What's That You Say Mr. Robinson?

1. What’s That You Say Mr. Robinson?
   
   
   “This is not me” Svend Robinson assured Judge Fratkin, in his brief statement to the court prior to being sentenced for his admitted offence of theft of a ring with a putative value of $65,000. Leaving aside the matter of his poor grammar, it may come as a shock to Mr. Robinson and his supporters that indeed it was he who helped himself to the diamond ring and not his evil twin.
   
   There are a number of troubling aspects to the Robinson case. In the hope of not burdening my readers (are there any – you are a polite bunch as I have yet to see a comment posted concerning any of my essays) I will touch on only a few of them.
   
   First, I believe Judge Fratkin erred by giving far too much benefit to Mr. Robinson for the apparent suffering Mr. Robinson has already endured as a consequence of abandoning his candidacy for a 7th consecutive election to Parliament, and the supposed embarrassment and humiliation he has suffered for having bared a darker side of his humanity, and being shown to be a thief.
   
   As to the first point, only a terminal Pollyanna would believe that Mr. Robinson would not now re-enter the political ring, probably in the next election. The outpouring of sympathy and support for Mr. Robinson following his theft, from my reading more than trumped the opprobrium directed toward him. Even discounting the political nature of much of the praise and criticism, I would reckon Mr. Robinson’s enjoyment of life has hardly diminished as a consequence of this criminal act.
   
   I am always intrigued by the credit the Canadian judiciary gives to persons in high places when they fall from grace. The Canadian way is not to kick people when they are down, says Judge Fratkin. Fair enough, but why do we put up layers of foam padding to soften the blow for those in high places who stumble over the flaws of their humanity? Tall people often hurt themselves more than short people when they fall. That is natural and in nature tall folks take their lumps but also enjoy the benefits of greater height, which in other ways gives them advantages over their shorter brethren. People like Robinson want the advantages of height but without the accompanying risks.
   
   Mr. Robinson took sick leave from his duties as MP for which he was paid in one fashion or another and he was apparently well enough recovered to go on the tax payer paid junket overseas with all the privileges of a sitting MP, or formerly sitting, or formerly but now disabled MP – the appropriate mealy mouthed bureaucratese was doubtlessly used to cover the exigency. Hardly a terrible burden in my estimation. Contrast this to the consequence for any ordinary person, especially one in a position of trust, who found himself in Mr. Robinson’s loafers.
   
   But we are a kinder and gentler nation in Canada aren’t we? David Frum has an interesting essay in today’s (August 10, 2004) edition of the National Post where he contrasts the US legal system’s treatment of Martha Stewart to that of Mr. Robinson in Canada. Ms. Stewart in case you missed it is going to jail for lying. (there but for the grace of God go we all!) The underlying event about which she incautiously chose to dissemble to an SEC investigator apparently allowed her to avoid a loss of some $50,000 US by selling her ImClone shares before the public became aware of bad news that slashed the share price. Frum makes the point that in the U.S. the authorities exhibited unusual zeal in pursuing Ms. Stewart because of her notoriety and privileged position in society. Her fame worked to her detriment. In Canada there seems to be a much clearer convention in favour of “noblesse oblige”. It must be our French heritage.
   
   The other point I make with respect to the deference granted to Mr. Robinson, is the fact Judge Fratkin ignored Mr. Robinson’s prior conviction for criminal contempt of court for which he served 14 days in jail in 1994. Perhaps Judge Fratkin mentally noted this was purely a publicity stunt by the self-promoting Mr. Robinson, but if so he merely compounded the error of deferring to Robinson rather than taking notice of Robinson’s pre-existing propensity to thumb his nose at the law. Had he bothered to think about it, Fratkin should have taken this as a mitigating factor against Robinson’s “this is not me” defense.
   
   Which leads me to my final point. I can think of no more qualified person than Mr. Robinson to be the flag bearer for the movement against traditional values that has gained such ascendancy in Canada over the past 20 years. As such how fitting that he should rely on the classic excuse for his actions – “it was not me!” It was the stressed out psychologically fragile Svend not the “real” Svend who pocketed the diamond for my boyfriend. Apparently this stress was something that had been affecting Mr. Robinson for some time, and for which he was receiving some type of treatment prior to the theft. Judge Fratkin seems confident that Mr. Robinson will expunge his Mr. Hyde persona by faithful adherence to counselling sessions, and re-education – no need for admission of true guilt or a search for true repentance in Mr. Robinson’s world.
   
