RSS FeedHip-Hop and the Law: Law as Police
The year is ninety-four, in my trunk is rawIn my rearview mirror is the [expletive] law
- Jay-Z, 99 Problems (2003)
Making [expletive] hate me from a distanceHopping fences in an instant, trying to get away from the long arm of the law- Z-Ro, Get Yo Paper (2002)
By the way they’re runnin’, you would swear the law was comin- Eminem, Run Rabbit Run (2003)
From the above examples we can learn a great deal about the perception of “the law” within hip-hop discourse. For instance, note that the subject in rap music is often on the punitive end of the law, interacting with the law as a mechanism of control that conflicts with the behaviors, actions, and often happiness of the subject. The law, then, is not of the subject, of hip-hop culture, or the individuals and communities that comprise a hip-hop collective; instead, the law is an external agent that enters a community not to serve or protect, but to punish.
Another important observation to glean is that in hip-hop discourse the law is often defined by its frontline enforcers: police officers. That the law can be reduced to police officers in hip-hop discourse indicates a lack of engagement of the law’s other elements: judges, politicians, lawyers, civil
society organizations, lobbyists, and others. To many communities, police officers are the only representatives of the law that are seen and heard directly.
So for individuals and communities that are reflected by or even produce hip-hop discourse, the law is experienced in a way that does not always lend itself to thinking of the law as an academic field, a source of employment, a malleable tool of protecting and bettering society, or an arena through which society is guided and driven, or the multiple other manifestations of the law distinct from police officers.
We may gain from this is an appreciation of diversity that brings different experiences and understandings of the law to the table, but perhaps more pertinent is recognizing the power that those of us who engage with the law through roles outside of law enforcement have the potential to redefine the law in different, more nurturing and comprehensive ways to communities who see law as police (i.e. low-income and, or minority communities). Popular education initiatives, public speaking in relevant venues, and mentoring of youth are three efforts to achieve such redefinition that I have personally seen work.
Determine where you fit in and play your position.
Canadians have a constitutional right to government-held info: SCC
According to a recent ruling of the SCC, the right to access to government records is now protected by the Charter. In a unanimous 7-0 ruling in Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyer’s Association, [2010] S.C.J. No. 23, the SCC decided that if the information is needed to promote “meaningful public discussion on matters of public interest”, Canadians have an access right to that information, guaranteed by s. 2(b) of Charter under the heading “Fundamental Freedoms”.
The Criminal Lawyer’s Association (CLA) called this “an epic win”, that ensued after a decade-long battle for access to a 300-page review conducted by the OPP with regards to how the Hamilton and Halton police “handled the investigation of the 1983 murder of Toronto mobster Dominic Racco. Mr. Racco was shot and killed on December 1983 and his body was dumped on a Milton rail line. Two Hamilton men, Garaham Court and Dennis Monaghan were charged consequently by Hamilton Police. They had the charges stayed in 1997 after Justice Stephen Glithero of the Ontario Superior Court found evidence of “flagrant and intentional misconduct” by the Crown and Halton and Hamilton police in the process. An investigation by the OPP ensued that resulted in the review but it was not made public despite CLA’s request. The denial of the government to force the OPP to release the review was basically what fuelled the legal action taken by the CLA that was eventually granted the right to appeal by the SCC.
Although, the CLA found the ruling, an epic victory, it was not granted the right to access the information in the OPP review. The SCC, in turn, held that right to access could only be triggered when the information sought “is necessary for meaningful public discussion on matters of public interest”. In matters where the release of information may “interfere with the proper functioning of the governmental institution in question”, or where they are shielded by solicitor-client privilege, such rights are not guaranteed to the public.
For one, the SCC held that the review may contain information about the parties that are protected by the solicitor-client privilege. Furthermore, it was decided that CLA has failed to demonstrate that “meaningful public discussion of shortcomings in the investigation and prosecution could not take place without making the OPP report public”. Yet, the Supreme Court sent back the CLA’s request to the information commissioner for a fresh review. Yet, the ruling was described as “a baby step toward recognizing that access to information is a constitutional right” by Paul Schabas of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.
Many countries including UK and US have similar laws implemented in their laws. Sweden, embedded access to information laws in their legislation in 1766 via their Freedom of the Press Act. The British Freedom of Information Act (2000), implemented such rights into the country’s legal system. In Canada, the Access to Information Act grants citizens access to records held by federal bodies and Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is the legislation that governs matters that come under the scope of the Ontario provincial government. The significance of this “baby-step” is of course in having the access to information right established as constitutional rather than statutory.
