https://twitter.com/user/status/1616247618988044288
At first glance, this thread might seem like hyperbole, but I share it because it comes from a lawyer who is relatively well-known for fighting many legal battles for the underdogs of society in Alberta. And when you are in those battles, being able to unquestionably know that the rules are not subject to political manipulation goes to the legitimacy of the entire system.
The point he is making is that when the rules ensuring the good faith impartiality of state-prosecutions are ignored by the Executive Council you can descend almost immediately into a failed state.
How can we say that people claiming to be political prisoners should have those spurious complaints ignored...if we learn that politicians are in fact attempting to dictate who gets prosecuted for crimes and who gets to walk...for the express purpose of appeasing an absurd political campaign promise?
How can we as lawyers ask our clients to respect decisions that do not go their way and peacefully comply with the rule of law if it is being obliterated and torqued against them by political actors?
If you are a public NDP supporter, do you feel safe knowing that your UCP political opponents are meddling in who gets to keep liberty and who should be locked up? Overtly attempting to control police - the people in our society granted the powers of arrest and the authority to decide when to use lethal force?
Am I safe now that I have acted as counsel to more than one NDP MLA? Particularly if I do good work and succeed? Do I become a threat to the UCP? Would they interfere with the prosecutor or maybe even the judge and make known what the preferred outcome should be in a court case involving me?
These are questions we are never supposed to have to ask - and really, we have not had to before. Because the rule of law and the bedrock principles attached to it are to be treated as immovable, unassailable - to be respected even when it is hard.
It is not alarmist to say that if the silent majority stays silent...and does not demand an immediate course correction back to accountability to the rule of law, we are really not going to like the Alberta we end up living in.
Are we on the way farther than we would like to admit? Consider these quotes from the decision of the retired police Superintendent - accepting a joint submission
to allow two Lethbridge Police officers to keep their jobs after conducting unlawful targeted surveillance of a sitting Cabinet Minister:
Quote:
|
Sgt. Carrier was aware that Cst. Woronuk, like him, opposed some of the NDP government policies and did not support Minister Phillips' policies as Minister of Environment and Parks.
|
...
Quote:
|
Cst. Woronuk admits that he had no lawful reason to commit his CPIC search and was motivated to do so by his personal and political views.
|
...
Quote:
|
When it is found that a police officer is using their position and the powers conferred on that position to advance their personal and or political beliefs, there can be and often is a loss of trust and confidence in the agency as a whole.
|
...
Quote:
|
This is a matter where the cited officers put their self-interests ahead of their oath of office...
|
...
Quote:
|
Sergeant Carrier's inaction and tacit approval of Constable Woronuk's intentions is disappointing. It is also profoundly serious. No person should be targeted by the police based on the police officer's personal or political views.
|
So, we have passed the point where police officers can do all of those things and not lose their jobs. Fast forward only a few years and here we are facing whether to allow it to creep up to where a Premier can openly tell everyone about how she regularly questions prosecutors about the conduct of their files and then after denying doing that which she said (because people pointed out how unlawful that would be) we find out a 'staffer' in her office may well have done exactly that?
In this light, Mr. Nanda's warnings do not seem hyperbolic at all. And I hope that Albertans will care enough to demand accountability that is in alignment with the severity of any transgressions that may have occurred against our free and democratic society.