Found In Favour

Imagine, a brutal felon - charged , convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for a deliberate murder spree where four young Canadians and a Minnesota police officer lost their lives - is deemed to have the right to sue on the basis of having had his human rights overlooked. What amazing values we have, as a liberal society, infused with a concern over the well-being of mass murderers, intent on seeing that someone like Gregory McMaster does not suffer.

Thirty-one years ago he took the lives of four human beings, all of them far finer representatives of our species than he, but through our system of institutionalized universal human rights recognition - extended even to the most atrociously-behaved among us, convicted of serial murder - he is guaranteed such basic rights.

The families of those he murdered will live forever with the pain and torment of knowing their loved ones' opportunities to experience life on any level, was viciously removed.

In our great collective wisdom - our need to know that we behave with a tender concern for the well-being of all, the non-deserving as well as those who do deserve the caution of careful thought and compassion - we have entitled this man, representative of the lowest spectrum of depraved human descent, to insist on his 'rights'.

And thus it is that an appeal court has ruled Canadian taxes must fund $6,000 to this prison inmate in acknowledgement of his "pain and suffering", occasioned by a strain to a knee while exercising, wearing year-and-a-half-old running shoes. Not just any replacements would do for this man; he required extra-wide Size 13 New Balance running shoes.

The "appalling delay" in providing this footwear to this killing machine was cited by Federal Court Judge Leonard Mandamin as reason to reject the federal government's appeal of a ruling by Prothonotary Kevin Aalto when he blasted prison authorities for their unappealing laxity in failing to provide precisely that foot gear for the prisoner's exercise routine.

The lawyer for this murderer congratulates himself for the ruling. John L. Hill's argument is that in his successful prosecution of his client's case, the way has been opened for the general public to go to court in instances when they consider themselves to have been ill-done-by on the part of a federal or provincial civil servant. He flatters himself with frail defence.

He may feel good about arguing for a murderer, but the ordinary person-on-the-street may feel justified in their aversion of lawyers' moral standards, in yet another representation of questionable defence, outrageous outcome.

In the original suit against the federal government the demand was for $50,000 in damages resulting from "misfeasance in public office"; failing to provide adequate footwear in this instance. In the event, the award amounted to $9,000 with $3,000 deducted in acknowledgement of the prisoner's continuing his work-outs despite wearing the old worn-out running shoes.

A slap on the side of the head at the authorities at Fenbrook Institutions who were held to have abused their powers in deliberately withholding the requested footwear. A reminder to public authority figures in our prison system that prisoners' rights must be taken seriously; a reasonable proposition and requirement in most instances, a downright grating one in some instances.

And an obnoxious fist in the pocket of the law-abiding, taxpaying public.