Bumped. Scroll down for updates.
"It's the season of The Thing That Wouldn't Die."
And this year, the Court Challenges Program is playing the part of Jason...Last month, the Conservative government announced the end of the infamous Court Challenges Program, through which special interest groups, using our tax dollars, launched stunt lawsuits pushing their agendas. Gay "marriage" was the most notorious result. Knowing they could never get their way via the ballot box, activists used the Court Challenges Program to bypass democracy.
Unelected, unaccountable Supreme Court Justices and publicly funded radicals -- not the most desirable combination...
|
It's a blogburst!
Robbing Peter, Robbing Paul Today comes word that the grand-daddy of all self-interest groups, the Canadian Bar Association, is calling for the restoration of the program. Write your MP and tell them to keep this monster dead - or heads will roll! |  |
And more .....
"Too Freekin Obvious"
Taxpayer funded advocacy - more background on the CCP
Unemployed Lawyers?
"It is a tale told by an idiot..."
A tax funded not-for-profit - nice gig!
Dawn of the Dead.
More from Steve Janke, including this;
Ottawa is spending millions to push gay rights and ''stringent'' feminist views of equality by funding legal cases, says a political scientist who has studied the court challenges program.
The money is supposed to go towards ''important court cases that advance language and equality rights guaranteed under Canada's Constitution.''But Ian Brodie of the University of Western Ontario says the court challenges program has made up its mind which groups will get the cash.
''They're heavily funding the one side,'' he said Thursday. ''It happens to be the gay-rights side, the pro-pornography side, the feminist side and the abortion issue.''
Since 1999 the program has adopted a policy of absolute confidentiality, refusing to provide any information on the cases or groups it funds.
Brodie analysed the program prior to 1992 by obtaining records that were available under access to information laws. His study is being published in the June issue of the Canadian Journal of Political Science.
Janke rightly points out that the Harper government deserves kudos for "reject[ing] the temptation to use that tool for themselves."
Unfortunately I have H Fry as my MP so telling her anything is a waste of time.
CCP = Roadkill
Conservative Utopia:
When this story hits the airwaves and the "reporter" asks the "activist" 'just how much money have you made off this program in x-years?'
Canadian Bar Association - another self serving ( professional make work) lobby group.
I agree. Only Big Corporations should be allowed to challenge the constitutionality of our laws.
The Court Challenges Program ended a fine tradition in Canada of only corporations challenging things like Sunday shopping laws, free speech laws (like the important challenge against the colouring of butter and margarine as a matter of free speech), like the right to mass produce and distribute pornography, like the right to broadcast whatever they want whenever they want.
Yup. It was those nefarious disadvantaged "special interest" groups helping out individual cases with no money that have destroyed our culture by calling for equality. For shame.
(By the way, as a purely factual accuracy point, I'm not sure that the unanimous provincial Court of Appeal decisions that found opposite sex marriage only was unconstitutional were in fact funded through CCP.)
Ted
Cerberus
Well, lets all write our mp and two or three others by cc ing and let them know we want this thing to stay dead. I bet the bar ass. buisness is going down hill drastically. Gonna be a long cold winter over at the bar.
Yeah, Ted, all those feminist groups that were sucking at the teat of Mama Government used the Court Challenges program on a regular basis, all at taxpayer expense: Were they pursuing "individual cases" with "no money"?
I don't think so.
The feminists were always pursuing some issue and their defence costs were always paid for from the LEAF (Women's Legal and Education Action Fund--you notice that men didn't have a similar fund with which to go to court), while those challenging the feminists always had to pay out of their own pocket--whether they were individuals or other lobby groups.
Real equality, Ted. Just the kind you're talking about, actually.
Ted: The question here is Why should the Taxpayers of Canada fund groups to challenge the laws of the land, afterall the laws are made on the hill not in the courts.
Are we not already taxed to the max.
All the laws in this country need to be sent to referendum.
Boag opens his yap again--- justice is foreign to our justice system Keith.
