See this trial?
Richard Quest of CNN?
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/a.../2005-
7466.html
Okay, I'm officially done. Have fun, Dawg.
There's the rub. From our positions comfortably at home in Canada how much do we really know about the system in general or, more importantly, about the details of Martin's trial? I sure don't know enough to judge it. Hell, you can't get enough information from news reports in Canada about cases in Canada to judge them accurately.
Yes, we have enough reason in general to suspect that there is some systemic unfairness and corruption in Mexico's legal system, and this is enough to justify a jaundiced eye and to seek assurances of a fair trial. But it's not enough to decry the result in a given case, absent any serious and credible evidence of unfairness, which we just don't here (yet? ever?).
Can't make much of this, really.
Me neither. What's Jeremy's problem, d'you think?
Good post Dr. Dawg. I have been very dismayed with the automatic assumption that the Mexican judiciary is acting in a corrupt way and that their prison system is brutal compared to US or Canadian standards. Brenda Martin may be innocent but she and her lawyers (past and present) failed to prove that. And I agree, I much prefer a system that presumes innocence because it does give the prosecution an advantage.
That said, we have not seen the prosecution's evidence on this case and the severance package is very suspect even by our standards. Was Brenda Martin a key player in the scam? I highly doubt it. The US didn't care about trying her for the scheme. But was she aware that she might be involved in something less than legal and have benefited from it? Highly possible.
Too many ex-pats live in other nations with a sense of entitlement that makes them feel like they are above local laws and customs. It's an ugly reality and I can understand why the penalties against such white collar crimes are so stiff.
I also dislike how the media ignored the fact that she was a long time resident making a living without any proper documentation or the legal right to work in the country. This is not someone who was railroaded by a corrupt "third world country" but someone who chose to live beyond the laws of that country.
As for the nature of the crime, I am always at a loss to feel sorry for anyone involved in such investment scams. Both the people perpetrating the scams and the dupes that fall for them are being motivated by greed - a quick way to make a buck.
Interesting....and thought provoking.
In the 'teary interview' (which I only heard once, so I could have misunderstood), Ms. Martin (I think) said that when she lost her job (was let go, or something to the effect that she did not leave voluntarily), she TOOK HER SEVERANCE PAY and GAVE IT to her Ex-Employer to invest for her.
Now, how many people do YOU know who will hand their severance pay to the very man who fired/let-go/laid off them??? I know nothing of the case itself, except that it does seem unreasonable that someone would be jailed without trial for such a long time....and that it also seems unreasonable that a person would hand all their money to the very person who took away their job.
I suspect there is much here we simply do not know, and are not likely to ever learn....insufficient data to reach a conclusion, at best!
Re: "And yet--didn't she get quite the whack of severance pay for an 10-month stint at work? $25,000? As a cook?"
I might be more sympathetic to your position regarding Mexican justice if Alyn Waage's Mexican lawyer didn't make off with Waage's house valued at $3.4 million - for unpaid legal fees. This notwithstanding the U.S. government's (i.e. justice system) attempt to claim the estate after Waage was found guilty.
Regarding Mexican justice - how about Domenic and Nancy Ianiero? The Woodbridge couple murdered in a vicious knife attack by two Thunder bay soccer mums reportedly (by Mexican justice authorities) hired by the Mafia as hitmen (hit ladies?).
Somehow the words Mexican and justice are like oil and water.
I don't know much about Mexican justice, but Canadians do seem to have a propensity for seriously underestimating the foreign lack of interest in our displeasure. If a Mexican had been charged up here, just what do we think our PM would do in response to an angry call from the Mexican President? It's funny that those who decry the putative corruption of the Mexican judicial system seem to think politicians should be free to intervene summarily to overrule it.
Peter: The role of the Canadian government shouldn't be to intervene in a foreign judicial system but rather to attempt to ensure that due process is followed and the accused is given a fair trial. Did this happen in the Martin case? I don't know but something smells - i.e. Waage's Mexican lawyer making off like a bandit with Waage's $3.4 million Mexican estate while Martin is held over a reported $25,000 severance. For what it's worth, Waage has also signed a affidavit stating that Martin knew nothing about the scam.
Now, about the Ianiero's and Mexican justice.
It's funny that those who decry the putative corruption of the Mexican judicial system seem to think politicians should be free to intervene summarily to overrule it.
I'm sure you're misreading the sentiment. It's well within the citizens of this country to ask our elected representatives to voice the opinion that people expect to be treated by the law according to values Canadians claim to have in common and standards we're familiar with. And since Canada is regularly ranked among the least corrupt countries of the world, those standards are fairly high.
What foreign powers end up doing is up to them, but miscarriages of justice according to their own systems of law is not something that should be ignored.
The thing at has appalled me in the last few years in issues such as this is the rhetoric coming from law-and-order types (ie, the Rightists) that leads me to conclude that they operate on the assumption of guilty until proven innocent. Certainly many Rightist bloggers who featured this case in their blogging went looking for information to incriminate Brenda Martin, with complete indifference to whether the information was credible or not. It's troubling to observe that so many of one's co-citizens are unfamiliar with the premise underlying our system of justice that does in fact, make it superior to others where this concept is not foundational.
Is it racist to assume that if you are visiting a foreign country that you will be treated with less respect and deference than if you were in your home country?
I don't think so.
