Someone needs to remind Andrew Swan who he is, and fast.
Swan is the attorney general of Manitoba. He is an elected official, but in his cabinet role he is the chief administrator of justice in the province. His responsibilities are to ensure the justice system is fair, functional and free of fear or favour in all respects.
Swan, a lawyer before he dedicating himself to politics, should know that. He should know that as the province's top justice official, he is occasionally required to defend the justice system when it's under attack. And that fairness is not measured solely by the quality of our punishment, but also through the mercy and compassion we show to those who break the law.
He should know these things. But he clearly does not.
This week, Swan caved into the shrill rantings of those who would deny Vincent Li the chance to walk the well-groomed lawns of the Selkirk Mental Health Centre.
Li, guilty of the horrific murder of a Manitoba man in 2008, was declared by a court to be not criminally responsible (NCR) for his actions because he suffers from schizophrenia and dementia.
Swan knows this. And yet, he still managed this week to pander to the irrational concerns of an uninformed constituency that cannot see beyond the horrific details of the murder.
Swan has suspended a decision by the federal Criminal Code Review Board to allow Li to take escorted walks on the grounds of the mental health centre. For more than a year, he has been kept in a locked ward and not allowed outside. Swan demanded increased security before Manitoba honours a decision that Swan claimed has "shocked the conscience of all Manitobans and indeed all Canadians."
Not everyone is in fact shocked. The physicians responsible for Li's treatment believe that he poses no threat. The Criminal Code Review Board, acting on the advice of the best experts, decided it was time for him to leave the locked ward. Swan, with only the discomforting optics of Li standing outside the mental health centre with the sun on his face, felt otherwise.
But then Swan went further to criticize the law itself, and the review board, for having made the decision in the first place. He served notice he will lobby Ottawa to change the rules for how we treat NCR patients.
"We strongly urge that the Criminal Code of Canada should be amended to ensure that such a demonstrably unfit disposition cannot be made," Swan wrote in a letter to Ottawa.
Really? Manitoba's attorney general believes the law should be changed to ensure that those very few people declared NCR are locked up longer and literally never see the light of day? Is this Swan's way of saying he wishes to revoke the NCR provisions altogether?
The reality is that Swan will never say those things. But he will engage in a clumsy and inelegant bid to have his cake (pandering to the hang 'em high crowd) and eat it too (honouring a completely reasonable justifiable provision of the criminal code).
Note to Swan: It's not working.
Swan proved during his botched NDP leadership campaign he was not ready for high-level politics. In his very short tenure as the attorney general, he has continued to show that what happened last fall was no accident.
He has become a knee-jerk waffler, which has allowed the opposition to paint him into corner after corner. Swan was completely hamstrung, for example, by criticism over the provincial probation services.
It was recently reported that probation officers were using Slurpees and doughnuts to encourage young offenders to keep their probation appointments. Tory Justice critic Kelvin Goertzen, doing what he does best, howled and Swan caved by declaring an investigation of probation services.
Would Swan really rather reincarcerate young offenders for breaching parole than spend a few pennies here and there providing treats to keep the offenders current with their post-incarceration obligations? No, Swan would not say that. But he would sell all of the overworked, underpaid probation officers down the river to create an impression he's a tough cookie.
The often verbose and hyperbolic Goertzen is eating Swan for dinner. It's not even a fair fight anymore.
The issue here is not whether Swan is tough on crime. The real issue is whether he is tough enough to do the job he was given. That job is to safeguard the administration of justice, even if that means upholding an unpopular law that does not hold someone with a mental illness criminally responsible.
Declaring Li not criminally responsible was just. Allowing him time outside a locked ward is just.
Now, if we could only get an attorney general with the courage to admit that.
Excellent column by Dan Lett! Summarized all of my thoughts beautifully! Allowing Li to walk outside with supervised guards while he is on medication, does not pose a risk to anybody. Denying him this right, is inhumane. Swan should be allowed to overrule the Criminal Code and the decision made by knowledgeable and educated doctors and the review board. They should be trusted in their decisions and opinions. Overruling their decision, is basically saying that they cannot do their job properly. We need to stop focusing on the murder, which was unintentional and where Li`s actions were completely out of his control and start focusing on his treatment. Li did not choose to have a mental disorder or to commit the murder. It was not a conscious choice. We need to not act on revenge or retribution.
