I really have no time except for cramming for my exam these days, but occasionally I check in on the news. Recently, two stories have caught my attention, both to do with recent modifications in Canadian law. Both make me wonder if we have as a society an understanding of what justice is and what its purpose is.
The first regards penalties for Canadian aboriginal criminals. Apparently last Friday the Supreme Court ruled in favour of differential sentencing for aboriginals. As I understand it, this means that whereas sexual assault might earn a non-aboriginal Canadian three years in prison, an aboriginal Canadian should only be sentenced to one year. The reasoning behind this is that aboriginals are less culpable than non-aboriginals seeing as they typically enjoy considerably fewer advantages, have a rougher upbringing, have had real difficulties adjusting to the prevailing Western culture.
That the aboriginal communities of Canada truly do face many sufferings is a tragedy that should not be ignored. However, is this justice? Is it justice to neglect the fact that such leniency in law may put other citizens at unnecessary risk? Is it just to lower moral expectations for aboriginals? I suppose we could consider it just insofar as it is equally racist both towards the aboriginals in lowering moral expectations and towards non-aboriginals for demanding a more severe punishment from them….
The next day I discovered that I am not the only one to react adversely to the news when I read Jonathan Kay’s response. While I hope for rehabilitation of the individual, I am of the conviction that one of law’s primary functions is to protect the public. I don’t like saying no to anyone; I don’t even like telling a student flat-out that certain aspects of his or her paper are of unacceptable quality. However, there are times when “kindness” is cruelty.
The second big story (which seems to be receiving more attention, for I can find it in all three Canadian media sources I typically consult: CBC, G&M, and NP) is concerning Ontario’s prostitution laws, several of which are to be struck down. National Post appears to be giving it the most coverage, and in addition to the article I just linked we also have a couple of opposing social commentaries by Jonathan Kay and Raymond de Souza. This appears to be a more complicated issue for Canadian society, although the readers’ online surveys at CBC and the Globe and Mail appear to indicate that a good three quarters of Canadians are in full support of the legal change (although I have noticed that articles with a certain bias do seem to curry the most support for their bias, which makes me wonder about the average Canadian’s interest in critical thinking).
This change in legislation doesn’t make much sense to me either. Once again it seems to be a cruel “kindness.” Almost everyone, regardless of their position on the legal decision, agrees that prostitution is not a desirable career. Is the only reason that it is undesirable and dangerous for women the fact they didn’t enjoy legal sanction? Is it really something we want for our daughters, our sisters, our friends? Yes, there will always be prostitution regardless of laws, but should law bend to accommodate misfortunes or rather work to reduce them as much as possible? The defeatist logic that is so often employed in our judgments determining justice is entirely contrary to justice, which is supposed to be a standard of integrity.
I don’t have time to ponder this in depth or formulate a good argument, but I have a bad feeling about it. Still, the experiment of history will tell in time. I only hope it is not at the cost of too much unhappiness and harm to individuals and society.
Reluctant Scholar 