Saddam's execution was necessary

Dahn Batchelor's Opinions

While clutching a Quran and refusing a hood, Saddam Hussein stood on the gallows before sunrise on December 30th 2006, to be executed by vengeful countrymen after a quarter-century of remorseless brutality that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and led Iraq into disastrous wars against Iran and Kuwait.

The "Butcher of Baghdad," as he was known to millions of his oppressed people in Iraq, died at 6:05 a.m. in Iraq, hanged by the neck with a 3-cm rope looped around his neck until he was dead.

He was executed after being found guilty for his role in the 1982 killings of 148 Shiite Muslims – rounded up and executed without trial after a botched assassination attempt in the Iraqi city of Dujail. Had he not been sentenced to death for those crimes, he certainly would have been sentenced to death for the murder of over 180 thousand Kurds who were killed while he was the dictator of Iraq.

I believe that a great many people worldwide including myself felt a certain feeling of satisfaction when we watched on TV (soon after his execution) the hangmen placing the noose around this despot’s neck. We were cognizant of the history of this man’s brutality. He gassed thousands of men, women and children in their villages, he ordered some of his victim’s tongues cut out before they were executed, others were lowered into vats of acid while still alive, others still were ground up in large grinders while still alive. Other victims, including children were placed in cells in which they were then subjected to mustard gas while they lay writhing and screaming on the floor of their cells. Some were thrown from high buildings while handcuffed.

al-Qubanji, a member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a dominant party in the country's governing coalition said after Saddam’s execution, "He killed millions of Iraqis in prisons, in wars with neighbouring countries, and he is responsible for mass graves.” The list of obscenities brought about by him and his two evil sons could go on and on but space doesn’t permit me to give my readers the full picture of their brutality against their own people.

Despite the fact that this human monster was executed after being found guilty of the murder of the 148 Shiite Muslims, there are sob sisters who maintain that he shouldn’t have been executed. Pope Benedict XVI's top prelate for justice issues, Cardinal Renato Martino, took such a tack, noting Saddam's execution punishes "a crime with another crime ... the death penalty is not a natural death."

I suppose that this prelate’s premise for his remarks was that God will wreak Man’s vengeance, not Man. Unfortunately, God wasn’t really around when Saddam’s victims were being slowly tortured to death in the hideous ways only an evil person could bring about. If God was present during the pain Saddam’s victims were undergoing when their tongues were being cut out, God was merely a bystander.

As I see it, we as human beings have the right to bring justice to others providing that it is done honestly and the accused are given their right to defend themselves. Some say that Saddam didn’t get a fair trial. I don’t know enough about what took place in his trial but surely, all that was needed to convict him was proof that he ordered the execution of 148 men and boys who didn’t get a trial. That fact was shown in evidence and that by itself is suffice to say that he was guilty as charged.

Some will say that the International Court in The Hague should have tried him. If he was tried by that court, he still would have been found guilty but he wouldn’t have been executed because that court doesn’t have the authority to sentence its convicted defendants to death.

I believe that his execution may act as a balm to sooth some of the the anguish suffered by Iraqis who lost loved ones under Saddam’s rule. In my opinion, his execution was absolutely necessary. For those who don’t agree with me, consider what happened to Idi Amin, the ruthless dictator who slaughtered so many Ugandans when he was in power. He lived in luxury during his remaining years in exile before he died of old age. Saddam may not have lived in luxury if he had to serve a life sentence in prison but the idea of him still breathing when one considers how many hundreds of thousands of innocent people died under his rule, is obscene.

I believe that what was shown on Iraqi television said it for all when after airing national songs after the first announcement, it displayed a tag on the screen that read “Saddam’s execution marks the end of a dark period of Iraq’s history.’’