Great column Dan. Thanks for taking a most reasonable stand on this highly charged issue. The need for a secured yard is only necessary if Mr. Li is a flight risk, and I've heard nothing to make me believe that he is. You summed it up nicely when you said Swan "... managed this week to pander to the irrational concerns of an uninformed constituency that cannot see beyond the horrific details of the murder." I too was horrified, but that does not change the fact that NCR exists for a reason, and Mr. Li was declared NCR. So good to see a viewpoint other than the revenge and retribution focus usually used for instances such as this. I'm so tired of social policy being set in response to public outcry!
Excellent column! I am glad to see someone whose opinion is reasonable and based on logic as opposed to revenge and retribution.
Congratulations Dan! This is the first piece of sound and responsible coverage I have seen on this issue represented in the Free Press. I am truly troubled by the blatant disregard for privacy and confidentiality and indeed the law. Mr Li was found NCR. That his medical and treatment status is published in the paper and open to public scrutiny is truly ethically questionable. That elected officials involve themselves and join the pitchfork waiving angry mob to interfere with his treatment, borders on obscene.
Most civilized countries in the world subscribe to some form of prisoners' rights. They are in no way based on the individual prisoner's crime. I mean...you must know this....right?
There are far more privileges granted most prisoner's than Vincent Li will possibly get. This is a question of whether or not he can be outdoors for 15 minutes, twice a day.
Why you've decided to sink your teeth into this example is beyond me. What deep fear is this triggering for you?
There are multiple murderers who get to go home to be with their families for weekends and hardened criminals who enjoy most things that life has to offer as long as they are within the prison walls. Why aren't you ranting nonsense against them?
This is about walking around a building, and being locked up for the other 23 1/2 hours of the day.
It's mind-boggling how ridiculous your petty safe-at-home soapbox rants are.
Honestly, considering that Li was found not guilty due to his DISEASE, what Mr. Swan has done should be considered a violation of his rights. People, you need to think about how many people try such a defense and how few are found to actually be not guilty by reason of such an illness. Do you all honestly think that every doctor who examined this man is an idiot, a dupe, or just too stupid to see through his act? Start using some rationality. Li is not some criminal mastermind from a movie. He is a very ill man. Please, stop assuming that you all know what is best. That is why we have medical experts. This man needs to see daylight. Oh, and by the way, the security guards who work with these people are trained, and I am sure that the use of a cell phone to call for back up is the least of it. I am sure they have procedure for when they escort all of the other people who are ill on their walks around the grounds of the hospital (you know, that place where we send people who are recognizably ill in order that they receive that medical assistance which is their basic human right). I guess all of you think that mental illness isn't real and that these people don't deserve the same medical treatment as the rest of us. Just remember, there but by the grace of good genetics go you or me or your child.
This is not the Medieval period. Be rational. Stop the mob mentality.
"The need for a secured yard is only necessary if Mr. Li is a flight risk, and I've heard nothing to make me believe that he is."
Winnipeggers will always react the strongest to the things they understand the least. Hence, the nonsensical arguments against a 15 minute outdoor break for Vince Li.
Honestly, it's like most people have no idea what they're even arguing about.
Swan was not entitled to overrule the decision of an independent board. He said so himself just a couple of days before he went and did it! If the government stepped in every time an uninformed or prejudiced public cried out for something that would infringe on the human rights of others, we'd all suffer. I'd much rather have my fate determined by a group of objective experts than by a politician eager to score political points. Wouldn't you? Swan was catering to the misinformed and vengeful and ignorant public, with no basis in reason, logic or factual evidence that Li is a risk to public safety. Because he is not!
A crime requires two elements. The wrongful act and the guilty mind of intent. Li`s actions were unintentional and completely out of his control, therefore, he did not commit a crime and he is not a criminal.
"We respect the Criminal Code Review Board..." (Justice Minister Andrew Swan)
Apparently you don't. Part of their mandate is to weigh public safety along with the patients' interests. By delaying the implementation of their recommendations you (and Hugh McFadyen, who supported this) are essentially saying that you don't trust that the board gave due consideration to public safety.
Worst of all, the Criminal Code of Canada states that board decisions can only be appealed through provincial courts yet you've bypassed that process and imposed your will when you had no legal right to do so. If anyone is seriously undermining public confidence in the Canadian justice system, it's you, Mr. Swan. Pandering is bad enough but having a Justice Minister take the law into his own hands without even knowing the reasons for the board decision is appalling.
