Dear Sir,

The Brenda Martin case has sparked a tragedy.

Can one say that Mexico (the defendant) has had an opportunity to present its case in its own language and in a transparent forum, like all good first world justice systems?  Absolutely not!  Judgment has been passed on the basis of   a) countless television, radio, and print reports of a weeping Brenda, who is constantly given such media access by the Mexican authorities, b) politically motivated shenanigans executed by our marvelous Tory and Liberal parties not too proud to use Brenda as a political football, and c) a western-style media that focuses mostly on what will sell – “damsel in distress” is a good headline, especially if not accompanied by too many attention-draining facts.

So let’s have a brief look at some of these facts.  While I personally believe that Brenda is at least guilty of being naïve, there are nonetheless plenty of reasons to see why suspicion from the authorities would reasonably fall on her.  I have had the dubious pleasure of seeing much of the evidence that originally caused her to be charged – bank records showing transfers from offshore accounts in Belize, an apparent severance package that was at least 5-10 times greater than any imaginable amount by Mexican standards, and a 10,000-dollar investment in the scam, probably unwittingly.  The most incriminating item, however, was probably the ongoing relationship between Brenda and Waage while he was in jail, which resulted in the return of her 10,000 via an offshore account.  Only her naivete can satisfactorily explain how she could think these funds were legitimate.

My point is not that she is guilty or innocent.  I simply wish to make it clear that we have listened almost exclusively to the court of public opinion.  The witches of Salem and the victims of the KKK fully understood the concept.

Now to some of the facts about Mexico.  First, I must express considerable surprise at one letter writer’s comment:  “In Canada, judges are not free to simply act out their whims.”  This is quite simply rubbish.  As any experienced Canadian courtroom lawyer will tell you, judgments are constantly made that contradict facts or logic, and are based on judges’ or magistrates’ whims, intuition, or mood of the day.  We deceive ourselves when we think otherwise.  The major benefit offered by our system, however, is that the judgment is somewhat transparent - i.e. we get to publicly witness such wisdom or foolishness.

By contrast, the current Mexican system is not transparent.  There are no courtrooms as such.  The system relies on huge volumes of written evidence.  The lack of transparency is a serious weakness, which inevitably leads to charges of influence peddling.  However, the requirement for excessive examination of over 20,000 pages of material (in the case of Brenda), can hardly be termed a “whim”.  Even the final judgment involved hundreds of pages.

Mexico is a work in progress with a bright future.  The country has a lot to fix, but as Calderon has said:  “If you see dust in the air, don’t mind us, we’re cleaning the house.”

A country that once had a corrupt electoral system, is now even the envy of the New York Times.  Yes, Canada, Mexico’s is cleaner, more transparent, and more efficient than Canada’s.

A land that was peopled by a tiny rich oligarchy and a huge lower class, now has a middle class that is larger than the entire population of Canada.  Mexico has successfully opened up its “old boy” banking system so that a staggering one million new cars are sold here every year, and countless new housing developments are opening up the “Mexican Dream” to millions.

A nation that once had little to be proud of with its transportation systems and infrastructure, now has more four-lane superhighways than Canada and a luxury bus system second to none (unlike Canada’s antiquated and regulated Greyhound bus system).  Calderon has recently allocated billions for a huge expansion of the port and highway system.  And lastly, deregulation of the airlines has opened up cheap and accessible travel to practically everyone.

This country stands accused of having an outdated justice system.  This too is changing, and in a very dramatic way.  Congress and the Senate have just passed sweeping justice reforms that will put to rest the Napoleonic Code.  The presumption of innocence will be the law, and oral and courtroom hearings will guarantee transparency.  It will take several years to implement all of this - building courtrooms, changing law books, and retraining lawyers, but when it is fully implemented, perhaps the New York Times will once again muse on what lessons we might learn from Mexico.

Anthony (Tony) Wilshere, president, Canadian Club of Lake Chapala