Court shows lack of respect for freedom of the press
The justice system requires deference, respect, but it is not immune from criticism
The last few weeks of testimony at the Chamberland Commission, which continues Monday, have exposed some troubling conduct by individuals and institutions in charge of upholding our laws.
There was the revelation that Montreal police mulled disseminating fake news to the media during an internal affairs investigation of departmental leaks. (We already know they instead decided to spy on the cellphone of La Presse columnist Patrick Lagacé, the bombshell that led to the inquiry investigating the protection of journalists’ sources in the first place. Lagacé is scheduled to take the stand toward the end of the week.)
There was Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre admitting that he called up then-police chief Marc Parent to express his annoyance about an old traffic ticket he’d received making it into Lagacé’s hands, taking advantage of his position to deal with a personal problem.
Then there was the crude language Laval Police included in a warrant to obtain the text messages of Monic Néron, a crime and courts reporter for radio station 98.5 FM, after she got a scoop containing details on a big drug bust. Even though the culprit who leaked the information (an investigator) confessed that he just wanted some publicity for the raid, the internal affairs department of the Laval Police crafted a warrant offering as probable cause the baseless assertion that the officer was “thinking with his penis” and wanted to “ram” Néron. A justice of the peace accepted this eloquently articulated affidavit.
These are all disturbing occurrences that raise serious questions about the administration of justice. But apparently the main concern in all this for the Court of Quebec is “disgraceful language” journalists have used to describe its members. In an extremely rare move, Quebec Court issued a strongly worded communiqué last week taking umbrage. It appeared to come in direct response to Lagacé referring to judges and justices of the peace as “rubber stampers” in his report on the Néron debacle.
Really? Of all the urgent matters to compel the court to break its usual code of detached silence and weigh in forcefully, it’s journalists’ “insulting” words? Forget the misogynistic and mendacious pretext the Laval Police presented to get the warrant. Forget the fact this sexist, degrading and disrespectful terminology somehow passed muster with the granting judge. Forget that providing access to Néron’s text messages is the most intrusive example yet of authorities casting aside all consideration for the role of a free press in a democratic society — how dare anyone use such language to denigrate Quebec Court justices as rubber-stampers! Never mind that the apparent epithet has been bandied about plenty since the spying scandal broke, clearly the description struck a raw nerve.
But it constitutes fair comment. We already learned that the acceptance rate for police seeking to have warrants authorized by judges and justices of the peace has hovered between 97.5 and 99.2 per cent over the last three years. The Néron case only underscores fears about a lack of rigour on the part of those in charge of scrutinizing this aspect of police work.
The court claims that it is “abstaining, out of deference for the work of the commission in which it is participating, from replying to the words that call into question the independence and competence of its judges.” Yet with its extraordinary statement, the court has managed to convey its displeasure loud and clear.
The statement also takes issue with “certain participants using their media soapbox to comment on the proceedings outside of the hearings.”
Sorry, but none of the media with intervenor status in the commission forfeited their right to cover it or comment on the testimony that has been heard. That would be an abdication of the press’s responsibility to report on information in the public interest. And holding back on condemning reprehensible misogyny on display in the Laval Police investigator’s affidavit, would be a dereliction of this duty.
The Quebec Court’s defensiveness suggests its priorities are out of whack. The justice system requires a certain amount of deference and respect to function, but it is not immune from criticism — especially when it is legitimate and justified.
The court’s over-sensitivity betrays a worrisome lack of understanding about the role of a free press in a democratic society — which seems to be at the root of the events that sparked the inquiry in the first place. With all the alarming and outrageous behaviour on display, the Quebec Court statement has now given the public one more reason for concern.