After his execution was shown on television worldwide, there were many who objected to the manner in which the onlookers in the execution chamber insulted and mocked Saddam moments before he was dropped into the void. The complainers said that it had reduced the serenity of the execution to a mad house. It was in my opinion fitting that in the last moments of this human monster's life that he should hear their insults. It must be remembered that he felt that he was so omnipotent that he forbade anyone from mocking him. On one occasion, he ordered that one of his own generals who was overheard mocking him, was to have his tongue cut out and then executed. Seconds before Saddam's life was ended abruptly, he heard common folk jeer him. A great ending for such a monster. He is very lucky he died so quickly. I could tell from the length of the rope, that his neck was broken instantaniously. He fared far better that the leaders of the Nazi regime. The executioner in Nuremburg made sure that they strangled at the end of the rope. Some strangled for as much as twenty minutes. If anyone should have strangled for twenty minutes, it was Saddam.

Hopefully, other tyrants around the world are getting the message that they too may be executed by their own people just as Saddam and the dictator of Romania were. If their executions can bring about that message, then Saddam’s recent execution is a lesson being taught to them. I hope they learn it soon before they too are put to death by their own people whom they are abusing.

Letter to a chief of police about a bad cop

Dahn Batchelor's Opinions

This letter was mailed at the end of December 2006 to William Blair, the chief of police of the Toronto Police Service in which I expressed my concerns about a rogue cop under his command.

Dear Sir:

By way of introduction, I am a criminologist and an advisor to the United Nations on criminal justice. Over the years I have participated in various committees at the request of several ministries in Ontario and I have spoken on such topics as the complaint procedures with respect to police forces. In 2005 and 2006, I was a guest speaker at three forums on justice in Bangkok, Lima and Brussels. Because of my many speeches around the world at UN forums etc., I am mindful of how fortunate we as Canadians are in having checks and balances within our system of justice.

In one of your messages to the citizens of Toronto, you said in part;

The men and women of the Service, on a daily basis, exemplify our seven core values: honesty, integrity, fairness, respect, reliability, teamwork and positive attitude.

When you spoke those words, you spoke of the men and women collectively and for the most part, you were quite correct in expressing your sentiment and mine also with your choice of words.

Unfortunately those words don’t exemplify the words of all your police officers. It is one of those officers whose conduct is so egregious that it has compelled me to write you. I am speaking of Sergeant Elliott of 23 Division.

Until I heard the decision of Superintendent Tweedy with respect to the hearing he conducted on December 13, 2006, I didn’t know much about Elliott other than the fact that it was he who was the fool, along with other supervisors, who encouraged the traffic ticket quota system in 23 Division.

But as I listened to Supt. Tweedy’s decision further, it became apparent to me that Elliott did something far worse. He tried to frame two innocent police officers with an offence of trying to bring into fruition a cover-up of their alleged misconduct. Let me quote from my notes:

Elliott had a second conversation with the civilian station operator, which he claimed that she told him that the officers approached her and asked her to not to say anything to anyone about a report and further, to say that she never spoke to them about it. Sergeant Elliott claimed Ms. McGahey (the civilian) was upset about being put in such a difficult position.

Sergeant Elliott admitted at the hearing that it was a very serious allegation of misconduct he was adding to the other two charges he had filed against the two officers because it would be tantamount to the officers encouraging a civilian member to participate in a cover-up of the alleged misconduct of the two officers he had charged earlier.

When Sergeant Elliott was challenged that he never told anyone about this alleged cover-up, he responded by stating that he told Complaints Investigator, Sergeant Tretter of the cover-up and suggested to her that she take a statement from Ms. McGahey.

Ms. McGahey stated there was no suggestion of any attempt on the part of the officers to ask her to lie on their behalf.

Superintendent Tweedy said in his decision that in his opinion, no cover-up existed. He added that if Sergeant Tretter was informed of such a cover-up, she would have stated so to him.

What is interesting about this allegation on the part of Elliott is that he didn’t make any reference to it in his memo book or prepare a report to his unit commander about his new and very serious allegation. Further, he didn’t tell the Service prosecutor about this new allegation until a week before the hearing and that was seventeen months after the fact.

