JUSTICES NEED TO BREAK SILENCE AND PUSH FOR LAW CHANGES

Fear Has Prevented Practising Judges, Lawyers From Speaking Out
Against Archaic Status Quo

Most judges are notoriously tight-lipped when they're on the bench,
but once they retire -- watch out.

The late provincial court judge Les Bewley was a trailblazer in that
respect after he stepped down, blasting all and sundry in a
controversial Vancouver Sun column.

Today, several former jurists are following in his footsteps.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Bouck has produced a book on the
need for judicial reform, a wonderful website (Bouckslawblog.com) and
he's a regular media commentator.

"I always tried to be open-minded and fair to both sides while
sitting as a judge," he said the other day. "Now that I am no longer
a judge or a lawyer, but simply a member of the public, I am free to
discuss and criticize the way justice is administered, as well as
individual decisions and government inaction."

Drawing on his wealth of experience on the bench and as a lawyer, he
insists that Canada's criminal and civil justice systems are
disorganized and antiquated -- desperately in need of major reforms.

"The present status quo is not good enough," Bouck argues. "It
diminishes the quality of service that judges and lawyers can provide
and makes the public's access to justice more expensive."

In America and England, there are healthy public debates and
publications about how justice is done and how it should be done.
Academics, judges, lawyers, journalists and the public get involved.

"In Canada, few seem interested in the subject," Bouck said.

Part of the problem, I believe, has been the reluctance of most
judges to criticize the administration of justice or get involved in
debates about legal policy.

It's allowed -- judges are only precluded from speaking out about
individual cases, but the tradition in Canada is one of conservative reticence.

Still, who can blame them, given the fire-and-brimstone poured on
former B.C. Supreme Court Justice Tom Berger when he dared to speak
out about the Constitution -- caustic criticism that ultimately led
him to step down long before his time?

But I think that's changing in light of the public concerns raised by
the Air India inquiry, the Robert Pickton trial and former judges
such as Bouck standing up to be counted.

On the North Shore, for instance, former provincial court judges
Jerry Paradis and Wallace Craig are similarly firing off
well-informed missives with regularity.

Paradis has become a sought-after speaker with the organization LEAP
- -- Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

He has added his credible voice to the group's chorus of police,
corrections and legal professionals lobbying to end the so-called war on drugs.

His message since leaving the bench has been unequivocal: There will
always be a high proportion of the population that will consume
alcohol, cigarettes and drugs -- using the criminal law to deter them
is possibly the worst solution.

He tells audiences across the continent that the sense of
righteousness of those who support the current prohibition needs to
be tempered by the reality of the damage the policy causes.

Paradis was part of a delegation that went to Colombia this past
summer to get a first-hand look at the impact of North America's
criminal prohibition against cannabis and other substances.

His is a compassionate, humane perspective and his testament reflects
the harm he saw in the faces of the people who appeared before him.

Craig, on the other hand, often assumes a much sterner tone and he
tends to blame society's problems on our failure to enforce the law
- -- "We have to start treating criminals like criminals."

His memoir of his time on the bench -- Short Pants to Striped
Trousers -- was a rollicking read. His website (realjustice.ca) is
pointed and sharp and he follows in the footsteps of his old pal
Bewley with in-your-face, incendiary columns that mince few words.

"If the reality in Vancouver is that crime pays and is without
punishment, and I believe it is, then the criminal justice system is
truly a tattered scarecrow," Craig says.

Recently, he persuasively called for a return of the old B.C.
provincial police force to replace the RCMP.

I don't think any of us would always agree with these three very
different perspectives.

But there is no denying each is adding enormously to the vibrancy and
the content of public debates about justice and how to achieve it.

imulgrew@png.canwest.com

It's allowed -- judges are only precluded from speaking out about
individual cases, but the tradition in Canada is one of conservative reticence.

Still, who can blame them, given the fire-and-brimstone poured on
former B.C. Supreme Court Justice Tom Berger when he dared to speak
out about the Constitution -- caustic criticism that ultimately led
him to step down long before his time?

But I think that's changing in light of the public concerns raised by
the Air India inquiry, the Robert Pickton trial and former judges
such as Bouck standing up to be counted.

On the North Shore, for instance, former provincial court judges
Jerry Paradis and Wallace Craig are similarly firing off
well-informed missives with regularity.

Paradis has become a sought-after speaker with the organization LEAP
- -- Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

He has added his credible voice to the group's chorus of police,
corrections and legal professionals lobbying to end the so-called war on drugs.

His message since leaving the bench has been unequivocal: There will
always be a high proportion of the population that will consume
alcohol, cigarettes and drugs -- using the criminal law to deter them
is possibly the worst solution.

He tells audiences across the continent that the sense of
righteousness of those who support the current prohibition needs to
be tempered by the reality of the damage the policy causes.

Paradis was part of a delegation that went to Colombia this past
summer to get a first-hand look at the impact of North America's
criminal prohibition against cannabis and other substances.

His is a compassionate, humane perspective and his testament reflects
the harm he saw in the faces of the people who appeared before him.

Craig, on the other hand, often assumes a much sterner tone and he
tends to blame society's problems on our failure to enforce the law
- -- "We have to start treating criminals like criminals."

His memoir of his time on the bench -- Short Pants to Striped
Trousers -- was a rollicking read. His website (realjustice.ca) is
pointed and sharp and he follows in the footsteps of his old pal
Bewley with in-your-face, incendiary columns that mince few words.

"If the reality in Vancouver is that crime pays and is without
punishment, and I believe it is, then the criminal justice system is
truly a tattered scarecrow," Craig says.

Recently, he persuasively called for a return of the old B.C.
provincial police force to replace the RCMP.

I don't think any of us would always agree with these three very
different perspectives.

But there is no denying each is adding enormously to the vibrancy and
the content of public debates about justice and how to achieve it.