© theother press News November 26, 2003 Yo-Yo Ball Toy Ban Kelly Parry News Editor Before you buy those neat Christmas toys at the dollar store, heed this warning. The Government of Canada has implemented an immediate ban on the advertisement, sale, and importation of yo-yo type balls and other similar products. This toy—also known as yo-yo balls, yo-balls, and water yo-yo balls—has_ been _ prohibited under the Hazardous Products Act due to the unacceptable risk of strangulation to children. In May of this year, Health Canada advised importers, dis- tributors, and retailers of the serious dangers associated with these toys, and requested an immediate voluntary halt to the distribution of these products. The toys pose a high risk of strangulation and have been banned in the United Kingdom, France, Luxembourg, Brazil, and Australia. Health Canada has received in excess of twenty reported incidents involving these products. In the United Kingdom alone, eight incidents of near-miss strangulation were reported within one month. The inexpensive toy is made of a soft, extremely pliable plas- tic and consists of a short, but highly stretchable, plastic cord that has a liquid-filled, ball-like object at one end and a finger loop at the other. The toy comes in many colours and designs, such as spiked ball, eyeball, happy face, insect, and flashing. Health Canada is asking Canadians to safely discard any of these toys that they may have. If you are concerned about any of your child’s toys or need further information, call the Burnaby Health Canada Product Safety Office at 604.666.5003. Vancouver Women’s Shelter Fights for Mooney’s Rights Kerry Evans OP Contributor Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter won intervener status in the Appeal to assist the court in addressing aspects of women’s equality that should be taken into consider- ation. The application to intervene was granted by Chief Justice Finch of the BC Supreme Court. Counsel for Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter is Gail Dickson, QC, Dickson and Murray. The BC Supreme Court of Appeal will consider a case where a man went on a mur- derous rampage killing his ex-commonlaw wife’s best friend, seriously injuring her young daughter, and burning down her house. The Prince George RCMP had taken Bonnie Mooney’s report of threats by Roland Kruska but did not investigate despite their duty to do so and despite knowledge that Kruska was armed, danger- ous, and repeatedly violent toward Ms. Mooney. The civil suit against the Prince George RCMP and two levels of govern- ment was heard at BC Supreme Court in February 2001. On June 5, 2001, Mr. Justice Collver found the RCMP had been negligent, but still ruled against Ms. Mooney’s claim. “Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter can provide the court with informa- tion and perspective on how women’s rights are affected by police response to wife assault because we are an equality-seeking women's group. We provide front-line serv- ices to women about male violence against women,” explains Suzanne Jay, a crisis worker at Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter. Back on April 29, 1996, Mooney’s estranged spouse went on a rampage before killing himself. He was packed with a 12- guage, sawed-off shotgun that he used to murder Mooney’s best friend, Hazel White. He then shot Mooney’s 12-year-old daugh- ter through the shoulder, which required extensive surgery. Next, he set Mooney’s neighbour's home on fire and then her home. Mooney’s two children, aged 12 and seven were left in the house to burn but managed to escape. “In the first case, the government lawyer argued that Ms. Mooney was ‘the author of her own demise’. It was a glaringly woman- blaming defense,” says Louisa Russell, a cri- sis worker with Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter. “It is even more disturb- ing to realize that this position was taken by our government and spoken in the name of the public, when the public disagrees and is actually supportive of Ms. Mooney.” “If Ms. Mooney wins this case it might help other women get better police response about violence,” continues Russell, “unfor- tunately the dismal response Ms. Mooney got is still too common. We hear similar sto- ries from women several times a week, thankfully, we're able to help most women avoid the horrible consequences that Ms. Mooney suffered.” Democracy and Rule of Law Matthew Little OP Contributor The BC Civil Liberties Association hosted an evening with Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin at the Fairmont Hotel, Tuesday, November 18. The event was held in a large, elegant ball- room, with sculpted ceilings and gold embossing everywhere. John Dixon from the BC Civil Liberties Association intro- duced the Chief Justice to a packed house— filled with lawyers, students, concerned citi- zens, and lots of McLachlin admirers. “She’s really something special,” one member of the audience commented afterward. McLachlin spoke about the rule of law, democracy, and judicial activism, and described what it means to have rule of law and the essential nature of a democratic country that is governed by rule of law. “It’s a system where government, in all its actions, is bound by the rules, as well as the people, and the rules are fixed and announced beforehand.” Those rules are found in the constitution, the backbone of Canadian democracy. The opposite are those countries with rule by law where the government has no legal boundaries, and the people often don't know they have committed a crime until they are arrested. These are the countries many new Vancouverites left to come to Canada. Many people have become critical of the authority courts having the final say on what laws should be implemented and how they should be enforced. The courts are accused of practising judicial activism when they overturn a law that parliament has created on a public mandate. Critics claim the courts should only enforce the law and shouldn't have any say in which laws are kept and which are tossed out or changed. pee Page 6 e _http://www.otherpress.ca McLachlin replies to this saying, “Judges do not exercise power of their own initiative...Judges have the power and duty to strike down laws that are unconstitution- al, but they only do it when they're asked to do so...Judges do not have agendas.” She went on to say that the Supreme Court can- not choose to pass ruling or overturn a law, unless someone asks them to do so, and if a law is overturned, the court must explain its ruling. The process is transparent, the deci- sions can be appealed and judges can be impeached. However, it is true that the Supreme Court is the highest authority on what can become or remain as law in Canada. The Supreme Court is the final word and what laws meet or violate the “rules” set out in the constitution and charter of rights and free- doms. And when the Supreme Court puts its foot down, even the Prime Minister obeys. “The reason why,” Justice McLachlin explained, “liberal nations enact constitu- tional bills of rights...is that these bills of rights, these charters, are seen as fundamen- tally contributing to democracy and sup- porting democracy as we understand it...” “Bills of rights, (the Charter) protect indi- vidual citizens against abuse and excess of power..and that strengthens democracy because a democracy that is dominated by tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the elite is inherently unstable...” “They [Bills of Rights]...protect the long- term values upon which our nation is founded against short-term expediency. Values like democracy, freedom of expres- sion, liberty, and protection against abnor- mal detention...Equality...” In countries governed with rule by law, and not rule of law, the government controls the judiciary and there are no legal bound- aries to what the government can do. A country like Sudan, China, and Kazakhstan manufacture laws to suit current political campaigns and the result is often brutal and reprehensible. “What's this driving value behind the con- ception of rule of law?” asked Justice McLachlin. “It’s human dignity. It’s the idea that people have to be respected. They can’t be shoved around and coerced and told what to do after the fact.” She went as far as to say “...disregard for the rule of law does violence to human dig- nity...” When asked about her view on Canada’s role to further the rule of law in countries where severe human rights abuse exists, the Chief Justice replied “there seems to be a developing sense in the world that it’s not good enough to just let human rights abus- es take place in other countries and ignore them and that to me is an interesting if just beginning phenomena.” Canada is founding member of the International Criminal Court, an independ- ent international organization capable of trying individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It was found- ed under article 2 of the Rome statute and is closely linked with the United Nations. A Canadian, Judge Phillip Kirsch, is the first President. Canada has also ratified the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victims Protection Act, which allows Canadians to charge foreign human rights abusers in Canadian courts.