I think the Service prosecutor was too generous when he said that Elliott misunderstood and misstated what Ms. McGahey told him about the conversation that she had with the two officers. It must be kept in mind that his star witness’ (Elliott) testimony at this juncture of the hearing was going so far down the toilet, a plumber couldn’t have recovered it.

I believe that Supt. Tweedy was more correct in his conclusion about Elliott’s testimony when he said that his testimony caused him concern; was not sufficiently persuasive and was frequently contradictory.

I don’t believe that the conversation between Elliott and Ms. McGahey was unclear at all. I am sure that Elliott merely asked her if she passed on his message to the officers with respect to the report and she confirmed that she did. There would have been no need to press the matter further. As stated earlier, Ms. McGahey never told him about an attempt on the part of the two officers to get her to participate in a cover-up.

By Elliott testifying that Ms. McGahey told him that she was asked to participate in a cover-up by the two officers; he perjured himself.

Police officers who perjure themselves in hearings or trials are unquestionably a risk to everyone, be they police officers or citizens charged with crimes. Society relies on the honesty of police officers. The thought of innocent people being convicted on perjured testimony is very frightening.

Take the case of Zimmerman of New York City who many years ago was convicted on the perjured testimony of a police officer who didn’t like the man personally and was out to destroy him. Zimmerman was only twenty- five minutes from the electric chair when the governor stayed his execution. After he served twenty years in prison, the police officer on his deathbed confessed that he had falsely accused Zimmerman of a murder he knew he hadn’t committed. Zimmerman was subsequently released from prison and the city gave him $1 million dollars in compensation.

Further, Elliott tried to convince officers’ in 23 Division to not socialize with one of the officers he charged because that officer reported his bad conduct to his superiors. By doing this terrible deed, Elliott intended to seriously malign and subjected the officer to immense torment.

I am mindful of section 57(1) of the Police Services Act which says that “a complaint may be made by a member of the public only if the complainant was directly affected by the policy, service or conduct that is the subject of the complaint.”

This letter is not to be construed as a complaint filed against Sergeant Elliott by myself or on behalf of any other person but is instead a letter of concern by a citizen who lives in Mississauga but is in Toronto many times and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Toronto Police Service.

I know that I don’t have to remind you that once in a while, police services in various cities get rogue cops and they can cause a lot of misery to the citizens they are sworn to protect.

But when you get a police officer, especially a sergeant who tries to frame innocent cops to further his purpose, whatever it may be, the credibility of that sergeant diminishes to the point that his role as a police sergeant is damaged beyond any hope of repair. Younger police officers should be able to look up to their sergeants for advice and direction instead of looking down at their sergeants with contempt. What value is Sergeant Elliott’s service as a sergeant if those below his rank, those who serve with an equivelent rank and those who are above his rank are contemptuous of him as a fellow officer?

I am interested in knowing what action, preferably by way of a Police Act hearing, is going to be instituted against Sergeant Elliott.

I am sure that if your police force were to demote this individual back to the rank of Police Constable, the message will get across to others of his ilk that there are consequences to behaving in the manner that this sergeant did. Certainly his lack of Crime Stoppers procedures with respect to reporting is evidence that he is not paying attention to what he has been told. It would create a situation where younger officers would be looking to him for advice on a subject he knows nothing about.

I am curious to know if you are going to let this sergeant’s conduct slide or alternatively, begin the process of disciplining him. In my respectful opinion, the latter approach would appear to be in the best interests of his fellow officers and the public at large.

__________________________________________________________________________________

I will let you know if he replies to my letter and what he says in it.

Would you trust this member of parliament?

Dahn Batchelor's Opinions

This letter was sent on June 10, 2006 to a member of the Canadian Parliament who accepted large donations from small children whose father was supporting him in his run for office again. This was against the law. He ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party but was soundly defeated.

