So on my break today I see that Toronto's mayor is accused of smoking crack.
And?
Your point would be?
This one's simple: stay out of the guy's private life. If he's "in possession of" and that's a legal issue, well then the evidence shouldn't be free and running around in private hands. It should be in police custody, not up on the information market for $100k, right? That's more than the operating budget of quite a few community newspapers in upstate New York.
And if there's no video or no lawbreaking, there's no legal problem. That's the point where the news butts out. Job over. It's personal life, not news, at that point. A news enterprise may not harass any average individual. So why am I wasting my time talking about a non-news event for a politician I've never heard about before today?
Because this story has to do with the ethics of personal privacy. Canadian society is slightly different from American society, but we have our shades based on geography just like Canadians do. Both our nations largely descend from the English legal system, though both our nations have places where a substantial French minority thrive. We both have many of the same immigrants, and even similar ratios of African-Americans in our populations due to runaway slaves crossing the border into freedom.
The Canadian legal system treats different legal elements slightly differently, however. Prostitution is legal under some conditions in some places, while police are given broad interpretive powers when they detect a person in public in possession of marijuana. As far as crack goes, I must admit I don't hang out with all that many Canadian crack smokers, so I can't report on how the Canadian police or legal system treat the issue. But if I ever do, I'll get the word to all you here via an update.
So back to the IVth Amendment situation, which I know has no direct bearing in Canada; however, maintain in mind that the rights mentioned in the first eight Amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution "shall
not be construed to deny or disparage other [right]s retained by the people." Yes, I added the word in brackets so it would make sense contextually; but what I am saying is no surprise to students of law.
Point being, we have these rights as human beings regardless of our legal system. Our legal systems are bound by their own constitutions to preserve the rights of their citizens to different degrees and with different limits, but this changes not the fact that individuals have these rights regardless of the government's opinion. This is the purpose behind the IXth Amendment. Its importance in today's times should not be underestimated.
So I'm saying it bluntly: Rob Ford has the right to smoke as much crack as he wants to, regardless of his government. In the US, he'd be so protected by his IVth Amendment rights. But if it's something that's illegal, and he's working in that government, then he's gotta lotta 'splainin' to do. Maybe he should have worked to legalise crack and then smoked it. Of course in the US, crack is specifically illegal just about everywhere, IVth Amendment aside for reasons of interstate commerce and domestic tranquility.
But if on the other hand, if Canadians frown on crack smoking but largely don't persecute it - imagine that the good Mayor was smoking marijuana or tobacco - would the public reaction be different? But again, if these things are personal moral choices, not public choices, why is this in the news? Please respect the guy's IVth Amendment rights (or their Canadian counterparts) or at least tell us what he's done to lose those rights or endanger them in any way. That would be newsworthy.
So I have to ask why are the AP and FOX News both failing to explain the context of the situation in their article? Is it excusable as a "short"? I had to go over to Reuters for the context. Apparently Ford has gotten himself in trouble for corruption, then won an appeal so he could close out his term. Maybe he's just in depression and smoking his way out of it with one of the more dangerous drugs out there. If we're trusting in his right to privacy, maybe he's got family and friends that can stage an intervention. Still, it's not newsworthy at this stage except for the offer of the video sale.
Funny thing about that $100k: neither Gawker or the Toronto Star wanted to shell out the $100k on their own, and this from guys who claim to have sold crack to the mayor. Sounds like a dangerous game those sugarmen play. Hmm, I wonder where they would invest their money once Gawker gives it to them....
So anyways, good on the Toronto Star for saying no, and shame on Gawker's Crackstarter campaign for its support of the Canadian crack trade. I'll give a goshdarn when any of these so-called news sources reports whether crack possession, crack purchase, or crack inhalation are considered felonies in the jurisdiction where the infraction allegedly occurred.
Context, please.
P.S. The Gawker campaign site now claims it needs $200k. Maybe Reuters, FOX, and the AP can get together with Gawker and figure out what-the-shucks is going on with that number. Or maybe Gawker's gonna get cut in on an extra 15 kilos of the primo.
No comments:
Post a Comment