"When dealing with the criminally insane, I do believe the impact on victims needs to be taken into account when deciding on various treatment techniques."
Seriously?? If you believe that the emotional needs of other people should allow them (or their gov't representatives) to dictate anyone's personal health care treatment and that Vince Li is guilty of breaking the law, there is really nothing I can say.
I really don't understand why people think they're so clever in challenging defenders of human rights to take criminals and the mentally ill into their homes. It's OLD and it's lame. Find some new material please.
Andrew Swan did exactly what he said it was wrong to do: interfere in a decision made by an impartial panel of experts who know much more about the risks and benefits than he does. We keep hearing from him and the Tory leader but where is DOCTOR Jon Gerrard, for crying out loud? Talk about a golden opportunity for the Liberals to slam the NDP for circumventing the law and the Tories for goading him into it.
"I think there is a general lack of knowledge about mental illness, and the necessary treatments required for healing and treatment, within our society. It is clear that the majority of people would like Mr. Li to reach a place of healing, where he no longer poses a threat to the public's safety. We need to trust the experts involved to either get Mr. Li to that point, or deem him untreatable.
However, in saying this, I feel that these experts are failing to recognize the mental injury Mr. Li's actions have caused to those who witnessed his crime, and those who lost a loved one because of the insane actions.
Allowing freedoms, even small ones, inflict mental anguish and further harm to the many victims. By all means, continue to help Mr. Li's mental illness, but not with the cost of creating new mental injuries to those his illness has hurt. It's too soon."
@Sarah G, so you're saying the feelings of many should trump the human rights of an individual? Let's lobotomize all NCR patients so we can feel safe! Seriously, I do sympathize with everyone personally affected by this. I'd be surprised if none of them ended up suffering from PTSD as a result. As a witness, how can you get those images out of your head? However, I don't believe the answer is to deny Vince Li the opportunity to enjoy some fresh air to help in his recovery simply because the media are going to publicize it and upset the victims. Is he supposed to remain locked up forever (in contravention of the law) to spare people's feelings? Where does it end? Should we start convicting people based on victim impact statements or public opinion polls? The latter option is awfully close to what actually happened in this instance and it's quite frightening.
Who are we (including Swan) to say the decision was wrong? Who better to assess the safety aspect than those who have first-hand knowledge of Li's current mental status?
I understand your point of view but I can't agree because 1) Swan overstepped his authority and interfered in a legal process he had no right to, 2) it does a disservice to the mentally ill because it validates all the misinformed outrage over this, and 3) that slippery slope I mentioned before.
A democratic process has already decided that independent review boards should not be swayed by politicians for a reason. Flouting this law is spitting in the eye of democracy. This isn't "working together", "negotiation" or "compromise" because the psychiatric profession is outraged over this. This is an example of fear and ignorance denying someone their human rights. It doesn't matter if it's "just" deferred to a later date. It should never have happened at all.
There's a concept of the democratic system that seeks to prevent "tyranny of the majority". This means that even if the majority call for a certain action, if that action causes an individual or a minority group to be discriminated against, it musn't be allowed. Using the U.S. as an example, the majority have so far succeeded in many states to deny same-sex marriage. The majority should never impose their beliefs on a minority group. The line has to be drawn somewhere. If we let Swan move that line just a little, where does it end?
I disagree, especially with this:
"Sometimes the government has to step in, or boards like these would be doing whatever they please."
Earlier in the week, Swan himself said he can't dictate to the board. "An attorney general, he said, should not demand that a judge or tribunal or independent party come to a particular decision. '(That) is simply wrong and, more than that, it strikes at the very heart of the democratic system that we enjoy in this province and this country.'" I don't see any difference between influencing a decision and overruling a decision. Either way, it's out of line.
These boards are independent for a reason: they are composed of experts who weigh the benefits and the risks in an objective manner. It is not acceptable for the government to bow to public pressure and override their decision. Not only is it arrogant for Swan to presume that he knows better than they do, he's interfered with due process. It can be a very slippery slope when politicians ignore the law and bow to a public outcry.
This wasn't a compromise because Swan didn't negotiate with anyone. He rejected the board's decision that it was safe to allow Vince Li to venture onto the grounds under the amount of security they recommended.
