Violations Perspective
Really, sometimes people are just so self-involved, so convinced they're entitled to whatever it is they're intent on obtaining for themselves, they are capable of overlooking what should seem obvious to anyone with an ounce of brains. That if, as a thinking adult, one has committed a criminal offence, there may be certain professions that would not go out of their way to embrace them as a representative of, for example, law and order....?
Yet even though it seems to the ordinary mind to make good common sense that if you violate the public trust, if you commit an indictable offence, if you engage in illicit activities, you may be considered thereafter as untrustworthy, it would appear that human rights may transcend the obvious.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently brought down a 6-2 decision in favour of a woman's right to be accepted for training with the police, despite having admitted to and being convicted of shoplifting.
She was of the age of majority at 21, when she pleaded guilty after being apprehended, of stealing several hundred dollars' worth of goods from a department store. She was fortunate in having been given a lenient sentence; a conditional discharge. Yet nothing could wipe out the fact that she had admitted to stealing goods, worth a fairly substantial amount of money.
How could someone like this be trusted to herself uphold the law and be tasked with the position of ensuring that others did, too? Apart from the very fact that it's rather an ignominious use of discipline to grant a thief the authority to apprehend other thieves. Surely when society authorizes individuals through training and legal appointment to uphold the law, they should themselves be capable of doing as much?
Yet five years after her conviction and conditional discharge the woman made application to the Montreal police and was informed that her application had been rejected. Those making the decision informed her that a background check of her criminal record indicated that she could not satisfy the "good moral character" pre-requisite for the position. Makes sense, right? Well, obviously not to the woman.
She felt that since she had received a pardon for the crime she had committed and time had passed since her offence, she should be deemed eligible for the position. The police force did not agree, and the case went before Quebec's human rights tribunal which ruled she had been discriminated against, ordering the City to pay $5,000 in damages to her.
When the police appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal and lost, the case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. With the resulting verdict that her human rights had been violated.
And now that she has succeeded in establishing her grievance against society in screening her out for a position she was obviously not suited for, she has lost interest in policing as a career.
Perhaps a law degree, leading to a position on the bench at some future time?
Yet even though it seems to the ordinary mind to make good common sense that if you violate the public trust, if you commit an indictable offence, if you engage in illicit activities, you may be considered thereafter as untrustworthy, it would appear that human rights may transcend the obvious.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently brought down a 6-2 decision in favour of a woman's right to be accepted for training with the police, despite having admitted to and being convicted of shoplifting.
She was of the age of majority at 21, when she pleaded guilty after being apprehended, of stealing several hundred dollars' worth of goods from a department store. She was fortunate in having been given a lenient sentence; a conditional discharge. Yet nothing could wipe out the fact that she had admitted to stealing goods, worth a fairly substantial amount of money.
How could someone like this be trusted to herself uphold the law and be tasked with the position of ensuring that others did, too? Apart from the very fact that it's rather an ignominious use of discipline to grant a thief the authority to apprehend other thieves. Surely when society authorizes individuals through training and legal appointment to uphold the law, they should themselves be capable of doing as much?
Yet five years after her conviction and conditional discharge the woman made application to the Montreal police and was informed that her application had been rejected. Those making the decision informed her that a background check of her criminal record indicated that she could not satisfy the "good moral character" pre-requisite for the position. Makes sense, right? Well, obviously not to the woman.
She felt that since she had received a pardon for the crime she had committed and time had passed since her offence, she should be deemed eligible for the position. The police force did not agree, and the case went before Quebec's human rights tribunal which ruled she had been discriminated against, ordering the City to pay $5,000 in damages to her.
When the police appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal and lost, the case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. With the resulting verdict that her human rights had been violated.
And now that she has succeeded in establishing her grievance against society in screening her out for a position she was obviously not suited for, she has lost interest in policing as a career.
Perhaps a law degree, leading to a position on the bench at some future time?
Labels: Social-Cultural Deviations
posted by Pieface @ 1:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home