Hello Roy here, I just wanted to let you know that you can listen to the Roy Green Show ad-free on Amazon Music, included with Prime. It's a Jeep 85-year celebration event, 85 years of daring tasks, what if? Like, what if we didn't sacrifice capabilities for comfort or what if nothing? On the road ahead, they'll hold us back.
For decades, we've chased every, what if, why not? Who, where, and how? And the answer? Because we can.
Right now, get 0% financing for up to 84 months on select models, plus eligible customers get $1,850 in Jeep Anniversary bonus cash on all Jeep models. See your Jeep dealer for details. We are inviting friends of the show. People who've been a very significant part of what we've done.
And people I've gotten to know and many of them are now personal friends. And people I respect greatly. We're inviting them to the show we've had several on. We'll have several more.
But I just want to talk about Tim Danson for a moment. Tim has for 30 plus years in the lawyer for the French and Mahofie families, in their battle for whatever justice Canada's fender, friendly system deems acceptable. Tim was also the lawyer for Jim and Anna Stevenson, who's 12 year old son Christopher, was abducted from a Brampton Ontario shopping mall by convicted child sexual psychopath, Joseph Fredericks, who would murder Christopher. During the inquest into Christopher's death, the federal government refused to fund the Stevenson's legal expenses, suggesting federal government lawyers could properly represent the Stevenson's concerns.
So after a program on that issue with Jim Stevenson, Christopher's dad and Tim Danson in the studio with me, the very same day, the federal minister of justice, press secretary called me. And he said, boss wants to talk to you and set you straight. And I said, OK, when you want to do that, well, he's flying down. I was in Hamilton at CHML.
He's flying down tomorrow. He wants to be on your show. Right? Right.
Nine o'clock work for you because that's when we sign on. And he arrived. The federal minister of justice and the attorney general for Canada, Douglas. He was with us for two hours.
And it did not turn out very well for Mr. Lewis, not only for me, but from our callers. I'll give Mr. Lewis all the credit in the world because he called me the next day.
There's more to the story. Maybe we'll get to it. Maybe we won't. But this is the nuts and bolts you need to know.
The next morning, Douglas was on the phone to me on the air saying, we were wrong. And we'll change that. We will fund the legal expenses of the Stevenson family, which had run to $300,000. Their lawyer was Tim Danson.
What you need to know is Mr. Danson had never sent the Stevenson's an invoice. And he's represented the French from all the families for more than 30 years. I'm proud to call him my friend.
Tim, thank you for coming on. It is getting kind of weird here because we're down to the last four and a half shows. But could you begin, please? And tell us a little more about the Christopher Stevens in case because what I remember is the studio appearance with you and Jim and then the Douglas catastrophe.
Well, thank you for inviting me on your show. It's always a privilege and an honor. And I have to say this to you, Roy, into your audience is that because of your advocacy on your show and interviewing politicians in the way that you do so effectively, I'm not sure we would have achieved a lot of our success if it wasn't for you. So, you know, I took my hat to you for the tremendous contribution that you have made in advancing the rights of victims in this country.
It's incredibly admirable. But I wanted to add additional point on the Stevenson inquest. And that is that because of your show and your advocacy. And as I said, this is the moment ago, the way in which you were able to interview so effectively politicians, that actually triggered, I think probably for the first time in Canadian judicial history that has not yet been repeated.
And we're going back to the 1990s that the jury themselves held a news conference on this very same point, which was quite remarkable that they felt that the Stevenson's legal fees ought to be covered. I did the entire five month inquest without payment. And if the government had not changed its position, I would not have been paid and I would not have asked to be paid. So I just think that's an interesting fact.
I think the biggest take-home message from the Stevenson inquest, and I have to keep repeating that we're going back to the early 1990s. When victims right were all but non-existent. And the Stevenson inquest galvanized the issue. Canadians were focused on this.
This young boy who was abducted by Dosephetrics and unspeakable sexual and sadistic crimes and actions committed against him before he died. And the Stevenson inquest really looked at so many issues. And one of the big ones was the complete absence of sharing of information between, in this case, Ontario mental health system, where Joseph Fentric had spent a considerable period of his life in. And the correctional system, which he also spent a considerable period of time.
