The Rule of Law

This is a re-print of part of a blog posting I did in late 2010 concerning the “Rule of Law” and what this currently means in Canada.  It is a summary of a talk** given by Her Worship Canada’s Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.  This material is offered in case it helps with the creation of a new international Rule of Law, for the upcoming United Nations session next week.)

Madame Justice Beverley McLachlin, originally from here in B.C. is a brilliant, diminutive, clear voiced lady, currently serving as the first female Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.  She described the importance of the “precious and fragile” Rule of Law.  In places where the Rule of Law does not yet exist, the challenge is to build it such that it becomes self-sustaining.   This can only happen when three basic necessary rules are being followed, in addition to the presence of already-existing domestic laws.

Her Worship proposed the three principles which entrench and make pure the Rule of Law, the three things necessary in order to establish a legal structure which will stand the test of time, transcending changes in local government, sustaining society through growth and change.  Here they are:

1.       Universality.  All people in society are governed by, and subjected to, the same legal norms and nobody is above the law.  Every citizen has the right to be protected by the law, and all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law.

2.       Legality.  The law must be laid out in advance, so that citizens will know their rights and duties.  Ex post facto justice, or “justice after the fact”, is forbidden because the law must apply equally to all.  This means that “special justice just for you”, often a feature of social inequality, is forbidden.  The Rule of Law should help the most vulnerable of citizens above all, because they are the ones who need the most protection.

3.       Accountability.  The Rule of Law can only be applied by an independent judiciary.  This is where the Rule of Law breaks down most frequently.  Without independent judges, those in power are rarely held to account.  The Rule of Law does not exist yet in places where human rights are being violated, individually and systematically, and where judges are merely doing the bidding of those in power.  Independent judges are a crucial part of any functioning civil society.

As Madame Justice McLachlin pointed out, “Rule by Law” is not the same thing as “Rule of Law”.  Some countries do have laws on the books concerning “human rights”, however they are not guaranteeing basic human rights to all citizens.  Simply having a codified law does fulfill the second criteria (legality) but the first and third basic principles are absent.  Some do not enjoy the full benefits of the law, so it is not “universal”.  Judges are not acting independently of government, so the law is not “accountable”.

Her Worship pointed out that although we take it for granted here in North America, the Rule of Law is never completely safe.  We always have to keep working on it, even here in Canada.  In the current “war on terror” human rights are starting to take a back seat to “security”.  Her Worship points out that we have to be very careful.  We must not lose our grip on the sanctity of the Rule of Law through our efforts to feel safe.  We must not do harm to the very principles underlying our society, while trying to save it.

(**Chief Justice McLachlin was talking at the International Symposium on Human Rights, at the International Bar Association’s annual meeting held in Vancouver in October, 2010)

Back to basics

Good day today … I had my faith in the legal profession, our legal system, and the worldwide “Occupy” movement restored all in one afternoon.  First I attended a very pleasant lunchtime talk given by a gentleman who has practised law in Ontario and B.C., serving years as a bencher and committee chair.  The company and the talk were good … I’d forgotten how pleasant the feeling of professional comaraderie is at such events.

From there, I walked a few blocks over to check out the busy courthouse.  The City of Vancouver’s application for an injunction against the Occupy Vancouver protest encampment was being heard.  This was my first time going through a  courthouse security procedure; it was very thorough.  One gentleman immediately behind me was loudly complaining about a very wide variety of topics.  At one point I asked him to refrain from swearing – which he did, although the loud complaining continued.  He did not get in.

The courtroom was soon packed and one thing I will say – the representatives of Occupy Vancouver were very well presented.  It really pains me to even have to say this (but I think I do, so I shall):  clean clothes, well groomed, pleasant demeanour, and respectful behaviour were displayed without a single exception among this peaceful, cheerful crowd.  I met a very nice woman named Raven and we chatted briefly.  While waiting for the judge to come in, I found myself seated beside the mainstream media press scrum.  The first row was filled and they clearly all knew one another very well – Messrs CBC, Sun, Globe & Mail, and of course I shan’t forget the chivalrous gentleman seated beside me, from the Province.