Re: three strikes your in bill.
The bill has received praise from victims' rights advocates, but defence lawyers have said it goes too far and could undergo a constitutional challenge if it becomes law.
"This will be a controversial piece of legislation in some quarters, but it will be welcomed in others that voted for a Conservative government," said Keith Boag, CBC Television's Ottawa bureau chief
If your MP is 100% behind the CCP, then write that person a note like:
" I know that you support the CCP, I am just writing you to make a point of saying I support it".
Something like that.
Just so they can guage the response. It'd be good to make a strong showing.
Sure, I used the CUPE/CCP website to send messages to MP Ralph Goodale and PMSH. I rejigged the CUPE boilerplate messages to ask that the CCP be ended ASAP.
I'd rather not have the government use my funds to pay someone to sue the governement. It's the ultimate scam, get paid twice!
Ugh.
Ted, listen to what you're saying. No one is suggesting that people be prevented from callenging laws - just that they should pay for it from their own pockets (or do their own fundraising if they think they speak for more than just themselves). Surely you can see it's not right or fair that some pet special interest groups be allowed litigate endlessly on the taxpayers' dime, while others who are not so favoured have to pay out of pocket. What is being suggested is that each challenger pay his own way - you know, so it's equal.
The Court Challenges Program ended a fine tradition in Canada of only corporations challenging things like Sunday shopping laws ...
I remember a Spadina furrier named Paul Magder, surrounded by a sea of Chinese stores allowed to open on Sunday because they were in a "tourist area," who used his own livelihood and staked his future on the right to open up on Sunday like his neighbours to his immediate right and left.
I also remember Bob Rae doing his level best to bankrupt Magder.
Sometimes you can be a real idiot Ted.
Better to use our money for national defense and to help the poor rather then it going to the UN or to the pockets of forgein tyrants like FIDEL CASTRO or HUGO CHVEZ and certianly no more for the ACLU or People for the American way Southern Poverty Law Center or the other lieberal leftists group and no more for the CSPI or PCRM
Matt:
Lots of individuals challenged the Sunday shopping laws by risking their livelihood. But it was Edwards Books and several other corporations that had the funds to take it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
What about criminal cases? Should we stop funding Legal Aid? I'm sure that a lot of conservatives would agree to that, but many would not. Many would quickly see that it is expensive to hire a lawyer and to protect yourself and we collectively benefit to have a legal system that provides defendents with at least a modicum of ability to defend themselves. That's all the CCP does.
already gave my absolute support of this bill. called my MP..and I am lucky enough to live in Provencher,and have Vic Toews as my MP.The timing was fortunate,as on our local radio station(CJOB/Adler's home),this a.m.got to listen to the drivel spew from Greg Brodsky this a.m.He was talking about Joey Wiebe(recently escaped from Selkirk Mental Hosp...thankfully re-captured),and he had had contact while JW on the run.Listening to his ilk,his son,and the whole Whitmore fiasco,just makes me wonder how far they will go,to protect the rights of this human offal.Media hounds,each and everyone,and they make me sick! GO Vic,Go Conservatives..and will be interesting to see who votes no. Sammy
And while they're at it: END giving INTERVENOR status to various advocates. That turns the SCC into a PAC (political action committee). Only actual parties to a case should be present at a court case. Oh, and END victim impact statements too. We don't want our courts Winfreyized, and sentences to be academy awards!
Ted; How many CCP cases involved penniless defendants? Your last post implies that the CCP was being used to help the poor and downtrodden who had been railroaded by the wealthy.
Defense lawyers say it could undergo a constitutional challenge.
Just like the CC Program, this is the problem with this country.
Way too many court challenges because it could infringe on a persons rights as set forth in the charter.
What about the rights of the honest hardworking taxpayer?
Toews is talking about the habitual criminal, they have a right to what? To go out & sexually assault over & over?
What about the Victim? Thats who's rights he is talking about & it is long over due.
Ted:
You pissed me off when you wrote "only corporations." It's nice to see that you now acknowledge that small business owners put it all on the line.
