Not Stephen Harper.
Not even Paul Martin.
It’s Beverley McLachlin, Supreme Court Justice:
“The rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion,” said a prepared text of the lecture Judge McLachlin gave to law students at Victoria University of Wellington late last week.
“I believe that judges have the duty to insist that legislative and executive branches of government conform to certain established and fundamental norms, even in times of trouble,” she said.
Nine unelected (essentially) life-long appointees who weren’t even vetted by Parliament before taking on their positions, telling us what to do if a mere majority of them decide it’s right, regardless of what the law actually says.
Why bother even having elections?
Full post at Angry in the Great White North.
Didn’t Ted byfield give canada til 2025?
Why vote when you have the supreme court?
“…even in times of trouble,” she said.
She is the judge: she defines the times of troubles; she defines the law in times of troubles; she is the Law.
Ominous words. These are ominous words, also: ex post facto laws. >>>
In The Constitution of Liberty, F. A. Hayek (1960: 205-20) notes that some coercion, while unavoidable in a civil society, can be minimized by requiring that coercive actions comply with general rules that are known in advance by individuals. If individuals know the law, they can base their actions upon established rules and minimize the ill effects of coercion. Hayek states that not all legislative enactments will satisfy the three criteria of what he calls “true law”–generality, certainty, and equality. He argues that true law provides the general rules which minimize coercion and that legislative enactments which do not satisfy these criteria are objectionable. He writes that the law must be general, that it must be known and certain, and that it should apply equally to all. A necessary condition for the law to be known and certain is a prohibition on ex post facto laws. After all, the law can hardly be known and certain if new laws can be made to apply retroactively to actions already performed.
From a policy standpoint, as Hayek’s analysis indicates, ex post facto laws are riddled with problems. >> more
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-4.html
Peace ,Order and Good Government.One out of three right now.
Orders ?, you have your orders!!!
country now run by Uberjudges appointed by the Uberminister.
Who needs democracy or a constitution when you have seven intelligent people to decide your country’s future. Don’t you want to be more like China?
I am digusted, truly disgusted but then again look at how they got there. Acountability folks. at least in the US of A Supreme Court nominees are vetted by the legislative bodies before they ascend to the heavens.
BTW, Who is paying for her holiness’ trip to New Zealand?
Resistance is futile! You will be come one of us!
While I agree that there should be a much more open process in the selection of judges, the existence of “unwritten constitutional norms” is critical to a functioning democracy. For example, as the right side of the blogosphere, correctly, noted, Paul Martin staged an unconstitutional coup when he decided to keep governing having been defeated in the House.
The point is not that the Supreme Court is a bad thing; rather it is that a Supreme Court packed with Liberal appointees is a bad thing. And even they get things right from time to time – SSM and privately funded health care are two examples where the Court took a position which, while it might not have been popular, defended individual rights against the collective. We need to encourage that while working towards a more transparent appointment process.
ferrethouse ….. you’ve got it all wrong. China had a “Gang of Five”. Canada has a “Gang of Seven”. We are much more democratic by a score of 7 to 5.
McLachlin’s speech is one of the truly scary texts now circulating in Canada. We are fast approaching a Leninist state, where the vanguard of the Party rule through the courts, the civil service and the political appointees who can steer the economy and investment. Already they are demonstrating that they are above the law because they make it—-see the restricted mandate given to Gomery, and the statute of limitations on election fraud that now protects most of the obvious criminal activity around Adscam.
If, as the Grope and Flail was crowing on the front page this morning, the liberals are cementing an absolute lock on Ontario, then we may be looking at one of the last real elections in this country. If Martin and the gang get back in, particularly with a majority, this country is on its last legs as a democracy governed by the rule of law. Break up and re-formation as three or four autonomous states in a loose trade and defence pact is about the only way to salvage anything from the wreckage the Liberals have made of our inheritance.
Inbox: FW: Scott Reid: “Alberta can blow me!”
Subject: Scott Reid: “Alberta can blow me!”
Scott Reid: Alberta can blow me!
