CBC had obtained the the first “gotcha” in the War on Harper.
A Saskatchewan Conservative MP, Maurice Vellacourt, had criticized the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Judge, Beverley McLachlin, had fired back.
It was all “quite extraordinary” given the Prime Minister’s desire to keep his caucus in check, said McNeil Sunday night.
Less extraordinary was the fact the CBC, in its rush to smear a Conservative MP and the Prime Minister, had missed the real story.
The Supreme Court spokesman had either lied or been misled by the Chief Justice when responding to Vellacourt.
And The Black Rod has the proof.
To the CBC — Gotcha.
The rest at the Black Rod
More – to assist those who are having trouble comprehending the implications of McLachlin’s speech, I direct you to a column by Ted Byfield, published this February; Vellacott is not the first, nor is he the only person to raise this issue of the self-elevation of judges who believe themselves endowed with supernatural understandings of law that eclipse mere words written in a Constitution.
When a person is appointed to the bench, explained our chief justice, he or she acquires a unique wisdom and knowledge conferring an ability to determine with certainty how Canadians must live.
Thus the judge must not feel bound by the precise words of the Charter.
Even in the face of a hostile public opinion, the judge must establish “norms” which are “essential to the nation’s history, identity, values, and legal system.”
The judge is able to discern these “norms,” she continued, and confer on them the force of law where necessary.
Only judges know how to accurately interpret these unwritten concepts,
REALity said it begged to differ.
“Judges in Canada are appointed because they or their law firms have paid large sums of money to the party in power, or have personally worked diligently for the party in power,” said the magazine.
The intriguing, in fact dangerous possibility, however, is Chief Justice McLachlin actually believes this stuff.
Perhaps she sincerely thinks when a lawyer is appointed to the bench, a new insight — what Christians call “grace”– somehow descends upon the appointee.
This person is no longer just a lawyer who backed the right party.
He is now a seer, an oracle, a clairvoyant with new powers and insights into the soul of the nation.
I find it interesting that the leftie commentors here are the most supportive of McLaghlin’s creative approach to the Canadian constitution.
I would find it even more interesting to observe their reaction if McLaghlin were a socially conservative judge whose “unwritten norms” included expanding Charter rights to the fetus.
From The Time Capsule – an exerpt from a 1976 Globe & Mail article reveals that Rosalie Abella (appointed to the Supreme Court in 2004) had no objection to describing judges as “playing God”.
Smoking gun? I doubt it and the fact that her holiness spoke those words earlier will never make it to the airwaves and therefore the CBC has been sucessful in the drive-by smear. People remember headlines not retractions or corrections (if any )at a later date. That is National Inquirer 101 in journalism school.
BTW: Glad we can post again. The items you threw out but we could not comment on had me talking to my monitor.
The sooner the CBC is axed, the better. I watched this so-called scoop on “CBC Sunday Night”, or whatever it’s called. Two hosts, one pudgy female and a whiny Strombo looking male, sans facial hardware, you know the pair.
Yeah, real scoop, CBC. Reminds me of the American reporter paddling the canoe in two inches of water!
Someone should inform the CBC the election was four months ago. The hidden agenda thing is really really old.
Anyone watch Question Period today? Everytime the LIEbrals brought up this issue, our Kickass PM stood up and directly quoted a LIEbral MP’s words attacking a judge or judicial activisym (Oh snap, my spelling is aweful today). Kinda made the opposition look stupid and hypocritical.
Made my whole dang day…
(I’m trying to de-salt my lingo Kate, Honest!)
It’s odd. I think that Justice has a point, in that there is a ancient tradition in common law that some laws and principals ante-date “legislative law” and judges should defend that.
Several English kings and such got into serious unrest by trying to wipe out ancient use customs by legislative fiat for example. (I recall yeomen of norfolk being told that they could no longer bear arms as one, there were others. The usurpation of use and custom by the central government is nothing new.)
What worries me is that our dear justices aren;t talking about that, protection of old law and custom, but reading any number of the more fluffy so called “positive” rights, that the left so loves – aand that are generally anti freedom – into things.
That’s potentially very scary, and deserves BR’s annoyance.
And the MSM are up in arms that Harper wants to manage the governments message to the populace?
Gaze deeper into your navel as to why PMSH wants that boys and girls.
If McClachlin considers that there are ‘unwritten constitutional principles’ which she and her fellow supreme court judges are alone privy to – then, this is a clear affirmation of a priestly class with direct access to the presumed truths of the world, defined as ‘natural law’. This assertion of the existence of a priestly class, of its singular capacity to access Real Truths – is a basic axiom in all mythologies.
