OJ Simpson vs Jian Ghomeshi

The legal systems of Canada and United States are similar in many ways, particularly as it applies to criminal matters. The recent acquittal of Jian Ghomeshi on four counts of sexual assault sparked deep division among Canadians in much the same way as OJ Simpson’s double murder acquittal did in United States, which should not come as too much of a shock, given the similarities between the two.

It would be difficult to laud the same degree of celebrity on Jian Ghomeshi as that enjoyed by OJ Simpson. Still, in Canada and anywhere within the reaches of CBC’s airwaves, Jian Ghomeshi was their brightest star. Handsome, well-paid, and very much in the public eye, Ghomeshi attracted throngs of eager and willing sexual partners for all the same reasons as did OJ Simpson and other celebrities.

Nobody died in Ghomeshi’s cases. However, the sexual assault allegations made against him was about to lay waste to five individuals (Ghomeshi himself and the four alleged victims) who were at the center of this melee.

What is strikingly similar between the cases of Ghomeshi and Simpson was the absolute floundering of the prosecution team to vet their own witnesses, and arguably, it was this pivotal point on which the justice system failed any victims, and further impeded the likelihood of future sexual assault victims of any perpetrator coming forward to endure the trial process.

In Simpson’s case, Mark Fuhrman, a Los Angeles Police Detective, lied on the witness stand, and then pled the fifth on the direct question of did he plant evidence. It would be a crucial hurdle for the District Attorney to overcome, and a point that distracted the jury from maintaining any focus on the double murder for which they had been convened. If one of the key LAPD Detectives planted evidence and lied in court, then how can any evidence presented be untainted? Marcia Clark, lead prosecutor against Simpson ought to have known. On the Fuhrman perjury alone, Marcia Clark failed the Goldman and Brown families.

With Ghomeshi, Crown prosecutor, Michael Callaghan, equally failed in his duties bringing forth a high profile case against one of Canada’s most celebrated broadcasting personalities with alleged victims who were not as innocent as one might expect. In allegations against Ghomeshi claiming that he sexually assaulted four women, his brilliant defense counsel, Marie Henein, was able to prove that his alleged victims engaged in behavior that would be difficult to assimilate to that of one being sexually assaulted. One woman sent him flowers after being allegedly sexually assaulted. One messaged Ghomeshi practically begging for another date. Prosecutor Michael Callaghan failed all legitimate sexual assault victims in his quest for glory with little regard to the impact his personal agenda would have on Canadian society.

Due to double jeopardy laws in Canada and United States, we will never truly know whether OJ Simpson and Jian Ghomeshi participated in the crimes for which they were accused. Everybody will have their personal beliefs, but in the eyes of the law, both men are not guilty of those crimes. We can thank the respective prosecutors of these cases for wasting millions of dollars in taxpayer money in bringing cases before court that were not sufficiently vetted, and for which there is no accountability.

Tinkering with Nature – Man’s Failure to Coexist with Wildlife

Mankind continues to encroach on the last remaining vestiges of wild lands as urban sprawl drives short sighted governments to increasingly carve up migration routes and natural habitat in favor of furthering the financial agenda.

On its own, there is absolutely nothing nefarious about financial growth for corporations that provide jobs and drive those economic indicators heard on nightly newscasts. However, when that expansion clashes with ancient ecosystems, migratory paths, breeding grounds,  and wildlife habitat, our response is to slaughter the diminishing numbers and genetic purity of wildlife that most concrete jungle dwellers rarely have the opportunity to see outside the caged prison of a zoo.

To ease barriers faced by developers, mankind seems perfectly willing to slaughter any wildlife in the path of ‘progress’. Routinely, those charged with wildlife management have introduced wild horse culls, coyote culls, wolf culls. bison culls, elk and deer culls, and a host of marine and land based wildlife culls to suit short sighted agendas.

Recent news reports of the bison cull at Yellowstone National Park and British Columbia’s wolf cull led to outrage as it was learned the reasons behind the culls. Most would likely agree that, if the reason for the culls is to prevent the spread of disease, then the ends justify the means. However, when those culls are introduced because of a contractual obligation, as is the case with the Yellowstone bison, then perhaps the contracts need to be renegotiated to reflect the realities of a more educated and enlightened people of today.

The Bison Cull at Yellowstone National Park

Once, up to 60 million head of bison thundered across the prairies of North America, providing the aboriginals with a staple of food, clothing, and other uses, until they were hunted to extinction by whites seeking only the commercialized pelts. By the early 1900’s, only a few dozen bison remained.

Today, the successful protection of bison has resulted in approximately 4900 head in Yellowstone National Park. But that’s too many according to a contractual agreement between federal agencies and Montana state representatives that has legislated a maximum 3000 head in the Park.

The Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP), signed in 2000, was the result of rancher’s fears that when bison migrated to lower elevations for winter forage, they would infect grazing cattle with brucellosis, a bacterial infectious disease. This, despite there not having been recorded such a case.

Ranchers in Montana are a powerful and influential lobby that are principally responsible for the eradication of wolves in Yellowstone until that species was successfully reintroduced using packs from Canada in 1995. Simmers to revert to large scale wolf culls in Yellowstone are brewing again.

To be fair to ranchers, they are hard-working people raising their herds as a source of income from which they make their living. However, in the interest of protecting an ancient ecosystem that existed long before their arrival, better solutions need to be introduced that can ensure the survival of wildlife and ranches alike.

The Wolf Cull in British Columbia

British Columbia is its second year of a two year planned cull of 500 wolves throughout the province, costing the taxpayers 2.2 million dollars. What makes this massive cull even more devious is its alleged use of a Judas wolf, something provincial authorities deny but the Wildlife Defence League (WDL) says it has proof in the form of an audio confession from one of the contractors bloodying its hands on behalf of the province.

A Judas wolf (so-called in a biblical reference to its betrayal to the pack) is outfitted with a radio transmitter collar which is tracked by a helicopter. When the tracking signal shows the wolf stationary for a period of time, it is indicative the wolf is at the den, at which time the chopper swoops in and a sniper opens fire. The wolves don’t stand a chance, except Ghost, the named Judas wolf, whose life is spared so it can lead the flying assassins to a future pack.

Wolves are revered in aboriginal culture and are an apex predator, helping to balance the ecosystem we seem hell-bent on destroying.

So, why is the beautiful province of British Columbia tinkering with the wolf population? Not coincidentally, it is because it has previously tinkered with populations of prey species, and before that, with other predator species. The circle continues to tighten like a noose, as the boundaries for wildlife shrink.

Now What?

Evidently, we lack the foresight to coexist with wildlife. Those agencies we task to help us understand the behaviors and ecosystems of wildlife are failing in their mission to be the advocates for managing development of our public lands. Agreeably, it cannot be an easy mandate. Financial pressures and bureaucratic meddling make the job difficult.

What is needed is international and inter-regional cooperation between agencies. That means federal national parks agencies, provincial and state wildlife agencies, municipal land use planners, affected special interest groups (such as ranchers) must all approach this imperative with open minds and solution-based long term vision, with the goal of eliminating the short sighted sporadic and conflicting wildlife policies that currently exist.

What we are doing is definitely not working well for man or wildlife.