Within a week of the Liberal Party re-hiring spin doctor Mark Dunn, two stories appear in the Globe and Mail, each delivering the Liberal Party message of Conservative Party patronage with regards to a judicial appointment, each quoting "Liberal Party researchers".
Is anyone else carrying this patronage story? Only CTV, but then CTV gives credit to the Globe and Mail, and both CTV and the Globe are part of Bell Globemedia.
The Toronto Star, the National Post, the CBC -- no one else thinks Liberal outrage is newsworthy. Just the Globe and Mail, with Mark Dunn's guidance.
Angry in the Great White North looks at the multi-layered and long-standing relationship between Mark Dunn, the Liberal Party, and the Globe and Mail. It looks like that relationship is back on.
I always thought Gloria Galloway was just a Liberal fart-catcher, it appears, however, that her Librano connections are a little more intimate.
You have a nice flowing and smooth reading text there, but you may not get away with, * the left are emotional while the right are more articulate, but that is of little consequence in the end*
You are correct, the left, especially now, after massive disgrace, are indeed more emotional.
Correct also in that the right are more articulate.
*But of little consequence?*
Nice try pal, but you just can*t squeak by with that.
Clear and logical expressions of sound reason is a major fabric of the middle right in today*s Canadian terms.
That is something Canadians recognize and VOTE for.
CBC, liberal MSM, and Hollywood spin is not fooling all Canadians all of the time.
Not yet at least. = TG
Anybody care to count the column inches the Globe is giving to the Liberal leadership race vs. the column inches they gave the last Conservative one?
We had Belinda too! Who do they have for photo opps? Hedy Frey? Martha Findlay? No comparison.
Who really controls Bell Globemedia? Is it the Desmarais (sp?) cult?
The Liberals cying the blues about Patronage Appointments, that's really calling the kettle black after how many years of Liberal thankyou's.
This stuff just drives me nuts, our media in Canada sucks.
I'm just glad we have great Blogs like Kate,Steve Janke, Stephen Taylor and all the rest of the blogging tories. Without these blogs I would have wrote off poltics a long time ago like the rest of my friends and family.
Belinda spreads her legs and the media licks it up. Figuratively speaking of course.
We should actually be feeling sorry for the Toronto/COTU/G&M folks. They have been drinking their own bathwater for so long they have probably infected themselves with incurable LPC Love Syndrome. This just puts them further away from mainstream Canadians and faster moving to the oblivious edges of "don't count".
Their is alwys the amusement factor that is so valuable for the rest of Canada.
Time to open up canadian markets to american companies. They are just as biased as our media companies but imagine how excitable the NDP and Liberals would get!
Hours of entertainment.
enough
Hearing a Liberal complain about patronage is enough to make one vomit.
I wonder how the circulation figures for Mop&Pail are trending?
Want to give them a sting? Call on their advertisers to let the folks who pay their bills know what you think of the editorializing done at BGM.
The Liberals should be speechless at this point if they had an ounce of decency. They wrote the book on patronage and the corruption under their rule is of mega proportions,worst in Canadian history. As an opposition party they're still up to the same old behaviour, they are enough to make one puke.
Is you worried whether SSM?MSM/FGM will be the lather of the Gibberel Partly? Whum should a Leaf flan vote for? Broom has suggestions. Forget Glorias Hallways. ... ...-
Liberal Leadership - who should I support?
Like most Liberal Party members, I have struggled with my choice on whom to support. As I sat at my desk, looking at a pile of mail in ballots, I wondered at which of these excellent candidates is best able to lead our country into the future. Who is the most politically correct choice? Which candidate will susidize the fight against Global Warming? Expedite spending programs for homelessness awareness activists? Redistribute taxation initiatives to advance socialist social engineering? Where does the winning candidate sit on the dollar a litre levy on gasoline to fight poverty in Africa? These are questions, and I want answers.
