What game is Iran playing?

After Roxana Saberi was found guilty of espionage by an Iranian court, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself calls for a fair appeal hearing, allowing Saberi to mount a full defence. Something is fishy.

If the Iranian President wanted a truly fair trial of the reporter, he would have invoked fairness right from the beginning of proceedings. An Obama administration would be incapable of reacting strongly to her sentencing, and Iran could have continued on its path of oppression and international disgrace. Why this politically unwarranted sudden turn?

Bloomberg suggests Iran may wish to reverse Saberi's conviction on appeal "to show magnanimity". Call it what you may, it isn't justice. True justice and fairness are independent of political expediency, and if Saberi is innocent she should be free now, not later on a whim of politically motivated magnanimity and a smoke screen of false and una tantum fairness.

This call for fairness smells of machination. Her appeal will probably be fair, she may well be freed and have the charged against her overturned. The outcome will be disastrous for the US either way though. A seemingly fair trial orchestrated to return a guilty verdict will discredit Obama's allegation of the original charges being baseless. An aquittal will instead lend Ahmadinejad credibility in the eyes of many Ayatollah apologists in the West.

I do hope the appeal is successful, but the price to pay will be steep. Ahmadinejad will expect quid pro quo, and the upcoming nuclear negotiations will provide the excellent opportunity for the godfather to clain the return of a favor. I can bet five bucks the appeal hearings will be scheduled during or right after the nuclear negotiations, and Saberi will be used to put pressure on the US envoys.

The only way for the US not to be indebted is to reject this opening as vehemently as they can, and I don't have the guts to advocate such a course of action.

This just takes the biscuit!

Gambler sues casinos because they let him in! For crying out loud, when did people start forgetting that when you have a problem, you deal with it?

It isn't like the guy was in denial either: he submitted his name and picture to a "kick me out, maybe" list, which he then claims was laxly enforced and "caused" him to lose more money, his home and his job. This is not a case of someone profiteering from someone else's addiction, it's a case of trying to deny one's responsibility for one's own actions.

When you realize you have a problem, you seek help. Compulsive gambling isn't something one can solve going cold-turkey, and this is a case-in-point. The list he refers to as his bridge to salvation (not!) is merely a recommendation that gambling joints consider ejecting him from the premises. It isn't a ban list, ergo casinos can do whatever they like.

I do hope this case is thrown out and the guy gets the professional help he needs. Had he been smarter, after acknowledging the problem he would have sought the help of a psychologist. It would have been much cheaper than relying on casinos enforcing a weak recommendation.

I gamble from time to time. I go into the casino with nothing but the cash I think I can afford to spend. I never need to take my debit card out, because after losing about 30% of my bankroll I get royally bored, and prefer spending the rest on beer. If I can be this responsible at 23, I can reasonably expect others to be even wiser at older ages. Which is why I have no sympathy for Peter Dennis.

Guilty as charged

More accountability, making youngsters face the consequences of violent action, you summarize it, I'm for the proposed amendment to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Tackling crime is a Tory natural monopoly, since we do not seek justifications for a person's behavior but believe everyone is both free and responsible.

It is not the intent of such legislation to criminalize youth, as many Liberal weeping hearts will no doubt attempt to make Canadians believe. In the same fashion it will not necessarily mean destroying a person's life for a crime committed at an early age. Education and training in prison are a reality, and the focus on rehabilitation is still present throughout the system.

This amendment is potentially a great deterrent for both youth crime and adults using youngsters to carry out the dirty work. Many of the comments on the CBC website point this out. What needs to be inserted into the legislation is punishment for carrying weapons.

Britain realized all too late that a knife culture was spreading among its youth, and now the consequences are dire. Preventing such trends from germinating in Canada is a step in the right direction.

Score one for common sense and justice

Slamming courts whose rulings make no sense may be fun, but giving credit where credit is due is mostly a pleasant task. Ontario's Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the sex offender registry, with Justice Blair noting the likelihood of reoffending trumps the freedoms of the criminal.

