Little Sisters, a small independently owned bookstore in Vancouver, is in front of the Supreme Court of Canada--again!
This case began when the owner of the little bookstore was subjected to decisions made by the Customs officers--decisions that resulted in books that the store owner had ordered being turned back at the border because the Customs bureaucrat decided that the book being imported was "obscene," apparently in his personal opinion, and therefore could not be imported. The bookstore owner fought his way to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in 2000 and "won" in the sense that the SCC blasted the Customs officers for being "oppressive and dismissive."
However, the SCC left the law and the powers of the Customs bureaucrats unchanged, so the bureaucrats apparently continued being "oppressive and dismissive." Needless to say, the continuing abusive decisions have damaged the bookstore's business.
More recently, the bookstore won another decision before a lower court. This court ruled that the freedom of speech was important enough and the resources of the bookstore small enough to warrant an order forcing the government to pay all the costs before the case was even heard. The judge did this because the bookstore would have to drop the case, unable to afford the expense, if the order was not made.
The question is clear: Is justice in Canadian courts something that you can have only if you are rich? It is a valid question, and I think this judge answered it properly. In Germany, for example, there would have been no question. The German justice system would have covered the bookstore's costs automatically.
Consider some of the factors presented in this argument. Can a little bookstore really afford thousands of dollars in court costs--and should it have to, if the question is important to all Canadians? After all, this case is of public interest. It is a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge! We all want better answers to this question: "What powers should a bureaucrat have, and what powers should he not have?"
The NFA sees this as another example of the problems Canadians have with Canada's justice system. Let us not forget that the courts should take our history into account, because we have a long tradition of protecting those who cannot afford justice. Who are we? How do we handle this kind of problem? How many books have been viewed as being "obscene" in the past--books that today are viewed as classics by great authors? Books and authors that today are widely accepted and even honoured were once considered obscene by our Victorian ancestors! One of the first questions that comes to mind in this regard is whether or not the bureaucrat who made the decisions about these books was qualified to make such a decision. Did he have a degree in English literature? Or was his decision based only on his personal prejudices?
The word "obscene" carries with it a hint of danger to the public and to children, just as the word "firearm" does to people with a certain mindset.
Because of the sensitive nature of the legal effects of the definition of a word here, you as a member of the firearms community certainly might want to study and consider this case thoroughly. The words "firearm" and "obscene" are different, but some people think all firearms are obscene.
These are important factors in this case. This case should be fought so that we can all know what the limits on the powers of this bureaucracy are. But it now seems that--because of the cost of fighting the case--the owner of Little Sisters may be forced to abandon the case, leaving the bureaucrats triumphant and powerful.
Ladies and gentlemen, do you know where you stand?
It is abundantly clear that similar cases can affect the firearms community as well--all too often! Firearms that have been legal for a century are now classified as "prohibited firearms." Some of us can't have those anymore. Useless, complicated, and hyper-expensive paper work has been injected into the firearms community through legislation and regulations. Some of that has caused rifts between law-abiding firearms owners and some law enforcement people.
How many firearms owners are targeted and charged with paper crimes that they cannot afford to fight? Charges that not only affect their lives, but the lives of their families! How many firearms are seized, and how many will be returned only after a court fight?
The question to be settled is whether or not the government should be forced to pay the costs for groups and individuals who cannot afford to foot their own legal costs for Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenges. Perhaps this should be limited to cases where the case is considered to be in the public interest--but the government should not be able to prevent a case from ever being heard because the individual or business has insufficient money. Knocking a case out of court by using that ploy is despicable.
In the opinion of the NFA, there are important issues that need to be fought in this case, and we agree with the judge who ordered the federal government to pay the costs for both sides. It is an important issue, and we are disgusted that the SCC judges overruled the lower-court judge.
Why are we taxpayers paying these SCC judges their very high salaries, if they are not taking our interests into consideration?