Chris Selley: If judges now can’t even tell what a ‘fact’ is, we’re really cooked

Article content

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Murray added a notable item to Canada’s rich library of addlepated court rulings this week when she ruled in favour of the proprietors of the Drug User Liberation Front (DULF), who are by any dictionary definition — and, police allege, by the criminal definition — drug dealers. They sell cocaine, meth and heroin, only the best! But they do not want to face consequences for dealing drugs, because they’re not that kind of drug dealers. They’re a “compassion club,” you understand. They screen out the riff-raff, apparently.

Article content

Article content

Murray decided that Section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act — “no person shall, for the purpose of trafficking, possess (a listed prohibited) substance” — violated both “the right to life and security of the person,” i.e., Section 7 of the Charter, and also the right to equality before the law, i.e., Section 15.

Article content

Article content

Article content

Now, that’s crazy enough on its own. I’m so sympathetic to harm-reduction efforts that I’m furious how much their implementers have buggered it up. But to say the Canadian government effectively cannot ban the distribution for profit of certain substances and be in Charter compliance is … well, something I would expect a group called the Drug User Liberation Front to argue. Not a Canadian court. Murray is a former prosecutor!

Article content

It is unreasonable to ask or expect that your average Canadian would read Murray’s 22,000-word court ruling, or any other. John le Carré, they are not. It’s the media’s job to condense those rulings down to a digestible format, and we do a reasonable job, sometimes much better. (Subscribe to National Post!) But if you want to drive lunatics from the bench, which I do, and which I think most Canadians would support as a group endeavour, it’s difficult to really drive home how much truly unhinged thinking goes on in some rulings without reading at least the juiciest parts. And Murray’s ruling is juicy like a ripe pineapple plucked straight from a Polynesian shrub.

Article content

Article content

The most jaw-dropping elements, from a layman’s standpoint, are some of the things Murray considers “facts.”

Article content

Article content

“Fact: There is a need for non-medicalized safer supply,” she writes.

Article content

“Safer supply” refers to the notion of providing pharmaceutical-grade drugs to addicts as a sort of remedial maintenance procedure, ideally leading to lasting treatment — but even if not, at least they know what they’re taking and can measure the dose against their tolerance.

Article content

“Non-medicalized” means “no doctors involved.”

Article content

Safe supply went terribly wrong even with doctors involved, as Adam Zivo has compellingly reported in National Post, with opioids intended for doctors’ patients being resold on the street in exchange for precisely the junk the program is meant to get addicts off. (Most Canadians suffering from debilitating drug addictions are not addicted to hydromorphone — the most commonly prescribed “safer supply” opioid — but rather to fentanyl. I have never quite understood the point of trying to manage an addiction to one drug with a clean supply of a weaker one. The outcome that occurred seems near-inevitable.) Removing the medical profession from the equation entirely does not seem like a guaranteed victory.