Brown appeals to the court of public opinion
The MPPs who write our laws surely understand the rule of law.
In theory, that means no one is above the law. In practice, however, some lawmakers like to write their own rule book about legal rulings they dislike.
Two longtime Liberals were exonerated in a Sudbury courtroom this week when the judge tossed out the prosecution’s case in a rare “directed verdict” — because “no reasonable jury” could possibly convict.
If we were truly governed by the rule of law, Opposition leader Patrick Brown could have noted that the accused had received a fair hearing. And added in a dignified tone something like, say, “We respect the verdict.”
But Brown, a lawyer, opted to overlook due process in favour of a political process — by which the public acts as judge and jury from afar.
In the aftermath, he grudgingly suggested the case hadn’t passed the so-called “smell test.”
And by that standard — justice being in the eye (or nose) of the beholder — we are all invited to come to our own conclusions. We being the “court of public opinion.”
No matter the judge’s considered verdict that there was no prosecution case against the premier’s chief of staff, Patricia Sorbara, and a local Liberal fundraiser, Gerry Lougheed. Why take the judge’s word for it?
The NDP also reacted with undisguised disappointment to this week’s news and it’s easy to see why. In 2015, party leader Andrea Horwath had offered her own early verdict, declaring with unhesitating authority: “They broke the law.” Not so fast. On Tuesday, Judge Howard Borenstein ruled that no law was broken or could have been broken because no bribes were even remotely offered in a case of local politics that should have never come to court.
The NDP’s reaction? MPP Gilles Bisson, who had initiated the legal process by filing a formal complaint nearly three years ago, described the acquittal as Liberals “beating bribery charges.”
And losing in the court of public opinion.
Which isn’t what it used to be. Today, you can supposedly judge for yourself from Facebook posts whether the accused is guilty or innocent of bribery.
And whether a judge is himself on the take. For that was the tone of many online comments directed at Borenstein after he read his 40-minute decision to the court — that he must be a government lackey, bought and paid for by the Liberals, angling for a Senate appointment.
That’s what’s so unpredictable about smell tests on social media: One minute the judge is on the bench, next minute he’s in the dock himself, being judged in the court of public opinion.
And people might well say of the learned judge: “Lock him up!”
That’s what Donald Trump’s supporters chanted at election rallies where he assailed Hillary Clinton’s doomed presidential campaign. Despite being cleared by the FBI, the much-heralded “court of public opinion” clung to innuendo about her supposed criminality.
There is no U.S.-style Tea Party in Ontario, no Trump presidency selling truthiness mixed with “alternate facts.” But a climate of criminalization and character assassination has infected our political process, imported directly from America. When Premier Kathleen Wynne agreed to testify as a Crown witness in the trial last month — voluntarily waiving her parliamentary privilege that shields all MPPs from courtrooms — Brown pounced. The Progressive Conservative leader claimed to reporters, falsely, that Wynne “stands trial” in Sudbury and was “a sitting premier sitting in trial.”
As if Wynne might even be found guilty as charged — despite never being charged with anything, let alone investigated.
When she demanded a retraction, Brown refused. Now, after several warnings and lawyers’ letters, the premier has given formal notice of a libel suit.
Did Brown merely misspeak? Or did he misjudge? The opposition leader dismisses Wynne’s threatened lawsuit as “baseless.” But if his own words were groundless, why not withdraw?
What should have been a one-day wonder — a simple apology for a forgotten allegation — has instead dogged the PC leader for several weeks. In the wake of the Sudbury acquittal, his words sound even worse — and hardly seem worth the trouble if they land him in a courtroom having to explain the inexplicable and defend the indefensible.
While the libel suit may never go anywhere, it’s also possible that the “court of public opinion” might be puzzled by an unrepentant opposition politician who admits under oath that he spoke (or misspoke) an untruth, knowing it to be untrue and unfair — yet stubbornly refuses to recant.
Even Horwath — so quick to judgment herself on the Sudbury case — has called on Brown to “absolutely” say sorry, rather than leave himself liable for libel: “You make a mistake, you apologize.”
On legal matters, Brown is one lawmaker — and lawyer — who plays by his own rule book. Yet as politicians (and journalists, and judges) eventually learn, the court of public opinion can be utterly unpredictable. Martin Regg Cohn’s political column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. mcohn@thestar.ca Twitter: @reggcohn