And so there was no sharing of information that had there been, I believe, Christopher Stevenson would be alive today. But the other thing about the inquest and what it revealed was that, and quite frankly, the recommendations of the jury, and we're going back a number of decades, so excuse me for, I might have my numbers off of it, but I think of something like 58 or 59, whatever it was, recommendations made by the jury, I think like 56 of them became law, which is really unprecedented. Not only with respect to sharing information between, you know, correctional institutions and mental health institutions, but, you know, creating laws such as, you know, a sexual registry for these kinds of offenders. You know, DNA data banks, long term offender legislation.
There was a whole range of issues that we had canvassed and the jury accepted, and as I say have now become law, that truly became a blueprint for legislative change in this country, which we then continued going into the French Mojave Bernardo homoque matter that we can discuss. But all through this, and I think this is really important to say, and for your audience to know and be reminded, is that you were at the forefront of advancing these issues with us. And we really kind of had a partnership, and through your show and your advocacy, and as I say, your very skillful examination of government officials and others, galvanized public opinion across this country that resulted in this legislative change. So I guess the take home message is, and I've said this before, you and I both talked about this, what's worse than losing is not trying.
And if your cause is right, if your cause is just, then you got to give it all you've got. And if you lose, you lose, but at least you tried, and you weren't complacent. And I mean, I think that's what's motivated me, and I know what's motivated you and others, you know, for the last 30, 40 years. And I applaud you for that.
Tim, share your thoughts with us, please. We've talked about specifics, but let's talk about the case where it is, where you fear it may be going, and is it fair to judge the justice system as appearing at least, to favor Bernardo and homoque over French, the French Mojave family. I think that the criticism is well deserved, particularly in terms of an overarching point that I would make is that we need to understand that some 96% of federal offenders have fixed sentences, and so they're going to get out at the two thirds point. And so therefore, you know, rehabilitation in that is, it makes a whole bunch of sense to manage the risk because they're going to get out in any event.
But only three to four percent are lifers, people like Bernardo, and I've never understood why we don't have a completely distinct system, corrections and parole system, for them. And so, you know, Paul Bernardo is a sadistic, sexual psychopath. There is no cure for psychopathy. And so kind of putting them in the same regime as those people with fixed sentences, I find is completely unacceptable.
We, as you indicated in your introduction, we were very disturbed when under cover of darkness, they literally transferred him from a maximum security to a medium security. That was very disturbing to us. We did have a, I guess it's a third parole hearing we've had for Bernardo in November, and we did participate. The government tried to stop us from being there in person, which was appalling.
Again, thanks to you and others, and Canadian Oak Drive, the government reversed its position, and we did attend although it was too late for Donna French to make it, but Debbie Mahofie was able to, and we did present. One of the things that, you know, I find incredible is that the, you know, we brought, we insisted on a dangerous offender application being brought back, you know, in 1995, to declare him a dangerous offender because my view was in 25 years later that it would be to our benefit to not only rely on the fact that he has been sentenced to life for the first time. I mean, I think that he has been sentenced to life imprisonment, but also that he was declared a dangerous offender because the criteria for a dangerous offender is extremely high. And the crown proved all of the elements of a dangerous offender application beyond a reasonable doubt, that's significant, and one of the most respected and distinguished trial judges later to become our Chief Justice, Justice LaSage, found that the crown had proven all of the indicia of dangerous offender, including that he was a psychopath beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yeah, when we were in the hearing room, and we've been bringing access to Information Act request to get this information without success and we're pursuing another one, we hear that there is a psychologist, not a psychiatrist, a psychologist within Corrections Canada, who concluded that Paul Bernardo was not clinically a psychopath. And you know, our position is if we're going to hear that kind of evidence, the public has the right to see it, to see how a psychologist could reach a conclusion different from some of the top psychiatrists in the country and found to have been proven to be a psychopath beyond a reasonable doubt. Paul Bernardo, shockingly, in the course of his parole hearing, he tried to play the role of a victim by taking the position that because he was in what he called solitary confinement for 32 years in a maximum security penitentiary in Millhaven, that that was cruel and unusual punishment under the charter. Can you imagine that this individual, this sadistic sexual psychopath who committed acts of horror on these innocent teenage girls is saying that he was facing torture while he was in jail?