Joe Vope
Member of Parliament 520 Bronson Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario
K1R 7Y9

Dear Mr. Vope:

I am deeply concerned that a member of parliament such as yourself would accept donations from young children for his leadership race, notwithstanding the fact that the money really came from the children’s father.

As you know, there is a limit on the amount of money that private individuals can donate to politicians running for federal office, the limit being $5,400.

There is obviously a very good reason for this. If there was no limit and a multi-millionaire wanted to have a great deal of influence over the politician he has sponsored, that politician may find it very difficult to ignore the demands of the person who put him in office. It would also be conceivable that such a donor would receive preferable treatment over a constituent who doesn’t have enough money to live on and therefore couldn’t contribute to the politician’s fundraising campaign.

It is apparent to most if not all Canadians that the executive of Apotex Inc who contributed $27,000 to your coffers under the guise that it was his children, ages 11 and 14 who made the contributions, tried to go around the limitation by claiming that each of his children made the contributions. You in turn decided to thwart the intent of the limitation by accepting the money.

The actions of this executive as I see it, is tantamount to lobbying for your cooperation with respect to his business. When executives of companies begin lobbying members of parliament, it is a sure sign that their companies have lost their fight in the civil service and the cabinet. Anything that that executive or anyone else from his firm does in attempting to influence you will be looked upon by the citizens of Canada as lobbying at its worst.

It is an insult to all Canadians that both of you really thought that we are so naïve that you could pull this off and get away with it. Judging by the manner in which you tried to justify your actions, I strongly suspect that you would also accept donations from the estates of deceased pets if no one found you out.

The fact that you returned the money is evidence that you finally realize that you were wrong in accepting it in the first place.

Your political party is already reeling from the corruption that took place when it was in power and now you have the audacity to run for the leadership of the Liberal Party. It must be obvious to you by now that Canadians recognize that excellence in the ranks of political parties is as rare as excellent in command. It is a fallacy that members of parliament are of a standard that makes them excellent. Admittedly, there have been some exceptions and such men have shown the body politic that they were highly qualified for the task of leading our country. But surely, you are not going to tell us that your qualities as a politician and as a potential leader of your party are based on your excellence as a member of parliament. To do so is to insult our intelligence.

Alas, the time for your departure has come. Let me quote from Sir Allan MacNab in his May 23, 1856 speech when he addressed the Canadian members of parliament on his resignation as Canada’s Prime Minister. He said;

“If I am supported by their voice, I will feel that I am right. If condemned, I am ready to retire into private life, and, perhaps, I am now fitted for little else.”

I don’t know if you are fitted for little else but you surely have been condemned and it is time for you to retire into private life.

I rarely write politicians but when I do, it is because they have behaved badly while in office and every one of them I wrote to, either left politics on their own or were defeated at the polls but none of them reached their goals they had aimed for, to wit; becoming leaders of their parties or their governments.

Aside from ability, Canadians search for honesty in politicians and if honesty is found suspiciously lacking in a politician, that man or woman is considered unsuitable for office, and either voted out of office or put to such shame, that he or she leaves office on his or her own initiative.

In the days when Rome’s influence was at his peak, disgraced generals fell on their own sword. I don’t want you to fall on your sword. Simply pack up your things and slip out of Ottawa on your own in the dark of night and let those hopefuls running for the leadership of your party try to bring some credibility back to their party without you hanging around their necks like the albatross of the Ancient Mariner.

Trusting that you will act responsibly, I remain,

Yours truly

Dahn Batchelor

Naturally, he didn't write me back

A grinch wants Christmas tree removed from lobby

Dahn Batchelor's Opinions

It never fails. The fools emerge when the full moon appears in the sky and they also show up at Christmas time. A Toronto judge standing firm by her decision to keep a Christmas tree out of her downtown courthouse lobby, created a furor in Toronto during the second week of December 2006. Madam Justice Marion Cohen ordered the tiny plastic tree removed saying it's not an appropriate symbol to non-Christians. I can’t help but wonder if she would have given such an order if she was a Christian instead of a Jew. Court employees called the move stupid and insulting, considering the fact that the tree has been in the lobby every Christmas for decades.

