Sweet Justice

When I retired from an almost thirty year career as a legal aid lawyer, I truly wondered if it had been a wasted three decades. The wins in the courts were vastly outpaced by the losses. And not because the legal arguments were necessarily unsound. The expression “one step forward and two back” was a constant reality. A win in court often meant that the government amended the law to gain the result it had hoped for. Usually that result was less rights for the disadvantaged and fewer benefits. The law or legal principles were applied differently to the banks and large corporations or the wealthy than they were to the poor, the marginalized and the ordinary citizen. It was indeed a discouraging three decades with only a few glimmers of social justice being achieved.

Perhaps I should have realized this as a young law clerk at the Supreme Court of Ontario. One day, I was assisting at a fledgling Constitutional legal challenge by a same-sex couple seeking the same benefits as heterosexual couples. I could tell that the judge I was working for was uncomfortable with the arguments advanced by the applicants, which were sound in every way. During a recess, the presiding judge, whom I was working for at the time, stood smirking with another judge, (need I state that they were both older, white males). I overheard them joking about the case in a snickering school boy sort of way. My judge stated that he could not find in their favour, “after all, what would my neighbours say”. I immediately recognized that legal principles would not win out. There were a few other instances over the decades similar to this.

Most of my career was spent doing legal research and writing legal opinions for court and tribunal proceedings by legal aid lawyers and paralegals. I also wrote a number of legal journal articles over the years advancing certain legal arguments. Sometimes I would discover that these opinions were being ridiculed publicly. There are three incidents that come foremost to mind. I have now been retired for almost five years.

One article I wrote in the early 1990s advanced a legal position in favour of recipients of unemployment insurance benefits. The lower court and tribunal decision had accepted what I viewed as an untenable position based on the law. Years later I would be informed by a colleague that she had just read an article calling my article a “rant”. I did not mind, although I thought it somewhat unprofessional of the author to have put it in those terms. The reason I did not mind was the Federal Court of Appeal had since accepted the legal position I had been advancing in that “rant”.

Almost a decade later I had written opposing the transfer of a legal system for tenants from the courts to a tribunal. I saw this as a purely political move disguised as a review of an earlier legal decision by our highest court. Well that was a battle I could not win. Changes are often made in the name of service efficiency. Unfortunately, that efficiency frequently means less access to justice for the poor.

Regardless, although the shape of the legislation itself did not change dramatically, the tribunal’s re-interpretation of its broad remedial powers under it did. I wrote papers and journal articles about how this restrictive interpretation was unwarranted. A few years later, I discovered that a lawyer who worked for this tribunal had ridiculed me for my position in a published master of law thesis. A few years later, Ontario’s highest court accepted the position I had been advancing and been ridiculed for.

And recently, I discovered that years after I had unsuccessfully and repeatedly advanced a legal argument , it was accepted by Canada’s highest court. This argument was in favour of the same standard of review being applied to questions of law by administrative and quasi-judicial tribunals as is applied routinely in the courts. Once again I, or those advancing similar arguments, had been repeatedly “shot down” and warned to cease and desist from raising the issue. Our argument should have been a “no-brainer”, but it was not convenient or “efficient”. We had argued that a question of law must be decided correctly. Reasonable decisions that are wrong are not sufficient. For indeed, how can a wrong decision on a question of law be reasonable. It would allow for multi-tiered justice.

These few “wins” do somewhat alleviate the sense of being a voice crying out in the wilderness. They do somewhat abate the wounds from insults incurred. But they are really bitter sweet pills in retrospect.

A Princely Dilemma

To begin my rant: I have never been a “fan” of Prince Andrew. But this recent media frenzy for sleaze, and the mob mentality stirred by it is sickening. If I am not fond of the Prince, then I am far less fond of the media induced "guilty until proven innocent" craze.

Over the years, I have been friends with people whom I learned later had been involved in some seedy, or even illegal activity. Should I apologize for my friendship? I won’t.

Indeed, do we cast people aside, simply because they have fallen? Not in the world I want to be part of. Our friendship may be tempered; it may even come to an end, but why the need to apologize. Why the need to turn our backs on them.

And even accepting the possibility that the Prince is lying about his lack of involvement with certain young women, I have difficulty with the accusations.

First of all, it is difficult to accept that the Prince would have known that these very mature looking women were underage at the time. They certainly do not appear to me from photographs I have seen of them at the time, to have been teenagers, innocent or otherwise.

And what if they were. Our age restrictions are purely arbitrary. They vary from place to place, from culture to culture, even from circumstance to circumstance, and from time to time. Yes, it would have been illegal. But would it have been, if it were true, immoral or repugnant? I don’t think so. These young women, more than likely, knew exactly what they were doing. They were not naïve virgins. They were gold diggers, not victims.