Read this article by Dan Michaluk and Paul Broad of Hicks Morley for further analysis of how this case impacts the government institutions.
Photo: Dominic Racco
Lawyers Top Kilimanjaro
Here’s a follow-up from our podcast interview with Christopher Bredt of Borden, Ladner, Gervais LLP, who climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro with other lawyers from his firm for charity.
Sean Weir, BLG’s National Managing Partner referred to the trek as, “one of the most difficult challenges he has faced”.
The team of volunteer lawyers successfully climbed to the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro and raised more than $176,000 to support CODE’s Summit of Literacy. Combined with CIDA’s 3:1 matching grant, that means more than $700,000 will be donated to support children’s literacy programs in Africa.
Shelley Munro, Sean Weir, Michael Smith and Chris Bredt of Borden, Ladner, Gervais LLP at the top of Mount Kilimanjaro
Wikileaks exposes ‘unseen war’
Via Channel 4 News:
Secret Afghanistan files: revealed for the first time
The extraordinary leak made public by whistleblowers’ website Wikileaks has lifted the lid on more than 90,000 US military documents involving classified information direct from the battlefield in Afghanistan. It is the US army’s secret war diary – 200,000 pages of it – written by soldiers on the frontline.
The release of this set of documents have already been likened to the Pentagon Papers, which forecasted the demise of the Vietnam War, especially since it also demonstrates how the military has deliberately misled the public on many issues of the war including civilian casualties.
Alternative medicines need regulation: Op-Ed
Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq recently had the opportunity to prevent the sale of potentially dangerous health products to unwitting consumers. Canadians should ask why she let it pass by.
This June, the Harper government introduced Bill C-36 with respect to consumer product safety. When compared to legislation offered in 2008, the planned bill fails to provide much-needed regulation of Canada’s burgeoning natural health product (NHP) industry …
Read the entire July 24th commentary at the Calgary Herald.
Despite what you may have been told, judges and lawyers arent all saints and angels
Justice Delisle, a 1957 graduate of Laval University was admitted to the Quebec Bar in 1958. He was appointed to the Quebec Superior Court in 1983 and promoted to the Court of Appeal in 1992. He retired last year.
According to the Criminal Lawyer Jean-Pierre Rancourt, Delisle J. was a well-respected and competent judge. Renald Beaudry, another criminal lawyer who also pleaded cases before Delisle J., described him as a level-handed and intellectual judge.
On November 2009, Quebec City Police received a call from Delisle J.’s house about a possible suicide. Though they initially believed it to be a case of suicide, Sandra Dion, the police spokeswoman, said that further investigation led them to lay first-degree murder charges against Justice Delisle in mid June in connection with the death of his wife, Marie-Nicole Rainville. The deceased was wheelchair bound, following a stroke that she suffered from two years ago, raising doubts that the murder may have been an act of compassion – reminiscent of Latimer v. R. (difference being that in Latimer the victim was the guy’s daughter who had cerebral palsy).
The former Justice Delisle was arrested on June 15th on charges of first-degree murder and illegal possession of a weapon. However, just about a week later on June 23rd, Justice Claude Gagnon of Quebec Superior Court got Delisle to agree to a $100,000 bail, which his daughter Helene Delisle and former law partner Pierre Cimon put together to release the first member of the Canadian judiciary to be charged with murder.
It is certain that 26 years of sitting on the Quebec bench doesn’t help in making his trial impartial. So how are the officials to handle a case with so high a level of sensitivity?
Well for one, the Crown Prosecutors that are going to be nominated should not have known the former judge. Also the presiding Judge must come from somewhere other than Quebec. Gangon J. who released the former judge on bail has claimed that he did not personally know Delisle or his family. The two crown prosecutors, Lune Morais and Charles Levasseur “have limited ties to Quebec City, and do not know Delisle nor have ever pleaded a case before [him]” the Lawyers Weekly writes.
Another step taken in ensuring impartiality is what’s termed as a “pre-inquiry”. This procedure, which is only initiated in highly sensitive cases, involves having the testimony heard privately before a judge ex parte (without having to have all the parties present) and in camera (in private). This is made possible by s.507.1 of the Criminal Code:
507. (1) Subject to subsection 523(1.1), a justice who receives an information laid under section 504 by a peace officer, a public officer, the Attorney General or the Attorney General’s agent, other than an information laid before the justice under section 505, shall, except if an accused has already been arrested with or without a warrant:
(a) hear and consider, ex parte,
- the allegations of the informant, and
- the evidence of witnesses, where he considers it desirable or necessary to do so; and
(b) where he considers that a case for so doing is made out, issue, in accordance with this section, either a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel the accused to attend before him or some other justice for the same territorial division to answer to a charge of an offence.
