I'm looking forward to the Q&A.

Helluva resume.

Big AdScam Jean Chretien/Paul Martin/Pierre Trudeau pulled out the plum$ from your wallet/purse/savings to reward their lackeys from the Liberal Party.

Vote buying on a stupendous scale. Brown envelopes stuffed with bribes; tens of millions $$$ scooped by Librano$$$$.

The Judges let them off. Socialism is corrupt & criminal. Down with socialism.

Jack Horner is alive and well. +

Another 10 Questions for the Average ??? [Archive] - Aussie Phorums
Eating his Christmas pie. He put in his thumb, And he pulled out a plum, And said, " f*** me dead i could have choked on that" ...
phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-111548.html - 12k -

"Civilian and military judges up to the highest echelons;"

In the category of nice work if you can get it, the list of lucky Liberal appointees includes: Civilian and military judges up to the highest echelons; a dozen ambassadors; directors of huge Crown corporations; trustees of national museums; executives of important federal agencies; immigration adjudicators; even promotions in the most senior ranks of the RCMP.

At that rate -- and if voters had not kicked Martin's butt out of office before he could do more damage -- Mr. Dithers might well have matched Pierre Trudeau's record patronage spree of almost 2,000 Liberal appointments in the year before his retirement in 1984. +
http://www.rapp.org/url/?F3SEX0HA
ottawasun via nealenews.com

Based on what I can find on Rothstein I am very unimpressed. If somebody can make a good argument in favour of this guy I'd like to see it. Here's some good Rothstein jurisprudence from the National Post, circa 1999, read closely:

"OTTAWA - Costly detention review hearings must be held for imprisoned immigrants who are denied a chance at day parole by the immigration department, the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled.

The case involved Arshad Mahmood Chaudhry, an immigrant from Pakistan who was sentenced to 14 years in jail in Manitoba after being convicted in 1994 of trafficking in narcotics.

In July, 1997, the immigration department used section 105 of the Immigration Act to direct the warden of the prison where Chaudhry was being held to detain him until the end of his sentence.

When Chaudhry applied for day parole, he was told by the National Parole Board that he was ineligible for it.

The decision means the immigration department could be forced to conduct detention reviews for more than 1,000 immigrants serving time for criminal convictions.

The immigration department has admitted that just the first round of hearings could cost more than $500,000 and that the costs of continued hearings would be ``staggering.''
...
In a decision dated Sept. 7 but only released yesterday, Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein of the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the immigration department's appeal and upheld the earlier ruling."
***********************

Here's "Justice Rothstein's Seven Tips For Intellectual Property Counsel", you tell me if this sounds like a Supreme Court Justice, or a shyster:

1. Intellectual property is a highly specialized area of the law. So use jargon. Judges really enjoy the challenge of trying to see if they
can figure out what you are talking about. If they can’t, they will probably be intimidated into finding in your favour because they don’t want to admit not being able to understand the argument.
2. Cram all your thoughts into one point. In that way, you won’t forget anything. Any half-baked judge will be able to sort out what you really intend.
3. Don’t worry about being unfamiliar with the material. The judges like long breaks. They can take a nap while you try to find what you are looking for.
4. Don’t answer hard questions from a judge. Just plough along with your argument. The judge will probably forget the question anyway.
5. When you refer to a case, don’t quote from the case verbatim. Just paraphrase. You can say what the judgment says better than the judgment itself. And the exact words may not support the proposition you are advancing.
6. Don’t worry if the judges stop writing. It means they are mesmerized by the force of your argument.
7. If you think you are losing by the questions the judges are asking, let them know that you will be appealing. That should bring them to their senses. It will certainly stop the questions.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:2V6kgT4G3bsJ:www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/TipTop.pdf+rothstein+Justice+Rothstein%27s+Seven+Tips+For+Intellectual+Property+Counsel&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

Oh, and as if I had to add this: Howzabout NOT appointing another "Human Rights" commission adjucator to the court? The Canadian "Human Rights" Tribunal is a kangaroo court if there ever was one and in the absence of evidence of standing up to this Trudeaupian nonsense, this self-loathing celebration of vicitmhood, I mark anyone who's been part of that process for fourteen years like Rothstein as tainted and flat-out unsuitable for the SCOC.

I'm very sure that he was being sarcastic when he wrote those points.

Sarcasm is a method frequently used by judges to point out lawyer tendancies that they don't like.

Anonaloque, thanks for the humor writing quote by Mr. Justice Rothstein. It's hilarious and shows him as a man of humor.

I'm glad we have a chance to see that these are normal humans and not some demi-gods like we are led to believe. Humanizing the SCC will go a long way towards keeping them grounded and focused on their jobs.

anonalogue,

that is so obviously intended as satire to point out some bad habits of lawyers.

and as far as the immigration appeal goes, read the judgment not a layman reporter's version of what he thinks it meant.

The lesser of 3 "evils". Let's fire some questions about constitutional jurisdictions at him...particularly as it pertains to this fraudulent notion that the feds can overlap "exclusive" provincial jurisdiction...or swap jurisdictional responsibilities or have shared jurisdictions...all of which does not appear in the BNA act nor was it inteneded to be....let's see if this guy is a "anti-confederalist" who believes in Ottawa's "manifest destiny" to be a central power monger.

Here's a little something I wrote yesterday, this is satire:

Bush-Lite’s Boffo Box Office Boastings Bogus???