In a strange reversal of stereotypes, the only unpleasant person I encountered was a dischevelled older man, smelling of unwashed clothing and oily hair – there to enjoy the injunction at the expense of the protesters.  He made his position clear with the following remark, tossed out while people were sitting and waiting for the Judge to come in:  “When they get down there and start busting them up with billy clubs, I’ll be there watching.”  Funny how the image of protesters sometimes portrayed in the media was turned upside down, both by this very nice crowd at the courthouse, and in a strange twist, by their only open critic, who had himself taken on the “unkept, unclean” image with which the media keeps trying to brand the Occupy movement.

Luckily, however, the woman whom this older man was bothering was able to count on courthouse sherriffs, who stepped up and asked the violent-minded man to leave his seat.  We can always count on those courthouse sherriffs to keep us safe:  what a relief that is!  Such brave fellows they are.

This application was brought on very quickly.  The protesters were served last night at 5:30 pm with the City’s application.  Yesterday, the City attended court without notice to the encampment, asking for permission to move immediately ahead today, even though none of the protesters would have had even a chance yet to see the evidence.  Master Tokarek granted this without-notice application for “short leave” (permission to “short serve” the protesters) due to what is apparently a volatile “emergency situation” (according to the City’s position and their materials).

So having less than 24 hours from the time of service yesterday to the application at 2 p.m. today, the protesters managed to find a kind litigator named Michael McCubbin to stand up for them.  He asked for an adjournment, to give them more time to find a lawyer and prepare to answer the City’s application.  In response to this request, the City asked the court today for an “interim injunction”, effective immediately.  The order they seek is as follows (paraphrased):

1.  That the Occupy Vancouver encampment comply with the Fire Chief’s November 3, 2011 order;

2. That Fire/Rescue be permitted to take whatever steps necessary to enforce the said November 3, 2011 order, including the removal of objects which are in contravention of the said order;

3. That the VPD be authorized to assist Fire/Rescue’s efforts to enforce the said November 3, 2011 order, and that any other assistance necessary including the RCMP be also authorized including the arrest and removal of persons obstructing Fire/Rescue in carrying out enforcement of the said order.

The Judge conducted the matter very well, first graciously thanking Mr. McCubbin for serving as temporary counsel on such short notice “in the great tradition of our profession’s pro bono work”.  Mr. McCubbin said that Mr. David Eby was in the process of finding counsel to represent the Occupy Vancouver encampment, and that he would appreciate the matter standing down while he checked on any progress.  The afternoon break was held while Mr. McCubbin consulted with City counsel, his client, and Mr. Eby.

During the break, a gentleman approached the courthouse sherriffs to be permitted the chance to speak to the Judge.  The sherriff firmly suggested that he wait and see what the Judge would say to that, explaining to him that normally, people who are not directly involved in the case would not be permitted to address the court.

The Judge returned and she found that the protesters do have the right to try and find a lawyer, and that everybody should return to court tomorrow morning.

I won’t be able to make it back again to see what happens tomorrow, however one thing happened today which did surprise me and gives me real hope that justice will be done.  Despite the fact that protesters were there today without really any idea of much of the evidence which the City has amassed against them, they remained cheerful and polite to a fault.  When the Judge indicated that she would stand the matter down until tomorrow morning, several “jazz hands” went up quietly in the crowd.

The Judge responded:  “I see many hands up out there.  I do not want a lot of repetition here, so please find somebody who can speak on behalf of all of you.”

I was floored.  Somebody in the crowd explained to the judge that they’d only been signifiying approval with their hands.  The Judge said that she understood, and that the matter would then be stood down until morning.  I left at that point before things had totally concluded, but I feel certain that if the Judge did not hear from somebody on behalf of Occupy Vancouver today, that she will be willing to do so tomorrow.

I want to add that the gentleman (Mr. Magee) who volunteered to accept service on behalf of the encampment yesterday afternoon, and who is currently the only named defendant in the City’s injunction application (along with several John & Jane Does) was pleasant, accessible, and he also conducted himself very well.

Mr. McCubbin was able to inform the court that his client concedes those at the encampment DO want to meet the Fire Chief’s November 3, 2011 Order, in its entirety and will cooperate with that completely.  This is a much more helpful position than “We don’t recognize fire & safety personnel around here” (what was she thinking?)

So, back to the basics:  people could not have presented themselves any better today (with the notable exception of the strange, older Occupy critic).  The Judge did the right thing and has allowed people a bit of time, so they have a chance at knowing the case against them, before being bodily removed from the site of what is part of a worldwide protest movement.  The City of Vancouver has plainly backed off from the argument that suddenly there is a dire emergency at the site, which did not exist before this week (a very hard sell, that one, I think).  So it looks as if there is going to be a real adjudication on the merits of this situation.  This is what justice does best – balancing the needs of all parties concerned, with careful consideration of all of the relevant facts and policy arguments.