The Globe and Mail made my day sunnier. The score since yesterday is thus

Justice: 1, Nonsense: 1.

If more judges had Robert Blair's common sense we'd all rest more assured that the laws of the land were in safe hands to interpret.

Look beyond the culture

The family of the murdered Mississauga teenager decided to have a private burial, without the media or anyone else knowing. This sad story is following the same pattern: hushing, minimization, dismissals, contempt of the public, hiding, lies.

What angers me is the attempt by many individuals and organizations to divert the attention from or dismiss the importance of this case. This is definitely not just yet another episode of domestic violence. Neither is it the straw to break the camel's back in the cultural bruhaha being kicked around by whoever isn't too lazy.

It is an episode of intolerance first and foremost. An episode of intolerance of individual freedom and blatant contempt of life and the Law. Secondly it is an episode of violence, aggravated by premeditation, complicity and futile motives. The third aspect of this matter is the alarming mix of both denouncement and concealment, with the father turning himself in and the following hiding of the core motive for his frenzy, although the coldness of the planning stages of this assassination don't warrant the use of such a word.

The multiple facets of this issue do not reflect merely culture and criminal responsibility, as such events can occur in any household where those above do not know the basic rules of respecting other people's desires, who regard their children (or spouses, or younger relatives) as property to dispose of at their will. This can happen both in Islam and outside of it, and Canadians should wake up to this if they haven't already done so.

As usual, I reiterate that the issue is not merely religion but the underlying culture of rights, or absence thereof. With proper civic rights education for all Canadians and immigrants many of these tragedies can be averted.

Let me conclude with a remark about others giving or not giving warning of such events brewing up in their community. A greater involvement of citizens with the State forces such as the police and the prosecution service can be achieved when the media and politicians stop looking at cultural or religious characteristics in criminal events but say once and for all that murder is murder, premeditation is premeditation and futile motives are just that: futile motives. Full stop. Who's got the ears to listen will understand.

Don't bend the system, beef up intelligence.

The USA will have to rethink the way they tackle terrorism through the courts - Reuters (more or less). The recent events around the Holy Land case, where a charity was accused of being a fundraiser for Hamas should have us thinking about how much can we really bend a justice system for the sake of national security without abandoning the principle of due process and the rule of law.

Some of the defendants have other terrorist precedents, and it's a stain on their names and reputations, and hopefully their immigration records as well. However the fight against terrorism should be conducted from a high moral standpoint. Trial is, in the ideal case, rightful, public, with evidence, discussions, cross-examinations of witnesses and a jury's verdict. When one is arrested one must know on what charges, and within the rightful cautionary detention time know what the evidence is.

To me the idea of someone being arrested on the grounds of a weakly corroborated intelligence leak and held in custody without knowing what kind of case they're knitting around him is scary to say the least.

I'm leaning towards security certificates here. Although I applaud Harper's commitment to the security of Canadians, I do believe the certificate legislation is a step in the wrong direction. The answer to a heightened security threat is better intelligence services, beefed-up investigation units, efficient co-operation with foreign and international intelligence agencies. No-fly lists are fine, they are less of a media sensation than someone held in custody.

The security certificates are not a good prospect, for they are a dent in the rule of law, especially in the way they treat the right of access to evidence. My vision for a terror trial is the following: CIA reports someone is suspicious, Canadian intelligence and police hone in on the guy and follow him everywhere, collecting data and evidence. When there's enough material for a trial the guy's busted and brought to court.

I know this sounds idealistic, but first one creates special advocates, then special judges and special juries, and then we end up with a two-tier legal system. We shouldn't be going down this road. Instead, we should be beefing up Canadian intelligence services and Canadian police, to make sure Canada remains a beacon of the rule of law and the rule of right.

Note: this post probably won't go on BloggingTories.