   Have Mr. Robinson’s loyal supporters considered whether this stress, which caused Mr. Robinson to act aberrantly in a Richmond auction house, may also have caused him to act aberrantly while in the House of Commons?
   
   I doubt it. Meanwhile, intelligent folks of a liberal persuasion like the playwright and author John MacLachlan Gray, can think of nothing better to opine on the Robinson case than a cryptic letter to the editor (dutifully published despite its vacuity) asking whether “in the past, say five years, has there been a single sentence handed down by a B.C. court that Sun readers deemed sufficient?”
   
   Here is the abridged version of the reasons I would have expressed as the sentencing judge.
   
   “Mr. Robinson in considering an appropriate sentence for the offence of theft of goods of a value in excess of $10,000 I make note of these factors:
   
   you came forward shortly after the crime and admitted your guilt, thus sparing the investigating authorities and the taxpayers needless expense. I find you did so as a result of having concluded you could not possibly avoid detection;
   you pleaded guilty thus avoiding the expense of a trial;
   you are a professional man and were at the time of the crime a member of one of the most privileged bodies in our nation, the House of Commons where you had served prior to this incident for 6 consecutive terms spanning 25 years, in fact you have had no other significant employment save that of member of parliament;
   the offence has no relation to your parliamentary duties;
   you claim to be, and were for some time prior to the crime, suffering from some mental condition for which you were receiving treatment. The Crown has chosen to agree to a statement of facts that does not inform me as to the details of the condition for which you are receiving treatment, but the Crown asks me to consider it as a mitigating factor in your favour, and accordingly I am bound to do so, though reluctantly;
   as a result of committing this crime you withdrew your nominating papers for the June 28th election, depriving you of the likely re-election to a 7th consecutive term;
   
   As a member of parliament you are one of Canada’s lawmakers, indeed you have gained recent notoriety as the mover of a bill passed by the last parliament known as Bill C250. Your position as a trusted member of Canada’s ruling class brings with it many privileges, and as you now realize, many responsibilities when your actions have offended against those laws you are pledged to uphold and defend.
   
   In your brief statement to me you asked me to accept that the person who committed the crime of theft “is not me (sic)”. I do not accept your contention, since to do so would be patently foolish on my part. The Svend Robinson before me is a multi-faceted human being – lawyer, parliamentarian, social activist, friend to many, and thief. The latter is but a part of the whole, but it is most decidedly you. My role is to determine what the appropriate sentence should be for Svend Robinson the thief, while giving appropriate weight and consideration to your other attributes, the many supporting submissions filed on your behalf, and to the most important aspect of all – the public good and the reputation of the administration of justice.
   
   Crown counsel properly emphasizes the seriousness of the offence as the maximum 10-year jail sentence suggests. He also points to the obvious degree of planning and forethought that went into this crime, the previous inquiries about rings for your partner, all undisputed evidence that gives little credence to any suggestion the offence was impulsive.
   
   Your counsel offers as countervailing argument, the severe but undisclosed psychological impairment under which you were and apparently continue to be suffering. I find the secrecy concerning your emotional difficulties peculiar. It is suggested that to reveal the details would subject you to ridicule and humiliation. Given your history of notorious and often outrageous behaviour in support of your political and social causes, your openness concerning your homosexuality and your annual participation in the Vancouver Gay Pride parade where embarrassment takes on a new meaning, it is difficult to imagine what the embarrassing nature of your condition could possibly be unless it were that you were about to renounce your homosexuality, become a Roman Catholic and join the Conservative party.
   
   I also take note of the fact this is not the first time you have appeared before the courts in this Province, a fact that is quite uncharacteristic for someone possessing the virtues and qualities enumerated by your many supporters all of which would seem to adumbrate your present status as thief.
   