She writes that these unwritten, hidden principles, unavailable to all but the supreme court appointees – “must be upheld by the courts whether or not they find expression in constitutional texts’ – This is a clear articulation of her belief in the supremacy of the judges, as activist, to make law – and both ignore the constitution and ignore the democratic rights of the people.
I quote Justice Scalia of the US Supreme Court – someone who rejects activist judges: “What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority…is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle” What are these principles? Are they some Hidden Truth, nestling at the bottom of the well? No – they are the constitution.
McClachlin rejects the constitution. She rejects the legislature of the people. She and her fellow judicial appointees, alone, make law. Because she and they, alone, have direct access to Truth. All praise to her and them.
Scalia again, “when justices are guided by their own concepts of evolving standards’ , they become political actors in settling issues” . Scalia rejects what McClachlin is advocating – namely “the notion of a living constitution, a constitution that is interpreted in accordance with justices’ notions of ‘evolving standards of justice’….This has resulted in a climate in which society’s most difficult moral questions are settled not by legislatures, the voice of the people, but by unelected judges, who manage to find ‘novel rights’ in the constitution despite the lack of a clear historical or textual basis for them”
http://www.confirmthem.com?p=1108
McLachlin is doing just that; finding (her term is ‘discovering’) novel rights – (Her term is ‘unwritten principles’) that somehow ‘exist’ (how? floating in the air?)
In her view, the constitution, a text written by the people, is irrelevant. What is more fundamental, are these ‘hidden truths’, to which she and her fellow justices, alone have access.
Hmm. That’s some democracy.
I sincerely hope that PMSH doesn’t force a retraction from Vellacourt. I would like to see This whole sordid mess openly exposed. Excellent post Black Rod. Thanks for pointing it out Kate, and glad to comment again.
‘Glad to be back–and to see everyone else popping up again! Thanks, Kate!
I hope that Black Rod sends copies of his blog piece–all that homework!–to Bev Oda:
Oda.B@parl.gc.ca
Bev Oda is the CPC Heritage Minister whose department has the mandate to review the CBC; she might be interested. And, if he hasn’t already, to CBC Watch:
admin@cbcwatch.ca
Then, he might also write to Beverley McLauchlin herself to ask a few pointed questions about her spokesperson’s disingenuous response to the CBC.
Then, an e-mail to Carol McNeil at cbc.ca and the CBC Ombudsman would also be a great idea:
Ombudsman@cbc.ca
I think it’s always good for the entitled members of the chattering classes to know that they’re being watched and what they say is being noted. It’s also good to challenge them–always politely–and tell them that you expect an answer. Carbon copy (cc) your queries to someone in the government–maybe Bev Oda or the Justice Minister–so that they carry a little more weight. Obviously, when you get your answer, you’ll expect them to cc the person you cc’ed to…
The dirty tricks never end, do they?
Wow-what a remarkable speech by your Chief Justice!
So Canadian Law isn’t necessarily any of the explicit words of your Constitution, your Charter, nor Parliamentary statutes, nor long-standing Common Law precendents.
Law in Canada is exactly what Beverly McLachlin and her fellow judges on the Supreme Court say it is, at any given time-no more, no less.
Scary, very scary…
I would respectfully say to my Canadian friends that you need a new Constitution, one with real checks and balances between the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of government.
If that sounds too “American-like”, you might want to look very closely at the Australian Constitution. Their 1900 Constitution took the Westminister Parliament concept and much improved upon it with real checks and balances.
You’ll find in their Constitution, among other things, your EEE Senate idea, a better balance between State and Federal powers and Parliamentary checks and balances between both Parliament and the Prime Minister and Parliament and the Judiciary.
Wise folks, those Aussies! The Australian government website has their Constitution at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/index.htm
Sickened by trudeau’s charter and anticipating the rush to powergrab by the supremes, knowing that throwing out our precious gift of British Justice by stealing power from the people’s reps. and throwing it to our supreme infallibles had to produce the dog’s breakfast now ours-would that we could turn the clock back to Dief’s version of parliament rights act, and where are the myrmidons of yank haters on this one when they have at last a real issue of yankee copycat behaviour with obvious negative consequences for us all?
The “unwritten constitution” or “constitutional convention” has always been a part of the British and Canadian Parliamentary system. It’s what kept Trudeau in check when he wanted to unilaterally bring home the constitution. The Supreme Court said you have to consult with the provinces even though there is no such written law. The Supreme Court was right.
Ted
Cerberus
Death to the CBC!
