England's notorious Court of Star Chamber had two major features that render it particularly distasteful: (1) it was not limited to prosecuting common law crimes, but could also punish people for committing "equitable crimes", i.e. crimes that weren't actually on the books, but which the Crown felt should be; and (2) the accused in Star Chamber was accorded virtually no procedural safeguards (e.g. the right against self-incrimination). Now, it's true that there are some modern historians - i.e. Kevin Sharpe - who defend Star Chamber (Sharpe's argument is basically: "Hey, Star Chamber was really efficient.") Nevertheless, I, like most people am glad that Star Chamber got abolished way back in 1640.Yet today in Canada, Mark Steyn can get called before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and face basically the same situation: (1) a prosecution for a totally-speculative, equitable crime (publishing materials which may expose some group to ridicule or hatred), and (2) without following any of the basic procedural safeguards afforded accused in Anglo-Canadian courts, i.e. the basic rules of evidence. What a disgrace.
No comments:
Post a Comment