Today's editorial is excellent and explains it far better than I did.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/mr-swans-pandering-disreputable-95678224.html
Also, Li's doctor wrote a great letter to the editor about it.
Dr. Yaren, thank you for speaking out against this injustice.
"Stigma and fear create barriers to treatment. They prevent individuals such as Li from seeking early intervention for mental-health issues that may have prevented this tragedy from ever occurring."
Exactly.
"I think Andrew Swan did exactly right. We are supposed to be in a democracy, under which the will of the people is to take precedence. It is his duty to listen to them rather than some doctors who have become to full of themselves.
And these Boards make sure they delay release of the transcript so their rulings take effect before anyone can launch an appeal. I think it is time our elected officials intercepted some of these unjust rulings that are being rammed down our throats by those who have assumed certain powers.
This independent thing is a bunch of hogwash because it is just a perception that is being feigned in order to impose the will of some upon the public."
And you are uninformed. We live in a democracy but that doesn't mean that vocal public opinion entitles a Justice Minister to break the law. All of our government representatives are obliged to uphold the law. If the laws need to be changed, there is a process for that.
Furthermore, just because the majority of people on this site happen to side with you on this, it doesn't mean that the public in general does. Heck, even if they did, this outrage is fueled by fear and revulsion and has little or no regard for the law or human rights. Andrew Swan shouldn't have caved into that.
You can't decide which laws need to be obeyed and which can be cast aside just because they are at odds with your own personal beliefs. Review boards are established as outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada. If you don't like the law, talk to your MP.
Your concern that the transcript will be delayed and thwart an appeal is unfounded. The Crown has 15 days after receiving the transcript to launch an appeal.
Criminal Code Section 672.72 (1) "Any party may appeal against a disposition made by a court or a Review Board, or a placement decision made by a Review Board, to the court of appeal of the province where the disposition or placement decision was made on any ground of appeal that raises a question of law or fact alone or of mixed law and fact."
Instead of waiting for the transcript from the review board and then asking a Crown Attorney to file a proper appeal (if, indeed, he has any legal grounds to, which I doubt), Swan exceeded his authority by delaying the implementation of the board decision and ordered the hospital to beef up their security. The review board has already taken public safety into account in their decision. Swan is basically questioning their judgement and illegally overruling them.
I look forward to seeing Injustice Minister Andrew Swan eat crow!
"The law says mental illness exists and that is that. Trouble is, as you can see for yourself, lots of people don't agree with declaring people insane so that they can escape their punishments."
Well, that's just too bad and it's their problem, not mine or the government's. The law upholds my point of view and it's never going to fundamentally change with regards to basic human rights because that's how civilized societies operate. Those opposed can either educate themselves about mental illness so they can be at peace with it or continue to rant and rave about it.
Honestly, considering that Li was found not guilty due to his DISEASE, what Mr. Swan has done should be considered a violation of his rights. People, you need to think about how many people try such a defense and how few are found to actually be not guilty by reason of such an illness. Do you all honestly think that every doctor who examined this man is an idiot, a dupe, or just too stupid to see through his act? Start using some rationality. Li is not some criminal mastermind from a movie. He is a very ill man. Please, stop assuming that you all know what is best. That is why we have medical experts. This man needs to see daylight. Oh, and by the way, the security guards who work with these people are trained, and I am sure that the use of a cell phone to call for back up is the least of it. I am sure they have procedure for when they escort all of the other people who are ill on their walks around the grounds of the hospital (you know, that place where we send people who are recognizably ill in order that they receive that medical assistance which is their basic human right). I guess all of you think that mental illness isn't real and that these people don't deserve the same medical treatment as the rest of us. Just remember, there but by the grace of good genetics go you or me or your child.
This is not the Medieval period. Be rational. Stop the mob mentality.
As it's clearly impossible to enlighten people about the nature of various mental illnesses on a newspaper comment forum, let's just use a little common sense for a moment. It's highly improbable that someone who is as heavily medicated at Vincent Li (the drugs to treat his condition are very powerful) is going to make a break for freedom, and somehow get away from two attendents - one being security personnel. The idea that public safety is a factor here is ridiculous. This could be a case study in political pandering. For the umpteenth time - let the doctors do their jobs. The courts decided they were the best equipped to handle Li and I think they have a bit more experience with the mentally ill than Andrew Swan or Hugh McFadyen.
