differentpublications.html

The excellent article by Christie Blatchford entitled 'Karla: a Femme too fatale' (Globe and Mail, April 16th, 2005) and similar articles by other journalists concerning why Karla Homolka should not be released from prison without conditions rely in part on the recent pronouncements of the Parole Board.

This in turn relies on an unstated presumption. That the Parole Board is always trustworthy. However, this presumption is far from being problematic. The Parole Board, just like the courts, cannot always be trusted. In fact the Parole Board, the courts and the police cannot always be trusted when it pertains to high profile cases involving the most despicable crimes and the most vilified members of society.

Let me limit my analysis just to the Parole Board, whose members consist of political and therefore, patronage appointees with limited terms of service and no security of tenure. It is the same board that refused to release all wrongfully convicted people - Guy Paul, David Milgaard, Marshall and several dozens - on account that these people by not acknowledging their crimes, posed a danger to reoffending upon release. Several thousands of small time criminals have been denied parole either because they filed Notices of Appeal or insisted that they were wrongfully convicted. These never make it to the newspaper pages. Steven Truscott could have been denied parole if he was not given clemency by a forward looking government of the day. The equivalent parole board in the US routinely denies parole to several thousand individuals who were later found to be innocent. Rubin Hurricane carter is just the well-known example. I have attended several hundred parole hearings over the years and the board routinely denies clear-cut cases and in turn is not ashamed to make politically testfull decisions. The Homolka commentary by the Parole Board is the latest in my view. There is another issue worthy emphasizing here. If Homolka was granted parole at the first opportunity, there would be a system in place to monitor her now. Society would have been in a position to know by now what her predilections are. There would now not be any fear or uncertainty about what she would do. But parole has been denied throughout which now brings us to the latest attempt to place some 'parole-like' conditions at this late hour, pursuant to the new sections of 810 of the Criminal Code. Any one who reaches the end of the sentence is to be released without conditions. It is always dangerous to set precedents using bad or extreme cases like Homolka's because once there is a precedent then innocent and or not so extreme or not so bad cases will be caught up in it. As a society, we end up the worse for it. Lastly, no matter how implicated Homolka was in the sex slayings of her sister and two others, we should not lose sight of the following over-arching picture: How many sisters give up their sisters to their boyfriends to unravel their virginity like Homolka did? Hardly any at all. Did Karla give up her sister to anybody before Bernado came into the picture? No. Did Karla commit any homicides before Bernard came into the picture? No. Is it unreasonable to suppose that a person can meet someone with such overwhelming personality who envelopes them under their spell and make them follow their orders like automatons? No. That in fact was the premises upon which the Attorney General of Ontario offered Karla a sweetheart deal a decade ago. It made sense then to the government which refused to renege on the deal once the truth came out. It sure should still make sense now. The system keeps shooting itself in the foot.

The above- referenced article by Douglas Fisher that appeared on Sunday September 12th, 2004 demonstrates the need to educate the media about many things that; they do not understand, among others the following: (1) a lot of reporters need to be educated about legal journalism and legal affairs, (2) the media needs to be educated about accountability in its coverage of stories, and (3) quite a lot of reporters, both male and female are sexist- as against women judges.

Now for the elaboration. (1) Fisher says this of Justice Bertha Wilson's decisions, "She made a bundle of rather radical decisions, some of which I believe were most ill-considered, given their costly consequences". Fisher does not seem to realize that there are 9 Judges on the Supreme Court and any majority decision by Justice Wilson means that 5 or more judges supported her. Therefore, it was not a decision by Justice Wilson alone, it was the Court's decision. It goes the same for the decisions of Justice Abella when she was at the Ontario Court of Appeal- she was in the majority in those decisions that carried the day. A little legal journalism and legal affairs training would help the likes of Fisher not to personalize judicial decisions that constitute the majority opinion of the court.

(2) Journalists ought to be accountable for their reporting, the same accountability they call for judges. Fisher libels and slanders Justice Wilson by stating without attribution and accountability that some lawyers "dismissed her as ignorant of both criminal and corporate law". How do we really know that Fisher got this information from some lawyers or he made it up. A little lesson in accountability and may be a dose of libel and slander suit would educate the likes of Fisher.

(3) When are male judges as ferociously attacked as female judges are by journalists. Fisher calls Abella 'lefty' and influenced by 'political and ideological considerations'. When have journalists the likes of Fisher called a male judge "right winger" or 'reactionary'? Sexism creeps in in the journalism of people Fisher.

We have a long way to go towards legal equality.

[ View Guestbook | Munyonzwe Hamalengwa's Law Practice ]

Barrister ●Solicitor ● Notary Public

Criminal Law ● Immigration Law● Constitutional Law ●

International Law of Human Rights ● Family Law