Kidnapping is no longer a crime in Canada, as long as the kidnapper believes that the kidnapping is necessary. This is true even if the kidnapper admits to the crime, engages in conspiracy to commit the kidnapping, plans it for weeks in advance, and flees the country. The rule of law no longer applies in Canada, our socialist neighbor to the north. Instead, political correctness prevails. It has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is the “feelings and beliefs” of the kidnapper that matter above all else, including the rule of law and common sense.
According to the National Post, “A woman who became an international fugitive when she abducted her seven-year-old triplets and fled to Mexico was found not guilty by reason of necessity….”
“In the weeks prior to her flight from Stratford on Oct. 14 last year, she cashed in her RRSPs and the children’s education funds and cleaned out her bank account, withdrawing $56,000. She confided her plan to her mother. And she was found living with the children in Acapulco in January, 2001.
But under a provision of Canada’s Criminal Code, parents who abduct their children to protect them from imminent harm can be found not guilty by reason of necessity.
In order to reach a not-guilty verdict, the judge or jury must find that the parent honestly believed their children were in danger of harm; that in an objective sense abduction was necessary; and that the harm inflicted by the abduction was proportionate to the harm being fled.
The jury hearing Ms. Vandenelsen’s case was also asked to consider what other remedial steps she was aware of or could have taken in the circumstances.
Ms. Vandenelsen testified that she fled with the children because she feared she was about to have her access to them terminated at a hearing scheduled for Oct. 23. She argued that being deprived of their mother would cause the triplets irreparable harm, and thus, she was trying to protect them by spiriting them away.”
In other words, kidnapping one’s own children (a felony) is not even a crime if the kidnapper fears that the court may have good reason to terminate access to them in the future. Pre-emptive kidnapping to avoid legal consequences in a court of law is now legal in Canada, under limited circumstances.
It is not too surprising that such a fallacious defense was presented in this case in light of the specious provision of Canadian law that allows it, but it is unconscionable that a jury would actually agree with it and deliver a not guilty verdict in what was widely considered to be a slam-dunk kidnapping case.
Of course, there’s usually much more to the story than actually makes it to the jury, and this case is no exception. Consider the following not-so-minor details:
“What the jury did not hear was that custody of the children was awarded to Mr. Merkley because the judge had serious reservations about Ms. Vandenelsen’s conduct as a mother.”
“”There is clear evidence in this case of the existence of personality traits, which, if not controlled by the defendant, have the potential of destroying the emotional well-being of the children,” wrote Justice Robert Abbey of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.”
“…one psychiatrist…was so appalled at the way Ms. Vandenelsen emotionally abused her children that he concluded her access should be reduced to special occasions only.”
The kidnapper’s defense: “Feeling that she could never win in the courts, Ms. Vandenelsen decided her only recourse was to flee.” She was probably 100% correct, and for good reason. Fleeing itself is not a crime, but kidnapping and then fleeing is, or at least it was until very recently.
Consider the behavior of the judge in the case:
“In an unusual charge to the jury, Justice James Donnelly appeared to endorse Ms. Vandenelsen’s position.”
“Ms. Vandenelsen acted in developing circumstances and a swirl of powerful emotions,” he said in his charge to the jury. “She was involved in a high-stakes contest. At issue was a precious asset, the formative years and the welfare of her children.”
In other words, since she was under a lot of stress and possibly about to lose access to her children, the jury was essentially instructed by the judge to acquit the admitted kidnapper. In some sections of society, including public education, this tactic is known by the popular euphemism of “recognizes the correct answer when shown.” In a court of law this is known as malfeasance when committed by a judge, but one cannot call a spade a spade in Canada, or any other PC arena.
The most telling detail was saved for last. Three Canadian women and one man were charged under similar circumstances, with only one conviction. Guess which one?
“…only three other similar cases in Canada since the abduction charge and its defence were added to the Criminal Code in the early 1980s. One woman was conditionally discharged, another was acquitted and one man was convicted.” Not only is sophistry alive and well in Canadian family court, it is also politically correct since the “necessity” defense is apparently only a viable one for female kidnappers. What a shocker.