Ideablawg’s Weekly Connections: International Women’s Day and Legal Inspiration From Abella, Arbour and Smith

Today is International Women’s Day, a day to celebrate how far women we have come in terms of gender equality but also a day of hope as we reflect on what still needs to be done. We are not quite there yet and certainly in many countries across the globe not there at all. There are so many inspiring women of all ages but I devote this week’s connections to three jurists women who give me legal inspiration.

1. There are of course numerous Canadian women in the law profession who provide inspiration to us all. Check out the page at U of T Law School dedicated to some of these legally minded trailblazers. Out of the list, I find inspiration from Madame Justice Rosalie Abella, now sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada. Not only she is an exceptional jurist and dedicated human rights advocate (see the blog I wrote on her dissent in the Court of Appeal on Crown misconduct) but her life story is also an inspiration. A child of the Holocaust, she was born in a Displaced Persons’ Camp in Stuttgart, Germany where her father, a lawyer, helped advocate for the other displaced persons’ in the camp. I have had the opportunity to appear in front of Justice Abella when she was first appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal and argued a sentence appeal before her in the first week she was sitting on an Appeal panel. Although it was a straightforward appeal, Justice Abella showed her mettle and her mind by dissenting in the case. This was not a controversial case at all and indeed the dissent, legally, did not matter but what did matter was the humanity and compassion she showed by doing it.
2. Another Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, albeit a former Justice, is Louise Arbour. Most people recognize her as the Justice who stepped down from the SCC to become the Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals investigating the war crimes of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. She then became High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2004 and retired from that position in 2008. Although her tenure in the international scene was not without controversy, she is an inspiration for her tenacity and her deeply held beliefs in international human rights. She now heads the International Crisis Group where she speaks out against any oppressive regime and even western powers like Canada, who, in her view, are not doing enough to advance human rights internationally. Again, I had the pleasure of appearing before Justice Arbour many times when she sat in the Ontario Court of Appeal. Her expansive knowledge of criminal law made it a pleasure to argue a criminal appeal before her. However, I believe it was when she took on the unenviable task of inquiring into the Prison for Women at the Kingston Penitentiary in 1995 that I truly found her most inspiring. Her report is a shocking read but an important one for prisoner rights and women rights. She truly made a difference. After her report, P for W was disbanded.
3. For more inspiration, I look no further than the trial court. Day in and day out trial judges sift through the nuts and bolts of legalese and listen to the narratives placed before them. Sure they determine cases by applying legal principles but the very best trial judges do so by hearing the stories of the people affected. This is an important part of access to justice – to listen and to give those before them a fair and just hearing.  When I was a law student at Osgoode Hall Law School, I was lucky enough to win the lottery for the incomparable Criminal Law Intensive Program run by the then criminal law professor Alan Grant. It was an amazing program where we students were seconded with lawyers and judges to shadow their daily work lives and to take in their unique perspective on the criminal justice system. I was seconded with the then District Court Judges and among the group I had the honour to work with was the then the Honourable Judge Heather Smith. Of course now she is Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the first woman to hold that position. There are no words to express how impressed I was with her abilities and her commitment to the criminal justice system.  As a woman and as a soon to be articling student, she inspired me to treat the law and those individuals in the law, be it lawyers or clients, with respect. In my mind she was the epitome of a trial judge – competent, thoughtful, compassionate and learned in the law - and an inspiration for a young female barrister ready to take on the world.

Important Judgments To Be Released From The Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada will be releasing two judgments in the next two days: the N.S. case, resolving the question of testifying behind the veil and the jury vetting trilogy cases in Duong, Cardoso, and Yunmu. I have written blogs on both cases: Testifying Behind The veil: A Study of Conflicting Charter Rights; Testifying Behind The Veil: The facts in the N.S. case; Testifying Behind The Veil: The Human Factor; Jury Vetting and The Supreme Court of Canada; and Jury Vetting and The International Perspective. Check back to this blog site for further discussion of these issues.

Blog Update: The Spy and the Pamphleteer

In previous postings, I have discussed two very different cases now before Canadian courts. The first case concerns William Whatcott, a persistent anti-gay pamphleteer, who is before two different courts connected to his pamphleteering activities. The second case is of Jeffery Delisle, the first person charged with spying under the newly enacted Security of Information Act. Although the two cases are completely unrelated, court decisions in both of these cases were handed down on March 30, 2012.

