Friday, April 25, 2008

Question Du Jour

I wonder, if this guy was named "Ahmed" rather than "John" and he was a recent immigrant from Pakistan, rather than a former Ontario cabinet minister and he pleaded guilty to possession of a restricted weapon, whether he would have been let off with a shrug and a "He's been embarrassed enough" speech, by the judge? It's nice to be one of the boys, neh?
Recommend this Post


  1. The issue in this case is that the facts make it an imaginary crime.

    The pistol was sent by accident with a box of items that was supposed to remain in the US when he sold his ranch there. The pistol was legally licensed in the US. However, when it arrived in Canada, he was automatically a criminal, despite it being a 'good faith error'. He had it properly and safely stored, and was exploring options to have it turned in. Then enters a vengeful woman, who as his lover knew of his predicament, and tattled on him before he could find a legal way to dispose of it. She also hid it, to prevent him from being able to act on a legal way to dispose of it.

    The whole thing is a paper crime. Its not like he shot someone with it, or he was walking down Church street with a chip on his shoulder with it in his pocket. There was no intent to do wrong or violate the law, which is why he plead guilty to the posession (as he was indeed in posession), and why the judge imposed a lenient sentence.

  2. The issue in this case is that the facts make it an imaginary crime.

    I still wonder whether a judge would be so kindly disposed toward a gun "accidentally" shipped from Pakistan (or indeed whether a Pakistani immigrant accused of such a crime would even see a judge for many, many, years. Or would such a person be quietly sedated and sent back to Pakistan on the first plane out of Toronto?).