Many people of all faiths regard Christmas trees as a symbol of peace and that symbol should negate the feelings of people who believe that the Christmas trees are merely placed in public buildings as a means of pushing the Christian faith on non-believers. Such decorated trees are things of beauty and as such, is an entrenched touchstone representing peace with every culture and faith represented in Canada and elsewhere.

This isn’t the first time this kind of stupidity has surfaced. An airport on the West Coast of the United Sates had to remove their decorated trees because of a threatened lawsuit by a Rabbi. There is some Christmas controversy at the Michigan capital. The tree at the statehouse in Lansing has some people upset. On December 13, 2006, atheists joined with the group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State to protest calling the tree a Christmas tree. The protesters say calling the tree a Christmas tree endorses Christianity and violates the First Amendment.
The clauses in the First Amendment of the American Constitution states that the establishment of religion and free exercise of religion not only protect the diversity within Christianity, but also guarantee religious liberty and equality to the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism.

During the 1986-1987 Christmas season, the government of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, permitted the Holy Name Society, a Roman Catholic organization, to display the nativity scene on the grand staircase inside the main part of the county courthouse in Pittsburgh. The issue as to whether or not this contradicted the First Amendment of the American Constitution was decided upon by the US Supreme Court in July 1989. A majority of the members of the court joined in an opinion holding that the nativity scene display violated the establishment of religion clause. Their reason was that the Nativity scene was displayed in a manner that violated the establishment of religion clause, because the county, by associating itself with the display, did not merely acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon but celebrated the holiday in a way that had the effect of endorsing a patently Christian message.

Justice Blackmun, writing for the court also added however that the Christmas tree was the predominant element in the display and it by itself did not endorse Christian belief and for this reason, it could stay. He also said that the display of an 18-foot Chanukah menorah; owned by a Jewish religious organization placed in front of a city-county office building from December 22 to January 13 of the following year did not have the effect of advancing religion so as to violate the establishment of religion clause of the Federal Constitution's First Amendment, where the menorah stood next to a 45-foot Christmas tree.

Not all religious celebrations of Christmas located on government property violate the establishment of religion clause of the American Constitution's First Amendment; since it is not unconstitutional for a group of parishioners from a local church to go caroling through a city park on any Sunday in Advent or for a Christian club at a public university to sing carols during their Christmas meeting, and because activities of this nature do not demonstrate the government's allegiance to, or endorsement of, the Christian faith; notwithstanding that not all proclamations of Christian faith located on government property are permitted by the establishment of religion clause just because they occur during the Christmas holiday season.

I would be remiss however if I didn’t mention that the Christmas tree does have some historical roots going back to Christianity. Some historians trace the lighted Christmas tree to Martin Luther. It has been said that Martin Luther began the tradition of decorating trees to celebrate Christmas. One crisp Christmas Eve, about the year 1500, he was walking through snow-covered woods and was struck by the beauty of a group of small evergreens. Their branches, dusted with snow, shimmered in the moonlight. When he got home, he set up a little fir tree indoors so he could share this story with his children. He decorated it with candles, which he lighted in honor of Christ's birth. He attached lighted candles to a small evergreen tree, trying to simulate the reflections of the starlit heaven---the heaven that looked down over Bethlehem on the first Christmas Eve. Obviously for safety sake, Christmas lights have replaced candles.

Late in the Middle Ages, Germans and Scandinavians placed evergreen trees inside their homes or just outside their doors to show their hope in the forthcoming spring. Our modern Christmas tree evolved from these early traditions so it follows that evergreen trees being placed inside homes and buildings and even outside did have other meanings other that which Martin Luther envisioned.