Great column Dan. Thanks for taking a most reasonable stand on this highly charged issue. The need for a secured yard is only necessary if Mr. Li is a flight risk, and I've heard nothing to make me believe that he is. You summed it up nicely when you said Swan "... managed this week to pander to the irrational concerns of an uninformed constituency that cannot see beyond the horrific details of the murder." I too was horrified, but that does not change the fact that NCR exists for a reason, and Mr. Li was declared NCR. So good to see a viewpoint other than the revenge and retribution focus usually used for instances such as this. I'm so tired of social policy being set in response to public outcry!
Excellent column! I am glad to see someone whose opinion is reasonable and based on logic as opposed to revenge and retribution.
Congratulations Dan! This is the first piece of sound and responsible coverage I have seen on this issue represented in the Free Press. I am truly troubled by the blatant disregard for privacy and confidentiality and indeed the law. Mr Li was found NCR. That his medical and treatment status is published in the paper and open to public scrutiny is truly ethically questionable. That elected officials involve themselves and join the pitchfork waiving angry mob to interfere with his treatment, borders on obscene.
Most civilized countries in the world subscribe to some form of prisoners' rights. They are in no way based on the individual prisoner's crime. I mean...you must know this....right?
There are far more privileges granted most prisoner's than Vincent Li will possibly get. This is a question of whether or not he can be outdoors for 15 minutes, twice a day.
Why you've decided to sink your teeth into this example is beyond me. What deep fear is this triggering for you?
There are multiple murderers who get to go home to be with their families for weekends and hardened criminals who enjoy most things that life has to offer as long as they are within the prison walls. Why aren't you ranting nonsense against them?
This is about walking around a building, and being locked up for the other 23 1/2 hours of the day.
It's mind-boggling how ridiculous your petty safe-at-home soapbox rants are.
Honestly, considering that Li was found not guilty due to his DISEASE, what Mr. Swan has done should be considered a violation of his rights. People, you need to think about how many people try such a defense and how few are found to actually be not guilty by reason of such an illness. Do you all honestly think that every doctor who examined this man is an idiot, a dupe, or just too stupid to see through his act? Start using some rationality. Li is not some criminal mastermind from a movie. He is a very ill man. Please, stop assuming that you all know what is best. That is why we have medical experts. This man needs to see daylight. Oh, and by the way, the security guards who work with these people are trained, and I am sure that the use of a cell phone to call for back up is the least of it. I am sure they have procedure for when they escort all of the other people who are ill on their walks around the grounds of the hospital (you know, that place where we send people who are recognizably ill in order that they receive that medical assistance which is their basic human right). I guess all of you think that mental illness isn't real and that these people don't deserve the same medical treatment as the rest of us. Just remember, there but by the grace of good genetics go you or me or your child.
This is not the Medieval period. Be rational. Stop the mob mentality.
"The need for a secured yard is only necessary if Mr. Li is a flight risk, and I've heard nothing to make me believe that he is."
Winnipeggers will always react the strongest to the things they understand the least. Hence, the nonsensical arguments against a 15 minute outdoor break for Vince Li.
Honestly, it's like most people have no idea what they're even arguing about.
Swan was not entitled to overrule the decision of an independent board. He said so himself just a couple of days before he went and did it! If the government stepped in every time an uninformed or prejudiced public cried out for something that would infringe on the human rights of others, we'd all suffer. I'd much rather have my fate determined by a group of objective experts than by a politician eager to score political points. Wouldn't you? Swan was catering to the misinformed and vengeful and ignorant public, with no basis in reason, logic or factual evidence that Li is a risk to public safety. Because he is not!
A crime requires two elements. The wrongful act and the guilty mind of intent. Li`s actions were unintentional and completely out of his control, therefore, he did not commit a crime and he is not a criminal.
"We respect the Criminal Code Review Board..." (Justice Minister Andrew Swan)
Apparently you don't. Part of their mandate is to weigh public safety along with the patients' interests. By delaying the implementation of their recommendations you (and Hugh McFadyen, who supported this) are essentially saying that you don't trust that the board gave due consideration to public safety.
Worst of all, the Criminal Code of Canada states that board decisions can only be appealed through provincial courts yet you've bypassed that process and imposed your will when you had no legal right to do so. If anyone is seriously undermining public confidence in the Canadian justice system, it's you, Mr. Swan. Pandering is bad enough but having a Justice Minister take the law into his own hands without even knowing the reasons for the board decision is appalling.
