iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Chris Selley’s headline is an opinionated criticism of a B.C. Supreme Court decision involving the Drug User Liberation Front (DULF), not a neutral legal finding. His argument turns on a line he attributes to Justice Catherine Murray: “Fact: There is a need for non-medicalized safer supply.” The underlying reasons were not available to verify that quotation or the ruling’s details independently.
What is the column about?
Selley’s column examines a B.C. Supreme Court proceeding involving DULF and Justice Catherine Murray. It criticizes the decision’s treatment of a proposition about non-medicalized safer supply as a “fact.” The title’s claim that judges cannot tell what a fact is is Selley’s rhetorical judgment; it should not be read as an established conclusion about the judge, the court, or the legal system.
The official B.C. Supreme Court directory lists Madam Justice Catherine Murray and gives her appointment date as October 19, 2016.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What does Selley say the court decided?
According to Selley’s account, Murray held that section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act violated rights protected by sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The original judgment was not located for this article, so that description, the precise legal reasoning, and any orders should be treated as reported by the column rather than independently verified.
#1 Best Overall
The column also attributes this sentence to Murray: “Fact: There is a need for non-medicalized safer supply.” Because the quotation is available here only through Selley’s reproduction, it should not be treated as checked against the judge’s reasons.
What is the disagreement over “fact”?
Selley’s objection is to the apparent presentation of a policy proposition as a fact. That framing raises a distinction between different kinds of statements: an evidentiary finding about what is happening, a judgment about what people need, and a conclusion about whether a particular policy is effective. The wording reproduced in the column does not, by itself, establish which meaning the court intended or what evidence supported it.
Nor does a constitutional ruling automatically settle every policy question about safer supply. Whether a law is constitutionally valid is a legal question; whether a program achieves its intended outcomes is an empirical and policy question. The column’s account alone does not supply enough detail to assess the evidence or the court’s full analysis on either point.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWhat remains unverified?
- The judgment’s exact wording and reasoning: the original reasons were not located, so the quotation and Selley’s account have not been checked against the court document.
- The formal outcome and procedural status: the available material does not establish the exact orders, whether the decision remains in force, or whether there have been subsequent proceedings.
- The column’s description of the ruling’s length: Selley calls it 22,000 words, but that count has not been independently checked.
- Broader claims about safer supply: the column’s policy assertions are not independently substantiated here and should not be mistaken for a comprehensive evidence review.
The B.C. Supreme Court explains that released reserved judgments are posted on its website and that a formal order is the ruling’s formal expression. That general guidance does not confirm the result or status of this particular DULF matter. See the court’s judgments information.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #3
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