As a firm supporter of democratic principles, I would never lower myself by telling you how to vote. That would violate the Telemarketers Code of Ethics and then my hands would burst into flames whenever I used someone elses credit card. No, I will not tell you. I will share with you some advice, the same advice I gave to the graduating class at the Fenris Badwulf School of Telemarketing Excellence: What Hollywood movie character best describes the best choice for Supreme Leader of the Liberal Party?
My suggestion is Auric Goldfinger from the eponymous James Bond movie. This great man has three characteristics that are embodied in our Future Leader: Support for Multiculturalism, Crime Fighter, and Enemy of Capitalism.
Support for Multiculturalism. Auric Goldfinger employs employment equity principles in his selection of ethnic minorities such as Oddjob, and women in positions of power, such as Pussy Galore. He even has a crew of all female pilots. These is no glass ceiling for women and minorities here. Certainly Auric embodies ...-
http://www.dustmybroom.com/?p=4654
More on the Globe's reporting:
"Surprise! Selective "facts" in Globe story on PM Harper"
www.damianpenny.com/archived/007714.html
"China and the Conservatives: Internal war at the Globe and Mail"
www.damianpenny.com/archived/007681.html
Mark
Ottawa
The vitriol expended upon the Liberals on this site never ceases to amaze me.
In my experience, I've often had a hard time telling tories and liberals apart...
...unless they are the liberals who are really New Democrats pretending to be liberals... then its blatantly easy to compare and contrast.
Nevertheless, I woud have never anticipated that the tories would ever openly point out that the liberals have more "inches" than they do. Nor would I have deduced that this would be an acceptable method of sorting members of the two parties.
Brings new meaning to small "c" conservative.
; )
Cheers!
Leto
Some Liberal Party researcher Mark Dunn is now actually married to Liberal Party media sycophant Gloria Galloway?
You can't make this up!!
Great catch AGWN/Kate!!
(Wasn't it Galloway who did the hit piece a year ago or so on how Christians were "infiltrating" the CPC; using language that almost equated Christians with criminals and terrorists?)
The GLOBE and MAIL is no different then the rest of the liberal left-wing news media its just another New York Pravda TIMES
Remember the Income Trust Scandal, Bell Globe Media, parts of which that had been changed to IT's, trades that happened just before Honest? Ralphie made his announcement? Why would anyone, but the sheeple, believe anything that spews forth from the CTV or the Globe and Mail?
Talking to a lawyer friend yesterday,he said there are 57 vacant judgeships open. So come on PM Harper, fill them all with patronage appointments. Just tell them they are not entitled to their entitlements.
Anyone read the story on the very limited amount being spent by the government on hospitality etc. No wonder the PPG is mad. They have to pay their own way.
intrigue !!! I'm surrounded by intrigue !!! (from a Noel Coward play)
guys guys guys, and ladies too. how many times, how many ways, when and to whom do I have to say this before it sinks in, before you 'get it'?
they ALL do it. and the longer they are in power the more times the nepotism happens. so much so it becomes so open and frequent because so many (enter party name) supporters demand their 'share' of the perks.
ya got that? they ALL do it.
DONT EVEN THINK OF PUTTING THAT PAPER IN MY CAGE I,LL GET VIOLENT I,LL RIP OUT SOME ONES EYES SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK
Nothing the msm says is without motive; always trying to 'justify' theft, lies, abnormal behavior so they can attain the ultimate victory for all left wing wackos- DISTRUCTION of the family unit. The family is the greatest single threat to all wanna be totalitarian slavers (Fascist/Communist). The man with the ideas is Mo Strong, the organization is the U.N. and the figurehead(Thug) Maker is Demerais. I saw Iggy at the Liberano convention and I knew he was the 'pound of flesh' - why would he sink into that cesspool of corruption (Liberano party) when he had a respectable career in United states and international standing as a fine writer? Now, of course, it is all flushed down the bottomless sewer where these haters of people swim. Things will get dirty in this nation after Dec. We better keep our heads up and our ammo ready.
I see there's some Liberal apologists here, but they make no sense. I think they've been knocked senseless by this swift exposure to the light of day of the Liebrano/G&M conspiracy against the Conservatives.
