Cherniak likes to remind us that he is a lawyer, among all his Liberal Party credentials:
Jason Cherniak is a 27-year old lawyer and new media consultant working in Toronto. He graduated from Dalhousie Law School and studied Ethics, Society and Law and History while attending Trinity College at the University of Toronto.
Jason was Stephane Dion's Blog Campaign Co-Chair and sat on the Internet Task Force of the Liberal Renewal Commission. He is president of the Richmond Hill Federal Liberal Riding Association and York Region Area Director for the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario).
So now he uses his lawyerly skills to give Stephane Dion advice:
So this being the case, what is going to happen when the Conservative crime bill comes up for a vote? The history is quite simple. The Conservatives brought forward a number of crime control initiatives, one of which is a "three-strikes and you're out" rule. The Liberals tried to fast track the initiatives they agree with, but the Conservatives refused because they want the one disagreement to the be real issue for talking points. It plays into the whole "soft on crime" line that Conservatives in Canada perfected under Mike Harris in Ontario.
The problem with the three-strikes rule is that it allows no room for context. What if the "third-strike" is a minor theft? What if it is graffiti? Should a person really be considered a "dangerous offender" because that person stole three loaves of bread? It is easy to fix this sort of problem with amendments, but the Conservatives have refused to change anything. They want to force the Liberals to vote against a crime bill.
It would seem that the easy answer is for the Liberals to either abstain on the bill or vote for it. Voting for it would avoid an election and even take away the "soft on crime" option. Abstaining would show opposition to the bill, but avoid an election and give us the summer to perfect our election organization. Why defeat the bill and force ourselves into an election that we don't want?
The answer is very simple. Principle. This is bad legislation. Why would we want to allow a criminal law to pass that we consider to be obnoxious? When all is said and done, aren't Parliamentarians there to vote their heart, damn the electoral consequences? What happens if Liberals vote for an election not because they want an election, but because they cannot bring themselves to support the bill?
Bad Conservatives. No room for context. Fill our prisons with the poor and the desperate. Idealogues of the worst kind.
But Jason argues that the Liberals ought not to defeat this bill, because they could lose an election over it:
Frankly, I don't think this is ground to die on. As much as I have problems with some parts of the bill, it is not the end of the world. Any particularly outrageous scenarios will likely be thrown out by the courts because they offend the Charter of Rights. Besides, I suspect that without a real understanding of how the law works, Canadians would vote for the Conservatives on the basis of a three-strikes and you're out rule. What's the point of going into an election on an issue that we know will likely defeat us?
So we get this comment:
You're a lawyer, aren't you, Jason? You should read the dangerous offenders bill and get the facts.
There is no way that a person convicted of an offence like shoplifting or vandalism such as graffiti would be covered under it. It deals only with a specific number of violent or sexual crimes. If an offender is found guilty in a court of law of one of those crimes three times, the onus shifts to that person to explain why they shouldn't be considered a dangerous offender.
From the Library of Parliament's legislative summary: "The definition of “primary designated offence” in clause 1 of the bill contains a list of 12 offences, such as certain sexual offences against minors,(90) sexual assault, attempted murder, assault with a weapon, causing bodily harm and kidnapping, with the addition of former sexual offences such as rape and indecent assault. These 12 primary designated offences are punishable by imprisonment for 10 years or more. Sexual assault is already defined as a “serious personal injury offence” under the definition in paragraph 752(b) of the Code. The other primary designated offences could be characterized as “serious personal injury offences” under paragraph 752(a) if the facts showed that they involved violence, conduct endangering another person or severe psychological damage."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/
index.asp?List=ls&Query=4841&Session=14
&Language=e#1presumption
So Jason adds this update:
It seems that the three-strikes rule would only apply for particularly bad offences. I suppose the actual point of principle is the reverse onus in general. Now I'm even more certain that it is no reason to risk an election.
OK, so let's get this straight:
- Jason Cherniak, lawyer, argues that the Conservative "three strikes" bill will throw people in jail for littering.
- Jason argues that the Conservatives could fix this problem with amendments, but they are not listening to the reasonable Liberals led by Stephane Dion.
- Jason argues that the Liberals will be forced to vote against this terrible bill on principle, thus triggering an election that only the Conservatives want, which is why they've crafted the bill the way they did.
- Jason says this would be a mistake, that this law would never survive constitutional challenges, and that the Liberals ought to just abstain.
- Someone points out to our lawyer that the proposed law actually does not trigger the three-strikes rule except in the most serious cases.
- Jason Cherniak is forced to admit that the law does not seem to be the vicious piece of legislation he thought it was.
So doesn't it follow, then, that he should strike this damning statement from his blog with an explanation?
It is easy to fix this sort of problem with amendments, but the Conservatives have refused to change anything. They want to force the Liberals to vote against a crime bill.
But why would the Liberals vote against it? It isn't the bill Jason (a lawyer) thought it was. So the Conservatives have not crafted a bill the Liberals could not ever vote for. So the Conservatives are not trying to trigger an election by creating a bill the Liberals must oppose on principle.
Instead, Jason throws "reverse onus" out as the problem, arguing that his entire argument still holds, even more so, despite the fact that the initial premise has been shown to be in error.
Jason, you were wrong. I commend you on not simply deleting the post, but you ought to consider just withdrawing the "Conservatives are forcing an election" rant. At least until you've got an argument that doesn't fall apart on the most cursory examination of the proposed law in question (as performed by your readers, who may or may not be lawyers).
Maybe the Liberals and their mouthpieces can stop accusing the Conservatives of trying to trigger an election. Seems to me that the Liberals are so focused on this supposed election that they see non-confidence traps everywhere they look. It's a mirage, Jason, created by your fevered imaginings of Conservative plots.
The Conservatives are just trying to govern by passing bills consistent with their principles and philosophy, which means reasonable and clear and popular with Canadians. Stop listening to Stephane Dion's ravings about elections. It's messing with your brains.