Well, first of all, we don't have solitary confinement. He was on a range in Millhaven and if he wasn't in protective custody, and if he wasn't on that range and he was put into the general population, he truly find out what torture was all about because that's what would have happened to him before he was killed by the general population. So again, it's shocking that we're listening to his testimony about him being tortured and then another interesting development, and I have to say he is exhibiting. I mean, I really believe that the audio recording and the transcript of it should be released to the public.
You can't describe this. You've got to read it. You've got to hear it to see just how sick and dangerous this guy is. But he got into a long explanation as to why he was as he was and he blamed his abuse about his parents.
And he came up with all kinds of stories. The problem with his story, apart from the obvious, is that he just came up with it 32, almost 33 years later, and the timing of it was following the death of both his parents. So his story couldn't be checked. I mean, this is the kind of madness and the talk of rehabilitation and being reintegrated back into the community.
I mean, thank God the parole board rejected it. But to a question that you asked, I'm always concerned about the emphasis that they put on rehabilitation for someone who we know medically, there is no cure for sadistic sexual psychopathy. And I worry that this is part of a cascading from maximum to medium to minimum, because he was asking for escorted tempery absences and then unescorted tempery absences. That's normally what these kinds of offenders get first is they cascade them through the system.
And I was very concerned about how serious it seems that the parole board was considering this. But as I say, they rejected it and we applaud them for that. But it goes to show that we have to be vigilant, never let our guard down, and we will fight this continually as long as he's alive. Is there something we can do all of us in this country to influence the system to be more representative of the needs of the victims and the needs of the victims families.
Well, I think it will number one radio personality such as yourself and other members of the media have to convey the message to the public so the public is informed and educated so they can make their own judgments. I think the public has to speak out loudly to their members of parliament and both federally and provincially. We can't be complacent and we can't be silent. We will be initiating in the next probably the next month another significant access to information, act request where too much is happening in corrections and parole in secrecy.
Things that are unthinkable in our criminal or civil justice system or tribunal system are allowed in the corrections and parole system. And we must have greater transparency and accountability. And we're not asking for any greater transparency and disclosure and accountability than we already have existing in the current justice system as I say for the criminal justice system, civil and tribunal system. So, for example, one example and I mentioned this a moment ago that we want the transcripts and the audio recordings of the parole hearings released to the public so they can see how the system works because these hearings take place in very small rooms because they happen in the penitentiaries.
But it's no different than if it took place in a large courtroom where the public could witness this and the media could witness this for themselves. The public needs to know they have a right to know. And so when we launch this and we will be hopefully retaining some of the top psychiatrists in the world to address the issue of Palmer Nardell's psychopathy. To militant against some of the opinions that are coming out of a correction Canada psychologist to say to the contrary.
And we're going to buttress our access to information act request with that type of expert evidence. And I would hope that when we launch and I expect we'll have a news conference and I hope that Debbie and Donna will be present and I anticipate they will be that the public then, you know, hears our case and speaks out and goes to their politicians and say yes why can't we have this information. This is a public institution. And the other thing is and this is what I find so appalling and I apologize for not mentioning this before because it's important.
The reason why we're not getting access to this information because of the privacy rights of Paul Bernardo and other offenders. We're bringing the same application with respect to, you know, Craig Monroe and Clinton Gail, who murder Toronto police officers. Their privacy rights. Even the legislation says there has to be a wane between the privacy rights of the offender and the public's right to know how let's just use the audio recordings or transcript of the audio recordings at a public parole hearing.
How can that be impressed with the privacy interest when the hearing itself is public and the remedy that Paul Bernardo and others are seeking is a public remedy. That is to be relieved from the full consequences of their life sentence and to be reintegrated back into the community to be with the public. So where do you get a privacy interest? And this is the kind of stuff that we can't stay silent on.
We've got to change the law. Alright, Tim, thank you very much. Thanks for taking the extra time. Thank you.
Well, thanks for having me. And thank you for all the great work you've done. Right? CIFRA Ontario means more police and prosecutors making sure my card doesn't get stolen.
It means building new jails to keep criminals behind bars. And it means there's no need to worry when I play at the park. We're making every corner of Ontario safer to make all of Ontario safer. That's how we protect Ontario for all of us.
Learn how at ontario.ca. Save for Ontario. Paid for by the Government of Ontario.