We’ve had the Arab Spring, the American Spring (Chomsky),
the Maple Spring (Quebec students), and now the New Brunswick Spring, as always
just a bit behind the rest of the world.
Even in New Brunswick the old ways of doing things are coming to an end.
Disgust for the wars, turmoil and rapacious greed of past decades has
revived the yearning for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in populations worldwide subdued by oppression. We are at the beginning of a political revolution
fueled by new found knowledge and awareness enabled by social media and the
technology that has connected the world. Historians and sociologists will ponder these events for
decades to come. For now, we marvel at
the astonishing revelations and reversals as events unfold.
Fittingly, the New Brunswick spring was ignited by attacks in
Saint John and Fredericton on the very freedom of speech that is opening our
eyes to the reckless deeds of those that purport to govern and control. Arrogance and folly dogs every step that has
been taken by the aggressors in these two defamation cases which are linked
only by their lack of substance. Among
dozens of poignant instances, a delightful example of collective hubris in
timing the denouement of these cases just before province wide municipal
elections.
The outrage of citizens who objectively examine the facts of
these cases is palpable. While comments
on news reports, videos and blogs are neither representative nor particularly
accurate, they generally represent heartfelt views and reflect grains of truth
among murky facts. This is a favourite
from Charles
Leblanc’s blog:
Anonymous said...
So,Barry is looking for a buddy of
his to investigate independently and say exactly what he wants! We still need
to know how the police even got a court date without charges being laid - in
this Province you have to lay an information for a Criminal Code offence, so we
have a Crown and judge who signed a warrant and the court arranged a date when
no charge was even laid. This is such a huge conspiracy of wrong-doing it is
unbelieveable - and yes BM does talk a load of crap. He knows he is safe 'cos
everyone else in the City, NBPC and GNB are right up to their necks in the dirt
with him. Now we know why the mayor went on holiday - again at a crucual time!
7:40 PM, May 08, 2012
While one may incline more toward the following two comments
from the same blog post...:
Anonymous said...
You know, maybe it's me who's
crazy, but I watched MacKnight today, and just read these comments tonight, and
you commenters are the ones who frighten me!
You don't just sympathize with Charles -- FPF is "government sponsored killers", communists, part of a mass conspiracy, they planted child porn on Charles' computer?! wtf??
Anonymous said...
You don't just sympathize with Charles -- FPF is "government sponsored killers", communists, part of a mass conspiracy, they planted child porn on Charles' computer?! wtf??
Anonymous said...
We're still here, we just can't be heard over the crinkling of tin foil.
The police did nothing wrong here. The recieved a complaint, investigated, noted a crime had been committed, had a judge sign a warrant, then arrested Charles, and sent the file to the crown. Everything they did was above board.
6:57 AM, May 09, 2012
... It is difficult to take issue with a Daily Gleaner
editorial, quoted in Charles’
blog, as being representative of widespread sentiment and journalistic
fact-checking:
THE DAILY GLEANER
Editorial
08 May 2012 03:31AM
The last time we wrote an editorial about local blogger Charles LeBlanc, we pondered who was the victim and who was the aggressor in the libel case against him.
And we asked readers to stay tuned, because it might be the courts that eventually answered that question.
But it turns out the court won’t be touching that question with a 10-foot pole.
On Friday we learned the Department of Justice would not proceed with the charge of criminal libel under section 301 of the Criminal Code of Canada, mainly because section 301 has been deemed unconstitutional in three provinces.
But the real issue is why there was a case in the first place. Was it revenge, incompetence, a lack of professionalism?
The Fredericton Police Force arrested Mr. LeBlanc and investigated him under section 301 back in January. A search warrant brought several officers to Mr. LeBlanc’s apartment, where they seized his computer, and handcuffed, arrested, fingerprinted, photographed and jailed him for about six hours.
It was big news, although the force and its chief, Barry MacKnight, barely uttered a public word about the very public search and seizure.
They withstood backlash from Mr. LeBlanc himself, plus questions and harsh criticism from legal experts, one city councillor and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
The fact that Mr. LeBlanc does not always know when to use discretion, or turn off his computer, gets under some people’s skin, and we can probably include the Fredericton Police Force in that group.
The force and Mr. LeBlanc have a history of mutual dislike. Last summer Mr. LeBlanc used a megaphone on the street outside the police station to badmouth the police, and he is alleged to have called a police officer a sex pervert in his blog — and those are just two among many other issues.
It was the sex accusation that led to the criminal libel case, just dismissed last week.
No doubt the officer in question was angry and wanted a solution. Who wouldn’t?
But when a person is suspected to have libeled another, the usual action is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal libel charge.
But suing Charles LeBlanc certainly wouldn’t have amounted to much in the way of vindication and punitive damages, since he has no fortune with which to part.
This whole case has a legal stench about it. We can’t help but pose a few questions to the Fredericton Police Force related to the conduct of its members and leadership:
• Why choose a section of the Criminal Code on which to base your case that has three times been flagged as unconstitutional?
• Was your thinking clear and unbiased when you made the decision to seek a search warrant?
• Did you go ahead with it, not because it was legally sound and justifiable, but because you could use your power to intimidate a man who slammed one of your police officers and who regularly pushes your buttons?
• Was the negative attention you’ve received for an obviously flawed decision worth the trouble you’ve caused Mr. LeBlanc?
• How much time and taxpayer money was spent on this fruitless case?
• How much communication was there between police and the Crown prosecutor’s office?
• How do you defend your reputation as a police force that is doomed without the public’s co-operation and respect?
The mayor has called for an independent review of the case, and to his credit, Chief MacKnight has agreed. We look forward to it.
We know Charles LeBlanc is no saint, but a review might elevate him from blogger to victim-turned-folk hero — surely not the desired outcome the Fredericton Police Force was seeking.
