As the gap between the haves and the have nots has widened, and the “me” generation has replaced the silent generation as legislators and the intelligentsia.  Justice is a privilege of the moneyed not a right of the all.  The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was entrenched into the Canadian Constitution Act of 1867 in 1982 to ensure that the rights, freedoms and privileges of being Canadian would require a national referendum to be altered and not a simple act of Parliament.¹   One of the fundamental rights under both the Constitution act and the charter reads:

“Equality Rights

“Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

• 15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. “²

Yet we have no national system, fund, or insurance to assure an accused access to appropriate representation.  The law and rules of court are so complicated that it is not realistic for an accused to be able to represent themselves, nor would they have the ability to access the full body of specific knowledge of the penal code and precedence to provide themselves with adequate defense. The resources available to the Crown are theoretically limitless.  The resources available to the defense are limited to the amount of money they have in the bank; less the amount of money they require to live. Both the Constitution Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are silent on the right to health care; yet all Canadians have equal access to government sponsored health care. Would not equitable access to justice be at a minimum equal to access to health care?  While our Justice system offers equal access to justice it is not equitable. 

Guilty until proven innocent:

The Charter states: 

“Every person is  “(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;”³

I am sure when drafting the Charter in the 1980’s no one anticipated the collapse of the 5th Estate, and the rise of social media and a primary news network. Journalistic ethics and the ability to manage information to protect both the victim and accused has vanished.  Arrests and victims find themselves named and outed, the word allegedly has disappeared utterly from these stories. The more salacious the charges the more media and social media attention an arrest receives.  The 24 hour news cycle whips up a frenzy by presenting an arrest as a definitive indication that an individual is guilty.  

The Kangaroo Court of public opinion has decided an individual’s guilt or innocence.  Based on an arrest, perhaps without investigation, simply an allegation reported, A headline on social media, and the majority opinion at the water cooler.  Evidence is not really all that important after all.

Certainly the person accused will have their day in court, the media may or may not continue to report on the story.  Their stories will likely be slanted towards villifing the accused. If the accused is found guilty they will be incarcerated for what is likely to be deemed a “light” sentence. 

If they are acquitted – it will either not be spoken of in social media, or be qualified as, the Crown lacked evidence.  The accused will not be declared Innocent, it will not be a big banner story and the fact that they were charged will remain on their record for the rest of their life.

We all believe where there’s smoke there is fire.  Case in point of how this will forever place a scarlet letter on a wrongfully accused individual and leave a trail of trauma far and wide.

A local female hockey coach was accused, by a 17 year old female player, of luring her into an intimate relationship.  This relationship is alleged to have gone on for over a year.  This coach has been coaching for over 15 years and never has even a whisper of this kind of behavior ever been proffered. 

The story lived large on social media for 3 days.  Family members had to take down their social media accounts. The woman was arrested at the school where she worked as an  aide at the end of the school day. ⁴

Sex crimes and sex crimes against children are indeed heinous, and the public does have a certain right to know to protect their children.  That is fair.  What right does the accused have?  The rest of that story that will be outed at trial is – The family hockey coach has been having a serious affair with the players father,  The marriage dissolved in a nasty and public way. The relationship continued and was heading toward marriage.  Did the coach offer a hug to her player/ about to be step daughter?  Probably.  Was there intent to lure.  Having known this coach her entire life, no not related, just close family friends. There has NEVER been even the tiniest sign that this was a proclivity. 

Based on searches and further evidence even the crown is unsure that there is really any smoke let alone a fire. Her innocents will not be a 3 day news story and only a handful of people will ever know the truth.  The parents who witnessed the arrest will never forget and be left with doubts, colleagues and principles and the coaching community will continue to point at the outline of that scarlet letter.  Should it continue to court the charge will follow her around forever.  Is this not a direct contradiction of this fundamental right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty? When social media stormed the bastion of the ethically bound traditional media? Was it decided that we would dispense with the pillaried and fallible scales and marbled halls of constitutional justice? Should we dispense with lawyer and advocate and replace them with publicists and influencers?

 Legal Rights

Life, liberty and security of person

7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.⁵

In cases like this it is impossible to find a way to apologise in a way that is as big and dramatic as the way she was accused. It is likely there will be a civil suit, and money will be awarded, nothing however will erase the doubt of the people who saw, read about or worked with this woman.  The trauma, the arrest, the fear of going out in public, the ability to return to work, or ever coach again will take years to overcome. The mental health trauma, what would happen if all the bullying and threats are too much and she takes her own life? How then do we compensate her for authorities jumping on the mean girl bandwagon and not further investigating this? How do we unring the bell of public opinion? How do you erase collective memory? How do you turn back the hands of time and honour the covenant that you are innocent until proven guilty?

The court of public opinion is quick to accept the salacious, the scandalous. It embroiders that yellow truth with speculation and nearsighted machinations of their little green monster. They stand on the marble stairs of their glass house confident that no one will ever open their closet of shame or peek under the carpet where their entitled selves have swept their shady shit. Their crusade is to mould their avorious into the next step on the road to becoming the definitive moral authority.

1.  Yes I recognize the irony in this statement. ↩︎
2.  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/index.html ↩︎
3.  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/index.html ↩︎
4. Some details have been altered to preserve the dignity of all involved. ↩︎
5.  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/index.html ↩︎