And I wonder if the G&M/CTV/Bell Globemedia realizes that they've been found out? If so, they, in their delusions of grandeur and invulnerability, will nevertheless brush it off as if a mere piece of lint. And wonder why their audience is shrinking, shrinking... like that of other anti-conservative-biased MSM outlets such as the NYT.
As for the Liebrano$$$, we're watching you, you bastards! Just go right ahead and try your bull$hit... we're ready to throw it right back in your faces!
Youse ain't heard/seen nothin' yet from the bowels of the G/M/RedStar/CTV/CBC, etc.
William Thorsell is not dead, is he? The vitriol has been unwrapped by the MSM; just-in-time-delivery for the next election.
The Conservatives have the bait ready; the moonbats will oblige; the election follows. ...-
Conservatives Look to Protect Free Speech Rights for Same-Sex Marriage Opponents
Josh Pringle
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
The Federal Conservatives are planning to protect opponents of same-sex marriage.
The Globe and Mail reports legislation, including a Defence of Religions Act, could be introduced if the Federal Government loses a motion this fall to reopen the same-sex marriage debate in the House of Commons.
The measures would allow public officials, including Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform marriages.
The bill would also protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations. ...-
cfra.com
Jema54, I couldn't agree with you more when you say "Nothing the msm says is without motive; always trying to 'justify' theft, lies, abnormal behavior so they can attain the ultimate victory for all left wing wackos- DESTRUCTION of the family unit. The family is the greatest single threat to all wanna be totalitarian slavers (Fascist/Communist)."
I posted this (I've made a few minor edits) at Angry in the Great White North yesterday, and am posting it here, as it reveals one way in which the G&M has plunged a knife into the heart of the family as we have known, it for as far back as we can remember.
"[One of agwn readers] Stephen says that Eddie Greenspon is no William Thorsell, though it's Thorsell who turned the Probe and Fail into the "fag rag" [back in the '90s] by, first, a pro-gay article in the Weekend Arts' Section, then another one a few weeks later, then two, then three, then as an Op-Ed piece, etc. until the G&M had normalized gay sex and the gay agenda.
"I stopped reading it on a regular basis years ago, and this new 'revelation' merely confirms my suspicions about the entitled and privileged, 'let them eat cake,' left/lib/fem/gay agenda the G&M supports.
"I think the wo/man in the street across Canada is smarter than this, smarter than falling for the Toronto-centric claptrap of Dunn, Galloway and company, though time and the next election will tell...
"(True confession: I was born and brought up in Toronto...)"
Throw in Mo Strong, Paul Desmarais, and company, and you've got a toxic stew. What did Canadians ever do to deserve this?
I guess voting for Pierre Elliott Trudeau and then lionizing him, a topic for another day.
o ya, the great pm pierre turdeau:
3w dot collectionscanada dot ca slash primeministers slash h4-3382-e.html
Ive been plastering reprints of this on the window of the local lieberal politician for some 6 months now. hilighting the part about him racing around in a german military uniform laughing at the soldiers sent off to europe. I even went to a printing shop and got it enlarged the size of a friggin 3' X 4' flag and taped THAT up over the canada day weekend.
thieving lying lieberals.
"Talking to a lawyer friend yesterday,he said there are 57 vacant judgeships open. So come on PM Harper, fill them all with patronage appointments. Just tell them they are not entitled to their entitlements."
Interesting point mary. And IF Harper gets a majority, we will see if he starts filling these vacant posts with his party faithful. I think it possible he is waiting for a majority so that he does not risk another early election where his patronage appointments will be fodder for the opposition. I do not have a problem with Harper appointing party faithful to these posts. His problem is going to be that he lambasted the liberals for doing the same thing. He is either going to have to appoint people on merit (which means he is going to have to appoint some of your so-called "lefties"), or he is going to have to admit that patronage appointments is what governments do in order to get and maintain support.