And I cannot believe that any young woman was forced to have sex with the Prince. If they did so, I suggest that they did so willingly, and for whatever motive. Come on! A good looking, relatively young British Naval Officer, and a Prince to boot! Many young woman, and probably many young men, would have jumped at the opportunity. 

So I have problems with the allegations. I have problems with the sleazy media reporting. I have problems with the reaction of the vocal and indignant public.

Further, if it is true that the Prince has, or had at the time, a medical condition that made it impossible for him to sweat, then there are credibility issues with the accusers. 

We love to idolize the rich and famous. We love it even more when we can see them fall. Then, I say, pity our society.

The Western Cry for Separation

Regarding the call by westerners for separation from Canada, a western whiner has written that in addition to an early winter that has hit the farmers, they have also been affected by a“…[H]uge carbon  tax bills on the drying which is one more hit on the farmer, on top of China not taking product, India putting huge tariffs on pulse crops and railways shipping oil instead of grain because of the pipeline issue. Overall result out here is anger like I have never seen it …  The separatist movement out here is very real and I personally have written to our Premier and the Premier of Alberta asking for a referendum.”

And who is responsible in part for the weather crisis? Not the Federal government. I suggest it is people like those who oppose the carbon tax and support big oil that turn their back and bury their heads in the (oil) sand. And who worked very hard and in favour of the pipeline despite widespread opposition. It wasn’t the Federal government that nixed it. It was the people and the courts. The Federal government is not in control of what China or India or the USA does. It is not in control of world oil prices.

And who is responsible for the squandering of the huge Alberta oil reserve fund that was socked away during the boom days of irresponsible oil production? Not the federal government. Who is responsible for lulling its people into believing one can have a responsible society without paying taxes. Not the federal government. Who is it that simply shipped its raw oil out of the country at low prices, denying thousands work in what could have been a rich oil refinery industry, if it had had the wisdom to create one. Not the federal government. Who failed to diversify their economies, something that is in the provincial domain of power? 

Take responsibility for yourselves western Canada. Stop thinking you exist in a vacuum. The only vacuum is in your heads!

Brown Face

I think political correctness has gone a little too far with this roasting of Justin Trudeau for appearing 19 or 20 years ago at a private costume party in “brown face” and Arab attire. Nineteen years ago! He was 27 or 28 years old! He was not a politician at the time. And it was a very different time.

Anyway, what is offensive about brown face at a costume party? If one is living in the dessert, one does tend to brown up, regardless of one’s cold weather complexion. When I was a child I was dressed as King Farouk of Egypt for a party. And oh no, my older brother was dressed as an Indian! Should I apologize? It was 1954 in England.

Sometimes a white actor has to play Othello. Sometimes a black actor may have to play Hamlet. A woman has played King Lear!

What I am offended by is that he felt a need to apologize. What I am shocked at is the outrage! Get real. Shouldn’t one’s intention be what is relevant. He had no intention to offend, and likely, at the time offended no one. 

One can’t fairly judge distant past deeds by present day standards. And sometimes those present-day standards are simply ridiculous. You’ll get no apology from me for frivolous acts of my youth. And there were many. All intended in good fun. None intended to offend.

Is There a Doctor in the House

Our health care system works fine if one is lucky enough to have a family doctor. And it works extremely well in a reactive way to emergencies  or urgent cases. It is not so good in a proactive role and it is dreadful in that role if one does not have a family doctor.

Yes there are medical clinics. Our community clinic, formerly our hospital, acts as an emergency department, a community medical practice with a roster of doctors  available to those who actually are connected to one of those doctor’s practices, and a go-to place if one does not have a doctor. The trouble is, only those with a doctor can get an appointment to see one of the doctors on the roster. If one has no doctor and one is not in an urgent situation, then one must go and take a number and wait. Fair enough. One might need a prescription refilled or to follow up with a doctor regarding test results. One might need a requisition for blood work, an X-Ray or other tests. But it matters not. One is not in a separate stream. One is there at the mercy of fate. Will there be one or more urgent cases arrive at the door before your turn comes up? If so, one gets bumped. After waiting for three hours recently in the usual stream of people wanting to see a doctor, a sign was posted: “Only Urgent cases for the next three hours”. I walked out.

Other clinics in other provinces are separate from Emergency departments. I know our province of Nova Scotia has a crisis relating to lack of doctors; so the few must take on many roles. However, that being the case, one should be creative. Do what it takes to train and hire more practical nurses, more foreign doctors – or change the system so that other’s than medical staff can give requisitions for tests or prescribe medication. A little thinking outside the proverbial box would go a long way in solving this significant problem.

Political Folly

It is no wonder that citizens grow cynical about politics and politicians. Donald Trump pardons wealthy Conrad Black’s crimes, while thousands of less well off people languish in dreadful American prisons for much lesser ones. Doug Ford cancels funding of forest fire fighting and tree planting while the world literally heats up. One might disagree on issues of social justice; but on issues of the environment it is pure folly to ignore them.