After years of writing letters to the Editor, the Times & Transcript has asked me to write a weekly column in this newspaper.

That’s somewhat ironic, given the fact that my father was a columnist/reporter for this newspaper 60 years ago before he traveled the Maritime path to Ontario to write for the Windsor Star, the Chatham News and then on to the Toronto Star and the Star Weekly as a reporter, columnist and editor.

I’m not sure whether my invitation to write for the Times & Transcript is a compliment or an attempt to neutralize my point of view but my inclination is to accept the former and pursue the latter.

A few days ago, a British Columbian Supreme Court Justice ruled that Ripudam Singh Macik and Ajaib Singh Bacrii were not guilty of bombing an Air India passenger jet 20 years ago. I remember being outraged at the fact that Sikh militants, determined to avenge the killings of thousands of their own in a 1984 slaughter by Indian Government troops, had brought their grievance to Canada.

More than 300 people died over the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Ireland in that tragedy. Others died in a second but related event in a Japanese airport moments before the crash. I would not pretend to argue the merits for or against the Sikh’s right or need to avenge the killings by Indian Government troops because I don’t know enough about the circumstance to justify a position.

I do know that Canada and Canadians have lived together in relative peace for more than 100 years. Wars between the English and the French, between Canada and the United States have long since been resolved or staid without resort to bloodshed.

That other societies have been unable to do so is unfortunate but provides no justification for importing their unresolved issues and/or violence to Canada. The two men charged with masterminding the Air India bombing have been set free by Justice Josephson. I have no doubt that his decision was rendered with the utmost conviction and legal rationale but I find it difficult to agree with him.

I have a problem with the fact that a major crime, a horrendous terrorist act goes unresolved after 20 years of investigation and trial. I have a problem with the fact that a single individual, Justice Josephson is left with the decision to convict or let free. I have a problem with the fact that one man is left to determine whether the testimony of a witness or witnesses is conclusive or credible. A jury might have arrived at the same conclusion but surely the unanimous decision of 12 people would be more credible than the learned or scholarly decision of one man.

Media commentators and some politicians argue that conflict between CSIS and the RCMP excuses the presentation of conflicting or inconclusive evidence. Some argue that such conflict justifies a failed or inconclusive decision.

Others suggest that because victims were visibly different in their appearance, there was and is no appetite in Canada for conviction. Still others suggest that the tribal wars of far off lands are not meat for Canada’s justice system and that Canadians should be indifferent to the outcome of a criminal case that indulges the grievances of such warfare.

To top it off, Canada’s Minister of Justice defends the outcome of this case with the conclusion that weaknesses in a 20 year old relationship between CSIS and the RCMP justify tolerance of a questionable legal outcome.

On the one hand, we have a Justice of British Columbia’s Supreme Court deciding whether or not two men conspired to destroy the Air India flight and its passengers. On the other hand, we have the families of 329 passengers and crew devastated by the fact Justice Josephson is unable to render a guilty decision.

The Justice has concluded that evidence fell short of requisite standards of ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’. Survivors have concluded that 20 years in the pursuit of justice and closure is futile.

My view is that the legal infrastructure that directed the gathering of evidence and oversaw the prosecution of defendants in this case was flawed. Further, that our inability to find closure in the Air India bombing has weakened our credibility as a global player in the fight against terrorism.

More importantly, we may have inadvertently created a perception of safe haven for terrorists. Perhaps worse, we have failed to (a) defend the right of Canadians, regardless of colour or heritage, to travel our airways with impunity and (b) to demonstrate to Canadians that we will defend our institutions against intrusion by non-Canadian conflict.

I’m not a lawyer but it’s my opinion that the Attorney General of British Columbia should appeal Justice Josephson’s decision. If there is no ground for legal appeal, then Canada’s Minister of Justice should appeal as a matter of public interest.

Justice Josephson’s decision is being second guessed by the media and panned by the survivors. A public inquiry will resolve nothing. An appeal would serve the public interest by upholding the basis for Justice Josephson’s decision or by overturning it. Regardless of the outcome, an appeal would confirm that justice has been done and tell the Country and the world that Canadians have no tolerance for the import of hereditary violence or revenge.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He is a former Advertising Executive and Magazine Publisher, a past Governor of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, past President of a National Publishers’ Association, political advisor and tournament organizer.