THE RULE OF LAW OR SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT?

My understanding of the expression Rule of law is that it basically means one law for every person in the country. In other words the law is not supposed to play favourites depending upon one's status, power and prestige. While indeed here in Canada we do have the odd wealthy murderer sentenced to jail the preponderance by far of jailed citizens are poor with little or no means to readily defend themselves professionally when charged with crimes. In the United States it is even more obvious. Canada has a disproportionate number of aboriginals jailed and the U.S. have a disproportionate number of blacks and hispanics in jail. Both money and race do indeed talk. "Carding" is also an example of that here in Canada. Far fewer WASPs get asked to show I.D. illegally then other ethnic groups.

Then there is a failure of the Rule of Law when it comes to obvious crimes such as Theft and Assault versus more subtle white collar crimes. Fraud is a good example. If we are talking a con artist who steals millions of dollars from clients in get rich quick schemes they usually end up getting charged. However at the lower end of the fraud spectrum it seems more likley that the Better Businees Bureay would be involved than the police even in egregious cases.

Here in Woolwich Township (Ontario) we are seeing a reluctance by our Police to enforce the Municipal Elections Act. We are also seeing a huge reluctance by them to even consider more serious charges such as Fraud or Perjury in regards to Election Act stickhandling and avoidance of accountability. It appears to this observer that there is indeed selective enforcement especially when local politicians are involved. Something blatant and obvious and readily understood by the public such as theft will proceed whereas more subtle but still illegal activities are not so likely to.