By Jim Traversty

TORONTO — A Liberal speaking on the condition of anonymity said the Conservatives stupid poll numbers were “puny” and “no match” for the Natural Governing Party’s Internal Numbers. The anoymous Liberal source further requested to be brought “a platter of the finest meats and cheeses” and the blood of a freshly drive-by-shot Toronto virgin.

************************************

"I'm very sure that he was being sarcastic"

Actually, you're not very sure, GM, you're very wrong. You don't even know the context. I do.

Read the PDF and do a little digging, rubes, he wasn't joking, he was talking to other lawyers and law students:

"In the course of a lecture presented in Oxford in June 2005 on Famous Marks (found on the OIPRC Electronic Journal of IPRs http://www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/ EJWP0705.html), he outlined the 7 tips for successful intellectual property counsel listed above."

Nice cognitive dissonance, idiots. Heheh, ooops, I was just joking. Hey Molar: you're a moron. Ooops, that was satire. Allen, you seem rather dim. Whooops, there I go being funny again. Get the point yet, fellas?

Bottom line: It's too clever by half to suggest his words were entirely in jest; I'd seriously question the congnitive capabilites of anyone who thinks Rothstein flew to Oxford to give a comedy routine. There is more than a nugget of truth to what he was saying.

At any rate I expect a little gravitas from a SCOC justice and in any context his remarks were goofy.

Anonalogue
Totally agreee with your point of his involvement in the human rights tribunal.
You're OUT of contention if you're IN to that shit.

Hey ,...I have an idea ,...lets appoint a conservative!

asshole, i'm a lawyer and have been to numerous continuing legal education and bar association conferences and dinners and most judges that are invited to speak try and be entertaining. every single point he made is the exact opposite of what counsel are supposed to do when making their argument. he was highlighting these obvious errors for laughs.

I don't know what kind of SCC judge he'll make, but I like Rothstein's sense of humour.

The words immediately following his seven tips:

"Now I will get serious."

This is mildly suggestive of the preceding comments having been made entirely in jest. That and the fact that his tips call on lawyers to engage in practices that are among the most annoying for judges. There is indeed a nugget of truth in his comments, but as with all satire, that truth is the opposite of what is stated.

Anonalooser,
If you can't read that and see it's tongue and cheek, go to a school that teaches reading comprehension before it teaches all the other fancy stuff you've learnt.

"Hey ,...I have an idea ,...lets appoint a conservative!"

Well stated, old chap! Rothstein is not a conservative; as a judge in the kangaroo Human Rights court it's highly likely he's well to the left of normal, regular Canadians.

I guess we can put allen, molar and the rest of the geniuses down as against Harper appointing a conservative SCOC judge, and assume they are supportive of a left wing extremist SCOC pick; they seem really angry that I am critical of their precious left wing boy....

" that truth is the opposite of what is stated."

False. False, and retarded. It is obvious he is using humour as a thin veil, no argument there, but it's a sleazy brand of humour providing cover for his shyster tips to prospective shysters. So he's doing the opposite of what you claim. I see Occam still has a bee in his bonnet from our last chat.

"Now I will get serious."

I didn't say he wasn't using humour, Dim Witted Cogintive Dissonance Boy. You've proven nothing with your unsourced quote. Are you making up a quote again, for the second time this week, like you did in this thread, OC? (Yes, I know the quote exists but if you were a better man you wouldve sourced it) Can't say I'm impressed but it's your credibility on the line, not mine. I think you're just mad at me from the last time we went and it's clouding your judgement.

Look, stupid people, I'm not arguing whether he's using humour, I'm arguing he's using lame sleazy humour as a cover to give prospective shysters shystering tips. People do this all the time as I demonstrated above.

"asshole, i'm a lawyer "

Gee, hard to tell from your sparkling personality and high moral standards. You're a lawyer? Great, you're a dirtbag, everyone hates you for a reason: because lawyers ar the a**holes. Get lost, moochboy, you don't contribute anything but sleaze.

Any one else need their asses handed to them? I have no patience for stupidity today and some people need to be put in their place. Contribute something substantive to the conversation like research - like I did - or get the f**k out, leeches.

Cool, Anonaloque thinks I'm a left-wing troll.

Anyways, the question I'd like to see brought forward during the televised Q&a is...
"What did you think of former Prime Minister's Martin campaign pledge to remove the NWC?"

Maybe some others could include...
"Do you have 7 tips for special interest groups that appeal to the SCC?"

"You've been described by some as a 'precious left-wing boy'- do you think this is a fair representation?"

"How long have you been a shyster?"

Anonalogue:
The last time i looked, this was kates site.
You are offensive in the extreme.
When you grow up enough to stop admiring yourself,i hope you will realize how foolish some of your comments are.

Much better, Molar.

Lee: I'm not the one who is swearing here. Unlike lawyer boy, I *** out my swearing out of consideration for people reading this at work. So shouldn't you be ragging the guy who actually swore?

"You are offensive in the extreme. "

Offensive? Offensive? We conservatives don't use that word in that context, it offers too much wiggle room to be meaningful. "Offensive" is a word for pussies. Do you find the picture of the Small Dead Animal on this site "offensive"? "Offensive" doesn't play here, sir/ma'am; I mark you as a statist.

Here's an idea: let's move back to the topic at hand, OK? I know I'm all that but let's go with less Anonalogue and more Rothstein, mmm-kay? And add some research to the conversation like I did.

