Another Day, Another Rant... or two...

Rant #1... scooters/mopeds/whatever you want to call them. Motorized two wheeled vehicles of limited speed. I understand the environmental appeal. I understand the "I can get through backed up traffic and then park it pretty much anywhere" appeal, too. But if the damn thing can't go faster than 40, keep it close to the damn curb!!

Today, on my way in to work (driving... it's a rare occurrence, since it costs about $10 to park for the day... but for reasons of personal safety coupled with convenience for the trip home this evening, it was the best choice), I was tootling along Eglinton Ave. East headed towards O'Connor Drive. I was in the left lane, in the centre lane was one of these things (and I don't mean one of the uber-cute old VW Things... they rock). Not the curb lane, but since he was turning off to go to O'Connor, I could forgive it. Until he wobbled over across a solid line into the left lane, where he stayed for 3 blocks, doing his maximum of about 37 km/h... in the fast lane... in a 60 zone. I've got 2 problems with this... one is that travelling slower than 20 km/h below the posted limit qualifies you for a ticket for obstructing traffic and potential dangerous driving charges. The other is that travelling slower than any other traffic on the road in the LEFT lane is just plain dumb.

Of course, so is driving with your mirrors adjusted so that you can see.... yourself, and nothing else. Yes... that's right boys and girls, this braintrust also couldn't see anything but his own damn melon in his wing mirrors... certainly not the traffic he was wobbling out in front of without either indicating or turning his head. *sigh* Darwin, where are you when we need you?

Rant #2... the current publication ban on the scheduled appearance in court of one Terri-Lynne McClintic in the case of the murder of 8-year-old Tori Stafford last year. More accurately, the media outcry over the publication ban. I am willing to grant that "the people have a right to know"... and I truly believe that child killers deserve the worst things in life. BUT (and this is where I'm likely, yet again, to ruffle some feathers)... the accused also have the right to a fair and unbaised trial by a jury of their peers. Now, I'm sure some of you might be wondering what that has to do with a publication ban... well, here it goes... recently there was another case before the courts in Toronto. The case of the murder of one Joran Manners. The accused's identity is protected by age at time of the incident. In any case... a mistrial was declared. Now, in the event of a mistrial, the crown may regroup and re-lay charges and re-present their case to a new jury.

So here's where the publication ban is a good-ish thing. Child murders are polarizing events. They cause tremendous public outcry. Accused are deemed guilty until proven otherwise... and even in the event that they are acquitted, they're social pariahs at best, and murder victims themselves at worst. Are you familar with the notion of "tried in the media"? In the event (unlikely, if the crown have done their job well and thoroughly researched all evidence and presented a 'water-tight' case) of a mistrial, the accused in such cases has no hope in hell of a fair and unbiased re-trial with a jury of their (geographic) peers... their peers have all become biased and prejudiced by media coverage.

So, and I say this with admittedly no idea of the motivation of the ban in this case... let's say that during discovery the presiding judge says to the crown "yes, you have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial", but does not feel the case is, in any way a 'slam dunk' because the evidence is unstable, or the accused is likely to prove a sympathetic figure or whatever, it's in the best interests of ultimate justice to impose a publication ban until a verdict is returned and appeals are exhausted, at which time, details could be published. The way I see it.

And, I'll admit, my thoughts on the subject are at least partly coloured by the case of one Robert Baltovich, convicted of killing his girlfriend (and my childhood fellow parishioner) Liz Bain... and later granted a re-trial, on the first day of which the crown said "umm... we're not going to present anything" and consequently he was granted a summary acquittal. Now, I met Mr. Baltovich once, back in the day. Seemed a nice enough boy... madly in love with a beautiful girl. And I also know (thanks to media, ironcially enough) that Liz was acquainted with one Paul Bernardo, who moved from Toronto right around the time of her supposed murder (no body has been found), which also coincided with the cessation of escalating activities by the so-called "Scarborough Rapist" (later shown to be same Paul Bernardo), a short time before the deaths of Tammy Lyn Homolka, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. But Mr. Baltovich's initial trial was before any of that came to light, and no other suspects were considered (hardly thorough investigative policy).

Mistakes happen. Juries fail to reach verdicts. In cases likely to have a significant polarizing effect or which are likely to rouse a mob with pitch-forks and flaming torches (figuratively speaking... I hope), I think it's only right in the interests of fair judicial process to impose a media ban or "gag order". At least until the case is well and truly over or the right to trial by jury is waived in favour of bench trial.

So, news folks... get over yourselves and "the public has a right to know"... because any one person's rights are only rights until they infringe on the rights of another... like the right to a fair and unbiased trial.