Safest place in the world?

Carl Schubring, a former editor of the Fort Frances Times, jokingly told me the following story.
When the community had a sole lawyer, the poor lawyer could barely put food on the table for his family. When a second lawyer appeared on the scene, together they comfortably could feed their families.
When a third came into the community, all made a very good living.
I remembered this story in reading about the fact our community does not have a full-time sitting judge. Back then, there was a magistrate and district judge in Fort Frances.
I also remembered that a judge in Fort Frances took the newspaper to task because it was felt that in not covering court, it appeared that justice was not happening in our community. Then a local businessman asked me the following question a few weeks ago: “Do the courts operate in Fort Frances and is anyone charged other than with MNR offences?”
Part of the argument for eliminating the judge in Fort Frances is that the number of cases coming before the courts has declined. And with that decline, the Ontario Attorney General no longer feels it is necessary to have a sitting judge in the community.
And court now only takes place according to Bearskin’s flight schedule.
We already have fewer lawyers in the community, and several are reaching an age where retirement beckons. Fewer lawyers mean fewer cases before the courts. It may be another reason for the province to reduce court time in our community since there are fewer lawyers to represent those charged or needing the assistance of the court.
And because of that, it appears that because justice now has to be scheduled, restraining orders, family law issues, and other legal issues, and people needing those services, now find they have to travel to Kenora or Thunder Bay. And that leads to a reduction in the need for a judge to be located in Fort Frances.
After all, why pay for a resident judge in Fort Frances when people are ready to pay to travel to get legal court support.
If there are fewer charges being dished out by police, is that in response to fewer officers on the job? And if that were to be the case, having even fewer officers would mean a reduction in crime.
A reduction in crime would find fewer lawyers around. And with fewer lawyers, the need for judges also would be reduced. It’s a vicious circle.
It becomes obvious. The province can reduce the number of police officers, which, in turn, would reduce the number of cases before the courts, which would reduce the number of judges needed.
Indeed, it would go a long way to helping the provincial government balance its budget.
And statistics would prove that Ontario is the safest place to live in the world because it would have the fewest recorded crimes because no one was there to record them, or hear them.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail