On September 12, 2018
© By John Arkelian
I. Contempt for Courts
It is appalling that the freshly-minted new government of Ontario abruptly decreed that Toronto city hall had too many elected representatives and arbitrarily cut their numbers nearly in half – in the middle of a municipal election campaign – throwing existing campaigns into chaos. That action was arbitrary, capricious, and undemocratic. (It was also discriminatory, insofar as Toronto was singled out for electoral amputation, a result it appears, of the fact that Ford bears a grudge against Toronto city hall.) Premier Doug Ford and his minions never even hinted at such a plan during the provincial election this summer; so they hardly had ‘a mandate’ from the electorate for such drastic and precipitous interference with another level of government. And speaking of mandates, a large majority of voters rejected the so-called “Progressive” Conservatives, by casting their votes for other parties. As is commonplace in Canada, both federally and provincially, a party that captured only a minority of the votes got a majority of the seats. It’s true that under our “first past the post” system that electoral result confers a right to ‘form the government;’ but forbearance, which is the sine qua non of a democratic polity, ought to preclude decent, fair-minded elected officials from acting as if their humble 40-some-odd percentile of the votes bestowed upon them absolute power. Unfortunately, decency and fair-mindedness appear to be alien concepts to Ford and his caucus, who prefer to think they can rule by dictatorial fiat.
When, earlier this week, a court struck down their heavy-handed, needlessly hasty interference in an on-going municipal election, Ford shamelessly announced that he would invoke the override clause in the Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That clause was the cost (imposed by some recalcitrant provinces) for Canada’s belated adoption of a constitutionally-entrenched bill of rights. The expectation was that it would only rarely be used – and only in gravely vital situations. And, indeed, it has hardly ever been invoked, federally or provincially, and never before by Ontario. Invoking a ‘for emergency use only’ clause to infringe constitutionally-protected, core human rights (in this case, the right to free expression by candidates and voters in an election campaign that was already in progress) takes appalling to an unseemly new level. Ford displays his ignorance of and contempt for the rule of law by attempting to justify his grossly improper action by saying, “I was elected; the judge was appointed.” Someone needs to explain to him that elected governments are still subject to the constitution and the inviolable rights which are entrenched there. Just as urgently, Ford needs some instruction in the division of powers in a constitutional democracy – between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. All three branches play distinct and essential roles, with the judiciary responsible for interpreting the law and ensuring its compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Invoking a clause to override core rights, and doing so for no reason than personal pique and vainglorious hubris, is a grotesque affront to democracy and to the rule of law. The Supreme Court should intervene and declare Ford’s action to be invalid. Meanwhile, where are the supposedly ‘wiser’ heads in Ford’s government (people like Christine Elliot, Caroline Mulroney, and Rod Phillips)? By supporting Ford in this matter, they, and every other M.P.P. who votes to override the Charter of Rights, deserve public opprobrium and a permanent forfeiture of voter support: They have proven, irretrievably, their unfitness for public office.
********************
II. Contempt of Court
While the jury was still deliberating the fate of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort (before he was convicted of eight criminal counts of bank fraud and tax fraud), Donald Trump publicly opined that Manafort was ‘a good guy’ and that what was happening to him was ‘terrible.’ Those declarations by the President of the United States constitute an egregious interference with the administration of justice: They posed a clear and present danger of influencing the jury, subverting its impartiality, and prejudicing a fair trial. They constituted classic contempt of court (which consists of any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of justice into disrepute or tends to prejudice a fair trial in a case that is before the courts), and the presiding trial judge ought to have immediately charged Trump with that very offence. (Incidentally, Manafort’s defense lawyer transgressively made matters worse by repeating Trump’s grossly improper declarations on camera.)
********************
III. Beneath Contempt
A few weeks ago, on social media, Canada’s foreign affairs minister, Chrystia Freeland, quite rightly criticized the wrongful actions of Saudi Arabia in arresting some peaceful activists in the areas of civil society and women’s rights and called for their immediate release. One of those human rights advocates, Samar Badawi, has family ties to Canada – not that a Canadian connection is in any way a prerequisite for Canada to demand respect for human rights abroad. The autocratic regime in Saudi Arabia doesn’t like to be criticized (however much they deserve to be), and they reacted harshly, seemingly intent on making an example of Canada. Canada’s ambassador was sent packing; future trade and investment was summarily cancelled by the Saudis, and Saudi nationals studying in Canada with Saudi government financial help were told to vacate the country that dared to criticize Saudi Arabia for its dreadful human rights record. Sadly, Canada’s closest friends and allies stayed conspicuously silent, lest they, too, incur the vindictive wrath of the Saudi autocrats.
Let’s hope that Canada stands its ground. Let’s face it: Saudi Arabia is hostile to democracy and human rights. Its crown prince (Mohammed bin Salman) seems to like to be hailed as a reformer. But, his recent lifting off the prohibition on women driving cars only marginally brings his benighted regime into the early 20th century: they still have a century’s worth of catching-up to do. They could start by getting rid of the harshly retrograde requirement that females need the permission of a male to leave their homes! While they’re at it, why not crack down on religious schools that inculcate hateful doctrines? (Lest we forget, most of the 9/11 terrorists, including the man behind that mass murder, Osama bin Laden, were from Saudi Arabia.) In recent months, the same regime has kidnapped the prime minister of Lebanon to compel that country’s compliance; wrongfully sought to intimidate its neighbor Qatar over differences of policy, and continues to inflict systematic war crimes in neighboring Yemen, directly precipitating a humanitarian disaster there of massive proportions. Lamentably, Canada (like most of the West) hasn’t had much to say on that front; instead, we’ve upheld our wrong-headed $15 billion sale of armored military vehicles to the desert kingdom where fundamental human rights are an illusory mirage.
Canada should stand its ground and reiterate its just criticisms. It should also take this convenient opportunity to reopen its embassy in Iran, which is the Saudis’ chief rival in the region. Frankly, the regime in Tehran is no more noxious than its counterpart in Riyadh; and it would be instructive for the Saudis to be reminded that they are not the only player in the region that wants to have its voice heard in the wider world.
John Arkelian is a former diplomat and international lawyer.
Copyright © 2018 by John Arkelian.