You show me a government, conservative, liberal or NDP, who did not use patronage appointments, and I will show you a government that did not last long.
I do not like it any more than you do. My point is that already Harper has shown he is prepared to do so (who did he appoint to the Senate again on his first day on the job???). It is easy to criticize from the opposition benches - not so easy from the PM's chair.
So, as I said, IF he wins a majority, just watch to see of all those posts are filled - and how quickly it is done. If Harper is indeed different, they will stay empty, or they will not be filled by party faithful. I would not hold my breath if I were you.
I forgot to add - I think it is just as hypocritical for the liberals to complain about patronage appointments as it is for Harper to make patronage appointments after lambasting the liberals for doing so.
The main complaint I have about any patronage appointment is that we the people have no knowledge of their background, abilities to do the job, and past decisions on court cases. Watching many judges let felons out on bail or complete freedom has given our justice system a very bad reputation. This is especially true in drunk driving cases and pedophiles. Giving a friend a big responsibility to oversee a dept or crown agency, with a huge budget, and no math, accounting or managerial skills is asking for trouble. I don't want to see the kind of problems the US has in making appointments, but at least we should know something about a person, and he/she should be vetted in the HofC. This is especially true of all Supreme Court nominations.
I do think that the cdn population is slowly waking up and demanding more accountability of elected officials at every level. Sleepwalking for the past 30 years and assuming those in power know what is best for us and appointing people to fill quotas re age, sex, minority, regardless of ability orknowledge,has not been in the best interest of any of us, except special interest groups. Multiculturalism has to go the way of the dodo bird. Had envirowackos been around thousands of years ago they would have protected the dinasours. Most of those groups believe in Darwins theory, survival of the fittest but they refuse to practice it. Why are they protecting so called endangered species instead of letting them evolve into something better. (lol)
A typical editorial was in today's paper re: the "religious right" behind proposed bill that would protect officials and clergy who refuse to perform gay marriages or rent out halls to gay couples getting married. The canadian press states that this legislation would only promote hate crimes and bigotry....Harper would be commiting political suicide. My question is, does the religious right include muslim's who strictly prohibit the union of two people of the same sex? When is the last time you heard of a gay marriage at a mosque? If there was ever obvious bigotry it would be prevelent in the muslim faith, especially in terms of gay marriage. Why does the term "religious right" used in many Liberal publications, seem to imply those who are only of the christian faith?
You show me a government, conservative, liberal or NDP, who did not use patronage appointments, and I will show you a government that did not last long.
Posted by: Gayle at October 4, 2006 12:50 PM
Yikes. Here's a wide open invitation to let it rip.
Gayle, can I ask you to focus on the fact that it was a judicial appointment to the Alberta supreme court? Are you saying that this is a fit place for patronage appointments for people who have aggressively raised cash for the party?
Budd
Please re-read my post - in particular the paragraph that follows the one you quoted.
I most emphatically do not agree that patronage is acceptable.
Globe and Mail says: It's a fact/true. Check it out. ...-
TORIES PLAN TO PROTECT SSM OPPONENTS
The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. ...-
one should google all the media women in the msm in the USA. It would shock you to see who they are married to, and what party their husbands or companies their husbands are involved in. Explains their take on many issues. Sort of like Catherine Ford, former writer for the Calgary Herald, supporting abortion on demand, then finding out her husband runs the largest abortion clinic in Calgary.
C'mon folks. More than any other PM, Stephen Harper has brought people on board from other parties to fill positions: David Emerson and the Lebanese Liberal's appointment, a few months ago, both of which got the MSM and every frigging leftie's knickers in a knot.
If he'd appointed others who are sympathetic to the CPC, he'd have been raked over the coals. As it is, asking a Liberal to join his Cabinet and appointing a Liberal to a highly responsible position with oversight of a very delicate issue, he's still being raked over the coals.
So, the moral of the story for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, admittedly a Christian? He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
I'm just grateful that he's smart enough to know that whatever he does--appoint a conservative or a liberal--is a no-win situation for him, so he follows his convictions and does what he needs to do for the good of the greatest number of Canadians.
