August 6th, 1998
The Lawyers’ Weekly
Butterworths Publishers
75 Clegg Road
Markham, Ontario
L6G 1A1
Dear Sirs:
Mr. Trawick, in his recent letter concerning the Criminal Lawyers’ Association’s letter deploring Preston Manning’s improper court-bashing because he did not like a recent constitutional decision issued by the Supreme Court, focuses on one part of our letter which referred to the O’Connor amendments to the Criminal Code as an example of how Parliament cannot be trusted to protect accused persons’ rights. Mr. Trawick’s letter concluding rhetorical flourish is to challenge my knowledge of the concept of “pandering”.
To pander means to give encouragement or gratification to someone that should not be given, or more pejoratively, to encourage the vices or weaknesses of another. Its essence is support for the unsupportable, the wrong, the improper. (I admit I looked it up but nothing was said about it being a closed-book quiz).
I find it so hard to believe that Mr. Trawick is seriously suggesting that the Supreme Court’s exercise of its Charter jurisdiction is improper, a “vice or weakness”, such that our support of that fundamental constitutional function is improper, that I will not pursue that issue (though I look forward to his telling the Court that when the O’Connor amendments case is argued; it will certainly make for an interesting hearing).
But we at the Criminal Lawyers’ Association could not suppress our amusement at the irony involved in Mr. Trawick’s query about ‘pandering’ because what we are discussing is certainly a world-class example of pandering. Mr. Trawick would be more accurate to apply his pejorative labeling to Allan Rock’s supersonic passage of those amendments in response to the completely insupportable demands for an unreasonable vocal minority. How a Minister of Justice could join common cause with forces disrespectful of the presumption of innocence, disdainful of the fundamental requirement of a fair trial, and unconcerned with the necessity to prevent wrongful convictions utterly escapes (and disappoints) us. Especially when all this flies directly in the face of a Supreme Court of Canada Charter decision. But we certainly agree the concept of ‘pandering’ is the most accurate description and we applaud Mr. Trawick’s putting his finger on just the right word.
Your truly,
Alan D. Gold, President