever I think badly of President Obama (which is a pretty regular event), I have to remind myself that his main opponent in the 2008 US presidential campaign would have been even worse on civil liberties:

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has introduced a bill that would allow the President to imprison an unlimited number of American citizens (as well as foreigners) indefinitely without trial. Known as The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, or S. 3081, the bill authorizes the President to deny a detainee a trial by jury simply by designating that person an “enemy belligerent.”

Even better, should someone manage to be released, the notion of “return to the battlefield” apparently includes exercising your freedom of speech:

[T]he U.S. military has officially classified many former Guantanamo detainees, such as England’s Tipton Three, as having “returned to the battlefield” for merely granting an interview for the movie The Road to Guantanamo. Another five innocent Uighur (Ethnic Turkish Muslims from China) detainees had been listed as having “returned to the battlefield” after their release because their lawyer had written an op-ed protesting their prolonged detention without trial after they had been mistakenly picked up by a greedy bounty hunter. Writing an opinion or speaking an opinion against the party in power in Washington can — and already has — made some people “enemy belligerents.”

So, thank goodness Senator McCain didn’t become president, even if it means putting up with Barack Obama for at least four years . . .

April 22, 2010

QotD: Ignatieff’s gun registry position

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Liberty, Quotations — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:40

Ignatieff feels that by tweaking the system, he can make it more palatable to rural Canadians and less objectionable to the eight Liberals who originally voted for its abolition. He thinks that by dropping the renewal fees registered gun owners pay and making failure to register a ticketing rather than criminal violation for first-time offenders, he has struck a compromise that will allow him to rein in his caucus while still being seen as a champion of gun control.

He hasn’t. Ignatieff’s plan won’t make a single Canadian safer. It will make the dysfunctional, obsolete registry more expensive while simultaneously making it weaker. The registry has already failed and permanently alienated large swaths of voters from the Liberal party. Why is Ignatieff the last person to realize this?

To accomplish his “goals,” Ignatieff has not only decided to write off any hopes for a Liberal expansion into rural Canada for a generation, further relegating his party to also-ran status anywhere outside of downtown Toronto and Montreal, but has also called into question his much-discussed respect for Parliament. Private member’s bills have traditionally been opportunities for all MPs to vote their conscience — an important tradition Ignatieff would set aside just to prop up the long-gun registry.

Matt Gurney, “Michael Ignatieff’s brand new mistake”, National Post, 2010-04-22

April 12, 2010

What is “the difference between the current system and slavery”?

Filed under: Law, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:22

The Whited Sepulchre looks at a new book by Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in The Age Of Colorblindness.

We have more prisoners than any other nation — 25% of the world’s total, despite having only 6% of the world’s population. According to the Michelle Alexander interview, if we were to go back to the 1970’s-era incarceration rates, we would have to release 4 out of 5 prisoners currently doing time.

We have so many prisoners that we’re having to privatize the cages that we’re using to lock up black kids. Ordinarily, Big Gubmint likes to run everything, but this particular growth industry is beyond them. Marijuana prohibition creates tens of thousands of jobs, public and private.

[. . .]

When the prisoners are released, many of them have to pay for part of the cost of their incarceration. They often have to pay for their own parole officers, counseling sessions, etc. and after talking to ex-cons for about 10 years, I’m of the opinion that most of these counselors couldn’t counsel a 3-year-old to go the potty.

If they fail to make these payments, they’re either locked up again, or their paychecks are garnished. After all, the private prison system has to be paid, right? [. . .] Now that you have all that info, can you explain the difference between the current system and slavery?

Do you understand why the prison lobby, in its public and private form, fights so hard to preserve the system?

March 31, 2010

Disciplining the customer

Filed under: Law, Media, Technology — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:31

In what may yet turn out to be a groundbreaking method of increasing customer satisfaction and loyalty, the US Copyright Group is suing 50,000 of them:

The number of Americans targetted by entertainment industry lawsuits nearly doubled this month, as the the US Copyright Group (“an ad hoc coalition of independent film producers and with the encouragement of the Independent Film & Television Alliance”) brought suit against 20,000 BitTorrent users. 30,000 more lawsuits are pending, bringing the total number of US entertainment industry lawsuit defendants up to 80,000 (when you include the 30,000 victims of the RIAA).