Wasn't Rothstein the moron that allowed the flight attendant's appeal regarding pay equity (or am I confusing my Rothsteins?) and subsequent referral to the SCC? You know the one were he agreed that a flight attendant's 'value' to the airline is comparable to a pilot and an aviation mechanic or more simply:

serving sesame snacks = landing a 747 = overhauling a Rolls Royce jet engine

There you go again, anonalogue, lol.
I dont feel like doing research, I would rather just express opinions with no background, links, or any other facts to back up those opinions.

anonalogue:

Just a suggestion...maybe switch to decaf for a while?

Bruce: a suggestion: less Anon, more Rothstein?

But while we're on the subject: Please be respectful of my heterosexual male culture. Telling it like it is and punishing stupidity, sometimes with bass and conviction in our voice and with a smattering of profanity, is part of our culture. I know my heterosexual male culture mays seem skeeeery to an outsider like you, but please, be more tolerant of our ways.

Annonalogue,

Actually I assumed that the remarks you've quoted were given to lawyers or law students. They would be the most likely audiance to "get the joke".

Trust me, he was joking. One of the most frequent topics of judges lectures to lawyers/law students is the annoying rhetorical habits of lawyers. The most frequents means of delivering this message is in a sarcastic/ironic list form.

For example, I am a lawyer and I recently attended a lecture by a judge of civility in advocacy. A major part of the lecture involved the judges (ironic) instructions on how to use a phone!

The remarks you've quoted would in no way be out of the ordinary for a judge giving (ironic) advice to future lawyers.

More to the point: Why would a member of the Federal Appeal court bench give a lecture encourgaging ineffective advocacy and disrespect to judges? Believe me, judges take respect for their own position very seriously. All of the habits listed are things that every first-year law student would know not to do, so I'm still "very sure" that those remarks were tongue-in-cheek.

Wow. Nice to see Anon finally putting a critical eye toward Harper et al...

Cheers!

My only complaint Anonaloque about your above posting is that it's a little over the top. You make some good points about wanting a conservative judge, et.al. but everyone is mostly upset with your misuse of Rothstein's humor. And then your insistence on defending it (and not very nicely).

I'd love to see a Conservative, non-activist SCC. I am looking forward to the Q&A for what it's worth. But I firmly belive that a little prick will burst the biggest balloon. It's too bad you are so set on being a big prick.

GM said: "Trust me, he was joking"

No, trust me, he was joking, as I'VE STATED REPEATEDLY YOU DISINGENUOUS IDIOT!!!!

Ahem.

Pay particlar attention to the part where I say:

"Look, stupid people, I'm not arguing whether he's using humour, I'm arguing he's using lame sleazy humour as a cover to give prospective shysters shystering tips."

Get that? Get that? I didnt say he wasn't joking, dumbass! You suck! Your arguments suck! Strawman making mischaracterizing jerk! Get the hell out of here and don't come back until you have something POSITIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE TO ADD!

Alright,

1) He wasn't giving "shystering tips." Any judge at any level of court would not be impressed by the style he has described. Any lawyer who, for example, used excessive jargon in an IP argument would instantly be told to explain himself more clearly. More to the point, any lawyer who avoided answering direct questions from a judge, or skirted a serious issue, would never be able to finish his arguement, since he would be interrupted constantly by the judge directing him to "Please answer the question, counsel".

There is a difference between "shystering" and simple ineffective advocacy. The remarks quoted represent examples of the latter. He was NOT giving covert instructions.

2)An aside: considering your apparent interest in "adding something constructive", you have displayed some questionable manners. Have I called you an "idiot" or said that you "suck"? Let's have some civility, please. Let's not lower this to the level of personal insults.

3) In my view, responding to a substantive point made concerning a judge's views on advocacy constitutes constructive debate.

But, since you have asked for a new point:

I would say that this appointment, particularly since it was not made from a conservative list, actually lends credibility to the new appoinment process implemented by mr. Harper, since it (hopefully) helps demonstrate that the tories have no intention to politicize the judiciary further.

Anonalogue said:

"I'm very sure that he was being sarcastic"

Actually, you're not very sure, GM, you're very wrong. You don't even know the context. I do.

Read the PDF and do a little digging, rubes, he wasn't joking, he was talking to other lawyers and law students.

Then Anonalogue said:

No, trust me, he was joking, as I'VE STATED REPEATEDLY YOU DISINGENUOUS IDIOT!!!!

As you can see, he's a shining example of consistency. It takes a big man to simply admit he was wrong. I wonder if we'll see that today?
By the way Anonalogue, the mention of "offensive" regarding your posts may have something to do with the number of times you refer to others on the board as "rubes" or "idiots".

"Please be respectful of my heterosexual male culture"

Okay, now you are just being an Asshole...and it strikes me that no-one suggested that you are other than hetero...feeling a little uncertain, are you?

God help me. I just can't resist.

Anonalogue the Latter:

"I didn't say he wasn't using humour"

Anonalogue the Former:

"Read the PDF and do a little digging, rubes, he wasn't joking, he was talking to other lawyers and law students"

Granted, you've obfuscated so much on whether or not there was in fact a joke or satire or not satire or an unjokey sort of joke or a satirical take on seriousness, or an underhanded attempt at serious satire, it's difficult to discern a position.

The main point here is that you haven't read, or haven't understood the nature of, his "tips". Even if we accept your double back position that you think he's pretending to joke, but is really serious about giving advice to other "shysters", the advice, if accepted prima facie, is bad advice. It's the sort of advice that will lose you a lot of cases in a hurry if you accept it. It's not the sort of advice one would offer to one's evil shyster comrades.