The first Whatcott case, which is still on reserve before the Supreme Court of Canada, involves the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal’s finding that Whatcott’s anti-gay pamphlets amounted to hate speech. The other Whatcott case, decided on March 30, 2012, is an appeal of the quashing of Whatcott’s trespass charge when he was on University of Calgary lands to hand out his anti-gay literature. The original decision to quash the charge by Provincial Court Judge Bascom can be accessed here.

Just as a refresher, the Supreme Court of Canada Whatcott case is a vitally important decision for the ability of human rights tribunals to uphold the tenants of human rights legislation. It also raises the difficult issue of conflicting Charter rights: in this case the freedom of expression under s.2(b) and freedom of religion under s.2(a) in the context of competing Charter values as found under s.15, which promote respect and tolerance of others in our community.

Although the SCC Whatcott case concerns the constitutionality of the hate speech provision in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, the ultimate issue in the case will decide whether or not provincial laws on hate speech must conform with the more stringent hate speech section in the Criminal Code. If so, provincial human rights codes could be essentially redundant, leaving the more difficult to prove Criminal Code sections to safeguard society from the harmful effects of hate speech. Some of the factums filed in support of the SCC argument can be found here.

This SCC decision is of particular interest in Alberta, where provincial election campaigning has touched on the controversy surrounding the Alberta Human Rights Commission and its enforcement of provincial hate speech legislation. The Boisson v. Lund case, also discussed in a previous posting, shares similar issues with the SCC Whatcott. The Alberta Court of Appeal has not as yet released a decision on this case. The controversy in Alberta over this case and the high profile Alberta Human Rights case against journalist Ezra Levant for re-publishing the infamous Dutch “Muslim Cartoon,” has brought repeated calls for abolishing the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The Wildrose Party is campaigning on a platform, which includes abolishing the Commission, instead creating a new Human Rights Division in the Provincial Court of Alberta.

In the other Whatcott case of trespassing on University lands, the case has been so far decided in favour of protecting freedom of expression. In a previous posting, I discussed Alberta Provincial Court Judge Bascom’s stay of trespassing charges against Whatcott on the basis of s.2(b) expression rights under the Charter. On March 30, 2012, the appeal of the decision was heard before Alberta Queen’s Bench Justice Paul Jeffery, who summarily dismissed the Crown appeal and upheld Judge Bascom’s decision. The written reasons for the decision have not, as yet, been released.

Unlike Mr. Whatcott, Jeffery Delisle did not receive a favourable decision on March 30, 2012. Mr. Delisle was refused bail by Nova Scotia Provincial Court Judge Beach and ordered to stay in custody pending his trial. A ban on publication was imposed at the bail hearing and therefore the reasons for dismissing the bail application is unknown. Although Mr. Delisle’s lawyer stated he was “disappointed” albeit not surprised with the decision, there is no word whether or not he will be reviewing the decision in superior court. In the meantime, Mr. Delisle will return to court on May 8, presumably to set a date for trial. Delisle’s lawyer has commented on the case, indicating Delisle is not accused of endangering military troops as a result of his alleged espionage. There is some suggestion Delisle, at the time of the commission of the offence, was heavily into online gaming and had a “computer addiction,” which may have lead to monetary difficulties. For further discussion, read my Spy vs. Spy blog and my blog entitled Let’s Talk About: Diplomatic Immunity. For further reading on the Whatcott cases, read my blogs Law, Literature, and Inherit The Wind, The Road Taken By The Supreme Court of Canada, A Message of Tolerance, Limits of Expression, and Whatcott in The Courts Again.

Connecting Hitchens, Havel, And Kim With Human Rights

This past week three extraordinary people died: Christopher Hitchens, Vaclav Havel, and Kim Jong-il. All three impacted the world and human rights, but in very different ways.

When any famous or, shall we also say, infamous people die, there are many news articles, opinion pieces, and blogs about them and their legacies. Some postings were laudatory, as in the case of Vaclav Havel, the enduring symbol of the Czech "Velvet Revolution" or what the Czechs' prefer, "the November events." Havel was an artist, a celebrated poet and playwright. But he was also a dissident who was deeply passionate about his homeland and the concept of democracy. After the Revolution, Havel was appointed President and returned Prague to its magnificence as the "Paris of the East." 