"When dealing with the criminally insane, I do believe the impact on victims needs to be taken into account when deciding on various treatment techniques."
Seriously?? If you believe that the emotional needs of other people should allow them (or their gov't representatives) to dictate anyone's personal health care treatment and that Vince Li is guilty of breaking the law, there is really nothing I can say.
I really don't understand why people think they're so clever in challenging defenders of human rights to take criminals and the mentally ill into their homes. It's OLD and it's lame. Find some new material please.
Andrew Swan did exactly what he said it was wrong to do: interfere in a decision made by an impartial panel of experts who know much more about the risks and benefits than he does. We keep hearing from him and the Tory leader but where is DOCTOR Jon Gerrard, for crying out loud? Talk about a golden opportunity for the Liberals to slam the NDP for circumventing the law and the Tories for goading him into it.
"I think there is a general lack of knowledge about mental illness, and the necessary treatments required for healing and treatment, within our society. It is clear that the majority of people would like Mr. Li to reach a place of healing, where he no longer poses a threat to the public's safety. We need to trust the experts involved to either get Mr. Li to that point, or deem him untreatable.
However, in saying this, I feel that these experts are failing to recognize the mental injury Mr. Li's actions have caused to those who witnessed his crime, and those who lost a loved one because of the insane actions.
Allowing freedoms, even small ones, inflict mental anguish and further harm to the many victims. By all means, continue to help Mr. Li's mental illness, but not with the cost of creating new mental injuries to those his illness has hurt. It's too soon."
@Sarah G, so you're saying the feelings of many should trump the human rights of an individual? Let's lobotomize all NCR patients so we can feel safe! Seriously, I do sympathize with everyone personally affected by this. I'd be surprised if none of them ended up suffering from PTSD as a result. As a witness, how can you get those images out of your head? However, I don't believe the answer is to deny Vince Li the opportunity to enjoy some fresh air to help in his recovery simply because the media are going to publicize it and upset the victims. Is he supposed to remain locked up forever (in contravention of the law) to spare people's feelings? Where does it end? Should we start convicting people based on victim impact statements or public opinion polls? The latter option is awfully close to what actually happened in this instance and it's quite frightening.
Who are we (including Swan) to say the decision was wrong? Who better to assess the safety aspect than those who have first-hand knowledge of Li's current mental status?
I understand your point of view but I can't agree because 1) Swan overstepped his authority and interfered in a legal process he had no right to, 2) it does a disservice to the mentally ill because it validates all the misinformed outrage over this, and 3) that slippery slope I mentioned before.
A democratic process has already decided that independent review boards should not be swayed by politicians for a reason. Flouting this law is spitting in the eye of democracy. This isn't "working together", "negotiation" or "compromise" because the psychiatric profession is outraged over this. This is an example of fear and ignorance denying someone their human rights. It doesn't matter if it's "just" deferred to a later date. It should never have happened at all.
There's a concept of the democratic system that seeks to prevent "tyranny of the majority". This means that even if the majority call for a certain action, if that action causes an individual or a minority group to be discriminated against, it musn't be allowed. Using the U.S. as an example, the majority have so far succeeded in many states to deny same-sex marriage. The majority should never impose their beliefs on a minority group. The line has to be drawn somewhere. If we let Swan move that line just a little, where does it end?
I disagree, especially with this:
"Sometimes the government has to step in, or boards like these would be doing whatever they please."
Earlier in the week, Swan himself said he can't dictate to the board. "An attorney general, he said, should not demand that a judge or tribunal or independent party come to a particular decision. '(That) is simply wrong and, more than that, it strikes at the very heart of the democratic system that we enjoy in this province and this country.'" I don't see any difference between influencing a decision and overruling a decision. Either way, it's out of line.
These boards are independent for a reason: they are composed of experts who weigh the benefits and the risks in an objective manner. It is not acceptable for the government to bow to public pressure and override their decision. Not only is it arrogant for Swan to presume that he knows better than they do, he's interfered with due process. It can be a very slippery slope when politicians ignore the law and bow to a public outcry.
This wasn't a compromise because Swan didn't negotiate with anyone. He rejected the board's decision that it was safe to allow Vince Li to venture onto the grounds under the amount of security they recommended.