"Yes, I know the quote exists but if you were a better man you wouldve sourced it"

This rube didn't even have to do a little digging, as luck would have it. You sourced it. It comes from the transcript of Rothstein's speech at Oxford for which you obligingly offered a url in the quote you left, that being:

http://www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/EJWP0705.pdf

It having been sourced, I decided sourcing it a second time would constitute a surfeit of sourcing. As it were.

Carry on.

Time to inject a little silliness here to break up the cat fight. So , here's a question.
How can he be a judge and a marshall at the same time?
Actually Marshall is Muldoon's man and Harper seems to have an affection for Muldoon men.

So I see some of the partisan folks out there are a bit upset about the appointment eh?

Well you can go sit over in the corner with the chief justice of the SC and that infamous liberal CBC muckraker extrodinaire Heather Mallick.
They tend to be against the process of putting pre-appointed nominees before committees and (horror of horrors) being asked questions by the elected folks. Indeed, the temerity of it all, why thats just, just, so much of that nasty "us-style" stuff. Not against the nominee mind you, just that he shouldn't ever be made to have to answer...to anyone...ever!!!! Don't they know that judges are not only above the law, they create it.

UMMM, Are the Liberals still in power or am I missing something. Why is the CBC interviewing Liberal Irwin Cotler about what the interview process is all about rather than asking our New Conservative Minister Toews who really should be the one responding. Is it the Press or are the Conservatives not responding to the CBC Press Corp. This is a hoot. The shark press finally getting their due.

"God help me. I just can't resist."

Neither can I.

In an email seant to me Sun. Nov. 27th 2005, Occam's Carbuncle praised me and my sense of humour thusly, and I quote:

"Anonalogue is piss yourself funny, by the way."

So it's super dishonest for him to suggest that I lack the sense of humour to understand Rothstein, which was his (as usual, condescending) point of entry into this conversation. Nice.

"http://www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/EJWP0705.pdf"

I never offered that url, liar. Read the thread again, it doesn't appear anywhere, flat out liar. It's a different (longer) document than what I provided. I'd like to point out here that you just told a lie, liar.

And about your little humour/joking thing: Humour does not equal joking, OC. Two different words, two different meanings, used in different contexts though the subtlety might be lost on you in your present vengeful state.

Seriously, man, give it up, it's pretty obvious you've got a hate-on for me. I'll just put you down as "Pro-Left Wing SCOC judge", OK?

And on that note: here we are at Canada's largest right wing blog, Harper just rubber stamped what appears to be a left wing "Human Rights" adjucator selected by Irwing Cotler as our next SCOC judge, and all anybody can talk about is me. Swear words and straight talk seem to be objectionable, but nobody seems to have a problem with a left-wing judge being appointed to the SCOC.

What the f**k is wrong with you people? You people suck. Go find some Rothstein decisions and make yourselves useful.

Maybe some of us right-wing folks know which hill to die on. As if it makes any difference who gets appointed in terms of the big picture? Even if Mr. Harper chucked the Cotler short-list (and remember it was an all-party committee that made the list) and appointed the most rabid so-con available to the SCC, it would still be 8:1 by your standards and what did he achieve.

Changing the process like he is doing, even in the most subtlest of ways like he is doing, is much more effective. Focusing public attention on the process is also an extremely good argument against ever killing the NWC.

Mr. Harper needs to stop activism on the SCC and defend the NWC a lot more than he needs to appoint the perfect conservative to the bench.

And your focus on and insistence on attacking Mr. Rothstein by that humor link is what is making you a laughing-stock here today. Just admit it was a bad argument and go for a nap.

No.

Above "No" was *not*, in fact, aimed at the Tooth Terrorizer...

I notice Rothstein has this to say.

Perhaps famous marks and the similarity or connection between wares and
services are inversely related. That is to say, the more famous the mark, the less it
is necessary to show a similarity or connection between the wares or services of
the plaintiff and defendant. Couldn’t Coca-Cola argue that if someone wanted to
use the Coca-Cola trademark in connection with canned sardines or beach towels,
that the public might think that Coca-Cola had some connection even though the
wares are not similar to its soda? The mark is so unique and so famous that
whenever it is used, the source of the disparate products would be considered to be
the same as the soda.
Perhaps as marks are considered to be less famous, a greater emphasis might
be placed on the similarity or dissimilarity of the wares or services. Indeed, every
trademark holder wants to say that his trademark is famous. But in these cases of
less famous marks, perhaps their fame is more closely associated by consumers
with the wares or services with which they are connected. In such cases, the
inference of confusion with dissimilar wares or services would be less likely.

This is the usual social engineering we can expect from elitest types. One law for all isn't good enough, elitists will decide if a trademark will be granted based on how famous they think it is.

Guaranteed income for parasites.

Anonalogue:

Classy.

I'll refrain from reciprocating your quotes from private e-mail. Suffice to say I no longer find you all that amusing.

I went on to Quicklaw and had a look at some of Rothstein's reported judgments as a member of the Federal Court of Appeal. Given that there are over 2000 of them, I just looked at the first 50, that number taking me back to November 2005.

From what I saw, he and the other two panelists are far from being bleeding hearts. Judgments included quite a number of appeals from would-be refugee claimants asking for judicial reviews of decisions denying them status...all were rejected flat-out by the court. Also a number of appeals relating to pension claims, again the court ruled against the claimants in favour of the pensions funds and/or companies concerned.

