With an ever increasing number of court decisions being based on the charter of
rights and superimposed on federal laws, provincial laws and municipal bylaws, it
is increasingly difficult to know what is legal and what is no longer legal.
The following are some examples which I find difficult to fathom:
I understand that merchants who have magazines for sale must have the sexual magazines
with pictures of female figures displayed a certain number of centimetres above
the floor and with the magazines partly hidden so that young people will not be
able to see the female figures. However, I also understand that there is now no
law forbidding the female clerks who sell these magazines from being topless. Indeed,
the female customers may also be topless. Incredibly, the youths who are being protected
by the law may also be topless. Have I got that right?
I understand that flowers and plants can not be planted in the Ottawa area in a
configuration that looks like female bodies. However, those who plant and cultivate
these flowers and plants may legally be topless. Of course, those who walk or drive
past enjoying the scenery may also be topless. Have I got that right?
I understand that there is no law forbidding the act of prostitution. However, those
who communicate to make arrangements for prostitution are guilty of an offence.
It's not the act of prostitution that is criminal -- it is the discussion leading
up to the act that is against the law. Have I got that right?
I understand that police forces are required to obtain evidence to prove or disprove
criminal behaviour when criminal acts have been performed. However, unless the police
are actually chasing a suspect they must not enter private property without first
having asked for and received a search warrant no matter how difficult or lengthy
that process might be. If the police fail to obtain search warrants, the police
must not enter the property even if the suspect is escaping or destroying the evidence.
If the police fail to dot their i's and cross their t's properly, the evidence obtained
may not be used no matter how incriminating the evidence might be. Have I got that
right?
I am not a lawyer but I was taught that our politicians are elected to pass laws
and our judges are appointed to interpret those laws.
It would seem to me that the judges have gone far beyond their mandate and are now,
in effect, writing laws through their interpretations.
Perhaps what our federal politicians should do is promulgate a Charter of Responsibilities
to accompany the charter of rights or at least issue a Charter of Group Rights.
Has there been any consideration to having all our judges take elementary training
to determine the difference between law and justice?
A rigid determination of the laws involved seems to be of paramount importance to
those involved in the administration of our criminal system even though the interpretation
of the laws involved seems so often to deter from any sense of real justice.
Arthur D. Smith, Ottawa