This beatings-will-continue-until-morale-improves gambit is puzzling to me. It seems likely to me that most of these defendants will settle for several thousand dollars (regardless of their guilt) rather than risk everything by hiring a lawyer to defend themselves. But does the “US Copyright Group” really think that Americans will go back to the mall with their credit-cards in hand once their friends’ lives have been ruined by litigation?

You have to wonder how they think this is a useful and creative solution to a problem they’ll be facing for the rest of their corporate existance. Suing your own customers would seem — on the face of it — as an unlikely way of persuading them to remain customers . . .

Some of the folks being sued are, undoubtedly, guilty of deliberate and repeated copyright infringement for purposes of personal gain. In a sample size like this, some of ’em will fit just about any profile you choose. Most of them, however, will almost certainly turn out to be teens and twenty-something students with no particular assets worth taking. It’s like taking a sledgehammer to a cloud of gnats: you’ll mess up a few permanently, but most of ’em will not be touched.

March 30, 2010

Policing for profit

Filed under: Law, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:46

Nanny state now working entrapment angle

Filed under: Britain, Bureaucracy, Law — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:04

They may be able to get methamphetamines with their breakfast cereal, but the nanny state is determined to ensure that they can’t buy goldfish:

Buying a goldfish at a pet shop used to be an innocent childhood pleasure.

But today an elderly pet shop owner told how she was entrapped into selling a goldfish to a 14-year-old schoolboy, then warned she could face jail.

She had breached a law introduced in 2006 which bans selling live fish to anyone under 16.

After a prosecution estimated to have cost taxpayers £20,0000, Joan Higgins, 66, a great-grandmother who has never been in trouble before, has been forced to wear a tag on her ankle like common criminal and given a seven-week curfew.

Her son, Mark, 47 was also handed a fine and ordered to carry out 120 hours unpaid work in the community.

The notorious criminals could face jail time if they’re brought up on similar charges in the future. The courts are doing everything they can to communicate the extreme seriousness of these crimes, and will stop at nothing to stamp out the evil goldfish sellers.

Apparently, the crime syndicate has been in operation for 28 years, concealing their evil, predatory behaviour behind such innocent-seeming activities as volunteering for PDSA (Peoples Dispensary for Sick Animals) and contributing food for the animals. The hardened criminal mastermind has been banned from contact with at-risk individuals like her own great-grandchildren and prevented from attending known criminal hang-outs like bingo halls and Rod Stewart concerts.

H/T to Kathy Shaidle for the link.

March 29, 2010

Don’t talk back to the man, part XLVI

Filed under: Law, Liberty — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 17:08

Ken at the Popehat blog has a beef with part of the message in “10 Rules for Dealing with Police” from Flex Your Rights:

See, if your goal is not to be abused, wrongfully arrested, falsely accused, searched without probable cause, or proned out on the pavement because you irritated someone with a gun and a badge, then “don’t be mouthy to a cop” is excellent practical advice. But dammit, we shouldn’t have to give that advice. The concept that you should expect to be abused if you aren’t meek (or, to be more realistic, subservient) in dealing with public servants ought to be abhorrent to a society of free people. Courtesy is admirable, and unnecessary rudeness is not, but rudeness ought not be seen as inviting government employees to break the law. But the reality is that our society largely issues apologias for, not denunciations of, police abuse. The prevailing belief is that claims of abuse are about lawyers or crooks trying to game the system, that people accused of crimes generally committed them, and that cops are heroes of the sort who deserve the benefit of the doubt when their account of a roadside encounter differs from that of a citizen. Our society, for the most part, indulges cops in their expectation that citizens will be subservient. As a result, “don’t talk back to a cop” remains tragically apt practical advice.

Moreover, the truth of it is that many cops will interpret an assertion of your constitutional rights, however politely delivered, as a rude challenge. They are supported in that view by four decades of “law and order” talk that classifies constitutional rights as mere instrumentalities of crime, not as the rules by which we have chosen to live.

Shame on us if we put up with that.

H/T to Radley Balko for the link, who also offers a graphic example of what can happen when you don’t follow the helpful advice in the video:

Last week, a panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that three Seattle police officers were justified in using a taser three times on a pregnant woman for resisting arrest. The woman had been pulled over for going 32 mph in a school zone. She insisted it was the car ahead of her that was speeding, and refused to sign the ticket. That’s when they tased her.

