Skip to main content
letters

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould waded into the Stanley verdict, saying, “As a country we can and must do better.”Justin Tang

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com

..................................................................................................................................

Political interference?

A verdict has been rendered in the trial of the Saskatchewan farmer accused of killing a young man. The jury listened to all the evidence for the duration of the trial into the killing of Colten Boushie, and after deliberation came to its verdict. This is what happens in our system of justice – a system which is deliberately separate from our political system.

Which is why I find it absolutely appalling that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould would make comments on the outcome of the trial (You And I Can Question The Stanley Verdict – Politicians Should Not, Feb. 13). The family of the young man who was slain, and others, may have desired a different verdict, but the result is what it is. There are avenues of appeal open to the Crown should it wish to pursue them.

Mr. Trudeau's interjection of himself into this affair only worsens an already tense situation. This comes across as political meddling in what should be a sacrosanct institution.

Robert W.C. Jack, Halifax

............................................

The real point in the Gerald Stanley trial is not the verdict but the fact the judge and jury did their jobs. Some of us may not like the result but that is the nature of the process. The law is at its best when it protects unpopular people and unpopular causes.

The Prime Minister and Justice Minister have a responsibility to uphold the legal system, as previous ministers have done. They should have the humility to understand that it is our democratic institutions that make Canada a great country, not the opinions or policies of its leaders.

Malcolm Macleod, St. Andrews, N.B.

............................................

Boushie family lawyer Chris Murray has recommended a "quick legislative fix" to abolish peremptory challenges, which allow defence lawyers to reject a potential juror for any reason without explanation (Liberals To Examine Jury-Selection Rules After Acquittal In Boushie Killing, Feb. 13). It is clear this fix should have been law by now.

The Supreme Court's retired Justice Frank Iacobucci made the same recommendation five years ago, as did Senator Murray Sinclair 27 years ago. Britain abolished peremptory challenges in 1998 and in the United States, legal conditions were applied to peremptory challenges in 2005 around a recognized group.

Mr. Trudeau responded: "We understand that there are systemic issues in our criminal justice system that we must address. We are committed to broad based reform to address these issues. As a country we must and can do better." Ms. Wilson-Raybould added: "As a country we can and must do better." For Canada this is a moral and democratic crisis.

The criminal law system crisis is echoed in the systemic problems of the civil law system for adults that suffer from mental heath problems, and in the family law system for the families of suffering welfare children. The major systemic issues for the three systems are "delays" and "timely funding" by the governments so that the litigants receive judgments and decisions in a friendly, affordable and timely way.

In memory of Mr. Boushie, Canada must act now to achieve a broad-based reform of our justice system. The Prime Minister, the federal attorney general, and the provincial premiers and attorneys general should set out an agenda for the establishment of a royal commission to study and solve the systemic issues in criminal law, civil law and family law across Canada.

Willson McTavish, Q.C., Mississauga

............................................

Robot juries

It's beginning to sound as though "trial by a jury of one's peers" is becoming a risky business. As long as humans are involved, there will be a level of subjectivity in any decision-making process. There is indeed a strong feeling the Stanley trial would have had a different outcome had there been, say, an all-Indigenous jury rather than an "all-white" one, to cite your editorial (Fix Our Juries, In The Name Of Fairness, Feb. 13).

Perhaps we should look forward to further development of artificial intelligence, when smart, unemotional machines could examine the facts and the evidence (regrettably, not always the same thing) and reach a totally unbiased verdict.

Dave Ashby, Toronto

............................................

Life-lease living

As an advocate of life-lease housing and the author of a forthcoming book on the subject, I applaud your article on The Village at St. Elizabeth Mills (Retirement To A Resort – Where You Don't Feel Old, Feb. 13).

Life lease, in which purchasers live in their homes as long as they wish and then sell it back to the non-profit or for-profit developer, is a wonderful option for downsizers. However, I do want to clarify one important aspect of your article.

For most people there is no gap between retirement and a nursing home because only a small minority of Canadians end up in a nursing home. The 2016 Census indicates that even among the oldest old (85-plus) just 12 per cent live in a nursing home. Most people live and die in the community, and if it happens to be a life-lease community, so much the better.

Kate Mancer, Vancouver

............................................

Abundant reading

I have just completed Michael Harris's essay on how he has forgotten how to read (I Have Forgotten How To Read, Feb. 10). I read it from beginning to end without interruption and can honestly say that my experience is the complete opposite.

Since moving to a digital reading experience (tablet), I have been reading significantly more often, significantly more diverse material and in much greater depth and attention.

I find the increased access to material, plus the ease with which I can bring my reading with me, has allowed me to consume and enjoy more material than ever before. I am retired so have the luxury of reading any time I choose. In the past week alone, I have read two fiction novels and one non-fiction offering, in sequence interrupted only by the need to seek translation of a reference in another language and a dictionary definition.

Ken Duff, Vankleek Hill, Ont.

............................................

Mr. Harris's piece saddened me. I, too, spent my childhood immersed in "old fashioned books."

Unlike Mr. Harris, though, I appear to be spending my postmiddle age equally immersed in them, and in the pleasurable and enriching experience of what he calls really reading – "patiently, slowly, uselessly" – the words of another human heart, on paper.

Really reading is a process, a complex intellectual and emotional one, not a race for facts or dates or numbers. Practising that process nowadays requires discipline – and time. But there is a huge payoff – for me, at least. Mr. Harris writes: "In our online world, we can indeed move on." But who wants to, when there is the sheer intensity of that feeling of connectedness that reading a book brings?

Heather Birchall, Collingwood, Ont.

Interact with The Globe