Western Standard November 28, 2005
Call it a slip of the tongue – or perhaps a slur of the tongue is more like it. In any case, Westerners are bound to consider it proof positive of the federal government’s contempt for this part of the country. In the wee hours following the always well-lubricated Parliamentary Press Gallery dinner at Ottawa’s Museum of Civilization on Oct. 22, Scott Reid, press secretary for the Prime Minister’s Office, announced to Calgary Herald columnist Don Martin, “Alberta can blow me.”
Martin and Reid had both retired to the National Press Club after the annual roast, in which partisanship is typically put aside while politicians engage in a bit of self-deprecation. Martin wanted to know when Reid would make good on a vow to arrange an interview with the prime minister, which was originally promised for the spring. When faced with the fairly sensible argument that the PM might want to reach out to an Albertan newspaper audience, Reid spat some unprintable words at Martin before offering the province that other suggestion, as mentioned above. The drunken Reid concluded by shouting at Martin what is apparently a rule in this government’s media strategy: “You’re not getting anything because you’re with the Calgary Herald”.
Reid did not return calls seeking further comment and has not made any public statements on the incident – including any offer of apology. Martin confirmed to the Western Standard that the event did indeed happen, just as it was first reported on the political satire website eFrank (the latest incarnation of Frank magazine), adding that he was mortified by the publicity the incident is receiving. However, he decline to comment further, saying only, “I prefer what is said in bars to stay in bars.”
Paul Jackson, a columnist with the Calgary Sun who spent 11 years covering politics for the Southam newspaper chain, says that outburst, in an unguarded moment, shows how the federal Liberals really feel about Alberta. “These guys talk about national unity and bringing the country together, but all they do is use Alberta to split it apart,” Jackson says. He suspects Reid hasn’t apologized because he has the blessing of his boss, Prime Minister Paul Martin. “The Liberals will sacrifice Alberta to win the next election, just like Jean Chr�tien did in 2000, just like Paul Martin did in 2004 when he demonized Ralph Klein, saying he had a hidden agenda with Stephen Harper, and he’ll do it again”, says Jackson. The worst part is he’ll probably be entirely sober when he does.
Comments like that will lead to CSL’s flags blowing in Alberta when Albertan’s finally take their toys and go home. I don’t know which is worse – Alberta’s shrug over this type of comment or the MSM’s refusal to lead the news with this type of outburst, considering their feigned indignation when a non-Liberal has foolishly spewed politically damaging comments in the past. The excuse would probably be it was an ‘off the record’ comment but you know MSM would be riding it like they stole it if they could get a Conservative to somehow slight anything or anyone this way. Maybe CBC will wait until a week before election day to let us know about Mr Ried’s comments the way they did with Randy White last time out. Yeah, that’s it.
And, you’re surprised??? If you’ve seen Reid on TV his demeanour is just plain arrogant and you want to shove your fist down his big mouth. I’d try, but he’s 30-some years younger than me and a damned sight more fit. But, I’d sure like to.
Scott Reid typifies the Liberal Arrogance. If you’ve seen this clot on TV, you want to cram your shoe down his throat. I’d try, but he’s thrity-some years younger and fitter than me.
“The rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms”
No need to read any more words beyond that. The rule of law can be whatever that one of these learned judges decides it is.
And only these same judges have the extra-ordinary eyesight that allows them to read “unwritten constitutional norms”!
Scott Reid is an idiot and the good judge’s statements show precisely why the judiciary should not be appointed by the PM.
Jay Currie said:
“SSM … where the Court took a position which, while it might not have been popular, defended individual rights against the collective.” Please explain your meaning? >>>>>>>
2004-DEC-08: Supreme court released opinion: The Supreme Court of Canada released its non-binding opinion on the federal government’s references. It suggested that:
bullet The Government of Canada alone has the power to decide whom may marry.
bullet The government’s proposed legislation which would allow both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to marry is constitutional.
bullet Clergy can discriminate against same-sex engaged couples by refusing to marry them in “sacred space.”
They successfully dodged Prime Minister Paul Martin’s question whether the existing marriage act is unconstitutional. More details.>>>
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marb26.htm
Mike Duffy is going to have more about Reid’s comments on Countdown – 5 PM Pacific, so I guess 8 EST.