The Christmas tree tradition most likely came to the United States with Hessian troops during the American Revolution, or with German immigrants to Pennsylvania and Ohio. The Christmas tree market was born in 1851 when Catskill farmer Mark Carr hauled two ox sleds of evergreens into New York City and sold them all. By 1900, one in five American families had a Christmas tree, and 20 years later, the custom was nearly universal.

If Martin Luther’s reasons for placing candles on the evergreen trees was to symbolize the stars of heaven that were seen on the night of Jesus Christ’s birth, why can’t they simply be regarded nowadays as a means of adding beauty to the trees? Admittedly, placing angels on the tree or a lighted star at the top of the tree are definitely symbolic of the Nativity Scene but beautiful glass balls are not nor are any other decorations.

If the Jews and the Muslims and any others of varying beliefs want to celebrate this holiday season by putting up decorations in public places during this time of the year, let them do it but they shouldn’t be objecting to anyone putting up Christmas trees in public places if the purpose of the display is to remind everyone who sees them, that it is evidence that we wish upon all people, peace and goodwill.

A few days after the grinch in the Toronto courthouse told the staff there that the tree had to be removed, the Attorney General of Ontario ordered that the tree was to be put back were it was. He also said that in the new year that he would hold meetings to decide whether Christmas trees could be placed in provincial public buildings. The premier of Ontario quickly said that there will be no such meetings and that Christmas trees can be placed in such public buildings during the Christmas season.

Dishonest law students

Dahn Batchelor's Opinions

A number of years ago,a law school in Toronto learned that a large number of law students were cheating on their exams. This is a copy of a letter I sent to the editor of a large newspaper in Toronto about my concerns of such behavior.

I am deeply concerned about the discovery that a great many University of Toronto law students had chosen to mislead law firms with respect to their marks at the law school. This places the law firms in a disadvantageous position; that is not knowing whether or not the applicants are as qualified as they claim to be.

A letter written by more than 50 law students to their law professor, although not condoning this kind of conduct, said that increased tuition, an emphasis on corporate jobs and the constant barrage of recruiting, creates an environment where some students might feel pressures to cheat.

All of us feel pressures to cheat. The pressures of everyday living can cause all of us at some time or another to exaggerate to some degree about our qualities in order to get ahead.

But suppose a doctor applies for a position in a hospital in which he really isn’t qualified to handle. And suppose he gets the job based on his lies. And suppose his patient dies because he didn’t have the qualifications to do such a complicated operation. Would we forgive him because after all, the pressures of life caused him to lie about his qualifications?

Suppose a man applies for a job as a life guard and he has the necessary live-saving training, awards and experience but he neglects to mention that he suffers from nerve damage to one of his arms. And suppose while trying to rescue a drowning person, he fails because his bad arm hasn’t enough strength in it to be put to proper use. Should we forgive him because he needed a job?

We put a great deal of faith in lawyers and trust them with our freedom, our peace of mind and our money. That is why we expect them to be men and women of integrity.

A young law student who chooses to cheat and lie his way into his profession is not a person of integrity. Simply put, such a person is a liar and a cheat. I am forced to ask a rhetorical question. “Are you prepared to put your freedom, your peace of mind and your money into the hands of a lawyer who would lie to you and cheat you simply because he has succumbed to the pressures of life?”

I think the law students in their collective letter said it best when they said, and I quote; “Certainly the individual choice of each student to cheat is beyond justification. A person’s morals are truly tested when temptation is high and these students failed the test.” unquote.

There are enough bad apples in the lawyer’s bin already without having to pile in more rotten apples. These students who are found to have failed the integrity test, should be expelled from their law school. Those students who didn’t lie and cheat with reference to their marks, who approached the prospective law firms with their integrity intact, are to be complimented. They are made of the right stuff. They will develop into the kind of lawyers that we will feel comfortable with when everything we have that is dear to us, is in their capable hands.

The Law Society removes rotten apples after they have been in the bin too long. I think the law school should remove the rotten apples before they are placed in the bin. To do otherwise, is to not care about the quality of the bin.