And this bright, pleasant Judge has indicated that she would be willing to hear from the people, in the process.  What more could we ask?  This, on top of my pleasant luncheon seminar, made for a really great day in my life as a lawyer.

Wikiwhat?

Now has come the time for me to state what I think of Wikileaks. I am a lawyer specializing in litigation. I have “evidence” on the brain. I also pay close, careful attention to media. Anything put forward as something laudable by mainstream media is automatically suspect, in my inquiring mind.  I normally keep most of this to myself.  I stay right out of all discussions surrounding this organization and its strangeling founder.  But today, I’m going to say it – all of it.  Straight from my stream of consciousness into the eyes of whoever happens upon this and takes the time to read it, here it goes.

You can’t use stolen documents in court for anything.  I therefore question the ultimate value of documents surreptitiously removed from their source.  Some have claimed that Wikileaks has a journalistic exception and can claim ‘continuity’ of the evidence.  Here’s ‘continuity’: the person who created the document must give sworn evidence as to its authenticity. Nobody else can do this for a court, with few exceptions, unless the parties on ALL sides agree as to the document’s authenticity.

Once a copy of a document is removed from its creator, its source, its authenticity would be challenged and it may not constitute admissible evidence in court.  Even if there is some argument that Wikileaks stands in the place of a “journalist” as to evidentiary exceptions, the problem is that a judge would have discretion, leeway, to allow this exception to apply or not.  Needless to say, judges will almost always err on the side against any sort of lawbreaking-type behaviour.  I believe Wikileaks would have an uphill battle in ever being able to use any documents obtained by whistleblowers and removed from whatever organization in which they originated.

Now, as to the content of all the diplomatic “cables”, I am a bit of a privacy fiend.  I think privacy is really awesome.  I sure wish I had more of it.  I believe that a diplomat should have the privacy to send somebody a personal thought about another diplomat.  Where’s the harm?  The only “damage” caused by such “revelations” was mild embarassment which was quickly forgotten.  For every “gem” disclosed, there were hundreds of thousands of nothings to go through.  Going through this massive release of information, much of which deserved to remain private if you ask me, would have been a gargantuan task taking up hours & hours & days & weeks of people’s time.  To me, this was not necessarily time well spent.

Finally, the mainstream media really pushed Wikileaks on us, big time. Both it and its eccentric, egotistical founder were front and center, all the top headlines all around the world.  Ahem, what’s wrong with this picture, folks??  Why would the mainstream media embrace Wikileaks like this?  I smelled something rotten there – sorry.  All the fawning over Wikileaks makes no sense if there were actually national security issues at stake there.  And personally, I feel that there were no real issues at stake.

The U.S. was not damaged in any material way by any of these revelations, with the single exception of the helicopter shot where soldiers took somebody out.  I don’t know any of the context of that event at all, so I have no comment on it whatsoever.  I do not tend to comment publicly on anything until I have what I consider to be enough of the facts.  In that case, I have no idea.  Point is, nothing harmed the U.S. in any of these “revelations”.  Given this fact, coupled with the fact that mainstream media were treating the Wikileaks founder like a rock star, made me think that the said rock star had made a side deal with the CIA.

Why would the CIA/power approve of all of these “leaks” made public?  Because it was a massive distraction for the public.  It distracted people for weeks, and it got us nowhere really important that I can see.  Any claims that Wikileaks actually caused any revolutions will be hotly contested by the people whose bodies were on the line in those revolutions – obviously.  I take issue with any such claims.  As a “cause and effect” relationship to any revolutions, Wikileaks has a tangenital relationship only.  Heck – for that matter, so do I, and so do many people who write online with any audience.

Now, a word about the fact that the big banks won’t transfer donations to Wikileaks.  The contract would state that they will not do anything to assist illegal transactions.  Wikileaks has identified itself, through its actions, as being outside of the law.  If they sued as The Blonde One said they might, I believe this would be a slam dunk in favour of the defendants who are honouring the contract.  In addition, some of those organizations were “taken down” by Anonymous in solidarity with Wikileaks.  There is therefore a valid counterclaim for damages, against Wikileaks, which could be advanced while defending any claim for transfer of funds.  Wikileaks could very well end up on the losing end of that one.  Judges will have discretion, and the surreptitious removal of documents from government and private concerns is something that I believe most Judges would frown upon, just my own personal private guess.