Other articles were castigating: the demise of Kim Jong-il revealed the pathos of a country caught in the iron grip of oppressive dictatorship. A country where "the opium of the people" was the leader himself: worshipped and idolized. To observe the grief of the country over Kim's demise is like watching a slow-moving train wreck as people, young and old, collapse on the streets. A crumpled and lifeless country, devastated by the loss of a caricature of a leader. Truly, the antithesis of Havel - an AntiHavel - not embracing a nation but preserving it under glass as an ornament of the past.

Still other passages were quirky and colourful like the man whom they purported to describe: Christopher Hitchens, himself a demi-God (he would have hated that!) to the witty and smart set. But he was a scrappy fighter for the underdog and a true critic, or shall I say cynic, of the world. He was an observer, who also participated, and that made him the ultimate man of the post-modern era. 

With all three men, we are faced to re-evaluate our own consciousness of being, our own concept of freedom, and our own mortality. Shall we think big and be like Havel: become a social activist and speak out for issues we hold dear? Or shall we look at the individual or micro-rights and change the world, one individual at a time. We definitely will not be Kim and rigidly adhere to a false construction of reality.

Whichever way we decide to "celebrate" these lives and their legacies, what is clear is this: they force us to make choices and to decide what we believe in and on which side we stand. But better yet, I say we think as Hitchens would have liked us to do and ask ourselves "is there really a side at all?"

Chalk one up for humanity in this week of reflection.

Testifying Behind The Veil: The Human Factor

Yesterday I discussed the background to the N. S. case, which has recently been argued, on appeal, before the Supreme Court of Canada. The case is significant for two reasons: it raises the issue of conflicting Charter rights and how this conflict should be approached by the courts and it raises the issue of whether or not a witness in a criminal case is permitted to wear a face covering veil during testimony.

The second issue has broader implications in the public arena as it highlights the clash between traditional religious practices and the modern world, where identity and privacy seem to shrink in the public spotlight. In the age of mass communication, with over 500 million users of Facebook, the idea of masking one's identity, for whatever reason, appears to be not only redundant but also unacceptable.

Legally, such a stance seems to be against precedent as seen in the 2009 Supreme Court of Canada Alberta v. Hutterian Brethran of Wilson Colony case, wherein the Court upheld provincial legislation which required photographic driver licence identification even though such requirement conflicted with the religious precepts of the Brethren. Such picture identification was rationally connected to the real and pressing concerns of safety and security.

Politically too, keeping one's identity private is not acceptable as in the recent decision by the Federal Government to require the removal of face covering veils when fulfilling citizenship requirements, particularly when taking the citizenship oath. This decision does not appear to be decided on the basis of security and safety but, according to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, on the basis that the "public declaration that you are joining the Canadian family ...must be taken freely and openly." 

In that backdrop, we return to the N. S. case and the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal written by the Honourable Mr. Justice Doherty for the panel. In the decision, Justice Doherty perfectly sets out the issues at stake "in human terms": 

N.S. is facing a most difficult and intimidating task.  She must describe intimate, humiliating and painful details of her childhood.  She must do so, at least twice, in a public forum in which her credibility and reliability will be vigorously challenged and in which the person she says abused her is cloaked in the presumption of innocence.  The pressures and pain that complainants in a sexual assault case must feel when testifying will no doubt be compounded in these circumstances where N.S. is testifying against family members.  It should not surprise anyone that N.S., when faced with this daunting task, seeks the strength and solace of her religious beliefs and practices. 

M---d.S. is facing serious criminal charges.  If convicted, he may well go to jail for a considerable period of time.  He will also wear the stigma of the child molester for the rest of his life.  In all likelihood, the mere fact that charges have been laid has led many within his family and community who are aware of those charges to look at M---d.S. in a very different way. 

M---d.S. is presumed innocent.  His fate will depend on whether N.S. is believed.  In a very real sense, the rest of M---d.S.’s life depends on whether his counsel can show that N.S. is not a credible or reliable witness.  No one can begrudge M---d.S.’s insistence that his lawyer have available all of the means that could reasonably assist in getting at the truth of the allegations made against him.    

What is really being impacted by this case, which has now taken on national proportions, legally, politically, and socially, is the lives of two people. Certainly, the public's interest in the outcome of the case is valid. This is even more so considering the number and type of intervener's in the SCC case: the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Criminal Lawyer's Association, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, and the Muslim Canadian Congress, to name but a few. However, we must not forget the "human terms" or human factor, which requires us to contemplate the life-changing possibilities of this ruling.