Pubdate: Sun, 13 Dec 2009
Source: Winnipeg Sun (CN MB)
Copyright: 2009 Canoe Limited Partnership
Contact:  http://www.winnipegsun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/503
Author: Paul Rutherford

'TWO-TIERED' JUSTICE FOR SURE

The hot Canadian debate over "two-tiered" health care has -- thanks to
Canada's unelected and unaccountable Senate -- been suddenly replaced
by a hot debate over "two-tiered" justice.

That's what Winnipeg South MP Rod Bruinooge is calling amendments the
Senate has proposed for a crime bill currently before them.

The amendments introduced Wednesday have outraged the Conservatives
and their supporters.

They've once again accused the Senate of "gutting" a major crime bill
- -- this one dealing with mandatory minimums.

Bill C-15 had proposed a person found guilty of trafficking who had
previously been convicted of a drug-related offence within the prior
decade would receive a minimum prison sentence of one year while
someone with a prior record who was convicted of growing five or more
marijuana plants would receive six months of mandatory jail time. But
Liberal senators, backed by four independents, passed an amendment
upping the pot plant number to 200 while handing judges discretion at
applying the mandatory minimum to aboriginal offenders.

Say what? Sounds likes two sets of rules to us, no matter what the
Senate says.

"It's definitely the wrong approach to justice to create, essentially,
two different levels of sentencing based on race. As an aboriginal
person, I just see it as offensive," Bruinooge told the Sun.

Canadians remain outraged every time an unelected body like the Senate
tinkers around with legislation intended to make the justice system
tougher. The gloves are off now on the issue as a senator is fighting
back. Liberal Senator Charlie Watt says it's all rubbish. He says
Bruinooge is out of his tree. He argues in a letter to the Sun that it
doesn't exempt aboriginal offenders at all. All the amendments do Watt
says, is gives judges the "discretion" to decide whether a mandatory
minimum is appropriate.

"The language in this amendment is modeled after existing Criminal
Code provisions ... obviously cultural sensitivity and a judge's
discretion have not led to a "free pass." Hence I do not expect this
to be the result of my amendment."

But does this "discretionary" power have to be written in the Bill?
Judges use discretion all the time. They don't need to be prodded to
do it.

And why single out aboriginal criminals?

Sorry Mr. Senator, we say rubbish to you.

To most intelligent people this is nothing more than treating
aboriginals softer when it comes to justice. These changes in the Bill
means there are two sets of rules. And no matter how you spin it, the
end result screams "two-tier justice."

Bruinooge has it right. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D