Drunkenness no excuse for harming others

Page 4

"I was drunk."

It's an excuse recently legitimized by the Supreme Court of Canada, and used successfully as a defence by an Alberta man last week to beat a charge of assault against this wife of 11 years.

Carl Blair of Leduc spent 30 hours in November 1993 on a drinking binge with

a buddy. When his wife came to pick him up, he severely beat her in the head and face resulting in her hospitalization. Blair didn't dispute the charges but argued he acted "like

a robot" without knowledge of what he was doing because of the large amount of alcohol and prescription drugs he had consumed.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice J.H. Mackenzie ruled that Blair, in fact, was not responsible for the attack. He based his decision on the September ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in which the conviction of a man who sexually assaulted an elderly disabled woman was overturned on the grounds he was so intoxicated he was insane. This ruling has set a dangerous precedent and is sending the wrong message to abusers, their victims and the lower courts. It is a frightening message that is open to interpretation and wide application.

'Extreme drunkenness' is just not an excuse. It is not an excuse when a person drinks and gets behind the wheel of a car. And it's not an excuse when a person drinks and chooses to harm someone. If a person drinks, he or she does so voluntarily. People knowingly put themselves in situations when they drink where they could lose control. They should not be freed from liability, because their knowledge of the risks is present before they take the first drink.

Just when we as a society were beginning to make headway in disarming abusers, we stock their arsenals. Society had begun to realize that spousal abuse is not a private matter, one best left behind closed doors to be dealt with within the confines of the family, but a public menace which spreads cancer-like through the generations.

Domestic violence in particular was targeted as a no-tolerance crime. Harsher sentences for assault were being meted out, law enforcement officers were ordered to lay charges at the first sign of physical abuse. Imagine the frustration of all those people who have struggled for so long to get this far, only to have the court turn their backs on their efforts.

The last thing people living in abusive situations need to hear is that the court won't convict abusers because they were drunk, that abuser can be absolved of all responsibility for their actions if they are fortunate enough to consume enough alcohol.

How many times have victims of abuse already heard "I'm sorry honey. I was drunk."? How many different ways have we insisted that "No, that's not god enough. Abuse is wrong and punishable under law no mater what influences the abuser is under." How can we now say "That violence is indefensible. You deserve more than this," when the Supreme Court says there are times when violence can be defended.

The doors of justice have been flung wide to allow the defence of 'extreme drunkenness' to be used indiscriminately. This was to be a rare defence and almost never to be used, implied the Supreme Court in its September ruling. Instead the flood gates have been opened, much to horror of just-minded individuals.

Our only saving grace may come from Justice Minister Allan Rock who is concerned about the impression the Canadian public has been left with. We can only hope that he moves quickly to mend the gaping wound the Supreme Court has inflicted on Canadians.