I'm still pissed at Rae for the way he went after Magder. I'd like to knock that SOB's teeth down his throat.
Gee Ted by all you complaining you would think you are a lawyer. Oh wait you are aren't you? Just like a true Liberal you claim to be working for the social good but you are really just looking for another payoff.
Ted, when you alleged that "Many would quickly see that it is expensive to hire a lawyer and to protect yourself and we collectively benefit to have a legal system that provides defendents with at least a modicum of ability to defend themselves. That's all the CCP does," you're wrong.
The CCP benefited only special interest groups that were favoured by the Liberals. Do your homework. Maybe you think that's OK, but millions of Canadians who aren't either left-leaning or feminists don't think it's OK.
RIP CCP...
Exactly right, 'been around'. The Court Challenges program was not a democratic and equitable program. It had a committee that selected the groups it would fund - and those groups were only the leftist groups.
Therefore, Ted, your claim that the Court Challenges enabled the average citizen to confront the courts is empty. It didn't. It used taxpayer money to fund selected activist groups and reject other groups/individuals. That's not democracy. That's a misuse of the taxpayers' money.
CCP deserves to be scrapped. This program did not help the every day Canadian's fight anything in the court system. IMMO this was just another slush fund that the Lib's friendly had access too. PM Harper, please keep getting rid of these useless funding programs that do not benefit the average taxpayer.
been around, ET: Hear! Hear! It was liberal legislation without risking votes: "The SCC made us do it". Same deal with the Canada Council: zero chance for a grant to a artist/writer with a conservative pedigree. Or for research that might expose global warming for the fraud it is. Then there are the "off-book" foundations. And on and on. Rotten.
robbing peter to rob paul's reference to the sikh kirpan ruling riminded me of my view on that situation:
what if the school yard bully looks around for the raghead knowing he's carrying a knife, smashes him in the face, takes the knife, er, 'kirpan' and uses it on the actual intended victim?
isnt this 'kirpan' ruling crap a loophole in security against weapons in schools?
why doesnt it come with the caveat that the kirpan needs to have the tip ground completely flat on a bench grinder and the blade ground down to the useless thickness of a pc of 1/8" steel plate?
either that or resort to toy rubber knives if the emphasis is solely on symbolism.
there. now it is no longer a potential weapon in the hands of a resourceful criminal.
What about Thibodeau? CCP funds were used to challenge the tax laws that hurt both men and women. The SCC rejected the case, but Parliament then moved to fix the laws so that the payor avoided double tax on support payments and the payee didn't see his/her support payments all go to the government.
The CCP not only allowed Thibodeau to bring the claim but it was able to bring the issue to the government which was able to correct an outdated piece of legislation.
To me it's a baby and bathwater thing. There are a few high profile cases that produced results you don't like so toss it the whole thing.
right on ET & Been
The more of these selfish wastes of money that are Exposed for what they are worth & Eliminated the better, Maybe we can start saving money in this country Without taxing the Sh** out of the worker.
What was it Baird said on the hill: Why should the Gov't pay a group to Sue the Gov't ?
Ted: What tax laws that hurt both men and women? The CCP sure as H*ll never helped to bring a case to the courts to equalize the taxes paid by one-income families with a parent home to care for the child(ren) and the much lesser taxes paid by two-income families where both parents put their child(ren) into substitute care.
Why not? The lib/fembos who ran the CCP decided that women who stayed home to care for their children were "unequal," they didn't support "equality for women."
That's equality for you, is it, Ted?
Ted:
Couldn't another individual raise the same objections as Thibodeau? Haven't other individuals raised cases without the CCP? Can't individuals raise funds to fund challenges? Are we not adults rather than infants to be looked after by the nanny state?
How much have you or your firm benefited from the CCP?
"What about Thibodeau? CCP funds were used to challenge the tax laws that hurt both men and women. The SCC rejected the case, but Parliament then moved to fix the laws so that the payor avoided double tax on support payments and the payee didn't see his/her support payments all go to the government.
