Ingrid Newkirk probably does
the animal rights movement more
harm than good. Newkirk heads
People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, whose advocacy depends
heavily on shock-value and publicity stunts. But this time I think she
has a point. “You don’t forget,” she
recently remarked of Michael Vick,
quarterback for the Philadelphia
Eagles football club. “In the same
way, you would hope a pedophile
would get a chance at what he does
[in his working life], but you
JEFFREY
MILLER
wouldn’t want him to get another
child in his home.”
Vick was in the news again
recently, when President Obama
praised the Eagles’ owner, Jeffrey
Lurie, for giving him “a fair second
chance.” In 2008, Vick was sen-
tenced to 18 months in prison for
running dog fights. He had hanged
or drowned at least six of his “loser”
pit bulls. On Dec. 27, Sports Illus-
trated reported that the president
had called Lurie to discuss the
Eagles’ plans to build a “green”
sports stadium using green energy.
According to Illustrated’s Peter
King, Obama also chatted about
Vick, remarking, “So many people
who serve time never get a fair
second chance. It’s never a level
playing field for prisoners when
they get out of jail.”
Since his release from prison in
May, 2009, Vick has been voluble
in his remorse. Noting this,
Newkirk agreed with Obama, tell-
ing the Washington Post, “Obama’s
a sports guy, Vick’s a sports guy, and
comebacks and redemption can
happen.” Vick himself commented,
“What happened in my past and
what I did in the culture I grew up
in doesn’t shape and mould me as
the person I am now. I said it before
that I wish I can own a dog and I’ll
continue to say it. I’m not allowed
to. But I’m just saying I wish I could
because my kids ask me every day.
It’s more so for them than for me.”
This response suggests to me, to
my own surprise, that Newkirk isn’t
radical enough in the circum-
stances. It suggests that Vick
(unsurprisingly) still doesn’t get it.
‘It sends
a positive
message
to victims’
Rehburg
Continued From Page 2
(PhD), chair of the Department
of Criminology and Criminal
Justice at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, N.B.,
believes the sentence is significant for what it says about Canada. “It sends a positive message to victims of hate crimes
that the criminal justice system
is taking these crimes seriously
and treating hate crime victims
the same as victims of other
crimes.
“The sentence is also significant because it has set a precedent that other courts, in similar
cases in the future, can now follow,” he added.
The Canadian Jewish Congress praised the sentence and
the court for its action. “This
has been a precedent-setting
case, the first time in Canada
that cross-burning has been
recognized for what it is—a
hate crime. The sentence is duly
appropriate,” CEO Bernie Far-ber said in a statement.
The Crown had been looking
for a much stiffer sentence: two
years in federal prison. Crown
attorney Darrell Carmichael
called the cross-burning “a sensational message of racial
hatred” during sentencing
arguments. “A Pandora’s box of
evil was opened,” he said.
A conviction for public
incitement of hatred carries a
maximum sentence of two years
in prison; a criminal harassment conviction carries a maximum of 10 years.
Ultimately, however, said
Boudreau, “the length of the
sentence may not be as important as the conviction itself, if it,
as it should, bolsters public
confidence in the criminal justice system.”
;;;;Halsbury’s ® Laws of Canada;;Butterworths® Texts and Treatises;;Forms & Precedents;; The Canada Digest; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; LexisNexis® Quicklaw® Civil Litigation Essentials FOR A FREE TRIAL call 1-800-255-5174 or visit www.lexisnexis.ca/freetrial Research Solutions Quicklaw® To know is essential. To Know More is powerful.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
