HARPER'S NO SAGE

Tory Cuts To Court Challenges Show PM Has No Insight Into Art Of
Stabilizing Democracy

If Socrates were alive and living in Canada, the Harper government
would move to put his name on the subversive blacklist.

Socrates believed that the unexamined life is not worth living, and
last week's budget cuts by the Harper government to the Law
Commission of Canada, the Court Challenges Program and the medical
marijuana research fund show that this administration is committed to
unexamined ignorance in governance. I may not be interested in having
philosopher kings run this country, but it would be nice if those in
power at least had the desire to develop public policy based on
information, debate and analysis.

The academic community and the legal profession have roundly
condemned these cuts. One could dismiss this criticism as
self-serving, as it comes from a constituency that stands to gain
from research grants under the fallen programs. Indeed, for some
academics the Law Commission has been a gravy train allowing
professors to ruminate for cash.

But more to the point, these cuts have taken a giant dump on
potentially meaningful legal work, my own included. For me, the Court
Challenges Program was the only source of funding for legal actions
to challenge unconstitutional government programs and legislation
related to marijuana. There are no wealthy benefactors in Canada who
routinely fund the pursuit of civil liberties.

I was fortunate to receive some modest funding in the past to help
establish the constitutional right to choose marijuana as medicine,
but now that the right is entrenched the government has chosen to
pull funding for research designed to uncover the scientific basis
for marijuana's therapeutic effects.

It would be a mistake to dismiss the criticism of these budget cuts
as belly-aching. I have always thought it's a waste of taxpayers'
money to fund research exploring esoteric academic projects like the
hegemonic and political implications of the mating rituals of the
Canadian beaver, but in this case the government has cut programs
that could contribute in a meaningful way to the development of public policy.

The Law Commission of Canada had been working on a long-term project
examining the limits of criminalization. The project was designed to
determine which social problems should be addressed by criminal
prohibitions and which are best dealt with by other mechanisms of
social control.

Obviously, the Harper government is not interested in definable
limits or principled development of criminal law. This government
wants the power to criminalize anything it believes will lead to
voter support in the next election. Harper knows it's easier to pass
"get tough" legislation in the absence of an independent government
agency with a mandate to objectively study and explore criminal justice issues.

There's an old maxim that "it's impossible to defeat an ignorant man
in argument." Harper understands that by remaining ignorant he can
successfully champion his reactionary and unwise policy decisions.

To ensure that ignorance reigns supreme, it's important for the state
to also minimize the occasions for challenging government policy, and
to that end it was a brilliant move to scrap the Court Challenges Program.

Although funding opportunities were limited, it was an effective
medium for giving a voice to political dissent. As much as it may
seem anomalous, and perhaps masochistic, for a government to fund
cases that challenge its authority, this anomaly actually serves to
stabilize democratic institutions. Without the option of voicing
dissent through a funded legal process, people and groups who believe
their rights are being violated may eventually choose civil
disobedience or riotous demonstrations as the medium of dissent. As
much as I like the occasional street demo run amok, it makes more
sense to give people a voice in a court of law so they don't need to
throw rocks on the street.

The breathtaking myopia of these budget cuts is best demonstrated by
the elimination of a fund for medical marijuana research. Other
sources of government funding still exist for conducting this
research, but in making this rather insignificant cut this government
wanted to send the clear message that it has little interest in
anything to do with marijuana.

If Harper would take his head out of the sand, he might notice that
current research in Israel and Spain has shown that synthetic
cannabinoids have tumour-reducing properties. In light of the
promising international research being conducted into marijuana's
diverse applications, I'd have thought we would be expanding the
research program to finally resolve the question of whether marijuana
as medicine is a pipe dream or the next panacea.

This government is constitutionally compelled by court order to run
and manage a medical marijuana program, and over 2,000 people have
been authorized to use pot for various ailments; however, the
government clearly does not want to continue spending its money to
act as gatekeeper for people's therapeutic choices.

Apparently, Harper doesn't realize that the only way this government
can get out of the business of supervising the medical choices of
seriously ill Canadians is either to decriminalize marijuana entirely
or foster and support clinical research designed to develop
cannabinoid medicines. Much-neglected medical research on the
cannabis plant and its various cannabinoids will eventually lead to
diverse product development, and when this happens there will no
longer be a constitutional need for the government to grow pot and
sign permission slips for patients to use this medicine.

Last week's cuts reminded me of Brian Mulroney's decision to axe the
Canadian Sentencing Commission in the late 1980s. After extensive
research and consultation, this commission recommended establishing a
permanent independent agency to monitor sentencing decisions, with a
view to prescribing clear and consistent guidelines to judges on the
critical issues of when to send someone to jail and what should be
the appropriate range of prison sentences.

This never happened, and 20 years later we are still moaning and
groaning about the inconsistencies and perceived leniency of our
sentencing practices.

To solve the problem, this current government is proposing minimum
sentences and cutting back on non-custodial options. Of course, in
1987 the commission presented clear and persuasive evidence
demonstrating the futility of this approach.

Harper should be thankful that Mulroney axed the commission, as there
is no one around today to tell Harper, and the Canadian people, that
the criminal justice policies of this current government are textbook
examples of the dangers of ill-informed and closed-minded policy development.

Fools are always doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.