If the Tories win, can they have people removed from the bench or do we have to wait until these parasites are fossilized before they can be pried from the benches?
Canadian Gum Registry
Exhibit # 789,098,435:
The casket of Sepehr “Danny” Fatulahzadeh-Rabti is carried from a Scarborough mosque yesterday. Police have charged former Westview Centennial basketball star Jodie Wheatle, who was out on bail on gun charges, and are hunting another man. >>> more http://www.rapp.org/url/?ES06E0GQ
torontosun.com
(Child Care) The Liberal/Socialist Way!
1. Announce 5 Billion dollars for child care…
2. Build or buy or lease (from loyal liberal) office building in Ottawa…
3. Populate building with loyal liberals, friends and family…
4. Demand provinces do the same…
5. Denounce all who disagree…
…It’s now the Provinces turn…
1. Announce joining federal child care plan.
2. Copy steps 2 and 3 above…(with provincial flavour).
3. Announce only NOT-FOR-PROFIT centres to be funded.
4. Pass legislation all child care workers, must be government certified/accredited.
5. Force unionization on workers
6. Ban all non-accredited babysitters.
After all the thousands of bureaucrats take their cut, I suspect there will be around
100 million left to give to needy mothers looking for child care…
…Wow 100 million out of 5 billion…
Hiring your little sister or mother-in-law to babysit, will be against the law.
Striking child care workers will become all to common.
We can’t let the liberal/socialists create another gigantic do nothing paper pushing
bureaucracy, for their friends and family, with jobs for life.
The conservatives are offering a better way..!!!
Stand up for Canada..!!
Long live truth justice and the Stephen Harper way.!
This is just about another bungled bureaucracy. It’s about getting kids early and teaching them the Liberal way/Liberal values/all things socialist. I think it’s far more insidious than anybody here can even imagine.
maz2–that can’t be right–isn’t basketball and other sports supposed to make these criminals NOT want to shoot others? I thought that is what Miller and Cotler’s great announcement was all about–more sports, less crime, more tax dollars thrown at the criminal element–and now this–it disproves their statements.
As for the SCOC now dictating laws in Canada–democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people–no where in that statement does it state the SCOC, the 9 un-elected Judges, rule this country–even they should not be able to read in judicial activism into that statement.
And what are they gonna do to keep you from continuing to have family babysitters? It would require a degree of surveillance worthy of a police state. The already burgeoning underground economy will have a field day with this one.
Sorry, posted that one in the wrong thread. My bad!
Watch out: Janie Taber is in the field, aiding and abetting AdScam Martin; she says Martin is “stark” quality. Methinks she meant to say Martin is scary. >>>
Choices between himself and Harper ‘stark’, Martin says
Globe and Mail – 3 hours ago
By JANE TABER. St. John�s � Liberal Leader Paul Martin took on Stephen Harper Monday over his new child care policy, telling Canadians the choices between him and the Conservative Leader are “stark”. >>>> via googlenews
Yes’M Miss Beverly.
Don’t be dumbasses. If we stuck to the letter of the Constitution, our country would cease to function. Do you recall the King-Byng Affair? And if you are going to be complaining about sticking to the letter of the law, why not, you know, *read * the ruling on Quebec secession yourselves?
Unwritten Constitutional principles include federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. Other principles include responsible government and judicial independence.
Well said anon.
Everyone needs to remember, when braying about respect for the constitution, that Canada’s constitution includes the Constitution Acts 1867-1982, the Charter, judicial decisions AND unwritten principles, customs and traditions. These unwritten aspects of our constitution are just as important as the written acts.
Matt.
“These unwritten aspects of our constitution are just as important as the written acts.”
Er, I’m sorry, but that’s simply insane. One can recognize that there are unwritten components of the Canadian constitution, but to say that “conventions” of the unwritten British constitution and its semi-written progeny are “just as” important as legitimately enacted positive law (whether constitutional or statutory) is effectively to hand ALL political power to the judges. Funny how judicial supremacy appears to be one of those unwritten principles, even though it wasn’t before.