So now, bring on all the hateful comments and venom from Wikileaks supporters.  I will debate you right here.  I lament the brilliance of all of these young hackers going to waste on futile pursuits, instead of fighting the good fight as I see it should be fought.

These are my personal opinions, the opinions of a lawyer who has seen the results when a client goes outside of the existing rules, hoping to make a point.  You have to choose such “test cases” extremely carefully – you must choose the closest thing to a clear winner, if you want to try making a change in the law.  I realize that people are very impatient and they don’t want to wait for the wheels of justice to turn slowly.  But this is where I differ from many people – likely due to my training and experience as a commercial/insurance litigator in my former pre-motherhood incarnation.  Those are my stripes and I can’t change them.

Hopefully there’s room for all opinions on this topic.  But I guess the comments section here will tell the tale.  Are we all still divided, or will we finally really hear one another as the world tries to sort  out how to fix all that’s wrong?

Open letter to Gen’l James E. Donald

September 23, 2011

General James E. Donald, Chair
The State Board of Pardons and Paroles
Floyd Veterans Memorial Building
Balcony Level, East Tower
2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S.E.
Atlanta, GA 30334-4909

Via facsimile – 404-651-6670

Dear Chairman Donald,

Re: Marcus Ray Johnson

I am writing to express my deep concern over the scheduling of Mr. Johnson’s execution for October 5, 2011. Having informed myself as to the facts, I note that there is very serious doubt as to his guilt raised by these facts. The similarities to the prosecutorial weaknesses in the Troy Davis case are, in particular, most disturbing.
The criminal justice system of Georgia is being called into disrepute once again, before the eyes of the world. In addition, today the UN Human Rights Commission found that the execution of Troy Davis was in contravention of international norms and likely, international law.

Mr. Johnson has maintained his innocence from the day of his arrest until now, and was convicted on the basis of unreliable eyewitness testimony from people who did not see Mr. Johnson commit any crime. Expert testimony on the problems with the eyewitness identifications in Mr. Johnson’s case was not allowed at trial, but it would have aided jurors in evaluating factors undermining the reliability of this evidence which lay people do not have the expertise to identify. No physical evidence ties Mr. Johnson to the crime. Testing of critical physical evidence from the crime scene has never been permitted by the courts and has since been destroyed by order of the trial court. In addition, a pocket knife belonging to Mr. Johnson that investigators said was consistent with the stab wounds, and a stick allegedly used during the crime were tested and came back negative as to any blood or tissue. These facts were never revealed to the jury. When human error leads to a failure to examine critical evidence, and jurors are not informed of reasons to doubt that the evidence actually says what the State alleges, the Board of Pardons and Paroles exists as a safety net to prevent the irreversible mistake of executing the innocent.

I am deeply troubled that Georgia might proceed with this execution given the real possibility of Mr. Johnson’s innocence. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that our criminal justice system is not devoid of error and we now know that 139 individuals have been released from death rows across the United States, most often due to mistaken witness identification, since 1976. The system of capital punishment is fallible, given that it is administered by fallible human beings. Georgia cannot afford to make such a mistake, and we urge the Board of Pardons and Paroles to do everything in their power to prevent such an injustice from taking place.

Marcus Ray Johnson has been on Death Row for 13 years and has demonstrated that he is someone who will act swiftly and come to the aid of others in crisis. In November 2009, men on Death Row found Timothy Pruitt hanging in a cell. He was not breathing and had no pulse. Mr. Johnson immediately performed CPR and was able to resuscitate him. Mr. Johnson has shown that he has empathy and takes seriously his responsibility to others. Indeed, he acted quickly and saved Tim Pruitt’s life.

This Board has stated that it will not allow an execution to proceed where there is any doubt as to guilt. In this case, there are serious doubts which remain as to Mr. Johnson’s guilt. Furthermore, he has shown that he is someone who respects human life and is capable of acting heroically to preserve it. I respectfully urge the Board of Pardons and Paroles to demonstrate its strong commitment to fairness and justice by not allowing Marcus Ray Johnson to be executed.

Thank you for your kind consideration. Please do the right thing.