   Disturbingly, your previous offence is for criminal contempt of court, suggesting to me an attitude on your part that you and your ideas and causes are somehow above the law. Your 25 years as an MP may explain much of that attitude. Nevertheless, I must add to the description of who is Svend Robinson, “one who has in the past been proven to be contemptuous of the law”.
   
   It would be easy for me to pluck from my pile of judicial platitudes comforting and quotable quips such as “few Canadians can be said to have contributed as much to the nation as Mr. Robinson in his more than 25 years of service as an MP”, or “as a well-known public figure, Mr. Robinson has suffered much from the humiliation of his fall from grace”, or “Mr. Robinson has already suffered much as a result of this crime by virtue of his high place in society”, or “here in Canada we don’t kick people when they are down”.
   
   But that would be easy, and it would not serve the administration of justice. I sit as a Judge of the Provincial Court. This is the court to which most ordinary citizens are exposed when they come into contact with the criminal justice system either as victims, accused or the body of supporters that each invariably brings with them to the process.
   
   The Provincial Court is the window into the soul of our judicial system, and I consider my role to be a difficult and humbling one. To serve as a gatekeeper to the rule of law when all the procedure and posturing is peeled away, is what keeps us from sinking into anarchy. The public must be confident that no matter what privileged position one occupies, that the law will indeed be blind, and a sentence will serve not only as an appropriate deterrent to the criminal at bar, but to others who may themselves be inclined to take advantage of their positions of trust and privilege.
   
   Your counsel asks me to grant you an absolute discharge on the strength of your previous character and your “it is not me” argument. It would have been refreshing if instead you had told me directly or through your counsel:
   
   "Judge I was greedy, I wanted to impress my partner with a lavish gift, but I was just too cheap to pay for it. I succumbed to temptation, I am a flawed human being, I am not above the law though I thought at the time I was. I don’t need counselling and I won’t insult your intelligence with psycho-babble or blame a fall I had 6 years ago for my dishonesty. I made a mistake and I am terribly ashamed and humbled by the recognition that despite all my privileges, I was able to cross the line and commit a criminal act. I need to rethink my world view as a consequence, since it is clear no amount of education or privilege or even counselling for that matter, was able to save me from the reality of who I am. I am truly sorry and I point to my otherwise law-abiding life, save for my foolish political grandstanding, as your assurance that this will never happen again."
   
   Such a statement, honestly and forthrightly given, would have persuaded me to accede to your request for a conditional discharge. However, in response to your actual submission which seeks to deflect personal responsibility and which is empty of any genuine remorse, I hereby sentence you as follows:
   
   I suspend the passing of sentence for a period of 24 months and place you on probation. I do not consider it appropriate that you should avoid a criminal record under all the circumstances. Conditions of your probation shall be as follows:
   
   You shall perform 500 hours of community service as directed by your probation officer;
   You shall submit within 3 months a 20,000 word essay contrasting the ideas and philosophies of Edmund Burke to that of J.S. Mill; and those of Scruton to Foucault;
   You shall continue to seek counselling and medical treatment for the medical condition you claim to have been a factor in the commission of this crime, and your professional advisor (s) shall file reports with the court each 6 months during the term of your probation reporting on the progress you have made;
   You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
   
   Mr. Robinson you have been the recipient of much privilege arising from your status as a servant of the citizens of this country; you have contributed much to the public discourse (whether good or bad I leave to others to decide) concerning matters affecting the laws and social fabric of our nation; and you have suffered the humiliation of having the public catch a glimpse of your human frailty. I urge you to acknowledge responsibility for your actions, and to take all the necessary steps to turn away from situations where you may once again be tempted to offend against the laws of Canada.
   
   Such a judgment would of course be successfully appealed, I would be brought up for disciplinary proceedings and either relegated to traffic court or offered an early retirement, my offence having been to impose a punishment to fit the crime, with attendant reasons based on the reality of the human condition and not the thin gruel of post-modern secular thought. With a nice vested pension based on my $200K per year salary, I might be able to keep up to Svend in post-career lifestyle.
   And wouldn’t it have been fun to read the editorials in the Sun, Province and Globe and Mail.