Motion for Certification on York Class Action
via CNW Group:
Important notice regarding the Class Action against York University
TORONTO, July 21 /CNW/ – Juroviesky and Ricci LLP would like to inform all those who are interested in and/or have registered for the York Class Action for the damages resulting from the 2008-2009 Strike/York’s Cancellation of Classes that the Motion for Certification is scheduled to be heard by the court for three consecutive days from July 21-23, 2010 from 10 am – 5 pm at Courtroom No. 4, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St. W., Toronto, Ontario. Assistive signs and individuals from our offices will be located around Osgoode Hall to help you find your way to the appropriate courtroom.
Counsel for both sides will be present and make oral submissions to the court in support of their respective positions. The motion is open to the public, therefore if you are able to, we encourage all registered or interested parties to attend these proceedings to show support for our position that York compensate the 50,000 students, including yourself, for the damages resulting from the strike of 2008-2009.
If you are interested in attending this proceeding, please email us at info@jruslaw.com and indicate which day(s) you would be interested in being present. As this motion is critical to the progression of this litigation as a class action on behalf of all affected students, your attendance and support would be appreciated and beneficial to the students’ position.
Juroviesky and Ricci LLP
Henry Juroviesky
For further information: Eli Karp, Barrister and Solicitor, Juroviesky and Ricci LLP Barristers and Solicitors, 4950 Yonge Street, Suite 904, Toronto, Ontario M2N 6K1, Canada, 416.481.0718 (Reception), 416.646.7879(Direct), 416.893.9322 (Cell), ekarp@jruslaw.com
Lawsuit of the day: airline CEO wants free flights on competitor’s planes
Robert Deluce, the CEO of Porter Airlines, is suing Air Canada for free travel passes which are allegedly owed to him and his spouse.
Deluce’s family used to own Air Ontario and Air Austin, both of which offered mainly regional service throughout Ontario. These companies were sold to Air Canada back in the 80′s (and later became part of Air Canada Jazz in 2001). As part of the sale, Deluce and his wife were supposed to get free first class travel passes for life on Air Canada.
Deluce alleges that beginning last fall, Air Canada stopped honouring his travel passes without warning. He is seeking $5 million in compensation. One may question how many free flights would have to be missed, in less than a year, in order to rack up $5m in damages.
One may also question why the CEO of an airline would need free flights on a competitor’s planes. But hey, a deal’s a deal, right?
The background to the story is that Porter and Air Canada have been locked in a legal spat over the use of the Toronto Island airport. This lawsuit simply represents the latest broadside in the ongoing battle.
An Air Canada spokesperson (who deserves a raise) had this to say about the lawsuit: “[b]ecause this is currently before the courts we cannot comment. However, it is completely understandable that Mr. Deluce would prefer to fly Air Canada — with its Executive Class, in-flight entertainment, Maple Leaf Lounges, Concierge Service and other exclusive benefits — rather than Porter.”
The Canadian census debate—a background
On June 26, 2010, Canada Gazette published an Order in Council dated June 17, 2010. The order contained questions for the 2011 Canadian census. The short document that would normally be of interest only to statisticians caused a national debate—not because of what it contained, but because of what it lacked. 53 detailed questions sent to 20% of the population in the past were not in the government’s order. Only seven or so questions previously put on the short form will be sent to Canadians next year.
The Canadian government runs a census of the population every fives years on the authority of the federal Statistics Act (s. 19(1)). Under this statute, it is the job specifically of Statistics Canada to “take the census of population of Canada” (s. 3(c)). The Statistics Act gives the federal cabinet the power and discretion to appoint and remove the Chief Statistician of Canada (s. 4(1)). He and his office are not independent. The Chief Statistician must carry out his duties “under the direction” of the designated minister, which is currently Minister of Industry Tony Clement. Section 7 of the Act empowers the minister to set “rules, instructions, schedules and forms” for Statistics Canada, including for taking a census. Section 21(1) requires the federal cabinet to prescribe census questions by order in council. That is exactly what the cabinet did on June 17 causing the Statistical Society of Canada to criticize the scrapping of the long form.
The Act also empowers the minister to authorize voluntary surveys (s. 8). The Minister of Industry apparently used this power to introduce the voluntary National Household Survey to be taken at the same time as the census. According to Statistics Canada, the Survey will contain questions from the scrapped long census form, but precise questions are not yet available.