Editorial
08 May 2012 03:31AM
The last time we wrote an editorial about local blogger Charles LeBlanc, we pondered who was the victim and who was the aggressor in the libel case against him.
And we asked readers to stay tuned, because it might be the courts that eventually answered that question.
But it turns out the court won’t be touching that question with a 10-foot pole.
On Friday we learned the Department of Justice would not proceed with the charge of criminal libel under section 301 of the Criminal Code of Canada, mainly because section 301 has been deemed unconstitutional in three provinces.
But the real issue is why there was a case in the first place. Was it revenge, incompetence, a lack of professionalism?
The Fredericton Police Force arrested Mr. LeBlanc and investigated him under section 301 back in January. A search warrant brought several officers to Mr. LeBlanc’s apartment, where they seized his computer, and handcuffed, arrested, fingerprinted, photographed and jailed him for about six hours.
It was big news, although the force and its chief, Barry MacKnight, barely uttered a public word about the very public search and seizure.
They withstood backlash from Mr. LeBlanc himself, plus questions and harsh criticism from legal experts, one city councillor and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
The fact that Mr. LeBlanc does not always know when to use discretion, or turn off his computer, gets under some people’s skin, and we can probably include the Fredericton Police Force in that group.
The force and Mr. LeBlanc have a history of mutual dislike. Last summer Mr. LeBlanc used a megaphone on the street outside the police station to badmouth the police, and he is alleged to have called a police officer a sex pervert in his blog — and those are just two among many other issues.
It was the sex accusation that led to the criminal libel case, just dismissed last week.
No doubt the officer in question was angry and wanted a solution. Who wouldn’t?
But when a person is suspected to have libeled another, the usual action is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal libel charge.
But suing Charles LeBlanc certainly wouldn’t have amounted to much in the way of vindication and punitive damages, since he has no fortune with which to part.
This whole case has a legal stench about it. We can’t help but pose a few questions to the Fredericton Police Force related to the conduct of its members and leadership:
• Why choose a section of the Criminal Code on which to base your case that has three times been flagged as unconstitutional?
• Was your thinking clear and unbiased when you made the decision to seek a search warrant?
• Did you go ahead with it, not because it was legally sound and justifiable, but because you could use your power to intimidate a man who slammed one of your police officers and who regularly pushes your buttons?
• Was the negative attention you’ve received for an obviously flawed decision worth the trouble you’ve caused Mr. LeBlanc?
• How much time and taxpayer money was spent on this fruitless case?
• How much communication was there between police and the Crown prosecutor’s office?
• How do you defend your reputation as a police force that is doomed without the public’s co-operation and respect?
The mayor has called for an independent review of the case, and to his credit, Chief MacKnight has agreed. We look forward to it.
We know Charles LeBlanc is no saint, but a review might elevate him from blogger to victim-turned-folk hero — surely not the desired outcome the Fredericton Police Force was seeking.
We are in the first stages of a peaceful, democratic revolution with two broad
goals. First is to breathe life into the
democratic rights and freedoms that are promised but not yet delivered by our various
constitutional charters. Second is to
rescue our planet from wholesale devastation that will likely, within a few generations,
cause massive, widespread suffering and depopulation if we do not quickly
change our ways.
The next steps in this revolution are critical and will be
difficult as old school governments everywhere, backed
by vast accumulations of private wealth, are vigorously building their arsenals
for a violent defense of privilege, wealth and power as seen in Libya, Syria, Bahrain,
the 2010 Toronto G10 and the 2007 Montebello summit. In putative democracies everywhere, legislation
cancelling our most basic freedoms is being pushed forward right now in the name
of phony wars, crises and epidemics.
The Spring Revolutions are likely to be messy and long, but
they cannot be stopped. Pandora’s box
has been opened and citizens now have access to knowledge that was previously
denied. Legislative attempts to control
the Internet and to violently subdue expressions of protest only fuel the
desire for change. Our civil rights and
freedoms are being strangled but the forms of democracy are deeply ingrained in
western cultures, and the days of oppressive governments are numbered.
We must carefully rebuild our essential
institutions of public service to be fair, equitable and effective in meeting
their proper objectives. For example, the
coming provincial inquiry into the Charles Leblanc case should be structured and
mandated broadly to address all facets of our criminal justice system to guarantee substantive justice according to the constitution, individual
rights, and the needs and expectations of the broader community. The instinct of government and the legal community
will be to place as many restrictions as possible on the inquiry, as was
attempted by the Woodside/MacKnight scheme that was roundly ridiculed. The inquiry should be established to find
solutions, not to assign actionable fault.
The inquiry should act as a truth and reconciliation commission to dig
deeply into all facts related to Charles’ and similar experiences of abuse of police power and
miscarriages of justice, and to propose whatever changes are needed to create a
justice system that is as fair, equitable and effective as it possibly can be.
Barry MacKnight sparked outrage when he characterized the current
Police Force problem as one of optics.
The FPF problem is one of grave substance, not optics. What causes a widespread negative perception,
not easily dispelled, is the arrogant expectation by public officials of
secrecy and immunity even after their misdeeds have been universally condemned. Founded or not, the anonymous blog comment quoted
above illustrates the depth of that mistrust.
The current government in New Brunswick , half way through
its first mandate, teeters on a precipice between lackluster performance and
bold action to embrace the new realities and find actual solutions. The proposed Charles LeBlanc inquiry is a wide
open invitation to Justice Minister Marie-Claude Blais to initiate a far
reaching process to review and thoroughly renovate our system of justice and
thereby restore the public confidence. The
type of tinkering and cosmetic efforts that have come to characterize our
revolving door governments in New Brunswick will not do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment