A few days ago I attended the second bail hearing of Eric Brazau. I wrote earlier about his case – in July he was arrested on the subway in Toronto after allegedly having a heated discussion about Islam. He has been in jail ever since. Though I will cover everything in detail, let me say right away that he was denied bail again and he is going to spend at least another two months in jail (until January 5 when his trial begins).
The case was scheduled before a judge from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Brazau was supposed to appear before the court on October 29. However, the court was too busy and when Brazau was brought in shortly before 4 p.m., the judge decided that he would not have the time to give his proper attention to the case. He proposed that the case be heard the next morning.
Thus I was able to spend two days in the courtroom observing the cases. It was really a busy time – defense lawyers and crown attorneys in long black robes constantly going in and out of the room, dragging behind them heavy suitcases with wheels, full of papers. The accused showed up in handcuffs, which were temporarily removed in the courtroom by the armed officers, who accompanied them.
The most interesting part was to observe the judge and his decision process. Under the British common law, applied in Canada among other countries, a judge is granted a high level of discretion. He or she can make decisions, which are not severely limited by the letter of the law, but depend on common logic and make sense to the average “reasonable person.” That flexibility has been for centuries one of the most attractive features of the British common law.
However, in order to function, that judicial system requires a society with homogenous values shared by the proverbial reasonable persons. If the values change, the system can turn into a destructive force. When the number of people, who have a very different idea of “reasonable,” increases through immigration and even the most barbaric views they hold are respected by the official policy of “multiculturalism,” it is only a matter of time before those views corrupt the judicial system. In Canada Muslims have the strongest negative influence – their barbaric sharia law, which is an essential part of their religion, already finds its place in the Canadian legal practice. Further in the article you will see why a person like Brazau has such severe problems, while even the most repulsive Muslim extremist can get away under the hate crime laws in Canada.
An interesting example of how the corruption of values destroys the due process was the way the judge handled a person involved in three armed robberies. That was during the first day.
The officers brought in a big black guy in handcuffs with intricate braid hairstyle (the one you can see on the gangsta rappers). I had no idea Canadian jails provided complicated hairstyling services. He was wearing an expensive suit (in contrast, the next day Brazau appeared in the same worn shirt and jeans he had the day he was arrested).
The reason why this fine fellow appeared before the judge was because the court had to respond to a joint submission of the Crown and the defendant’s lawyer. Since the accused had been in jail since the day he was arrested after committing the robberies in 2011, the Crown wanted a 4.5 years sentence and since he spent 1090 days in jail, according to their math, the accused had to spend only 7 more days to comply with that and walk free.
The accused, let’s call him Mr. V., because I can’t use his full name, immediately pleaded guilty on four counts – the three robberies and weapon possession.
The part that shocked me was when the judge read the actual charges that Mr. V. admitted to be true. He committed three armed robberies in November 2011, just a few months after being released from jail in April for other violent crimes.
Mr. V. lived in Mississauga, where he went to a convenience store wearing a face mask and told the woman clerk he had a gun. The Crown quoted his demand: “Give me your fucking money or I’ll fucking kill you.” At the time the clerk was on her cell phone, talking to her mom. Upon hearing the multicultural call for sharing, she put the phone on the counter, while responding to the robber. Her mother was listening to the developing horror. The clerk managed to give a signal to the security company and her mother called the police from another phone. She couldn’t open the safe, so the robber had to get what was in the cash register – about 400 dollars. Because of the signals he was apprehended quickly and the weapon he carried was found.
The day before that he robbed a Pizza Nova location, where he waited at the back entrance for the delivery drivers to take their cash. From there he pushed his way in, demanding the cash in the register, then the cash from the pockets of the other employees. Then he ran away, carjacking the car of one of the employees, while his wife was in – Mr. V. literally kicked out the wife (the car was found later abandoned). The third robbery was not discussed in detail.
The judge felt uncomfortable – he said that the people affected by the robberies were damaged, they feared public interaction (he read this from the victims’ statements). He also considered a victim Mr. V.’s mother whom he invited to sit at a table not far from his bench. He was concerned that just like after the probation restrictions imposed in April 2011 didn’t change the defendant, the new sentence may have the same result. He even emphasized that for such crimes judges are allowed to impose life sentences.
Yet despite the robberies, despite the victims, his bleeding heart accepted the joint submission and paved the way to free the robber within the next few days. It really pays to be a black criminal in Toronto.
Eric Brazau didn’t have the same luck.
He was brought in the next day shortly after 11 a.m. and he didn’t look that good, wearing the same shirt and jeans he had the day he was arrested. A long white beard made him look somewhat like Santa Claus.
I should mention here that the judge’s mandate during a bail hearing is very limited. He needs to consider only one major question: assuming that the allegations are true, what is the worst thing that could happen if the inmate is released?
The judge, the Crown and Brazau’s lawyer discussed the issues concerning his previous conviction, which I already covered.
The lawyer argued that at the first bail hearing the charge of spreading hate speech was on the table, the Justice of Peace’s decision was based in part on it. Subsequently, the Crown decided not to pursue the charge, and since the circumstances had changed, Brazau shouldn’t be held in jail on the basis of the lesser charges (mischief and probation violation).
The lawyer, Mr. Micha, then stated that the Crown was objecting to the bail. Their reason was the high chance that Brazau may reoffend, but they didn’t explain how his actions were endangering the public. He explained the circumstances surrounding Brazau’s arrest. From the allegations it was clear that Brazau was having a conversation with somebody regarding Islam while riding the subway. At certain point, a Muslim individual (not part of the conversation) approached him and interfered. Brazau didn’t initiate a conversation with him and allegedly only stated that he hated Islam.
The judge interrupted the attorney and stated that according to the records presented to him, that information differs from the transcripts of the August 11 hearing, where it was indicated that Brazau kept approaching people asking about their religion. Such behaviour, according to the judge was intrusive – though we have freedom of speech in Canada, it still has its limits. (He switched here to politically correct mode.)
The lawyer showed the photocopy of a police notebook, on which he based his statement, and the judge read the document. Then he said that the Justice of Peace might have been misinformed. Still, he was inclined to give more weight to the materials presented at the first bail hearing. Then the judge read the notes out loud, emphasizing that a passenger approached Brazau and asked him to stop offending Islam, but Brazau said that he hated Muslims and that the Koran was inspiring terrorism. The judge noted that this was not a normal conversation.
The lawyer argued that the individual approached Brazau, he didn’t start the exchange.
The judge countered that after the conviction Brazau should’ve known what was expected from him. Mr. Micha replied that now Brazau is not charged with a hate crime. The judge said again that according to the allegations, Brazau was speaking against Islam, claiming that it kills.
Mr. Micha objected that in the new case the Crown decided not to proceed with the hate speech venue and it is important to consider that. Obviously they didn’t have enough evidence.
The judge replied that this fact doesn’t matter – although the charges now are different, they still contain the element of spreading hate.
The judge then noted that the Justice of Peace thought that there was substantial likelihood that Brazau would commit another hate crime.
The judge asked the lawyer, if anybody can control what his client does. He read the parts of the transcript discussing where Brazau was going to live, if freed, and the problems with supervision and access to public spaces.
The judge continued – after the recent events in Canada (implying the terrorist acts), if somebody goes to an area in the city where people of a certain religious group reside and makes provocative comments, their retaliation may result in tragedy. Brazau is entitled to share his views, but not in vehicles of the public transportation. A confrontation may endanger the public and have tragic consequences.
(This was a revealing remark. Unlike the judge who convicted Brazau a few months ago and called him a hatemonger with repugnant ideas, while seeing nothing wrong with Islam, the Superior Court judge abstained from qualifying Brazau’s views. I am not sure whether he realized it, but he implied that many Muslims are dangerous people, who can’t control themselves when their religion is discussed in an unflattering way. All that is true, but it didn’t help Brazau’s case.)
After a recess, the hearing resumed at 2:15 p.m. when the judge announced his decision.
He emphasized that at the bail hearing, there was one more charge – spreading hatred, but the Crown didn’t have the consent of the Attorney General to lay it. The Justice of Peace decided to keep Brazau in custody because of the likelihood that he would reoffend.
Now according to his lawyer, the Justice of Peace erred that the charge of hate speech was on the table. Also, if Brazau were to be held until January 5, when his trial begins, that is alleged to be injustice, if he stays in custody longer than the possible sentence.
Mr. Micha’s arguments are not acceptable – the Justice of Peace was correct that Brazau was likely to reoffend and cause another confrontation on TTC, which could result in violence. In that sense the hate crime charge was properly considered in her decision. As of the bail conditions, though the judge assumed that the sureties were responsible people, considering Brazau’s history and convictions, it is doubtful that the sureties would be able to control him. Based on all that, the argument about injustice, if he is kept longer in custody, should also be rejected.
Therefore, Eric Brazau’s application for granting bail was dismissed.
Isn’t that swell justice?
A violent black robber gets to spend only 3.5 years in jail, while a poor white sap whose only crime is that he expresses some inconvenient ideas, is going to rot in jail for at least five months.
Our judicial system is a joke.
Things become even worse when you consider that no radical Muslim has even been convicted or even charged with spreading hatred. Those are the real darlings of the police and the judges.
After Muslim terrorists killed recently two Canadian soldiers, our equally corrupt media rushed to defend Muslims, portraying them as the ultimate victims.
The best they could come up with to show as a backlash was a broken window:
The prime minister has not publicly uttered one word of support for Canadian Muslims following the incidents, which Harper and the RCMP have labelled acts of terrorism.
He’s remained silent despite an apparent backlash against Muslims , including the defacing of a mosque in Cold Lake, Alta., racist slurs against Muslim candidates in Toronto’s municipal election and threats against the B.C. Muslim Association.
In the latest incident, windows were smashed early Friday morning at the Assunnah Muslims Association mosque in Ottawa.
Those professional whiners offended most Canadians by suggesting moral equivalency between terrorist murders and smashed glass (and it is yet to be determined who did that – the mosque’s cameras were conveniently switched off that day). How can they seriously suggest that the Prime Minister must make a statement over a broken window?
The Muslim circus becomes even more bizarre because of the involvement of the notorious NCCM (National Council of Canadian Muslims). Until 2013 the group was called CAIR-CAN and was the Canadian office of another notorious Muslim organization – CAIR. The courts in the USA proved that CAIR was financing terrorism through “charities” and several of its leaders received lengthy jail sentences. Now NCCM is even suing the Prime Minister, because an aide of his talked about their connections with CAIR.
So what did NCCM/CAIR-CAN say?
“Our leaders have a very important role to play,” concurred Amira Elghawaby, human rights co-ordinator for the National Council of Canadian Muslims.
“It’s the leaders who have to set the positive tone.”
Immediately following the 9-11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Elghawaby noted that then-prime minister Jean Chretien visited a mosque “just to show Canadians that there’s no such thing as collective guilt.”
She said her group expects Harper, “as leader of our country, to speak up for the minorities that live here.”
“He has a responsibility to represent everyone and certainly Canadian Muslim communities are extremely worried about a backlash and I think that needs to be spoken to.”
Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, said it’s “very disheartening” that Harper has not bothered to speak out against the anti-Muslim backlash. But it’s not surprising to her.
“I don’t think he much likes Muslims,” Hogben said.
So now Harper is pictured as an evil racist for not catering to the imaginary suffering of the Muslims?
At the same time the media praises the airhead Trudeau, because he was quick to go after the Muslim votes by accepting at face value the fake grievances:
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, on the other hand, has acknowledged the concerns of Canadian Muslims more than once since the shootout on Parliament Hill.
In a televised statement that night, he directly addressed “our friends and fellow citizens in the Muslim community,” saying that Canadians know acts of violence “committed in the name of Islam are an aberration of your faith.”
Is the wise man from Quebec correct when he says that the Muslim crimes are an aberration of their faith?