Sincerely,

Chella A. Turnbull

Capital Punishment suffers a blow

The death of Troy Davis at the hands of the criminal justice system in Georgia, USA (as allowed by the US Supreme Court) was a watershed moment, the beginning of the death of capital punishment worldwide.

I watched Democracy Now’s stunning on-scene coverage of the vigil for Troy being held outside of his prison. It’s hard to put into words what this experience was like, but I’ll try my best …

The moment of 7 pm when he was to be killed, came and went with cheers going up from the crowd. At 6:59 I felt a heaviness in my chest, a pressure making it hard for me to breathe, like something was pressing on me … this was gone at 7:01 when Troy was still with us.

Then came the hideous, grotesque, surreal waiting… watching Larry Cox of Amnesty International openly weeping, sobbing at the inhumanity of it all … comforted by Ben Jealous. You could tell that Ben Jealous and Kathryn Hamoudah have been through executions before. They provided a steady rock of comfort for the family & friends gathered to be as close to Troy as they could, in his final moments of life.

Troy`s sister Martina was an astonishing pillar of strength and eloquence. Her son, Troy`s nephew, seems a remarkable young man. Troy`s other sister Kim Davis did not wish to say much in front of the camera but her faith was certainly evident. My admiration for this family knows no bounds.

I can’t remember exactly when it was, during the 4 hours it took SCOTUS to refuse saving Troy’s life, that the sirens started. It was maybe an hour or so before Troy died, maybe more. I don’t know when it happened exactly but as I heard the terrible sound of many police cars screaming over to the prison grounds, I knew that the news was going to be bad.

Would they send in the riot squad if they were going to save Troy? Obviously not. So the outcome was obvious at that point, but still the family were not told anything and made to wait longer. This was starting to resemble deliberate mental and emotional torture by this point.

I knew that those sirens, those helicopters, meant that Troy would soon die. I saw Ben Jealous quickly gather up the 150-or-so people behind the rope … they left the cameras and stood around Ben, while he spoke softly to them.

Because having assisted at these tragedies before, Ben knew and so did Kathryn – those sirens, those helicopters overhead with their searchlights, the ultimate form of disrespect and callous disregard for those good people, were signalling that the prison would go ahead with Troy’s killing.

Ben Jealous no doubt took the opportunity to make sure that people would stay calm after the inevitable announcement that would shortly come. Kathryn Hamoudah’s face seemed to have a veil come over it, her demeanour changed slightly … she had the firm resolve of somebody who knew that she was about to bear witness to a planned murder, and who was steeling her strength for it.

The Democracy Now team did not seem to realize what those sirens meant, calmly continuing on with their broadcast as best they could.

Then came the announcement, read on the air by DN’s remarkably poised, eloquent producer (whose name I am very sorry to say I did not catch yet), that Troy’s killing would shortly go ahead.

A low moan escaped a woman in yellow who was standing nearby … followed by complete, utter silence. Not one person spoke, except for Amy Goodman of DN who continued to comment on the scene in her typical determined way, never forgetting that she was a broadcaster first. Amy is obviously the consummate professional and my admiration for her personally is now at staggering proportions.

Nobody else spoke or moved. The complete silence was punctuated by the helicopters with their searchlights, playing over the still, quiet crowd. Their dignity soared above those helicopters which seemed crass, ridiculous, mundane, insulting.

At 11 pm (EST) I felt, in my imagination, that I was right there with Troy in that chamber. I closed my eyes, and I imagined leaning over and kissing his forehead, whispering softly to him, “Peace, brother. Peace. People all over the world love you. Peace.“ At 11:04 I suddenly said to my son – “Troy has died.“ There had been no announcement yet, but I felt sure that something had changed. I knew beyond any doubt that Troy had left us for the beyond. And I felt strongly that he had gone in peace.

A few moments later it was confirmed to be true. Democracy Now`s producer, an obviously intelligent and motivated young woman with a good heart, read out the news that Troy had died. Her voice broke part way through and she lost her composure for the first time that evening. It was such a heartbreaking moment – and it still hurts.

Then we saw the people who had witnessed this killing speak. The reporter who spoke the most had a strange look in his eyes. He looked extremely upset. Somebody asked him why he`d been there and he responded, “Because they picked me, that`s why,“ with an exaggerated shrug. His eyebrows were raised and his eyes were enlarged, while he answered questions from the press. To me, it looked like his eyebrows were raised against crying – he was trying his best not to cry. I felt very sorry for him.

