The noose that strangles freedom is tightening around the citizens of Canada.
Consider what is waiting in the wings:
A bill that will permit the law society of Canada to "discipline" politically incorrect attorneys is scheduled to go before the Ontario Legislature next month.
Barry Wilson, a spokesman for Ontario's Attorney General Charles Harnick, said in an article that appeared in yesterday's (Oct. 27, 1998) Globe and Mail that ". . . opponents will have an uphill climb to show it is flawed."
What are the provisions of Bill 53?
Kirk Makin, justice reporter for Canada's Globe and Mail, describes the proposed legislation in an article titled "Opposition Grows to giving law society more power: Critics in legal community fear abuse of proposed legislation authorizing raids, psychiatric treatment" as
". . . an omnibus bill that would modify many of the ways the Law Society of Upper Canada currently regulates Ontario's legal profession. Its most controversial provisions involve its ability to search law offices for evidence of misconduct, as well as its powers to discipline lawyers and to order treatment."
Now keep in mind, as you reflect on what such new and vast powers will do to intimidate lawyers who defend unpopular clients and causes: It was Ontario's Attorney-General, Charles Harnick, who pleased his brethren by proposing a draconian law aimed at Revisionists when he was in Opposition. Not incidentally either, Harnick was also a member of the Yad Vashem Society, and it was Chretien, Canada's Prime Minister, who let it be known that Revisionists weren't "welcome" in Canada!
What is particularly interesting in this revealing Globe and Mail article is a description of the mastermind behind this blatant usurpation of authority:
"The legislation - Bill 53 - has been championed by law society treasurer Harvey Strosberg, a take-charge administrator with a reputation for smoothly working the levers of power. The bill seemed destined to pass easily until opposition suddenly began to appear in recent weeks.
"Displeased by the burst of negativity, Mr. Strosberg has criticized opponents for not recognizing the value of the bill to the public and for weighing in too late in the game."
Sounds familiar?
While the Canadian citizenry kept snoozing, a large chunk of Canada's legal profession was bulldozed out of the way by the vainglorious Human Rights Commission enterprise. It seemed convenient and ". . . in the public's interest" to do a little social engineering by making sure speech was uniformly politically correct and people's feelings weren't hurt. Before they knew what hit them, all kinds of reporters, columnists, politicians and even judges started dancing to the tune of this quasi-legal body - while human rights and civil liberties as well as justice for politically incorrect folks flew right out of the window.
What was the end result? That only expert witnesses who tow the line will be allowed in so-called Human Rights Tribunals? That bias-tainted Human Rights Tribunal members are okay? That truth is no defense?
Now the attack is spreading - and a few folks at least are waking up - at the proverbial five-minutes-to-midnight, it seems.
Opposition to Bill 53 is said to be growing in the legal community who rightfully fear abuse of the proposed legislation that would authorize raids and psychiatric treatment for recalcitrant lawyers - let's say the ones like Doug Christie who dare take on unpopular clients who claim they speak the truth and say uncomfortable things that might well end up hurting well-connected people's feelings for good cause.
Writes Makin in this Globe and Mail article:
"A rift in the legal community grew yesterday over proposed legislation that would permit raids of Ontario law offices based on the merest suspicion.
"The Criminal Lawyers' Association said investigators who regulate the profession could arbitrarily force lawyers to take psychiatric treatment or could seize confidential client information." (...)
"The (Criminal Lawyers' Association) joined a chorus of apprehension that already includes the Canadian Bar Association (Ontario) and an association representing Ontario real estate lawyers. (...)
"(Canadian Bar Association Ontario) president Steven Rosenheck said yesterday the proposals his organization were shown when the bill was first being prepared are not those contained in the final version."
Imagine the Attorney General-s Office, or the heads of the law society being so underhanded as to deceive even the leaders of the Canadian law society by showing them one set of documents, and after they are approved, switching to another set! How brazen and corrupt can you get!
Continues Makin:
"(Rosenheck) was especially critical of the provision allowing lawyers to be raided if there is a suggestion they are doing something wrong. Even suspects in serious criminal cases cannot be raided unless the police have reasonable and probable grounds for a search, he said.
"'If you can't do it under the Criminal Code, why should you be able to do it under the Law Society Act,' Mr. Rosenhek asked. 'It also specifically overrides solicitor-and-client privilege. The public expects what they tell their lawyers to not be disclosed to other people.
"'I think many lawyers - and many branches of the law society - didn't realize the extent of these powers,' Mr. Rosenhek said. 'We are just trying to prevent the law society from exercising its powers in an arbitrary, overbearing way.'"
Right on target, says the Zundelsite, to Mr. Rosenhek's remarks!
If he means what he says, he will have on his hands the same kind of intellectual struggle that Ernst Zundel has been waging for two decades: To convince an apathetic public that what's being done by some in government is not - repeat, not! - in the public's interest.
In an interview last Friday, Mr. Strosberg maintained otherwise, of course. The Strosberg stance is, and I quote the Globe and Mail, that
". . . client confidentiality would not really be breached because the law society is the guardian of the public interest. He said this makes the law society and the client one and the same."
Oh, suuuuure! The fox is the guardian of the chickens. It seems to me we have heard that before.
Said William Trudell, a spokesman for the Criminal Lawyers Association:
"When you have got a piece of legislation that could potentially be used wrongfully, all you need is a tyrant. In the wrong hands, it could be a disaster."
Bill 53 in the wrong hands - where it will almost certainly wind up, just as the Human Rights Commission did! - you might as well forget about finding a lawyer willing to defend a client who is critical of people like Strosberg and Harnick and who oppose their agenda.
If he knows what is good for him, such a lawyer won't risk raids and shrinks - shrinks ***chosen*** by people like Strosberg and his fellow travelers! Ask yourself if you are an attorney: How will such odium impact on your reputation as a lawyer?
This is worse than a "1984" scenario.
Just as in Soviet Russia!
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"I heard the trailing garments of the Night sweep through her marble halls..."
(Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)