An all-party committee was
convened to investigate the pressure on the Justice System after it was
pressured to change its decision on a criminal matter.
Chairperson:
Opening remarks: We are gathered here today to decide whether there was
pressure imposed on a representative of the justice system, to change a
decision that was already made. Before we begin let me just say this, this
committee is a committee of honourable people who will do their best to define
pressure. Each member will have five
minutes to give their thoughts on pressure. It will be done by the number
already allocated to you. So let us begin. First member, you are first to
speak.
First Member: I
believe unseemly and intense pressure was put upon the justice member by saying
jobs will be lost if those charged with breaking the law don’t get a break.
Chairperson: Could
you please change the words “don’t get a break” into “jobs are at stake”? And “unseemly and intense pressure,” to
“friendly pressure” You will do this; thank you, First Member.
Second Member: I
believe the real problem is this: an election was due to be held; therefore, it
was appropriate that nice and firm pressure was put upon the justice system so
that the right and proper decision could be made.
Third Member:
Objection; not everyone is happy about the words “nice and firm pressure.” I
would say it was more like strong arm pressure to pervert and interfere in the
justice system and let criminals off the hook.
Chairman: Objection
is accepted. Could Third Member please delete “let criminals off the hook” and
“pervert and interfere in the justice system” and change “strong arm pressure”
to “acceptable pressure.” You will,
under protest. Excellent, Third Member;
thank you.
Fourth member: It
appears to me that we live in a law-abiding country, and that a little
comfortable pressure is acceptable when we must change the law to break the
law. After all, jobs are important, and so what if a corporation gets off with
bribery, fraud or corruption, and there is interference in the justice system? At least the people the company employs, and
those that get its donations to their parties, will still have a source of
income. Does that not make sense?
Chairperson: Fourth
member, I think you expressed your thoughts on this matter very well. I am not
pressuring you, but do you have to be so explicit in apparently promoting
pressure to break the law? Therefore, I
ask that we expunge your comments so that you can rethink your remarks. Agreed?
You accept! Thank you, Fourth Member.
Fifth Member:
First of all, let me say this: two wrongs do not make a right. But reputable pressure
appropriately applied can be helpful, especially if it gets the law off the
hook for doing the right thing and jobs are saved for the middle class. Heck,
laws are made to be broken, so why not break the law and save the jobs and the
lawbreakers? Surely that makes sense in this law-abiding country?
Chairperson: Thank
you for your input Fifth Member. You are
right about “appropriate pressure” being “helpful.” We are a law abiding
country as you say, and two wrongs don’t make a right. But the law is the law,
and it must not be broken unless the circumstances are exceptional. Which
raises the question: Are these circumstances exceptional? That is the question?
Sixth Member: So
far I believe the remarks have been very pertinent and sensible, even though we
agree to disagree. Pressure properly or improperly applied is still pressure,
and pressure for a good cause is always praiseworthy. Still, pressure is
rampant in everyday life. Pressure to lie, pressure to break the law, pressure
to pervert justice, pressure to get elected, pressure with threats, hounding a
person with pressure, pressure to get up in the morning, pressure to go to
work, pressure to work overtime, pressure to pay bills, pressure to mow the
lawn, pressure to shovel the snow off the sidewalk, pressure to go to the
toilet, pressure to not pressure. In fact I see pressure here, there, and everywhere.
Pressure can be a good thing, even if some think it is a bad thing, when there
is pressure to interfere by those in positions of power. I believe positive pressure makes pressure
successful. Though if it is unsuccessful there can be consequences for those
applying pressure illegally, or there should be.
Chairperson: Sorry
Sixth Member, I am afraid your time
is up. I hope I don’t leave you feeling pressured. Did I just make a pun? [Much
laughter ensues among the committee.] Your dissertation on pressure was admirable,
and has given us food for thought on the pressures of life. Now we must pressure
on; oops, I mean press on to the next member.
Seventh Member: That was an eye-opening monologue on pressure by the
honourable member. Too bad he ran out of time, because he seemed to have much more
to say on all kinds of pressure. Still, we all must obey the rules and the time
allotted even if we are pressured. My feelings on this matter are this: I
believe pressure is a great help in getting to the root of the problem. We are
doing this with great clarity and without pressure. Therefore I say if the law can be bent but
not broken to facilitate justice for everybody, including those charged, so be
it. Then let us do that, because we must continue to protect democracy, jobs, and
the middle class in this law-abiding land of pressure. And pressure, I believe, appears to have been
mandatory and pliable in this matter of the rule of law.
Chairperson: That concludes our work on pressure for today. Thank
you all for your excellent input on pressure. I am sure it will go a long way
in having the people hopefully understand the meaning of pressure and the work
we do. Democracy is always under pressure, but at least we live in a law-abiding
country that believes in the rule of law.
And what could be better than that?
Stephen J.
Gray
March 3,
2019.
