Canadian Civil Liberties Association Appoints Michael Bryant Executive Director

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Canadian Civil Liberties Association Appoints Michael Bryant Executive Director

Michael Bryant's Killing of Darcy Allen Sheppard

"How Michael Bryant killed Darcy Allan Sheppard and how the justice system was manipulated to set him free."


"You're excited to have the man who killed Indigenous courier Darcy Allen Sheppard, then wrote a book which monetized his death, in charge of civil liberties? What the hell is wrong with you?"


PETITION:  to CCLA To Rescind Appointment of Michael Bryant As Executive Director


Babble Bryant threads: #6

Bryant Watch

"You're all witnesses to this!" - last words, Darcy Allen Sheppard


Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Bryant is pretty vocally anti-marijuana.  You'd think that the CCLA would have issues with that.


A lot of people I know are pretty outraged by this. Can't say I blame them. Not one bit.


Is vehicular homicide a civil liberty?

Yes, I know the bastard wasn't convicted. But it is shameful that a civil liberties association would appoint such a person who made the story all about him.

And being "anti-marijuana" is counter to his mission there. So many people can't get jobs, or travel some places, because of a long-ago conviction for a joint or two.

Meg, is there anywhere we can write to protest this appointment?


I confess to having a very hard time understanding why Michael Bryant should be excluded from this position. What else? Teaching jobs? Representing defendants in bail court? Local union representatives? What are the criteria we should apply? How much do we know about the past lives of other CCLA staff?

Anyway, the gun lobbyists are on board with excluding him.



Well, there's the CCLA itself: phone: 416-363-0321, fax:416-861-1291, but I don't know of any organized protest movement yet - it's still early days.


Curious to find that Bryant's lawyer was Marie Henein.   I missed the previous threads on this when it originally happened and doing a bit of catch up reading now.


I have to say I agree with Unionist.

And while I think the the gun lobby's complaint should not be enough to bar him, they at least raise a fair point about potential bias that is relevant to the job. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I'm not sure I see a position like this as quite the same as any other "Help Wanted" ad.  Certainly, one's political views shouldn't bar you from taking a job as a piano mover.  But it would seem to me that whoever gets to be top dog at CCLA might be expected to have at least shown a commitment to civil rights.  I don't think Bryant should lose the job because he was the AG, or because he's probably a jerk, or because he didn't stop the car and then wrote a cringeworthy book about it, or because he's got that rich, entitled face.  But if he doesn't support civil liberties then, well, why him??


Bryant won't direct CCLA positions on marijuana. Nor is he likely to make submissions in court.  He will have input into policy, but ultimately will take direction from the Board.


Allan Sheppard, Darcy's dad, weighs in, admitting he isn't neutral. Neither am I, and don't pretend to be. The onus should always be on the more powerful road user (and I do feel the same about cyclists who kill or injure pedestrians out of neglect). But unfortunately we don't have such measures on the books here, unlike the Netherlands and Belgium.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I think he is entitled to any job he is qualified for.  However, I question that he is the most qualified candidate.  As a BC Civil Liberties supporter/former member I always looked down on the Ontario version. This has done nothing to change that.


Though it is a weird realm. Speaking generally I agree it is helpful to have a committment to social justice - so long as one has an understanding that the principles of rights and liberties are separate from that.

That doesn't mean falling into libertarian or pseudo free speech arguments, but a number of important decisions have come down in support of the right to do some pretty objectionable things, which are ultimately a defense for all of us.

I can see how some who are deeply involved in one cause might have a problem when it comes to the rights of those who challenge that cause.

Again, speaking generally. 



Not trying to derail this thread (we can start a new one if it calls for it), but what's "pseudo free speech", and is it necessarily linked to economic libertarianism?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

but what's "pseudo free speech"

I'mma stick my neck out and guess that it's speech that's "technically" or "legally" free that we should all voluntarily avoid anyway.  The way the speed limit can be 100kph, but if you drive 100kph, someone will say "well, you don't really NEED to drive that fast, do you?"


I mean the alt-right argument that all venues have an obligation to host them, and if they don't it is a violation of their free speech, even though the internet is a wide open forum for them. 

Or claims that people are going to stop them from speaking, when in fact no one is.



Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I mean the alt-right argument that all venues have an obligation to host them, and if they don't it is a violation of their free speech, even though the internet is a wide open forum for them.

Ah, OK.  My guess was wrong.


6079, like the right to kill rather obnoxious cyclists with your motor vehicle? Yes, I'm dead set against that. Or rather, "alive set"? I certainly don't think that Darcy was any kind of saint, but Bryant killed him with his fucking car. NO, I don't think people like that should be in any position to speak up for human rights, when he violently denied a human his right to life. And made the narrative all about him and his frigging "journey".


I didn't say anything about the man who was killed. I simply said I agreed with Unionist. I don't see that that incident bars him from this job, especially considering there wasn't enough to sustain a charge, never mind a conviction.

For that matter, I didn't take issue with anyone here disagreeing and objecting to his hiring. By all means write and let them know how you feel.

On the question of traffic laws though, I don't know how it is where you are, but here if a pedestrian jaywalks into traffic and gets hit, there is a good chance that person is going to get charged.  Happens regularly here. Whether the motorist gets charged with failure to yield depends on a number of things, including if there was time to stop at all.  

So no, it isn't always automatically the fault of the person with the largest vehicle, nor should it be.


Well, we'll never agree about the last part of your sentence. "Jaywalking" was an offence invented to confirm the domination of the car.

I know a lot of people, especially in rural areas, need the bloody things, but I hate them.