I have felt slightly disoriented since watching this scene for hours, like I`m only partly here. I have to keep giving my head a shake, to clear it (but that doesn`t work). I tried to help both myself and others by following my instincts and tweeting anything I felt might be helpful, putting it out there just in case (as I always do, just in case).

The complete head-to-toe exhaustion which must be felt by Amy Goodman, her producer and crew yesterday and today, is almost palpable because I felt a tiny bit of it myself and I was not even there.

This was a wrenching, shattering, terrible, horrible, violent event. The way that Georgia acted, sending in its troops in such a disrespectful, insulting way, bothering and disturbing these grieving people, was a complete travesty of any semblance of human decency. The way that they sent in those police cars, sirens screaming, a full half hour (at least) before telling the family what was going on, was also patronizing and more than likely unnecessary.

The way that they forbid family members in Georgia from attending a state killing, depriving the victim of the presence of his greatest supporters, is completely disgusting. The entire procedure is disgusting, and the doctors who preside over it are a shame to their profession. The physician who makes a good living providing over these executions is a monster in disguise.

All of these thoughts went through my head then, and are still going through my head. I can`t leave Troy Davis and his family in my heart, and so I won`t. I will continue to see this through, all the way. I will do whatever I can to help and promote the abolitionist movement in the US.

I do hope that Democracy Now broadcasts Troy`s funeral from Savannah, however I imagine that they will need to recover their strength and energy before thinking of tackling that. Congratulations to Amy Goodman for scooping the entire world and providing such a vivid window into this rapidly dying, atrocious, barbaric practice. Hopefully her good work will help see an end to this killing.

Dawn of justice

Today I saw something startling while going over what’s new in the world, via Twitter.  I can’t recall the International  Court of Justice ever ordering people to do something before.  They basically ordered both Thailand and Cambodia to stand down and leave a disputed area.

At the same time, I read an astonishing statement by Ban Ki Moon published via a link to twitter, in which he demanded that two other parties somewhere in conflict cease and decist immediately.  As I write this I am trying to find this story, but I can’t find that tweet for the link.  I went to the UN website and the Secretary-General’s page, but his remarks in this regard appear to have vanished.  I will post an update if I’m able to find this link, and you’ll see what I mean.  I have never before heard the Secty-Genl issue such a directive.  And maybe I never will again… perhaps the story’s been pulled and he’s been spoken to about standing down.  Perhaps ..

Then, to further startle me today, I read a strongly-worded piece on the benefits of nationalism, and why we “ignore it at our peril”.  The title of the piece leaves no question about the author’s personal opinion.

The article on why statehood is a GOOD thing that we do not want to mess with, seems to me to have been a reaction to the sudden flexing of the fledgling international justice system’s muscles.  Along this same vein, there is also a piece on CNN today about Interpol, the international agency of police co-operation. .  Interpol has been operating for 88 years but it has never linked itself, nor been linked, to the International Criminal Court.  That would be a gigantic step towards a comprehensive, fair, basic global criminal justice system.  There are many, however, who are determined that this NOT happen.

I would never name names, I don’t have any names.  But you can bet that people who fight against criminal justice are, more than likely, um …. well, criminal, for lack of a better word.  There’s no way around it.  If you are law-abiding and fair in all your dealings, why would you need to worry about international criminal justice reaching a new zenith?  Well if you are a civil liberties advocate I’m sure you will have plenty to say and obviously you as crusader for legal rights are not criminal.

Whew, what a day on planet earth today.  It is most fitting that these new forays into enforcing order, which of course have to be delicate and careful in these times of legitimate upheaval, occurred on this day of July 18, 2011 – the day after.

International Justice Day, July 17, 2011

The Media’s Black Eye

As Vancouver gets back to its feet after the inexplicable violence of June 17^th, it is important to set the record straight about the facts.  The “Shame Vancouver” campaign is still in full swing in media around the world.  If ever there was evidence that media sources everywhere are carefully coordinated, this is certainly it.  From the BBC to Al-Jazeera, everybody is getting in on the Vancouver bashing with a seemingly seamless approach, smacking of a media team effort.  The goal seems to be to promote “shame” in the people of Vancouver.  This is quite odd.  But like the chaos attempted to be sown, it isn’t going to take.  Nobody here is ashamed of our city today, although there is some embarrassment that we opened ourselves up to a few punks treating a hockey game like an opportunity for mischief or worse.