The already mentioned NCCM recently published a booklet, titled “United against Terrorism” in cooperation with the RCMP (in Manitoba). It was supposed to establish the major principles of treating Islamic extremism. It looks like the RCMP had outsourced its editing talks to the local insane asylum, because the Muslims who wrote for the booklet managed to include some really shocking extremist views.
You should be polite and be aware that:
1) Your cooperation with CSIS/RCMP is voluntary. You have no obligation to talk to CSIS/RCMP, even if you are not a citizen. Refusing to answer questions cannot be held against you, nor does it imply that you have something to hide.
2) If you choose to answer questions, it is advisable to have a lawyer present. It is best to arrange for a lawyer to contact the agent on your behalf.
3) You do not have to permit CSIS/RCMP representatives to enter your home or office. They must possess a search warrant in order to enter your property. If they say they have a warrant, ask to see it before allowing them to enter. Even if they have a warrant, you are under no obligation to answer questions.
4) You are not required to provide personal information about friends and family. You should feel free to tell the officer that you will not provide information about others without their consent.
5) Never lie to CSIS/RCMP. If you fear misunderstanding, it is better to refuse to answer questions. Lying to a law enforcement officer is a crime.
In another chapter – “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS” – they demand from the RCMP to abolish any considerations of the link between the Muslim religion and terrorism. Page 34:
Muslim Canadians continue to make important positive contributions to all aspects of Canadian society. They are, as all Canadians, committed to ensuring the safety of Canada and its inhabitants. In order to maintain and continue to develop trust and positive cooperation between the Canadian Muslim community and intelligence and law enforcement officials, the following important recommendations should be considered:
1. Do not conflate religiosity with radicalization or conflate religious devotion with a propensity to commit acts of violence.
2. Abandon public terminology that creates false linkages between Islam and terrorism in favor of consistent language that contextualizes threats and accurately identifies the perpetrators of violent extremism. Avoid terms such as “Islamist terrorism”, “Islamicism”, and “Islamic extremism” in favor of more accurate terms such as “Al Qaeda inspired extremism”.
3. Discontinue any inappropriate information gathering techniques including (but not limited to) showing up at workplaces, intimidating newcomers, questioning individuals religiosity and discouraging legal representation.
6. Do not refer to terrorist as” jihadis.” This only emboldens them and gives them a legitimate status in the eyes of the vulnerable. Terrorism is not jihad. Jihad is a noble concept in Islam.
7. Muslims are very diverse culturally, in religious observance and ethnicity. Do not brush them as one monolithic group and assign guilt by association.
This is much worse than anything that Brazau is ever going to say or do. Whitewashing the most violent pillar of Islam – jihad – is absolutely disgusting. For the whole history of Islam the “noble concept” of jihad (what a moronic term) has been the cornerstone of Muslim violence. “Al Qaeda inspired extremism” is another pearl of stupidity – Muslim terrorism is justified by the Koran. It existed long before Al Qaeda and still will exist after the organization is forgotten.
There are many other similar ideas in the booklet and all of them had the same goal – to criminalize the criticism of Islam and especially of its most violent varieties. In its nature, this is introduction of sharia principles in policing, which sneaks blasphemy laws through the back door.
Judging from the way Brazau was treated, those principles are already well-established in the judicial system of Canada.
The ignorant representatives of the RCMP almost accepted the principles of that disgraceful booklet. They would’ve put the Muslim extremists and terrorists under full protection and, as it is the case with the legal precedents in Canada, those principles would’ve been quickly adopted at all Canadian institutions.
NCCM is considered by many a “moderate” Muslim organization (although in the same booklet they claim that the term “moderate Muslim” is an oxymoron). Yet they wanted to shield the militant Islam and make criminals of all who criticize it. If this is a “moderate” platform, I shudder at the thought of what the other Muslim organizations in Canada want to introduce.
The critics of Islam often speak about “creeping Islamization” in North America. It seems to me that Islam is far beyond the creeping stage – in Canada it is marching in fill force, with the zeal and rage of a North Korean soldier. The mistreatment of people like Eric Brazau is a living proof.
© 2014 Blogwrath.com