But, of course, remember, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
“These unwritten aspects of our constitution are just as important as the written acts.”
Like the unwritten part that everyone knows allows Maggie Trudeau to drink and operate a motor vehicle with what ever blood alcohol level she damn well pleases.
Like that unwritten aspect?
Increasingly it seems the only way this madness will be stopped is either through bloody revolution or the dissolution of Canada. Either of which are better options than Liberals.
Just to add another level to the matter, does anyone realize that come this January, Bev will be the last Conservative justice on the SCC. Mulroney appointed her and Major who is about to retire.
Perhaps you ought to read all of McLachlin’s speech. She was speaking particularly to address certain characteristics of the New Zealand situation which is very different from consitutional law here in Canada. As a matter of fact, she was actualy calling on politicians to recognize the kinds of widely held public opinions and attitudes which the Canadian judiciary sometimes uses to extrapolate and make decisions in areas where the constitutional practice is silent or unclear. She was, in fact, suggesting that the law does need to change and adapt with changes in circumstances and attitudes. This is hardly something to get upset about.
Why bother to have a written constitution at all? Just let the judges make it up as they go along. It’s what they do anyway.
Mark
Ottawa
I was concerned enough about Ms. McLaughlin’s speech that I felt compelled to make my views known to all 301 MP’s. I’d invite you to do the same.
Dear Member of Parliament;
You and your colleagues were chosen by Canadians to enact laws. The Constitution of Canada was carefully crafted to provide guidance for formulation of laws by you, our democratically elected representatives.
Imagine my surprise and dismay then, on reading that Justice Beverly McLauglin – who rather than being elected by voters was appointed without consultation by the Prime Minister, has determined that she rather than the Constitution of Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or elected Members of Parliament, will determine law.
I find Ms. McLaughlins speech declaring that judges must be “emboldend” to override our parliamentary system, chillingly similar to the rise of fascism in Europe in the last century, especially when she suggests that she and her fellow judges are free to make law based on their personal interpretation of Canadian “history, identity, values and legal system”.
In this the Year of the Veteran, I cannot imagine a more insidious threat to freedom. Tens of thousands of Canadians gave their lives in support of democracy, only to find the arrogance of power trumping the safeguards of legislation. Justice McLaughlin and her handful of colleagues must not be allowed to ursurp the power of the democratic process.
Please defend my rights as a citizen of a (so far) democratic country by bringing this issue to the House of Commons.
Regards
Randy O’Donnell
——————————————————————————–
Beverly McLaughlin, in a speech to the Victoria, University in Wellington New Zealand said, “The rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion. There is certainly no guarantee or presumption that a given list of constitutional principles is complete, even assuming the good faith intention of the drafters to provide such a catalogue.”
Ms. McLaughlin set out a blueprint for when judges must rely on unwritten principles which she defined as “norms that are essential to a nation’s history, identity, values and legal system.” She went on to say that, “I believe that judges have the duty to insist that legislative and executive branches of government must conform to certain established and fundamental norms, even in times of trouble.”
Oh give me a break! Read the whole article, please.
“Judge McLachlin listed several unwritten constitutional norms that have evolved into entrenched rights over time, such as the right to not be punished without a trial, to retain counsel and to enjoy the presumption of innocence.”
DO you seriously have a problem with this?
I can’t believe people who post such comments as the ones above are serious. When you’ve got a real problem there will be nobody who will take the time to listen. Get a grip!
It’s funny – in law school I once asked if property rights might be in the unwritten part of the constitution, since they were in the original 1950s Bill of Rights. I was told no – if the government wanted them in there, they’d have been in the 1982 Constitution Act.
Prof Bryden is a prat.
“Bev” is not entirely wrong – some unwritten things are very important, expecially with regard to the functioning of parliament, which has just never been written down, BUT, if the parliament passes a clear statute (like say, regarding minimum sentences), then the Court damn sure better be able to point to the clause in a WRITTEN part of the constitution before they decide to opt out – and not get sniffy because they feel it’s an encroachment on their tradtional prerogatives.