Justice David Marshall has ordered the parties to the native land claims dispute/occupation in Caledonia, Ontario to appear before him tomorrow. The parties include the attorney General of Ontario, First Nations leaders and developers. Justice Marshall wants to know why the order that he made to end the native occupation was never enforced. according to Tory critic, Bob Runciman, "This is the first time in memory that an attorney General has been called on the carpet by a Superior Court Justice to explain why he is not discharging his constitutional responsibilities."
Judges, by necessity in a country that is ruled by law and not men (oops, that should be persons), occupy a somewhat exalted position in society when they are sitting on the bench. But if David Marshall thinks that because he is one of Her Majesty's Judges of the Superior Court of Ontario, that he is going to get what other Ontarians never get from the McGuinty government — the truth — he will undoubtedly be sadly disappointed.
It fell to the Ontario Provincial Police to enforce Justice Marshall's order to remove the native blockades. The OPP is, Sgt. Cam Woolley's humorous anecdotes about holiday weekend drivers notwithstanding, not a real police force in the sense that city and regional forces are. Much like the RCMP is federally the OPP is nothing more than an extension of the provincial government of the day. Dalton McGuinty spent years railing against Mike Harris and his government for sending the OPP into Ipperwash Provincial Park, presumably to shoot Indians. The premier is not going to take the chance that another death could occur in the course of enforcing an order of the court. and far be it from his police to overrule their boss. Enforcing the law is not as important as the well being of the McGuinty government. Keeping Dalton's poll numbers up is much more important than a lousy piece of paper, even if that piece of paper has the word "ORDER" at the top and a justice's signature at the bottom.
The refusal to enforce the order to end the occupation should be contrasted with the way a real, independent police force operates. There have been incidents in Toronto where young black males have been shot by police, causing a lot of anger in the community. If another shooting followed hours or days after the first one, the boiling point of many people would have been reached. But the possibility of that happening never stopped the police from continuing to enforce the law against other young black males suspected of committing criminal offenses under circumstances where further shooting may have occurred. But neither the OPP nor the government has the guts to enforce the law against native protesters, lest another "Dudley George incident" happen and cause harm to Dalton McGuinty and his government. Politics trumps the law of the land.
To Liberal governments like McGuinty's the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of political correctness and as we all know, in the PC world no group is as special as aboriginals. They can block roads and railway tracks and disrupt the lives and businesses of hard working Canadians knowing that nothing will be done about it. They know that the OPP are standing around and watching but barring acts of extreme violence, nothing will be done to prevent their actions in spite of the fact that they are illegal and in contravention of a court order. after all, why obey a law that won't be enforced?
The law also took a dive in Toronto this week. The Toronto Transit Commission went on an illegal strike and ignored a lawful order of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to return to work. Only later in the day when a second order was made (and probably because the city's union loving mayor refused to take their side) did the union deign to comply with the law and end their unlawful job action.
There's not much hope for a society where governments, police forces and labour unions feel it is their right to ignore the lawful orders of courts and tribunals. Can total anarchy be far behind?
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement