Dafonte Miller case shows it's time to talk about the myth of 'the rule of law'

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca in its summer fundraiser today for as little as $1 per month!

Ontario Superior Court of Justice and Toronto City Hall. Image: Ken Lund/Flickr

The rule of law, as Gandhi said about Western civilization, would be a good idea.

I thought this as I listened to Justice Joseph Di Luca drone for hours, literally, while ruling on the Therieault brothers' case. I've sat through those rulings (this one was, uniquely, virtual) and it's always similar: you can't guess which way they'll go till the end, when they suddenly jump one way or another. You're up, you're down -- especially if you're the defendant. The strongest sense you have is how arbitrary this is. It isn't rule of law, it's the ruling of this one guy.

This applies to judge-only trials. Jury trials are different since they don't give their reasons. Yet somehow the judge's reasons make his decision seem even more haphazard. If it was as reasonable and logic-driven as the judge's tone always suggests, then you'd surely know before they announced it, what it inevitably would be. Rule of law, it turns out, is more a phrase you mouth than a condition you inhabit.

There's been lots of rule-of-law jabber lately. Jody Wilson-Raybould thundered rule of law and nearly brought Prime Minister Justin Trudeau down. He and his minions said, "Yah sure," but also: "votes, Quebec, the economy, the rest of the world." She and her comrade, Jane Philpott, left so that, during COVID-19, they aren't in place to perform the kinds of tasks they prepared for all their lives.

Now there's the two Michaels, jailed on ludicrous pretexts in China. This time it's Trudeau who keeps muttering, rule of law, while 19 "eminent Canadians" petition saying, "Yeah, but: ministerial discretion, Extradition Act, compassion."

It makes me think warmly about my favourite academic, retired law prof Harry Glasbeek, who has insisted for decades that all law, despite its rigour and precedents, is embedded in particular circumstances that include the politics and cultural presumptions of its time. There's no such thing as rule of law in the abstract, it's always imbued with particular circumstances.

So I'd be more sympathetic to Wilson-Raybould if she'd explained that what really irked her was how SNC-Lavalin got speedy curbside service almost before placing their order, while her people waited centuries and are still on hold. Or if Trudeau said, "Sure I can cut a deal with China, but if Trump takes a sh-tfit over it, our whole economy could tank."

Who understands this kind of rule of law in all its complexity? Clearly not the judge who, despite his long and winding text, seemed as predetermined as the sunset. The Black kid got his day in court and the cop got off lightly. It's full of "I accept," "I do not accept" and "I cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt" even when the margin is "razor thin."

So what it really comes down to is: who is it who has to be convinced and what are their predilections based on background, politics, the side of the bed they got up on or their digestion. (Much depends on breakfast.) Is that fixable? You can try to recruit a variety of people for the role -- but once you've gone through law school, you'll still be a lawyer and think like one, and that isn't random. Are there other systems -- restorative justice, community stewardship? Sure, but not for Dafonte Miller.

And yet he's the one who put it all in context. He said after the daft ruling: "A lot of my brothers and sisters are going through similar situations as me and a lot of my people are dying and a lot of officers are walking. So I don't feel like I took a loss -- I feel like we took a step forward."

Noam Chomsky couldn't have said it better. Having that much perspective is saintly. You expect it from a Chomsky or Martin Luther King ("I have been to the mountaintop" -- foreseeing his imminent, violent death).

But Miller, still a teen when the cop who got off lightly beat him so badly that parts of his eye were on the hood of an SUV? We -- us humans -- don't deserve such wise and long-suffering figures in our midst. By sheer grace we sometimes get them. I hope he had a good Canada Day.

Rick Salutin writes about current affairs and politics. This column was first published in the Toronto Star.

Image: Ken Lund/Flickr

Related Items

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.