August 11, 2001
Court was correct to apply the law
A Daily News editorial by Robert KoopmansKamloops Daily News
The outrage from some quarters about a B.C. Supreme Court judge’s jailing of a man who refuses to pay child support seems difficult to understand.
The latest outcry comes from The Child’s Voice, an Ontario group angered by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Hunter’s decision to jail Jeffrey James Unruh indefinitely.
Hunter declared Unruh in contempt of court Aug. 1, for failing to pay court-ordered child support. At last count, the Dawson Creek man owed his ex-wife more than $150,000.
Bill Flores, president of The Child’s Voice, demanded Hunter be removed as a judge from B.C.’s Supreme Court. Why? For applying the law? Regardless of how one views Unruh’s defiance, one thing is clear – he failed to obey a court order. It matters little that he did it with protest in mind.
Imagine what our society would look like if we all ignored laws we didn’t like or thought were unfair. What kind of societal order could we maintain if we all had the ability to say, “No thanks, I don’t want that one to apply to me.”
Surely loads of people would stop paying income taxes. Already there are groups challenging the government’s ability to such funds from its citizens. And how about gun owners? How many would comply with unpopular firearm legislation if they could wave their hands and say, “I’ll take a pass on that one.”
What about those on bail, probation or bound by restraining orders? Would we want them to have the ability to ignore the courts as well?
The fact is, it’s the duty of all members of a democratic society to abide by the laws created by the majority.
Elected politicians make legislation intended to reflect the wishes of the citizenry. Not everyone will like all laws and it’s possible some laws will stink. If that’s the case, people can work for change.
But don’t be surprised when the courts come down hard on those who flout the laws, even if offences are committed in the name of protest.
Unruh is offering the court his middle finger. He may believe he is doing it for a purpose, but does that change things?
He will stay in jail until he decides to recognize the court’s authority. Should it be any different?
If changes are needed to address perceived concerns about the fairness of family law, advocacy groups would do better to work in political channels. Ranting about the courts and supporting a defiant lawbreaker will accomplish little.
And calling for Hunter’s removal as a judge is just plain dumb. He is doing his job as required by his employers, the people of Canada. Would we want him to do otherwise?