It is totally natural, and there is no crime involved, to appoint people you know and can trust to get the job done. Just because PMSH may appoint a like-minded person to a position does not necessarily mean "patronage appointment." It could be that the CPC-sympathetic individual is the best person for the job.
Novel idea, that, for bigoted leftie observers just waiting to proclaim "patronage!".
So let me get this straight - if a liberal appoints someone he knows and who he can trust to get the job done, that is patronage, but if Harper does so, that is just good government.
Hate to break it to you, but there have been a lot of conservatives appointed by Liberals to certain posts. Let us use one of your examples - Belinda Stronach was a conservative who crossed the floor and was given a cabinet post by the liberals. Emerson did the same thing the other way.
Did you know the prosecuting attorney in the Gomrey enquirey was a Conservative?
So the appointment was for an Alberta judgeship. Imagine, appointing a conservative in Alberta. Can you imagine the outrage if he had named a liberal or ndp, by the people of AB. What few liberal judges we had here have been appointed to fed positions by the liberals.
Gayle, re your comment "So let me get this straight - if a liberal appoints someone he knows and who he can trust to get the job done, that is patronage, but if Harper does so, that is just good government?"
You left out something that I made very clear: the person has to be "the best person for the job."
Given the fiasco of a government the Librano$ presided over for 13 years, where nothing was done with excellence--in fact, the opposite--I'd have to posit that the Liberal appointments lacked the one element necessary to ensure they weren't simply ones of patronage, or business as usual: the one element missing is "the best person for the job."
The Liberals, time and time again, chose only the person they knew and "trusted," which meant they could count on them to toe the Party line, Canadians be damned.
Gayle said, "So, as I said, IF he [PMSH] wins a majority, just watch to see of all those posts are filled - and how quickly it is done. If Harper is indeed different, they will stay empty, or they will not be filled by party faithful."
Utter rubbish.
In fact, there are so many qualified, principled Conservatives sitting on the sidelines that, for the benefit of this country, it would be a very good idea for PMSH, the best PM we've had in decades--at least--to appoint all of them: just levelling the playing field, something the diversity-loving, equality-minded left should be delighted with.
Leaving judicial appointments and other crucial posts empty in order to "prove" a lack of political bias? Only a person with diminished reasoning abilities would posit such a fabrication and, furthermore, present it as sound, even altruistic, policy.
BATB I do hope you recognize that "the best person for the job" is pretty subjective. For that matter, I think you would be hard put to actually find one person, out of hundreds, or thousands, that is the "best person".
So, I go back to my original post - if Harper is going to be true to his word and NOT appoint in order to reward the party faithful, then you will see liberals, conservatives, NDP'ers and neutrals appointed alongside the conservatives. If that happens then I will happily agree with you.
If what you are saying is that if Harper appoints conservative party faithful and that is OK, but it is not OK if the liberals do so, then you are being a hypocrite. I see that lookout is saying that - not sure if you are so I will not leap to that conclusion about you.
And, lookout, I do not know why I keep having to explain plain English to you, but I will try to do so. If you look at my original post you will see that I have responded to mary, who was happy to point out that Harper is not making patronage appointments because he is actually not making any appointments at all. That is what I was referring to. You would also have noted that I theorized (and it is just a theory, not an accusation) that perhaps Harper is not making any appointments yet because he is hoping for a majority next time around, and then he will be appointing his party faithful. This way he gets to reward his friends, while avoiding the political fallout that he is sure to face if he starts appointing his friends while he is still a minority government and at risk of an election at any time.
There are a lot more vacancies than a few judicial appointments. There are Parole Board vacancies, and immigration appeal board vacancies, and other regulatory body vacancies. They need to be filled. I simply question why he is not filling them.
Now, I appreciate that you have already excused him for what you obviously see is about to come. That you would be so biased as to do so, without even seeing the appointments says a lot more about you, and your lack of reasoning, than it does about me. Better luck next time.