The problem is that under Washington law, (a) you aren’t required to sign a traffic ticket, (b) speeding isn’t an arrestable offense, and (c) you can’t be arrested for resisting an unlawful arrest.

So the woman was completely within her rights. Yet asserting those rights got her the business end of a stun gun. Three times. And two of the three federal appellate judges to hear the case see nothing wrong with that.

March 25, 2010

The Belgian version of “asking for it”

Filed under: Europe, Law — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 00:34

A recent Belgian court decision is remarkable:

The crime victim, a businessman named only as Laurent, had been living in a suburb of Charleroi, in Belgium’s depressed French-speaking southern region of Wallonia.

He moved north after a series of violent attacks and robberies on his family but was taken to a local court because he had not paid back a grant to renovate his house in 1998.

It sounds fair that you’d be expected to repay a grant for renovations if you leave the area without good reason. I’d have said that these incidents would qualify for the “good reason” criterion:

In 2001, the victim was attacked and his BMW car was stolen. Shortly after it was recovered, armed men stormed his home and stole it a second time.

In 2006, his wife and children were threatened by armed raiders, who stormed his home at night and dragged him away in his pyjamas while his horrified family looked on.

He was later freed and dumped on a industrial estate as the thieves made off with another one of his cars, a Jaguar.

It might be questioned how someone who was able to own multiple expensive cars would be able to qualify for this kind of grant, but that’s a separate issue. But maybe not, as the presiding judge implied:

“It is perhaps not sensible to draw attention to oneself by driving a Jaguar and living in a big house, making an ostentatious display of one’s wealth in a poor and damaged region like Charleroi,” said the judge.

The businessman’s lawyer accused the civil court of supporting “hooligans”.

“In Charleroi, you must drive in a Trabant, wear a tracksuit and live in a slum to be safe from criminals and above reproach from judges,” said Clément de Clety

In other words, the judge really does think he was “asking for it”.

March 23, 2010

The Canadian “flavour” of free speech

Filed under: Cancon, Liberty — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:15

Marni Soupcoff hits the nail on the head with this observation:

Do Canadians understand freedom of expression? For several years, I’ve been arguing that the majority of them don’t — that despite freedom of speech’s prominent place in the Charter, they think it means the ability to say critical things provided these things don’t offend or upset anybody. Protest away, as long as you don’t actually rock the boat.

It’s part of that notorious “Canadian nice” thing: we’re so terribly afraid of offending someone that we’ve empowered the state to monitor and “correct” our speech and behaviour. We like the idea of free speech, but we also undercut the spirit by carving out exceptions to ensure that free speech is not free to offend or insult or demean the listener (or bystanders, or people totally unconnected to the conversation).

This is the genesis of our “hate speech” legislation, which legally defines certain kinds of speech as being so harmful that the use must be proscribed. We appear to fear the use of certain words and phrases as much as if they were literal clubs or bludgeons or some other kind of blunt instrument. In other words, we think it worse to hear offensive speech than to be physically threatened with bodily harm.

This is why the University of Ottawa’s François Houle not only felt it necessary to warn Ann Coulter about our draconian speech laws, but almost certainly felt that without such a warning, those laws were likely to be put into motion. The unspoken but hardly concealed subtext is that we recognize that Americans are more mature than Canadians: they can hear those horrible, horrible words without taking damage or harm.

What initially sounds like another example of Canadian smugness turns out to be an example of Canadian inferiority. Again.

March 19, 2010

QotD: The term “pirate” is too sexy

Filed under: Law, Media, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 23:56

After years of trying to cloud the public mind by calling it “piracy” instead of “unauthorised downloading,” key copyright industry reps are starting to realize that “piracy” actually sounds kind of cool. So now they’re lobbying for the even less intellectually rigorous term “theft,” which describes an entirely different offence, enumerated in an altogether different section of the lawbooks.

This has all the dishonesty of calling everything you don’t like “terrorism” (or as my friend Ian Brown says, it’s like rebranding jaywalking as “road rape”).

Cory Doctorow, “Entertainment industry sours on term ‘pirate’ — too sexy”, BoingBoing, 2010-03-18

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress