I ‘m beginning to wonder. Is the McLachlin who has just today in writing for the Supreme Court in a landmark case involving freedom of the press said that:“Freewheeling matters of public interest is to be encouraged”, and that writers and bloggers who do a form of reporting should be protected by law, the same Madam Justice Beverly McLachlin I know intimately just from hearing her rulings on criminal contempt read adnauseam in court just before I’m sent to prison? Is this the same Madam Justice MCLachlin , ex-Chief Justice British Columbia ,who ruled that a public protest in defiance of a court order is a criminal matter simply because it is public? Yes, It is indeed one and the same.
I run smack up against this ruling by Madame Justice McLachlin every time I’m in court for trying to help protect the last scrap of some forest somewhere in British Columbia. This ruling defined by Madam Justice McLachlin is called “Open, Continuous, and Flagrant.” It means that because one talked publically to the press and other media about the environmental destruction one is, or was, protesting, this action has brought the court into disrepute. Then an accused’s civil charges get raised to criminal charges. Just for talking. To the press and other media. And for writing what one thinks about the environmental destruction under dispute (the last was Eagleridge Bluffs.) For all these sins one is tried as a criminal in BC, judged as a criminal, and sentenced to the place where other criminals are kept. For lengthy periods of time.
And yet this same justice who has risen to be Chief Justice of Canada now appears as a defender of freedom of expression in an unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not complaining. It’s long over due. But shouldn’t some of this reasonable understanding of the need for an unfettered press slop over onto the heads of citizens in environmental disputes? Of those who get charged with breaking a court order which initially merits civil contempt of court which is bad enough, but then in the attempt to explain the situation to the press and to the world the court and the Crown conspire (or seem to) to make one the accused criminals? This recent land mark ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada reminds me of an old hymn my mother used to sing: “Showers of blessing, showers of blessing we need, mercy drops round us are falling, but for the showers we plead”. I, personally, with all due respect, am pleading for a few Supreme Court of Canada showers instead of a few mercy drops. Can you hear me, Madam Chief Justice McLachlin?
Beverly McLachlin who?
I ‘m beginning to wonder. Is the Madam Chief Justice of Canada Beverly McLachlin who has just today in writing for the Supreme Court in a landmark case involving freedom of the press said that:“Freewheeling matters of public interest is to be encouraged”, and that writers and bloggers who do a form of reporting should be protected by law, the same Madam Justice Beverly McLachlin I know intimately just from hearing her rulings on criminal contempt read adnauseam in court just before I’m sent to prison? Is this the same Madam Justice MCLachlin , ex-Chief Justice British Columbia ,who ruled that a public protest in defiance of a court order is a criminal matter simply because it is public? Yes, It is indeed one and the same.
I run smack up against this ruling by Madame Justice McLachlin every time I’m in court for trying to help protect the last scrap of some forest somewhere in British Columbia. This ruling defined by Madam Justice McLachlin is called “Open, Continuous, and Flagrant.” It means that because one talked publically to the press and other media about the environmental destruction one is, or was, protesting, this action has brought the court into disrepute. Then an accused’s civil charges get raised to criminal charges. Just for talking. To the press and other media. And for writing what one thinks about the environmental destruction under dispute (the last was Eagleridge Bluffs.) For all these sins one is tried as a criminal in BC, judged as a criminal, and sentenced to the place where other criminals are kept. For lengthy periods of time.
And yet this same justice who has risen to be Chief Justice of Canada now appears as a defender of freedom of expression in an unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not complaining. It’s long over due. But shouldn’t some of this reasonable understanding of the need for an unfettered press slop over onto the heads of citizens in environmental disputes? Of those who get charged with breaking a court order which initially merits civil contempt of court which is bad enough, but then in the attempt to explain the situation to the press and to the world the court and the Crown conspire (or seem to) to make one the accused criminals? This recent land mark ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada reminds me of an old hymn my mother used to sing: “Showers of blessing, showers of blessing we need, mercy drops round us are falling, but for the showers we plead”. I, personally, with all due respect, am pleading for a few Supreme Court of Canada showers instead of a few mercy drops. Can you hear me, Madam Chief Justice McLachlin?
Beverly McLachlin who?
I ‘m beginning to wonder. Is the Madam Chief Justice of Canada Beverly McLachlin who has just today in writing for the Supreme Court in a landmark case involving freedom of the press said that:“Freewheeling matters of public interest is to be encouraged”, and that writers and bloggers who do a form of reporting should be protected by law, the same Madam Justice Beverly McLachlin I know intimately just from hearing her rulings on criminal contempt read adnauseam in court just before I’m sent to prison? Is this the same Madam Justice MCLachlin , ex-Chief Justice British Columbia ,who ruled that a public protest in defiance of a court order is a criminal matter simply because it is public? Yes, It is indeed one and the same.
I run smack up against this ruling by Madame Justice McLachlin every time I’m in court for trying to help protect the last scrap of some forest somewhere in British Columbia. This ruling defined by Madam Justice McLachlin is called “Open, Continuous, and Flagrant.” It means that because one talked publically to the press and other media about the environmental destruction one is, or was, protesting, this action has brought the court into disrepute. Then an accused’s civil charges get raised to criminal charges. Just for talking. To the press and other media. And for writing what one thinks about the environmental destruction under dispute (the last was Eagleridge Bluffs.) For all these sins one is tried as a criminal in BC, judged as a criminal, and sentenced to the place where other criminals are kept. For lengthy periods of time.
And yet this same justice who has risen to be Chief Justice of Canada now appears as a defender of freedom of expression in an unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not complaining. It’s long over due. But shouldn’t some of this reasonable understanding of the need for an unfettered press slop over onto the heads of citizens in environmental disputes? Of those who get charged with breaking a court order which initially merits civil contempt of court which is bad enough, but then in the attempt to explain the situation to the press and to the world the court and the Crown conspire (or seem to) to make one the accused criminals? This recent land mark ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada reminds me of an old hymn my mother used to sing: “Showers of blessing, showers of blessing we need, mercy drops round us are falling, but for the showers we plead”. I, personally, with all due respect, am pleading for a few Supreme Court of Canada showers instead of a few mercy drops. Can you hear me, Madam Chief Justice McLachlin?