This is hardly a definitive review, but I personally thought that the cases examined reflected a fairly conservative viewpoint.

From Rothstein's CV:

"Adjudicator, Manitoba Human Rights Act 1978-1983. Member, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 1986-1992."

I find it damn near impossible to believe a guy who sat on a human rights tribunal for over a decade could be - compared to the median regular Canadian citizen - reasonably described as "fairly conservative". Perhaps compared to the rest of the perversely and inherently left-lib judicial-legal complex, maybe, but I don't think Rothstein can reasonably be described as a conservative, or even a moderate conservative.

I'd like to see some of Rothstein's human rights kangaroo court decisions. You can't tell me a guy sits in a human rights kangaroo court for over a decade and didn't make any goofy judements.

I'm starting to think there aren't ANY conservative judges in Canada; the whole legal-judicial complex is inherently, peversely left-lib. Being a conservative would be career suicide in Canada if one aspires to a higher bench; it certainly wouldn't get you shortlisted by Irwin Cotler.

Well, it really depends on what you mean by "conservative".....

It can mean:

1) has a deep respect for precedent and is unlikely to distinguish new cases from old ones or overturn existing case law; or is likely to stand by that which has already been decided. Most judges are "conservative" in this sense, at least to some degree.

2)Has a limited view as to the role of the courts. Such a conservative will be highly deferential to the legislature, will read legislation in a strict textual manner, and will be much less likely to "read-in" implied terms into laws. Such a judge will also be less likely to use "policy" justifications for rulings. John Roberts is a good example of this kind of judge.

3) "conservative" in a partisan sense. This type of judge will take partisan positions on contentious issues without necessarily having a coherent judicial philosophy. This type of judge would basically be an MP in robes. There have been a few partisan liberals on the SCC bench, but very few conservatives of this type.

In my view, type 1 conservatism is essential to a good judge, and type 2 would also be beneficial, to the extent that it would balance out a court that has gone too far in the law-as-social policy direction. A "type 3" would undermine the integrity of the judicial system. We don't want judges that legislate from the bench, whether conservatives or liberals.

Is Rothstein Jewish? Because if he is, and if he is confirmed, then that will make 3 Jewish Judges, four and maybe another half French and only one and maybe another half English on the Supreme Court. I don't like those numbers. It's about being English and from Quebec and having to see the horrible results of the ever so slightly racist Supreme Court of Canda passing ugly racist laws against the English people of Quebec for what seems like an eternity. Those English in Quebec, (so few remain) are in pretty desperate shape. Personally, I want to see a real genuine Anglo who will balance this court and maybe stand up for some English rights for a change. The Supreme Court is so ethnically lopsided that it makes me sick. Even Rothstein's wife appears to be French and from Quebec. It seems like almost the whole damm Court is from Quebec or has major Quebec influence. And excuse me but, since when was the Jewish population of Canada so large that we needed three Jewish Supreme Court judges? I can see one, but three? I am a Canadian living in the USA and they are pretty careful about making sure there is a little more ethnic balance to their Supreme Court....so anyway, can someone answer my question - Is Rothstein Jewish? Not that I think poorly of Jewish people, I just don't think that their first burning desire in life is to look out for the interests of people such as the persecuted English people of Quebec. I expect that the Jewish Supreme Court judges are going to be more concerned about making damm sure there are no more Zundels running around Canada before they pay any attention to other cultural groups in Canada. And all those French judges...scary. Do you people not remember how time after time the Supreme Court has ruled against the English people of Quebec. In fact, National Geographic wrote an article a fews years back talking about how the English people in Quebec were being ethnically cleansed because of the racist laws against them. I would just feel a little more comfortable with a genuine English judge being appointed for once.

And now, we hear of some French clinic in Eastern Ontario....this is an English province people....that has refused to serve a woman because she was English and did not speak French. So wake up, because discrimation against English people is no longer just a Quebec problem. And with that, do you really want a Supreme Court made up of almost entirely French and Jewish judges? This is one of the most powerful entities in the country people.

Oh, and I might sound like a broken record here, but if any of you want proof of the persecution of the English people of Quebec I have compiled a large file and can send it off to you, so email me at dddkinnear@yahoo.ca.

dddkinnear:

Oh, where to begin?

Only 3 judges on the SCC are from Quebec.

Quebec's French language laws which is why the Quebec government had to rely upon the notwithstanding clause to enact it.

The US Supreme Court is more diverse than the Canadian? No women, a majority are Roman Catholic. A court is not a representative body and judges should be chosen on merit not race or gender, so that is not meant as a criticism of the US court. I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of your comparison.

And putting aside all of your racist comments and your desire for a "truly English" judge, what would you call Justices McLachlin, Major (now retired), Binnie, Fish and Abella.

If someone has been refused medical services because of language, that is atrocious and there is legal recourse. But to imply an invasion of the French across the country is a bit much.

And what is completely over the top is comparing the rights-violating French language laws to ethnic cleansing.

Thanks for comin' out though.

Ted
Cerberus

That should have read: Quebec's French language laws were struck down for violating the Charter which is why the Quebec government had to rely upon the notwithstanding clause to enact it."

wow, I'm tempted to comment but can't because then I'd be accused of stalking an idiot.

To keep it short & sweet, for the first time in my life I find myself rooting for a dentist. MM, you rock.