The CCP not only allowed Thibodeau to bring the claim but it was able to bring the issue to the government which was able to correct an outdated piece of legislation"
What a croc.The whole basis of this was that the payee should get it tax free.The payor,me included,had this payment as a tax deduction.The result of that ruling was that any support orders made after a certain date meant the payee never had to pay tax on it and the payor could not claim the deduction.The payor was never taxed twice on it as you claim.Anyone paying support after that date lost the deduction.And the government came out ahead in the end because the payor in most cases has a higher income and therefore higher tax rate.Luckily for me my support order was pre this date.
And CBC just trotted out Clayton Ruby to slam the changes...Julie Van Dingbat just eats up anything anti Con...lots about "ooooh,the $$$ this will cost,more jails,THOUSANDS more locked up",and link it to the failure in the U.S.of the 3 strikes law.I have to clean my tv off from the venom dripping after Julie,Keith Boar..I mean Boag,and Duffy Live makes me puke past 2 wks,with Taber.I enjoy seeing her squirm,when Tim Powers lands a direct hit on any Lib they put up against him.
been around the block said....
The CCP benefited only special interest groups that were favoured by the Liberals. Do your homework. Maybe you think that's OK, but millions of Canadians who aren't either left-leaning or feminists don't think it's OK
et said...
It used taxpayer money to fund selected activist groups and reject other groups/individuals. That's not democracy. That's a misuse of the taxpayers' money
no dhimmi said....
been around, ET: Hear! Hear! It was liberal legislation without risking votes: "The SCC made us do it". Same deal with the Canada Council: zero chance for a grant to a artist/writer with a conservative pedigree. Or for research that might expose global warming for the fraud it is. Then there are the "off-book" foundations. And on and on. Rotten.
To Ted and all other liberals,
evidence suggests someone other than the conservatives has the ...."hidden agenda"....!
Seems to me Clayton Ruby and others like him have a great deal at stake here.THey make their fees off repeat offenders with their whining about criminals rights.If they can only commit 3 crimes and they get locked up for 7 years the defence lawyers lose money.
As for all the whining about $$$ cost how come none of these idiots ever mention the cash lost because of crime.Damage,insurance payouts,health care costs for victims,policing costs,and the list goes on.Not to mention the majority of law-abiding people should be allowed to live without supporting these losers.t
The CCP- was this yet another example of a Lieberal funding sinkhole? Did the taxpayers actually see any results from it? And if so, were the results worthy of the $dollars put into it? I wonder how many $millions simply disappeared into this one, just like the gun registry, just like the foundations, etc, etc.
I have to admit that I have been so disappointed with so much of what the Libs have screwed up, that I hardly care to try to sort it out anymore.
Chances are, if it was a Lib program, it is so tainted with crap and corruption, you might as well just axe the whole program and start over again.
Ted-
There is a vast difference between the CCP and Legal Aid.
Legal Aid is for people that cannot afford a Lawyer to mount a proper defence when charged with an act contrary to the law..
CCP is exactly the opposite. It allows a person to initiate a CHALLENGE to a partiucular law or statute.
Your arguement doesn't hold water.
The truth is how many Canadians had even heard of the CCP before it was axed?
The only ones that new about the program were those special interest groups in Canada that do not believe in any law that does not fit into their own adgenda.
So Yes Baird was right in saying Taxpayers Money being used to fund groups to sue The Government & who's money is that, The Taxpayers.
Breaking news (from Adler)..Iggy "uninvited" by Jewish groups on trip to Isreal,as well as any other Lib.leadership candidates.DELICIOUS.
Rat,
You are quite correct and this is a major difference. Everyone has the right to defence but the right to prosecute?
Honestly we wont miss it when it is gone. Just like Katimavik...that silly senator who would starve himself to keep it alive.....
LEt CCP go and be like real human beings and fund a charity that supports these things. Then it is all that much more transparen.