I understand your point, Gayle. And go right ahead and all me biased. However, it is a FACT that there are more than enough well qualified, highly experienced Conservatives, with integrity, to cover these vacancies, left open by so many Liberal bagmen--and women. (Plain English: along with judicial appointments, didn't I also mention "other posts"?)
To level the playing field and authentically meet government "equity and diversity" quotas--isn't that what lefties say they want all the time?-- PMSH could exclusively appoint qualified Conservatives for years to come. And, Gayle, don't worry that such appointees will be hard to find: PMSH will be dipping into a much larger pool than the Quebec-Ottawa-Toronto petri dish. He's also principled, decisive--not a ditherer--and very clear sighted, so shouldn't any have problem picking among "hundreds, or thousands" of candidates for the "best person": In the Conservative stable, there are hundreds, if not thousands of the "best people", sidelined for decades by the Liberal culture of entitlement and tribalism. Wouldn't it be fair to let them have a turn to serve their country now?
I feel really confident that our country, with appointments made by Harper, even if they're all Conservative, will be one of much greater purpose and integrity than the banana republic Canada's been sliding into under Liebrano$--and to a large extent, Canada's still in trall to because of the many Liberal appointments extant.
I say, "Let the Conservative appointments begin!"
All those unfilled positions means hundreds of packages of gum we will not be paying for. And, just maybe many of them are not necessary. Now those in those depts have to work, not chew gum. I hope all parole vacancies are filled soon, with strong law and order people, who realize that some crooks should not be on the street. No visible minority should be in any position unless they have lived and worked in Canada for 25 years. Libs appointed too many recent immigrants from muslim countries in order to get votes.
Glad to see further cuts to SOW groups.
Lots of crying about cuts to literacy programs for adults. Why are there so many cdns that can't read or write. Thought that is what the school system is for. And, immigrants should be qualified in literacy skills in english or french before being allowed into canada. Let their country pay for it, not us.
Ahh lookout, at last we agree. I know there are very qualified conservative candidates for these positions, and I have every expectation they will be appointed, eventually.
Harper's problem is going to be how he explains these appointments after all his complaints about the liberals doing the same thing.
Once people are appointed, the expectation is they will fufill their position in accordance with the law, and not in accordance with their political leanings. In my experience, that is what happens (at least with judicial appointments). Case in point - the Chief Justice of Canada was a conservative appointee to the supreme court, and a liberal appointee to the position of chief justice. Her judgments have all been soundly based on the law, and not on her political opinion (whatever that may be).
So, I expect that the conservative appointments, if based on merit, will fufill their position honourably and without bias. Accordingly, I do not expect things to change too much (at least in terms of fufilling their posts - things like expense accounts etc. may change).
Gayle says about Beverley Mclachlin: "Her judgments have all been soundly based on the law, and not on her political opinion (whatever that may be)." Gayle's joking, of course. And if she doesn't know McLachlin's politics, Gayle doesn't know her--or what she's talking about here.
Rory Leishman has written extensively on judicial activism in Canada. His new book (Queens-McGill University Press) documents all kinds of Chief Justice McLachlin's shenanigans.
A few quotes from a recent speech by Rory Leishman (check out Black Rod for the full text):
"Here we come to the nub of the dispute: McLachlin and other like-minded, judicial activists regard the Constitution of Canada as a living tree that they, the judges, can change by progressive interpretation in any way that they see fit to accommodate and address their understanding of the realities of modern life. Sir William Blackstone held a decidedly different view. In his magisterial Commentaries on the Laws of England, he insisted that in the case of statutes, the rule for judicial interpretation must not be the will of the judge but the will of the legislator . . .
"In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton likewise affirmed that the judicial power is not superior to the legislative power under the Constitution of the United States. Rather, both are subordinate to the will of the people . . .