Ted:
Now who is trying to skew things? Re: your comment:
"And putting aside all of your racist comments and your desire for a "truly English" judge, what would you call Justices McLachlin, Major (now retired), Binnie, Fish and Abella"

Major is retired, period. Don't include retired judges in your skewed statistics. Fish is Jewish and Abella is Jewish. They are not English. They just speak the language. And as for Corneil-Binnie - he might be at least half,if not more, French as one of his names is French and he is from Quebec.

The other four are ENTIRELY FRENCH:
Charron, Lebel, Deschamps and Bastarach:

How dare you call me racist. The minute anyone anglo/saxon/celt tries to say anything in this country about unbalanced courts, senates, etc. other people SCREAM racism. The Supreme Court of Canada is clearly ethnically unbalanced and this leaves the English people of not only Quebec, but the rest of Canada in trouble. I am simply pointing that out. Don't you dare call me racist for doing that. And if the French/Jewish controlled media in Canada had an ounce of integrity they would point out that the Supreme Court of Canada is clearly ethnically unbalanced. And if you really want to get into it, I suspect the majority of Supreme Court Judges in Canada is also Catholic, as they are in the USA, (someone on this post felt the need to point out that fact) So, since I am Catholic, and also don't agree with so many Catholic judges on the Court, can you really call me racist? Get real. If the numbers of the Supreme Court of Candaa were skewed in favour of anglo/saxon/celt people the other ethnic groups in Canada would be SCREAMING racism. But we can't even bring up the unbalance??? That's called reverse racism, buddy.

Furthermore, I count four judges from Quebec, not three; you call that fair? And even if only three in nine judges were from Quebec, would you call that fair? Anyway, these judges are from Quebec: Fish, Deschamps, Lebel, Corneil-Binnie.

I was in the town in eastern Ontario last summer, the one where the English woman was just turfed out of a medical clinic because she could not speak French. That place was oozing hatred of English people from every nook and cranny. And furthermore, that little town has tons of English people either in the town or around the town. It's a very small town, servicing a community of mainly farmers, and I believe, most of them in English. In fact, the Highland games are held in Maxton, just ten kms away from that clinic. So, when you know more about the demographics of the region, it just makes me sick to think the "French" speaking people at the clinic turffed out that woman. And this happened in Ontario??? Make no mistake, ALL English people in Canada had better start paying attention to what is going on. Hateful racist discrimination against English people is now spilling out of Quebec into Ontario and New Brunswick and it WILL hit the west.

The English people of Quebec are no longer active in fighting for their rights. There are few left; most are seniors, and tragically, they have nowhere left to turn, especially when we look at the Supreme Court of Canada. It's pathetic.

And to finish off with the Supreme Court of Canada, they did actually rule in favour of English rights in a case in New Brunswick recently; so I am keeping my fingers crossed that they will stand up for English rights, but I am also very wary because of what they allowed to happen to the English people of Quebec. I would just feel more comfortable with the appointment of an anglo/saxon/celt judge. The Court needs more balance. How can you argue with that?

Don't you know how bad things are for English people in Quebec? The Language Police walked into a little English town last summer and issued them a citation, ordering them to speak French inside the city's municipal offices at all times. They have no recourse, no rights. Get real people. That's just so racist.

So, I don't see anyone answering my question. Is Rothstein Jewish?

I read an interesting book (in the late '70's) titled "Bi-lingual Today...French Tomorrow"...J. V. Andrews...he was a retired Sqadron Leader in the Royal Canadian Air Force and noted how the two solitudes was playing out within the military. He saw this as a template for what was planned forCanada. When I tried to get a copy at a number of libraries, I was told the book had been mysteriously (stolen) disappearing off the shelves, at a higher rate than any other book in our region. Could be it was in demand for personal libraries, as it was out of print or the perverbial 'someone' didn't want it circulating. I did manage to find a copy in Alton...iy was still a very interesting read.

* Squadron

dddkinnear,

Just a few points:

1) there are THREE quebec judges on the court. no more, no less. this is the way it has always been. This isn't because of language, it's because of the unique civil law tradtion of Quebec. Binnie, while born in Quebec, has practiced most of his career in Ontario; he represents ontario on the court.

2)Why are we worried about the ethnic makeup of the court? Aren't we normally the first people to complain about quotas of this kind? More to the point, what does it matter if the anglophone judges aren't Anglo-saxon? if we insist on Anglo-saxon judges, why not a token Chinese judge as well? I'm an anglo-saxon (only one generation removed from England!) and I don't care what the ethnic makeup of the court is, so long as they are the best judges available.

3)What does it matter if a significant number of the scc judges are jewish? Why do they suddenly not count? Arguably the best SCC chief justice ever (Laskin) and arguably the most vocal public defender of quebec anglophone rights (Richler)were both jewish. Where is the problem?

4)While I agree wholeheartedly that Quebec language laws are wrong, there is nothing the court can do about them. The court struck them down, and Quebec invoked the notwidthstanding clause. What do you expect the court to do now?

5) If your point is that the court has become to Montreal/Ottawa centric, then i agree. But that is more a matter of where the judges were trained, rather than their ethnic background.

"So, I don't see anyone answering my question. Is Rothstein Jewish?"

i believe he is. i'm surprised it took this long for the jew issue to be raised. normally we control things in a more clandestine fashion, like the banks and the media.

unfortunately, irwin cotler missed the meeting when we were discussing the short list for the nominees. we've agreed that he won't be getting any blood in his matzoh this passover.

lol!

