May 26, 2015

"Dissing the system": "Extremist" judges let criminals get away without paying victim services fine

Rebel Staff
 

Have you heard about the extremist Canadian judges who are letting criminals get away without paying the Victim Fine Surcharge?

The surcharge law was passed in Parliament as a way to help fund victim services.

But there are some judges who don't feel like enforcing it. They "fine" criminals amounts as low as 30 cents to show their contempt for this law.

One judge even admitted that he did this on purpose to "diss the system."

Can you imagine if you decided to "diss the system" in a courtroom?

You know what would happen:

You'd be cited by contempt of court by the judge and very likely -- you guessed it -- have to pay a fine.

So why can judges themselves get away with having what amounts to the same disrespectful attitude?

What do you think? Tell me in the comments.

 

JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

READ The Enemy Within: Terror, Lies, and the Whitewashing of Omar Khadr, Ezra Levant's new book about domestic terrorism and radicalization.

Richmond Hill city council won’t sing O Canada because it contains the word “God.”
SIGN THE PETITION to SaveOCanada.ca


 

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-05-30 22:17:43 -0400
It seems like judges give more leinianance to the perpetrators than the victims as a type of job security. Any type of illusion of integrity to keep the machine running
commented 2015-05-27 14:44:18 -0400
All judges have to obey the law just the same as any other citizen and need to know they are not above the law (as I’m sure they already know this). And even more so in the case of a judge. They have to show a good example in their position to prove they can be trusted. I thought judges were held accountable. If they’re not, then the government needs new legislation to implement this. If they are trying to cover up illegal activities, send them to jail and fine them, heavily. Good exposure Ezra.
commented 2015-05-27 11:33:35 -0400
It is interesting how these failed criminal lawyers who become “judges” sidle-up to the criminals while they themselves are acting like law-breaking criminals. Could it be that they are really buddies of the criminal element and prefer to be criminal friendly rather than upholders of the law of Canada?
commented 2015-05-27 09:33:50 -0400
I think that every judge in this country needs to be audited annually, so that we can see whether they are making money through bribery. I believe they are milking the system and being paid off, they are essentially double dipping! Judges are so arrogant and conceited these days that we need to change the system. We should be able to see all judgments made by each and every judge in this country, so that we the public can see the trend. They are corrupt from the small courts, right up to that mocking SCOC activist hot bed of corruption! I think they are all pathetic, and will be held accountable one day by the one true judge, and that would be God, in my opinion!
commented 2015-05-27 09:20:29 -0400
When it comes to criminal court judges, and high level police officials, both groups should be given a ten year “performance window” within which they shall receive a given number of genuine provable death threats or assassination attempts by organized crime or other professional criminals on themselves or be obliged to step down. Those lacking such enmity by the criminal milieu are not worth their considerable paychecks.
commented 2015-05-27 01:29:35 -0400
Electing judges (as in most parts of the U.S. with the exception of Supreme Court judges) is not the answer. That process has its own problems. Our process is much like Winston Churchill’s description of democracy — it may be (on bad days) the worst system, but it’s better than all the others. Of the three basic systems out there (patronage, meritocratic, democratic) Canada has a hybridized patronage-meritocratic system.
Benefits of each:
• Patronage — Low transaction cost, rewards most deserving candidate for commitment to public service (best case scenario). Government (elected officials) is directly responsible for appointment, and therefore the process is somewhat democratic, b/c the citizenry can signal with their vote whether they agree or disagree with the government’s judicial appointments.
• Meritocratic — Experts in the field are primarily the ones selecting judges from among their qualified colleagues based on technical skill set. Eases pressure on judges to patronize the government in power, or the citizenry, in making their decisions.
• Democratic — Citizenry is engaged and involved in the appointment. Fairly transparent process. Judges are accountable to the electorate for their decisions (judge-made law, i.e. common law), that is, the values of the community can be represented.
Limitations of each:
• Patronage — Not enough transparency or public involvement. Worst case, can be a reward for patronizing the governing/ruling party, at a cost of judicial independence.
• Meritocratic — Too bureaucratic, time-consuming and costly. Lose accountability at the political level.
• Democratic — Danger for infringement on judicial independence if judges feel beholden to electorate or legislature to keep their job. Elections require financing, and even the perception that a judge is deciding cases based on receiving election support is injurious to judicial impartiality and independence. Parliamentary judicial screening committees can also force judges to make decisions on how they might rule on a hypothetical case (But judges reserve the right to answer or not).
commented 2015-05-27 01:16:14 -0400
Victim surcharges are beneficial, and go toward funding programs run by the provinces that are intended to help compensate victims of crime. For example, I dealt with a case where my clients’ attacker had already been convicted and sentenced to jail, but had managed to divest himself of all his assets to various charities beforehand. We had an air-tight civil case, but an essentially unenforceable judgment.
My clients needed the money to help pay for therapy and counselling and help reimburse them for the time spent off work, and so we successfully sought compensation from the Victims of Crime Fund.
There is no excuse for a judge failing to enforce the victim surcharge, as it is now mandatory in the Criminal Code (section 737). The only exception (providing judicial discretion where being required to pay is considered “undue hardship”) was removed by Bill C-37. In fact, the feds saw this as so important that they doubled the amount of the surcharge, from 15% to 30% of whatever fine is imposed.
The only discretion a judge has now is whether to INCREASE the mandatory 30% surcharge in appropriate circumstances.
commented 2015-05-27 00:12:33 -0400
It is time that we require judges to be elected. The system works in the USA, why not in Canada?
commented 2015-05-26 23:40:23 -0400
Henry Reardon – I believe that the law considers the state to be the victim in such cases, just as in criminal cases. The individual who suffers damages from a crime is called a witness or sometimes a victim witness, not officially a victim. Screwy.
commented 2015-05-26 23:22:37 -0400
It’s high time “we, the people” started ELECTING these judges…
instant accountability.
commented 2015-05-26 22:51:31 -0400
Why does any government body have more power than the other. A sober second thought is one thing, giving final say to unelected officials is quite another.
commented 2015-05-26 21:45:46 -0400
@ Peter – a more accurate description than mine – well stated!
commented 2015-05-26 20:38:07 -0400
@ Maurice – Judges are appointed from qualified lawyers by the government in the jurisdiction that they serve, so it would stand to reason that those who appointed them could remove them. Whether they would have the political will is another question. Because we know that if Harper was to remove from office any of the SCOC judges he appointed, the left would make sure that was the end of his career.
commented 2015-05-26 20:28:51 -0400
Is there any mechanism in Canadian law for removing sitting judges, other than them being convicted of a crime, that is? Does anyone know? Because if there isn’t there needs to be. If there isn’t a mechanism now, it’s almost certain there never will be, with the SCOC having the last word on the legality of all legislation. At least not until the government finally gets up the courage to invoke the “not withstanding” clause. This has to be don’t. The Canadian judicial system as it stand right now is a farce. These victim blaming, criminal codling judges have to go.
commented 2015-05-26 19:59:40 -0400
Bravo Zulu said, “how Canadian!”