"Judicial activists disagree with Blackstone and Hamilton. They have arrogated to themselves the right to substitute their own will for the will of the people as enshrined in the laws and the Constitution. And in defence of this high handed practice, Chief Justice McLachlin argues that majority rule unbridled by the courts offers no protection against the tyranny of the majority.[4]
"What can be said for such judicial hubris? Judicial activists like McLachlin subscribe to the authoritarian view that unelected judges are better qualified than elected legislators not only to interpret and uphold the laws, but also to enact and amend laws . . . "
So, Gayle, what do you have to say about this now?
And, BTW, judges appointed by PMSH are much more likely to be "strict constructionists" than loose canons like our present Chief Justice.
This one is easy lookout.
1. McLauchlin, like all judges in Canada, are bound by the decisions that came before her (it is called stare decisis). She is not the judge who came up with the "living tree" concept - that was the former Chief Justice Dickson. Dickson came up with that concept after reviewing the judicial history of the American Constitution, as well as other Constitutions. Section 1 of the Charter allows legislation to violate any of the rights set out in the Charter, so long as the impairment is minimal, and justifiable in a free and democratic society. This section allows the Charter to be a "living tree". The rights themselves have been interpreted broadly, however when it comes to section 1 analysis, what may be deemed "justifiable" in one decade, may not be deemed justifiable in the next. A really good example is defining what is pornographic vis a vis freedom of expression. I am sure you would agree that a lot of what we see on TV today would have been deemed pornographic 20 years ago. The Charter has flexibility to accomodate changing societal standards. It was not meant to mirror exactly the American constitution, although American jurisprudence was certainly influential in the interpretation of the Canadian Charter.
2. Your references to Blackstone and Hamilton are flawed. There is a difference between statutes (like the Criminal Code) and the Constitution (of which the Charter is part). Yes, statutes must be interpreted in accordance with the intention of the legislator. The Charter, however, overrules the legislator, and the statutes. That is because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Before we had the Charter, we had a statute called the Bill of Rights. As this was just a statute, it had very little affect in the interpretation of other statutes. By enshrining the Charter in the Constitution, Parliament (and the provinces) agreed that the Charter was to become the stick against which ALL government legislation, and all government action must be measured. This was done by the politicians, not the judges.
3. The Supreme Court does not enact laws. It does amend them, but only when the law, as written offends the Charter. Sometimes they strike out the legislation, and sometimes they amend the legislation in order to make it constitutional. The government is then free to either amend it again (and face another constitutional challenge if the amendment offends the Charter), or revoke it and pass new legislation all together.
4. All those judges appointed by Harper are going to be bound by the principle of stare decisis, and the supreme law of this county - the Constitution.
So, what I have to say about this is Rory Leishman is not too smart.
If you do not like the way the constitution operates, you need a constitutional amendment. You need to have the Charter removed all together.
Good luck with that.
Gayle: Having it both ways, as usual. Her analysis of the Charter culture makes it pretty clear that, despite her disclaimer, she knows a great deal about Beverley McLachlin's modus operandi.
Gayle says, "Her judgments have all been soundly based on the law, and not on her political opinion (whatever that may be)." How disingenuous. Then she disproves her point by--rightly--pointing out that under the Charter, judges have very wide powers of interpretation: They may "strike out the legislation, and sometimes they amend the legislation [read in their own opinion] in order to make it constitutional. (sic)"
It's interesting to note, that since the Charter, the courts have moved very far to the left of legislation. No politics here, eh? Judgment after judgment is more often than not NOT based on precedent, but on the personal ideologies of Liberal-appointed judges--there's that no politics again!--safe in the knowledge that the Liberals (the Crown) will often argue a case incompetently or not appeal a decision at all. Certainly, the Liberals would NEVER invoke Section 33, the notwithstanding clause: Heck, Martin, in a fit of lunacy during one of the election debates, said the Liberals under him would get rid of Section 33 altogether!
Re politicians bringing in the Charter (1982): Yup, they did. And a number of them have recently said, after surveying the power grab of too many judges, that they regret such an outcome and would have done things differently if they'd foreseen the consequences. (People like Ian Hunter--see below--warned them.)