FWIW, I don't trust the Mexican courts anymore than I trust American courts. If you are arrested in any foreign country the first thing you should try to do is get released and get to the consulate or OUT of the country.
Relying upon foreign courts of any country to be fair to you, as a foreign guest is a fools errand.
"Brenda Martin may be innocent but she and her lawyers (past and present) failed to prove that. "
Well that's part of the problem. Here in Canada and in Britain and in the US -- there is the presumption of INNOCENCE, and the burden lays with the prosecution to prove guilt - beyond a reasonable doubt.
In countries whose common-law derives from Britain, that presumption of innoence is the capstone of the criminal justice systemt.
In countries like Mexico, or France -- the presumption is GUILT until proven innocent
This is a terribly unfair burden because it's a very hard thing indeed to prove a negative.
John B. and MWW:
I'm just wary, from experience, of automatically assuming that all foreign courts are corrupt, and our folks are always innocent. I don't hold a brief for the Mexican justice system grosso modo, and even posted an Amnesty International link about it: but that doesn't mean that every single trial is bogus and every single judge is venal.
On the one hand, we have conservatives dissing Martin, for the crime, I guess, of getting mouthy about Jason Kenney. They would rather mock than show any compassion at all for her, incarcerated for two years under fairly miserable conditions in a Mexican lock-up. On the other, we have progressives automatically assuming that she is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. I think we ought to sympathize with her, but that doesn't mean we have to assume that the judge was corrupt.
I'm just wary, from experience, of automatically assuming that all foreign courts are corrupt, and our folks are always innocent.
You may be be worried about racism and chauvinism, but you would know (I hope...I do because I've experencied it) that a lot of this perceived corruption starts with police investigations and community cooperation with the police, which are problems here at home as well.
In many places, what Canadians think of as corruption is simply how people get by and that these aren't necessarily manifestations of moral bankruptcy or "racial/cultural inferiority."
Mexico is not a totalitarian country, but it does have a lot of corruption. However, there are Mexican and Canadian standards of what constitutes corruption. The role of the consular services is to ensure non-discrimination and procedural fairness in the application of local justice, not to insist Ms. Martin be tried according by the rules of the Superior Court of Ontario. What the burden of proof is or the evidentiary rules or even the rules about pre-trial incarceration are simply not matters for diplomactic intervention. Do we think they are going to give Ms Martin more rights than Mexican accused because she is Canadian? That's called extra-territoriality and it has a bad history associated with colonialism and even racism.
You leftists slay me sometimes. You love to march in the streets against expressions of Western exceptionalism and superiority and to demand equal respect for, and non-intervention in, the most appalling regimes, but then you take full-blown hissy fits when they violate the Magna Carta and don't deliver hometown justice to us when we visit them on holiday.
Canadians have a very pampered view of what constitutes human rights, and are accordingly shocked when confronted with the reality that the Charter:
1. Didn't come down the mountain with Moses and
2. Doesn't protect them in foreign countries.
I don't much like backwater, corrupt states anymore than anyone else, but you make your choices and live by them.
Reality bites, etc.
Robert Baltovitch was found not guilty of murder after spending 18 years in prison for a crime that he didn't commit. The prosecution even refused to present a case because the evidence that had convicted him was so obviously tainted. The crown at the original trial left out a few minor details such as corroborating witnesses as to Mr. Baltovitch's whereabouts at certain times. Mr. Baltovitch joins a long and growing list (almost on a monthly basis)of people who have been exonerated because of the withholding of evidence by the crown or police.
This is the justice system that Canada wants to hold up as some shining beacon to the rest of the world? What a sham! What overweening hypocrisy!
Powell: While Baltovitch (plus Morin, Milgard and Mullins-Johnson) were found either innocent or not guilty, in a perverse way this shows the system works. The requirements include a free press and independent judiciary. In how many countries would the above remain languishing in prison either because there was no free press or the judiciary was complicit in a cover up.
Other than Baltovitch, the above noted persons all had an independent judicial inquiry into how their respective cases were mismanaged and were compensated by the government.
Do we think they are going to give Ms Martin more rights than Mexican accused because she is Canadian? That's called extra-territoriality and it has a bad history associated with colonialism and even racism.
I don't know who believes that. Diplomacy and the skills of a diplomat is what we rely on to translate the values of a people when it comes to dealing with foreign entities. Foreign policy is (or should be) the reflection of the people's values; how exactly that's done is decided by a skilled foreign service.
You're making the accusation of colonialism because you have this notion that "lefties" are all a bunch of hypocrites. I wish you'd stop, Peter. It's really patronising and insulting.
You leftists slay me sometimes.
Which "leftists" are you referring to? Just the dirty f---ing hippies and dessicated 60's holdovers (who, no doubt have a little red book tucked away somewhere) or anyone who appears to be dissenting?
How old are you, anyway? I get the feeling I'm dealing with someone still reliving the trauma of the 60's and 70's. The tropes you trot out as somehow being central to dissent strike me as outdated. Or maybe someone who's learned everything he needs to know about "lefties" and hippies by watching South Park.
[Language, please! --DD]
My '*' key is broken.
"My '*' key is broken."
ROFL
A guest-post at "Daimnation!", April 16:
"Justice, Canadian style"
Mark
Ottawa
Good grief, Mark, great minds think alike. I swear I hadn't seen that piece before now. Good on ya!
Commenting by HaloScan
