TORIES ARE PLAYING POLITICS OF JUSTICE

Word is, the Conservatives are growing increasingly impatient with the
lawyers in the Justice Department.

Every time the government orders up a bill that makes it easier to
declare someone a dangerous offender or that exempts public officials
who object to gay marriage from having to perform the ceremony, the
mouthpieces in Justice warn that such a law would violate the
Constitution and be struck down by the courts.

But Justice Minister Vic Toews has pushed forward with the bills
nonetheless, ostensibly because he believes the courts will defer to
Parliament, but more likely because the government doesn't expect the
bills to become law. Such is the politics of the justice system.

Consider Bill C-27, known as the "three strikes you're out"
legislation. The act, in essence, would require individuals convicted
for the third time of a major crime involving violence or sexual
interference to explain why they should not be designated a dangerous
offender, and jailed indefinitely.

Both defenders and critics of the bill wrongly argue that it will or
won't deter crime. Deterrence is not the point. The proper purpose of
the bill is to make it easier to remove a small number of hardened
criminals from the community, to protect the public. (Unlike the U.S.
three-strikes laws, only a few, very serious crimes are included in
the Canadian version.)

Seems sensible enough, but all three opposition parties are expected
to vote against the bill when it comes forward for second reading.
Why? Because the bill uses reverse onus: The accused criminal is
required to convince a judge that he shouldn't be labelled a dangerous
offender, whereas today the Crown must convince the judge that he
should be. Reverse onus contradicts centuries of common law precedent,
is probably unconstitutional, and the opposition will have none of
it.

The Conservatives must have known, when they overrode internal legal
objections and brought forward the proposed new rules, that opposition
parties would vote it down, just as they must have known that the
House of Commons justice committee would gut legislation increasing
mandatory minimum sentences and raising the age of consent. The
committee excised the meat of the legislation in votes this week,
saying the worst parts of the bill were unfairly punitive.

The same fate awaits the proposed Defence of Religions Act, which the
government is expected to introduce if, as expected, the motion to
reconsider the same-sex-marriage legislation is defeated. The bill
would, among other things, protect the rights of marriage officials to
refuse to marry gay couples, if the officials' religion prohibited
such marriages.

Many legal experts consider this bill unconstitutional, since it deals
with an area of provincial jurisdiction. (The feds are responsible for
the definition of marriage, the provinces for supervising services.)
It has next to no chance of being passed by the House. But then the
Conservatives probably don't expect the Defence of Religions Act to
become law. They might not have expected any of their aborted justice
package to become law.

Then why do it? So Prime Minister Stephen Harper can turn the defeated
bills into a wedge issue in the next election. "You see?" he will say.
"This is the price we pay for a minority government. The Conservatives
want criminals doing real time, rather than lounging around under
house arrest. We want to keep dangerous offenders behind bars, and we
want to protect people of faith from being compelled to act against
their principles.

"But the opposition parties are more worried about the rights of
criminals and pleadings of lawyers than they are about your
protection. That is why we need a majority government."

Will it work? The Conservatives need the support of about 35 per cent
of the voters to remain in office, and about 40 per cent to form a
majority government. What percentage of the population do you think
would like to see tougher sentences for all criminals, dangerous
offenders locked away indefinitely, and religious rights protected for
devout public officials?

Exactly.