So, I guess Gayle has no problem with the fact that Canada's basically no longer a democracy: She rightly points out that unelected judges, appointed for life, by political parties (the Prime Minister), can override the legislature any time they perceive a Charter "infraction", which is often, especially when the cause is one dear to the Left.
I have a problem with living in an oligarchy. That's why I strongly support Section 33, an integral part of the Charter--in case Gayle tries to say this view is "unCanadian and anti-Charter": I think legislatures should reclaim their rightful authority by using Section 33 far more often in order to rein in the unbridled power of the left-wing rulers on our benches. (Somehow, I think Gayle's probably not a fan of Section 33.)
Rory Leishman and Ian Hunter, Professor Emeritus of Law, Western, are two very smart men, who have written knowledgably and persuasively about the power grab of the left-wing courts in this country. Canadians should know that the social norms of this country have been turned upside down and inside out by these non-elected rulers. We no longer live in a democracy. Pity.
lookout - you have to stop confusing the facts with my personal opinion.
Fact: The Charter is the supreme law of the land, and all legislation must comply with it. I did not draft the Charter, and I am not interpreting the legislation. I am just telling you how it is.
Fact: The elected politicians of this country GAVE the judges the power to interpret legislation, AS MEASURED BY THE CHARTER. Judges did not draft the Charter, politicians did.
Fact: If you want things to change, you need a constitutional amendment to remove the Charter. Until then, it says what it says.
I do not offer this information as my personal opinion about things. These are facts.
I can see you do not agree with many of the decisions. I do not have the time to teach you basic fundamentals of constitutional law. I honestly do not mean this as an insult, but you are clearly out of your depth here. You do not understand the judicial system at all, you just disagree with the consequences of the Charter. You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but you cannot change things simply by appointing different judges. I can 100% guarantee you that things will not change with conservative appointed judges. They will only change when the Charter is removed from the constitution.
Your comments about liberal appointed judges and liberal employed crown prosecutors again shows that you do not understand the system. Some judges are appointed by the federal government, and some are appointed by the provincial government. Most crown prosecutors are employed by the provincial government. Here in Alberta, we do not have a single provincially appointed judge, or provincial crown prosecutor, who was appointed or hired by a liberal government. These provincially appointed judges make decisions every day that you would disagree with - decisions that are based on sound legal principles.
As for s. 33 - I do not care about it. It has proven that it is not a useful tool. The reason governments do not invoke it is because to do so would be unpopular. It can only be invoked for 5 years at a time, which means that a government must face an election if it is invoked again. Obviously, governments have not invoked it because they believe it will impact their chances at the polls come next election. There was a fairly recent example in Alberta, where the provincial government threatened to invoke it to address a lawsuit over a number of forced abortions of the "mentally infirm". There was such an outcry over this proposal that the government withdrew that threat the next day. If Ralph Klein refuses to use it because of popular opinion (and remember, Klein basically IS an oligarchy in Alberta he is so popular), then I think it is highly unlikely any government is going to take that risk.
What you fail to grasp about the Charter is that it recognizes that human rights exist independently of majority opinion. The majority does not get to dictate the rights of the minority. Legal scholar recognize this, most politicians recognize this, and certainly the courts recognize this.
I appreciate that Mr. Hunter warned politicians the Charter was going to give judges a lot of power in interpreting legislation. He was correct. This just strengthens my argument, however, that this was the intention of the politicians who agreed to the Charter. Again, the judges did not ask for this role. It was given to them, in fact, it was imposed on them, by the politicians of this country in 1982. They have been asked to safeguard the rights of the minority, in recognition that the majority cannot dictate the rights of the minority.
So, please, take a course on constitutional law so that you can learn to distinguish fact from opinion. I have no idea why you insist on labeling the facts as somehow being my opinion. It does not make sense.
Sorry, instead of:
It can only be invoked for 5 years at a time, which means that a government must face an election if it is invoked again.
I meant to say:
It can only be invoked for 5 years at a time, which means that a government must face an election BEFORE it is invoked again.