Answering statistical questions asked on the authority of the Act is mandatory (s. 31) unless they are specifically voluntary under s. 8. Not answering, lying, or not filling out a form are summary offences punishable by a fine of up to $500 or up to three months in jail. Census questions are always mandatory under the Statistics Act, regardless of any additional voluntary surveys the minister may initiate (s. 8). The minister cannot make the census voluntary, but he can manipulate the number of questions. The Act does not require the census to contain more than one question. Presumably, zero questions would make the census impossible and would therefore be unlawful.
Background documents
- Statistics Act
- The 2011 census order in council (includes the census form)
- The letter from the Statistical Society of Canada to Minister Clement (July 9, 2010) [pdf]
- Minister Clement’s statement on 2011 census (July 13, 2010)
- The 2006 census long form [pdf]
- The 2006 census short form [pdf]
(Post sponsored by AdviceScene)
Implications of Social Media in IP Law
Recent presentation by Blaine Bettinger of Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
What Law Schools Don’t Want you to Know
A reader wrote in to us about this post about 15 Facts Law Schools Don’t Want You to Know:
1. Books are incredibly expensive, and you might never use them again.
2. Your first year of law school will already be laid out for you.
3. Your grades will be curved.
4. Law school debts could total well over $100,000.
5. What school you go to does matter.
6. Your chances of getting a high paid job are slim.
7. You can expect to work much more than 40 hours a week as a lawyer.
8. The bar exam requires you to study for months, and even after that 33% fail.
9. Breaks aren’t really breaks– you must spend them working.
10. Law school won’t teach you business skills.
11. Grades aren’t the end all.
12. Only 54 percent of all working-age law school grads are able to make it as a lawyer.
13. Fewer new grads are able to find jobs.
14. Law schools lure in minority students to improve diversity rankings without disclosing that less than half of African-Americans who enter these programs ever pass the bar.
15. Schools create misleading employment statistics by temporarily hiring new grads and spotlighting kids who land top-paying jobs, while ignoring the fact that most students make far-lower average incomes.
While many of these are true, others are more relevant in the American context than in Canada. For example, where you go to school matters far less in Canada (#5), where all schools are publicly funded and are considered first-tier. Bar exam pass rates are far better in Canada as well (#8, #15).
Chris Selley Slams Levant over Khadr
Chris Selley of the National Post gives Ezra Levant a pretty good thrashing over his recent op-ed over Omar Khadr:
In a column published in various Sun Media papers earlier this week, Ezra Levant presented “some facts about [Omar] Khadr.” The facts were as follows: (1) there are photographs of Mr. Khadr apparently doing bad things on behalf of Taliban insurgents; (2) Canadian lawyers seem to care a lot more about Mr. Khadr than they do about, say, Chinese-Canadian political prisoner Huseyin Celil; (3) Article 38 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child makes it “clear” that “15-year-olds are not child soldiers”; (4) Mr. Khadr wasn’t a soldier at all, as defined by the Geneva Conventions; and (5) “no one cared [about him] until the Conservatives were elected.”
Mr. Levant’s argument is quite ingenious. It’s almost like a living thing: You can throw a counterargument at it, but it’ll just bob and weave and emerge as a different argument. For example, you could point out that, unfortunately, he’s misread the UN’s intentions on child soldiers. Article 38 of the Convention only applies to “States Parties,” and the Taliban insurgency is quite obviously neither a state nor a party to the Convention. Any honest reader of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict would have to conclude it intends the term “child soldier” to apply to anyone under 18.
At which point, Mr. Levant could refer you to Fact No. 4: Mr. Khadr’s child soldier status is irrelevant, because he wasn’t a soldier at all — an opinion shared by notable international law expert Stephen Harper, incidentally, who opined last year that “to be a child soldier, you have to be in an army.”
But, you might then protest, look at Article 4 of the Optional Protocol: “Armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18.” And look at the United States’ written declaration that it understands the term “armed groups” in Article 4 to mean “nongovernmental armed groups such as rebel groups, dissident armed forces, and other insurgent groups” — wording that clearly includes the gang Mr. Khadr was running with. And look here at Article 7, which commits States Parties to “the rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons who are victims of acts contrary [to the Protocol].” Clearly, you might argue, Omar Khadr was a child soldier as defined by both common sense and a United Nations document ratified by both Canada and the United States. And you’d be right.
Perhaps Levant should stick to bankrupting newspapers, instead of opining on international law.
