The motion appoints @Eli_ElChantiry to chair the OPSB and Jan Harder to the OPSB. This is shocking and disgusting. I have never thought less of Moffat, Watson, and Dudas.
This is a motion sprung on council at the last minute. @ShawnMenard1 calls this for the fucking BS it is.
The absolute gall to suggest that @OttawaPolice did not have enough resources is the biggest lie I have heard. A lie put out there by @ScottMoffatt21 with @JimWatsonOttawa pulling his strings.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have some thoughts on Greenspan's #SNCLavalin opinion piece. I know Brian is a pillar of the criminal defence bar. He is a legend. He also almost offered me an articling job. This is why it pains me to say this. His opinion piece is a dumpster fire: theglobeandmail.com/opinion/articl…
Brian completely misrepresents the AG's role to independently make decisions. Isolation may breed tyranny but that is not what happened in the SNC case - on anyones evidence. In no interpretation of Shawcross doctrine is the idea of an adversarial relationship the the AG a thing.
Brian also parrots the talking point that JWR as a decision-maker did not meaningfully examine the SNC case. That is not supported by the evidence. And it disregards the extraordinary, never used, power of an AG to overrule the DPP.
Perhaps. But a few points. Judges don’t go back into court to litigate. I worry that this court be seen as an attack on the judiciary. I know many judges. They are all good people. So Maybe we should focus on the politicians who seek to use judges as weapons?
The use of judges by politicians for opinions and the constant political suggestion of referring sticky issues to the court for an opinion is bad. But I think the solution of limiting work judges do after retiring is bad bad bad for a number of reasons.
1. Limits judge pool. I ain’t applying if I am put out to pasture after. 2. Good luck drafting that rule - what about international work, charities, teaching, running of office, writing.... 3. Pensions are not generous because limiting future employment is contemplated...
As I sit down to write a piece on yesterdays stunning testimony of Michael Wernick on the Joy Wilson-Raybold / #SNCLavalin affair here are some not so hot takes: ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/…
There does not need to be much daylight between what Warnick said & what JWR will say for there to be a big problems.
Starting point: Warnick is not a neutral witness. He may not have been partisan but he is clearly very loyal to the government. And HIS conduct and reputation is very in question too.
A few years back I represented a client charges with a poppy box theft. When I got the brief the crown who agreed to bail was disgusted. So was the court staff. So was anyone who heard about the charge. Frankly, so was I - but then I got to know my client.
He was homeless and had big addiction issues. He had a bunch of health issues too. Living on the street can do that - he was only 19 years old. He was remorseful and plead guilty. The judge sentenced him to a couple months jail and required him to write an essay about veterans.
My client did not write the essay. And the judge was very upset. And I was too. Why could he not write a few words? Why was he skipping appointments with me? Why risk more jail time? But my client could barely read or write and was too ashamed to tell anyone. Even his lawyer.
"Known gang member": Scheer does not define gang - in fact the word "gang" does not appear in the Criminal Code. But there sure is a lot of racist baggage there. So how are we going to define a "known gang member". Scheer provides no criteria - but trust him.
And if a "gang member" commits a serious crime - like a firearm offence - there is already a reverse onus for bail. And what if a "gang member" steals a candy bar from a convenience store? Scheer proposes a revers onus? Talk about over broad.