Allen you are hilarious!

GM, you are also skewing facts.
Excuse me but Corneil-Binnie was born, bred and educated IN QUEBEC. Anyone born raised and educated in Quebec is a Quebecer through and through. They are ALL positively fanatical about their allegiance to Quebec, be they English or French. Quebec first, Canada second, always. That's just my point. I don't care if he represents Ontario- means nothing to me because his heart is likely with Quebec.

The whole damm selection process is hypocritical. The USA has a more transparent system. Believe me, the Americans ALL know the ethnic origins of their judges; as a result there is more balanced representation.

What if the ethnic makeup of the Court was different, say four and a half anglo/saxon/celt judges and three German judges, instead of what it now appears to be, four and maybe a half French judges and maybe three Jewish Judges (if Rothstein is Jewish) and only one and maybe a half French judges? EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTRY WOULD BE SCREAMING THAT THE COURT WAS BIASED.

And the very fact that status of the English people of Quebec is now nearly tragic speaks volumes about the complete failure of the Federal government AND the Supreme Court, in spite of the notwithstanding clauses. Let's hope they all do the right thing now that we see French racist behaviour spilling over into Eastern Ontario. Truthfully, I also blame the Canadian media which is almost ALL French/Jewish owned or controlled for increasing reverse racism in Ontario. So don't tell me that knowing the ethnic origins of the people in control of everything in Canada is not important. Clearly, when French speaking clinics in Ontario are now turning away English sick people, believe me, the ethnic origins of the people running Canada is an issue.

dddkinnear,

that's it. i'm sending a couple of my mossad buddies over there to circumcise you. don't worry, you won't feel a thing and they'll even bring some bagels lox and cream cheese.

to complete your indoctrination you will be tied up and your eyes will be wired open as you're forced to watch yentl on a continuous loop all weekend.

1) please explain to me what the actions of that clinic have to do with the supreme court; there have been no court proceedings related to it yet.

2)What, exactly, would you have the supreme court do about quebec language laws? Invalidate the notwidstanding clause? (which, of course, they can't do)

3) what makes you think that jewish judges wouldn't be sympathetic to anglophone rights? Last I checked, most Quebec Jews are also anglophones. Morris Fish, for example, is an english-speaking Quebecer who is known to be something of a libertarian on minority rights.

4)I agree that the American system of selecting judges is better, although their court is hardly more diverse than ours. (with the obvious exception that we don't have any black judges on ours)

5)If you think Mr. Rothstein is a bad judge, or is undeserving of a court appointment, I'd like to hear the reasons. His faith shouldn't enter into it.

6) The plight of Quebec Anglophones is well-documented and I agree that something should be done about it. I just think you're looking to the wrong forum for it if you think the makeup of the supreme court is a good place to start.

Allen:
Your buddies will have a hard time finding my pXXXs. Last time I checked I was still a girl. But anyway, I will stand up for the English people of Quebec and English people of Canada until I don't think it is any longer necessary, or until we've all been wiped out of Canada, and I don't like being called a racist for doing it. I don't like the composition of the Court. I'm worried, even though they did rule in favour of anglophones in New Brunswick recently.

And just one more little note GM and Allen:
I don't think you truly know how bad it is for English people in Quebec. In the little town I lived in, the acestral home of my son's paternal relatives, do you know what they do when their English kids have an accident? They drive all the way to Ontario. They are so afraid of what the French doctors might do to their kids. Until you see it first hand you just don't know how bad it really is. I was raised in Ontario, and was just so shocked, first, to see how bad it really is in Quebec, (now spilling over into Ontario, etc.) and second to see the damm media ignore this gigantic Canadian tragedy.

i was born and raised in montreal. i now live in toronto. notwithstanding the fact that you don't consider jews "english", i am an anglophone. while growing up in montreal was trying at times, it had more to do with being jewish than english speaking.

your comments about french doctors are ludicrous. besides there are many jewish doctors there as well but i guess you wouldn't want them touching your kids either.

I don't deny that the treatment of Quebec anglophones in the past 30 years has been shameful.

When lawmakers in quebec constantly assert that quebec is an exclusively french province, or that everyone in the province MUST know how to speak french, it amounts to at least an outright denial of reality, or at worst a mild, non-violent form of ethnic cleansing. Quebec is the only province I know of where it is a stated government policy to alter the ethnic/linguistic makeup of the population in a specific way. I consider Bill 101 to be linguistic apartheid.

But that said, what, exactly, does this have to do with Mr. Rothstein's religion, or the number of jews on the supreme court?

Do you actually read when you read? I said I lived in a small town/village. No Jewish doctors anywhere. Montreal is not a small town. You skew everything, and my comments about French doctors are not ludicrous, especially when you consider the shocking treatment of the English woman at the French clinic in Ontario...that's well documented and in the news. Just my point, an issue is only an issue when it effects you directly; stop using the racist card every time someone says something you disagree with. Over and out.

I'm getting all kinds of search hits at my blog from Canada and the USA using various permutations of "Marshall Rothstein Jew Jewish Supreme Court" and I - put that race card down, Allen - can't be the only one. Combined with the highly anomalous fact that bloggers and the media seems to want to go on record as being for or against this pick, the circumstances are exceedingly unusual, to say the least.