So it’s time for a few facts, a reality check.  Who knows, you never know:  maybe some editor or reporter will care about what actually happened the other day, rather than just keep spewing their chosen tag line.

It’s important to mention that the day before this happened, there was a sinister trend happening on Twitter – the “Vancouver will burn” collection of tweets.  The language used by these people was striking – not “Vancouver might burn”, but that it “will”.  There was a tone of certainty there which is very interesting.  People seemed to be aware of a specific plan.  And that’s because there was a plan, to use Vancouver’s penchant for large public street parties as a staging ground for attempted “chaos”.

These plans were no doubt laid way back in February 2010, when self-proclaimed “anarchists” tried to mess up the Vancouver Olympics.  They failed miserably, making nary a blip in a two week show that went off without a hitch.  So at that point I guess, the game was on.  It was only a matter of time before they tried it again.  These punks are nothing if not stubborn.

After Game 7 on Wednesday night, coordinated fires were started in various locations downtown by people who are proud to identify themselves with “anarchy”.  In fact, several “anarchist” websites are acknowledging participation in this event.  But to call themselves “anarchists” is a misnomer.   Anarchy is a philosophical belief system which has now been subverted so badly that it’s currently enjoying zero credibility worldwide.  That’s really a shame, because it used to make for such interesting political discussion.  But I digress.  So, as planned, this small group fanned out once the hockey game was over.  Fires were started and store windows smashed by these few dozen people who laughed gleefully while they carried out their plan.  There were no angry people in sight, only a bunch of obviously happy punks who’d been waiting quite a while for this night.

Then some of the drunk, disappointed hockey fans took out their cell phones and started shooting for their Facebook pages.  Yes – some hockey fans took pictures, and yes, others stood around and watched the “anarchists” do their thing.  Yes, there was a lot of gawking.  But at no point was there any sign of “angry hockey fans”.  Sure, there were curious hockey fans, and some stupid hockey fans.  But the mood among Canuck fans was one of dejection, not anger.

The Vancouver Police and the RCMP, to their credit, showed remarkable restraint while dispersing the crowd in less than four hours.  They made over 100 arrests and there was not a single instance of police using excessive force.  Among those arrested were people armed with gasoline,  rags, masks, weapons, and goggles.

Last time I checked, Canadian hockey fans don’t tend to bring that type of thing down when they come to watch the game, eh.  Maybe a mickey of tequila or a couple of joints.  But armed to the teeth like guerillas?  No.  That’s no hockey fan, folks.

The vast majority of the approximately 150 minor injuries were gawkers inhaling tear gas.  One drunk guy fell off of a bridge, one girl took too much ecstasy and had a bad trip, and a couple of guys were stabbed.   And that was it as far as injuries were concerned.  Not bad for a crowd of over 100,000.

Far from being a “black eye on Vancouver”, this entire event was planned far in advance by non-residents who descended upon our city for reasons unknown.  “Vancouver is going to burn”, crowed the creepy tweeps who are no doubt now part of the police investigation.  But Vancouver didn’t burn, and so they failed, once again.

Far from being “Canada’s shame”, this is a mark of shame for the worldwide mainstream media for getting it so wrong.  Sore losers?  Vancouver hockey fans were certainly disappointed after their great playoff run and such a brilliant regular season, but they stuck around in Rogers Arena to salute the Bruins, Tim Thomas in particular.  They gave a standing ovation to their beloved Canucks and you can still see many hockey jerseys being sported proudly around town today.

But they say everything happens for a reason.  Volunteers cleaned up downtown and the police are receiving accolades.  There is a spirit of community, of coming together to fight back from our tarnished image at the hands of ill-informed, lazy journalists around the world.  We all feel closer now, and the vast majority of us are now basically besotted with our wonderful police force.  Chalk one up for the good guys.  My heart’s all a-flutter.

Needless to say, of course the global news cycle will move on from this story.  But no, this isn’t going to “stick to Vancouver” as some have inexplicably proclaimed.  No, our image around the world is not going to suffer for this.  Ordinary citizens everywhere haven’t changed their opinion of Vancouver, I’m sure, despite the concerted efforts of the media looking to brand us.  It’s hard to understand exactly why there is such determination to mark Vancouver with something negative out of this, but the reasons why don’t really matter.

What matters is that we have a great city on our hands where everybody came together to enjoy Canada’s game and eachothers’ company.   And nothing will ever change that.