ARE JUDGES USING DOPE?

For decades, citizens have expressed concern that Canada is moving
toward a police state.

There was the FLQ crisis that saw former prime minister Pierre Trudeau
evoke the War Measures Act in 1970 which allowed anyone to be detained
at anytime. Civil rights were waived if a person was suspected of
having a link to a criminal or offense. Indefinite imprisonment was
the result. Trudeau's government also began the very unpopular process
of forcing firearm owners to register themselves and guns that were
deemed to present greater potential danger to the public and were
therefore restricted.

Around the world, various forms of terrorism were initiated and then
refined. The most utilized technique quickly became suicide bombing
which indiscriminately kills anyone, but most recently civilians are
the targets of choice. Like the perpetrators of such violence,
shrapnel has no conscience. In light of such hellish tactics,
governments and law enforcement agencies have been playing catch-up
and are working to make our lives safer, but it comes at a cost to our
personal freedoms. Thanks to anti-terrorism legislation, Canadians
with suspected links to radical groups can be detained indefinitely
without the reasons or evidence ever being disclosed publicly.

It's a real balancing act to increase public protection without
severely infringing on peoples' rights. Airports have attempted to do
just that in light of the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade
Centre. As a result, security on commercial flights has been improved
somewhat, but at a huge cost that anyone who flies realizes as soon as
they purchase a ticket.

The battle for public safety also includes the war against drugs,
gangs and the people who proliferate both. Unfortunately,
organizations such as the Hell's Angels have been able to survive and
grow by manipulating laws that were designed to protect the public
from such evils. A recent case involved a British Columbia judge
determining that the bikers' club and activities by members did not
constitute a criminal offence. If that is the best our public
prosecutors and judges can do, then we are in deep trouble. It's not
that we need new legislation and laws that will be challenged in court
by organizations that have millions of dollars in dirty money, we need
judges who will make common sense decisions.

For example, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday that the use
of a drug-sniffing dog was illegal when police searched a Catholic
high school in 2002. As far as I know, neither the principal nor the
board of education objected to the search since it would help ensure a
healthy learning environment. In fact, such searches have been
routinely conducted in the past. Law-abiding students did not protest
against the search, and no one challenged the police until drugs (10
bags of pot) were discovered in a student's backpack. Then it was the
search and not the drugs at school that became the focal point, and
that's how the issue became twisted. With that skewed reasoning the
Supreme Court decided 6-3 that such searches violate students' right
to privacy in a school environment.

Does that also go for brass knuckles, knives and guns? Would the
judges feel the same if the dope had ended up in the hands of their
sons or daughters? Who are our judges (that are paid with public
funds) protecting-the public or the law breaker?

Since when does the actions of one person who is breaking the law
supercede public safety? Believing that personal privacy in a public
place is more important than protecting students is totally illogical
in light of school shootings that are becoming more commonplace.
Perhaps it's time sniffer dogs start searching chambers at the Supreme
Court of Canada.