More accurately, how liberal Canadian
commented 2015-05-26 18:47:44 -0400
Oh, Vlad! His kids? Him, maybe, but his kids?
commented 2015-05-26 18:46:53 -0400
Garry Wood, your post doesn’t even make any sense. Care to try that again?
commented 2015-05-26 18:45:25 -0400
Hopefully one of these criminals reoffends and takes out one of the judges kids.
commented 2015-05-26 18:26:09 -0400
i gues ezraq love extremist like mahar arar got paid off by harper!
commented 2015-05-26 18:23:01 -0400
I’m going to take a contrary point of view on this. 20-odd years ago, during Ontario’s brief flirtation with photo radar, I had occasion to get a speeding ticket. I was photographed doing 111 kph in a 100 kph zone and fined $32 plus a $5 victim surcharge. Let me ask you the same question I asked myself then: who exactly was the victim of my speeding? I was never able to think of one yet I got dinged $5 for doing some unidentified (and unidentifiable) harm to someone by simply driving a little faster than allowed by the signs on that particular stretch of the highway. I was tempted to fight this in court simply because I could see no victim to my action but I did what most people do in the same circumstances: I grumbled and paid the fine so that I could concentrate on other things.

I’d like to think that if I had taken it to court, a judge would have heard my argument and agreed with me, waiving the $5 victim fee. I would not have considered that contempt of the law but rational interpretation of the law. If I had had an accident and hurt someone or if I had assaulted someone, there would have been a victim. Then, it might have made sense to pay some compensation to the victim. I see no sense in paying compensation when an act hurts no one.
commented 2015-05-26 18:18:56 -0400
Yet another example, in many, of why the Liberal Appointed Judiciary needs to be released, and have Judges elected by the Communities they work for in term assignments. Only then can they be held accountable for their actions (or inactions).
commented 2015-05-26 18:02:54 -0400
The whole system is corrupted with this sort of attitude. Not all judges … maybe … but far, far, far too many are so pro-crime that we are justified in wondering just what sort of interest they are paid on investments in drugs/arms/human trafficking schemes. I’m serious. It’s that bad.

We should all protest these sorts of violations to the Ontario and Canadian Judicial Councils to make them feel the heat of our outrage. Not that these councils would ever find against a judge. They wouldn’t because they, too, are politically corrupted by partisan incentives. But they might just put some behind-the-scenes pressure on judges like this this K-W yahoo who is bragging to the Globe about his very own revolutionary vendetta against democracy. What are we, Egypt?