Today's editorial is excellent and explains it far better than I did.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/mr-swans-pandering-disreputable-95678224.html
Also, Li's doctor wrote a great letter to the editor about it.
Dr. Yaren, thank you for speaking out against this injustice.
"Stigma and fear create barriers to treatment. They prevent individuals such as Li from seeking early intervention for mental-health issues that may have prevented this tragedy from ever occurring."
Exactly.
"I think Andrew Swan did exactly right. We are supposed to be in a democracy, under which the will of the people is to take precedence. It is his duty to listen to them rather than some doctors who have become to full of themselves.
And these Boards make sure they delay release of the transcript so their rulings take effect before anyone can launch an appeal. I think it is time our elected officials intercepted some of these unjust rulings that are being rammed down our throats by those who have assumed certain powers.
This independent thing is a bunch of hogwash because it is just a perception that is being feigned in order to impose the will of some upon the public."
And you are uninformed. We live in a democracy but that doesn't mean that vocal public opinion entitles a Justice Minister to break the law. All of our government representatives are obliged to uphold the law. If the laws need to be changed, there is a process for that.
Furthermore, just because the majority of people on this site happen to side with you on this, it doesn't mean that the public in general does. Heck, even if they did, this outrage is fueled by fear and revulsion and has little or no regard for the law or human rights. Andrew Swan shouldn't have caved into that.
You can't decide which laws need to be obeyed and which can be cast aside just because they are at odds with your own personal beliefs. Review boards are established as outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada. If you don't like the law, talk to your MP.
Your concern that the transcript will be delayed and thwart an appeal is unfounded. The Crown has 15 days after receiving the transcript to launch an appeal.
Criminal Code Section 672.72 (1) "Any party may appeal against a disposition made by a court or a Review Board, or a placement decision made by a Review Board, to the court of appeal of the province where the disposition or placement decision was made on any ground of appeal that raises a question of law or fact alone or of mixed law and fact."
Instead of waiting for the transcript from the review board and then asking a Crown Attorney to file a proper appeal (if, indeed, he has any legal grounds to, which I doubt), Swan exceeded his authority by delaying the implementation of the board decision and ordered the hospital to beef up their security. The review board has already taken public safety into account in their decision. Swan is basically questioning their judgement and illegally overruling them.
I look forward to seeing Injustice Minister Andrew Swan eat crow!
"The law says mental illness exists and that is that. Trouble is, as you can see for yourself, lots of people don't agree with declaring people insane so that they can escape their punishments."
Well, that's just too bad and it's their problem, not mine or the government's. The law upholds my point of view and it's never going to fundamentally change with regards to basic human rights because that's how civilized societies operate. Those opposed can either educate themselves about mental illness so they can be at peace with it or continue to rant and rave about it.
Honestly, considering that Li was found not guilty due to his DISEASE, what Mr. Swan has done should be considered a violation of his rights. People, you need to think about how many people try such a defense and how few are found to actually be not guilty by reason of such an illness. Do you all honestly think that every doctor who examined this man is an idiot, a dupe, or just too stupid to see through his act? Start using some rationality. Li is not some criminal mastermind from a movie. He is a very ill man. Please, stop assuming that you all know what is best. That is why we have medical experts. This man needs to see daylight. Oh, and by the way, the security guards who work with these people are trained, and I am sure that the use of a cell phone to call for back up is the least of it. I am sure they have procedure for when they escort all of the other people who are ill on their walks around the grounds of the hospital (you know, that place where we send people who are recognizably ill in order that they receive that medical assistance which is their basic human right). I guess all of you think that mental illness isn't real and that these people don't deserve the same medical treatment as the rest of us. Just remember, there but by the grace of good genetics go you or me or your child.
This is not the Medieval period. Be rational. Stop the mob mentality.
As it's clearly impossible to enlighten people about the nature of various mental illnesses on a newspaper comment forum, let's just use a little common sense for a moment. It's highly improbable that someone who is as heavily medicated at Vincent Li (the drugs to treat his condition are very powerful) is going to make a break for freedom, and somehow get away from two attendents - one being security personnel. The idea that public safety is a factor here is ridiculous. This could be a case study in political pandering. For the umpteenth time - let the doctors do their jobs. The courts decided they were the best equipped to handle Li and I think they have a bit more experience with the mentally ill than Andrew Swan or Hugh McFadyen.
No comments:
Post a Comment