So Ted if you like this so much I expect to see you starting a charity for this very purpose. Go and raise the money.
See its different when people actually have to think about where their money goes.
And by the way, no it doesnt equate to police or fire protection, that is common good stuff. It is a real stretch to state this as common good.
You have have an option, I look forward to seeing your charitable number. And when you have the website up and running that can take credit card donations I will promise you a donation....
Gosh, I'm going to miss the CCP...
I so enjoyed seeing my taxes funding a court challenge enabling the nine elitist, unelected, red-velvet-and-ermin-robed former flower children to overturn legislation brought in by Parliament.
/sarc off
Ted the money grubbing effeminate Toronto Liberal Lawyer, who has a conflict of interest in the matter at hand, asked his wife and female work supervisors if it would be OK to lift his snout from the "free public money" trough for a moment to make the following comment: "Whaaaaa!"
lol.
Jane Doe Versus Attorney General Of Canada, a case concerning a lesbian couple who want to use sperm from a gay man for artificial insemination. Canadian law prohibits a man who's had sex with another man since 1977 from donating sperm.
Why not take the direct route and save us all a lot of tax dollars. Use the four F method. Here's how ...
Just hold close your eyes and ...
F**k the F*g for a Free Fetus
You know just like straight women do when they want to bear a child.
Listening to question period today, you would think that the native populations recidivism rate was the CPCs' fault..it's a gas to see all those years of Liberal feel good policy come crashing down around their ears when they find it did not work a lick..
Three strikes and your a state labeled hazard friend.. any one who does not vote for this measure is truly soft on crime if not in the head.
Another downtrodden minority finds a voice...
The Canadian Bar Association reaffirmed its support for the program and called on the federal government to not only increase funding, but also to ensure the program’s long-term financial stability.
CONTACT: Hannah Bernstein, Canadian Bar Association, Tel: (613) 237-2925, ext. 146; E-mail: hannahb@cba.org.
Too bad we will no longer be able to mount a Court Challenge to overturn the CCP. If we'd only known. But, we wouldn't get money. They can fund themselves just like REAL women have had to fund themselves. Those groups in favor of this program,(according to SOW's) have never been named. Reminds me of a full page ad in the paper a few years ago, against smoking, and supposedly signed by numerous organizations. My son and I run up a huge phone bill calling these org to see when they passed a motion to support this. Over half listed didn't exist anymore. Others had never been contacted. Reason I did this, an org I was president of was listed, without my knowledge. I know that an org, run properly, cannot have any ex officer make stmts on their behalf, without motions, etc. Did the group funding this do a retraction, no, did the paper run an apology, no.
At that point I refused to believe any of the propaganda re any special interest group,=global warming, (it was global cooling then) aid epidemic, starving children. (where are the bodies of the 20,000 who die every day) Many reports out now that lung cancer is increasing in non smokers. My thinking is that if second hand smoke was so dangerous, it had to kill any virus it come in contact with. Notice the increase in office sickness, asthma, closing of hospital wards etc due to viruses. Second hand smoke killed them when one could smoke. Something to think about. In 30 yrs the smoking myth will be debunked just like DDT has been.
Time for some real tort reform and any trial lawyer who would sue in a illegal aleins behalf should be booted out of the country forever i mean the firearms manicaturers get protection from these rapacous vultures so can the rest of us
Thanks for the link, Kate. I've compiled a list of 16 or so now.
John at 6:08 pm. said:
"Jane Doe Versus Attorney General Of Canada, a case concerning a lesbian couple who want to use sperm from a gay man for artificial insemination. Canadian law prohibits a man who's had sex with another man since 1977 from donating sperm.
Why not take the direct route and save us all a lot of tax dollars. Use the four F method. Here's how ...
Just hold close your eyes and ...
F**k the F*g for a Free Fetus
You know just like straight women do when they want to bear a child."
But wouldn't that be too demeaning to the poor dears? Wouldn't that just give them another ready case for the CCP. "The government forced to engage in ...yecchhh... heterosexual activity."