The irony is this: in the wake of the Mohammed Cartoon controversy, an issue - don't press that submit button yet, Allen, you'll look like an idiot for flinging another fake antisemitism charge - whereby free speech is being surpressed in the name of not offending an ethnic community, it appears that bloggers and the media are reluctant to praise or criticize Rothstein...for fear of offending an ethnic community. Please note that pointing all of this out does not automagically make me a *-ist.

OK Allen:
I am going to try just this one last time to state clearly why I have problems with the ethnic backgrounds of the new Supreme Court. Clearly from your comments you don't understand, as a Jew, just how difficult it is to be an anglo/saxon/celt in Quebec. I know lots of Jewish people, worked for Jews for ten years, and I am going to be painfully honest here; so many of you just don't understand how deeply many French people hate ANGLO/SAXON/CELTIC people, and furthermore, I don't think many Jewish people care. So three Jewish judges combined with four and maybe a half French judges leaves me feeling more than just a little concerned. You are NOT ANGLO/SAXON/CELT, and I doubt if any French people have any historic hatred of Jews, so how can you feel what we feel in Quebec? For God's sake, after what Jews went through I would think you, of all people, would understand what I am trying to say here. Why don't you get it?

And the only reason so few people haven't questioned the ethnic demographics of the new court is because NO ONE KNOWS. The media doesn't make a point of telling anyone, whereas in the USA it's upfront and center. The only reason I started to question things was because I did massive research after I pulled that evil history book out of my son's class in Quebec that was laced with pure hatred against English people. I'm talking English people, and I mean anglo/saxon/celts, not Anglos. The entire Canadian media, which, I found out through research is almost entirely French/Jewish controlled, refused to address the book or any other serious English issue in Quebec. And the hateful cartoons in my son's history book were no less serious than the cartoons in Denmark, yet they get LOTS Canadian media attention. Yet, racist cartoons right here in Canada, against OUR OWN PEOPLE, gets absolutely zero attention from the media. Get real.

We have no voice, no power in a country where we form the largest ethnic group. So I started doing research to find out why, and I came up with some facts that trouble me. I know about the notwithstanding clause limiting the Court's power, but I also know about the powerful Jewish lobby to get their people into both the Senate and the Court. It's all over the damm Internet. Come on, are they lobbying so that they can stand up for the English people of Quebec? I seriously doubt it.

Sorry, correct last post:
And the only reason so few people haven't..
to read
And the only reason so few people have...

ddd,

you should get back on those meds. the language laws in quebec are certainly draconian but they survived because of the province invoking the notwithstanding clause after they were stuck down as unconstitutional by the supreme court. blame trudeau.

if the french hate the "english" maybe it's because their majority population was treated as second class until the quiet revolution.

anonalogue,

i didn't raise race or pull the card out. i was responding to ms "english" and her posts that were self-evidently prejudicial. i'm not surprised you missed that because your keen skills of critical analysis were clearly displayed by your inability to infer that the rothstein 7 point plan was a joke.

as far as a dearth of commentary on his appointment goes, it's because it's a done deal, nobody has ever heard of him and nobody cares.

come on guys, lighten up. with 3 jews on the court we won't have to worry about sharia. but you'd better stock up on your back bacon.

ALLEN: Stop pulling statements out of a hat without backing them up. Your latest pisses me off.

"if the french hate the "english" maybe it's because their majority population was treated as second class until the quiet revolution"

The French were always the massive majority in Quebec, always had their own legal system, and always had the right to vote. They were the best treated defeated people in the history of the world. You know, some people refer to the so-called 'quiet revolution' the beginning of the 'ethnic cleansing movement' which is alluded to by at least one other person on this post alone. One person's revolution is another person's 'ethnic cleansing'. It all depends on which side you are on...the persecuted or the persecuter. Again, as a Jew, you should already know that. Damm, you're biased.

The real problem in Quebec has always been the fact that in order to be economically competitive, they would have to accept the English language, as they are surrounded by it. And they still refuse to do so, even when given the opportunity to have massive funding to also preserve French. They were never second class, they just didn't realize that in order to compete they had to learn English, and the same holds true even today. Just look at them. Without massive funding from we evil "English" people in the rest of Canada they would fall flat on their face. Nothing has changed since the so-called 'quiet revolution' except for the fact that they got rid of the 'evil' Hanglish. In fact, they are now worse off than they were before, economically speaking. Don't you remember when the financial powerhouse of the country was Montreal? Those were back in the days when there were English people in Quebec, always a definite minority, and long BEFORE we had to start forking over billions of dollars annually to keep Quebec afloat.

Anyway, I'm off this topic, gotta send my 'file' to at least another 100,000 "English" people. So you won't hear from me for some time, and I'm talking months here. This blogging sxxt is a waste of time. I get better results just sending my nasty little file around. You've all given me some juicy material for my file though.

Ciao

,,,again, try to find..."Bi-lingual Today, French Tomorrow"...J. V. Andrews...I've got a photocopy for those who can't find the original book in our 'public' library system...

Anonalogue: re: your wondering if there will ever be true conservatives on the bench. I think not, that is, until we start to appoint non-lawyers. Should it be necessary to be a lawyer? I have only quite recently finally understood how left-lib lawyers are -- they really are. But it makes sense if you think about it. They benefit tremendously from activist government which by definition is statist/lib-left. Lawyers are natural intervenors, because somewhere along the line (possibly in 1st year law school) they get the idea that they know everything about everything -- a necessary mindset for statists.