And inside Carol McNeil is a very fat woman just waiting to pig out.
If anyone is interested this is a Fraser Insitute article on our beloved Supreme Arrogances:
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/May04ffLeroy.pdf
Sacry stuff the speech by our chief justice. The Liberals are out of office but are they really? They have hung us with a liberal court that is activist as hell. At least we still have the “clause” – ya, the one Paul wanted to do away with.
As for the CBC – I just paid my income tax and I just want to punch a hole in one of my tax paid gyprock walls when I think that even one penny of that tax money is going to fund that phoney bunch of incompetent idiots.
And the worst of it is that there is no constitutional provision under which Her Holiness can be removed. The country is stuck with this pretentious piece of dung for another decade or so.
And the worst of it is that there is no constitutional provision under which Her Holiness can be removed. The country is stuck with this pretentious idiot for another decade or so.
This brings me back to a post I did a few months ago on the Chief Justice:
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2005/12/supreme-bullshit.html
In which I said pretty much the same as did Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. Vellacott isn’t wrong at all, in terms of substance. The Chief Justice has made it clear as to her views as to her role: to deem regardless of the Charter and regardless of the laws written by the elected representatives of the people.
The Chief Justice has canonized herself; she has unilaterally declared that she’ll effectively “play God”… though not in those words, precisely. The meaning of what she has said is quite clear. She and her colleagues in the Santa suits will deem however they see fit, regardless…
AND shortly following the posting, I noted via Sitemeter that I had had a visit straight from the Supreme Court of Canada. But no communication to refute my opinions.
And I’m not surprised that the MSM is making a stink over Mr. Vellacott’s words. I just watched Mike Duffy discussing the matter as well. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see the MSM continue to misreport the facts, to ignore the Chief Justice’s actual words as provided by the Black Rod.
Just watch them try to use it as a weapon against the increasingly popular (70% approval in Quebec) Prime Minister Harper.
Vellacott said:
“Beverley McLachlin herself actually said that when they step into this role all of a sudden there’s some mystical kind of power comes over them by which everything that they ever decree then is not to be questioned.”
McLachlin never said there was a ‘mystical power [that came] over them’.
Simply put, that’s wrong. She never said that.
Re: Dave’s comment on Australian constitution etc.
Edmonton Journal:
”
Jennifer Ditchburn, Canadian Press
Published: Monday, May 08, 2006
OTTAWA (CP) — Conservative policy planners are examining the possibility of American-style Senate elections, where voters cast ballots for certain Senators on one six-year cycle, and other senators on a second six-year cycle.”
But even the Toronto Star has had a rush of sense to the head:
“May 8, 2006. 05:40 PM
CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA — Conservative policy planners are examining the possibility of Senate elections, where voters cast ballots for certain Senators on one six-year cycle, and other senators on a second six-year cycle.
The model, used in Australian and U.S. Senate elections, would ensure a regular influx of fresh blood into the upper chamber since all elected senators would be required to step down after six years in office.
AMERICAN-STYLE!!!
And I’m sick of Canadians having to drive American-style internal combustion-engined cars!
In McMilland, “gotcha” means “reporting a deranged lunatic MP’s fabrication.”
Very down-market smear, Kate. We expect better.
Ted said:
“The “unwritten constitution” or “constitutional convention” has always been a part of the British and Canadian Parliamentary system. It’s what kept Trudeau in check when he wanted to unilaterally bring home the constitution. The Supreme Court said you have to consult with the provinces even though there is no such written law. The Supreme Court was right.”
Well, Ted, the fact is that was the Court’s opinion. And it’s your opinion that they were right.
Still, although I believe the provinces do need to be consulted, as it is a confederation we have here, after all, this ruling cannot be used to justify the fact that the SCOC has the power to deem whatsoever it sees fit regardless of anything that’s written and while being completely immune to being questioned or challenged. This is effectively a dictatorship by judiciary. And why must we blindly, obediently assume that the Justices of the SCOC will necessarily be perfectly scrupulous and never, never allow their personal beliefs or agendas to enter into their decisions? Why must we believe that they’ll never have a hidden agenda to effect social change, in line with the wishes of the Prime Minister who appointed them?
For me, I have strong reservations about allowing any body to have absolute, unchecked power. This includes the sacred cow of the SCOC. I’m not afraid to question the SCOC, nor should anyone else be.
It’s all a part of thinking for oneself and not simply allowing others to tell us what to think. It’s part of questioning and/or opposing leftist dogma, no matter how strongly it’s reinforced.
A busy weekend and work today has kept me from the news and blogging so the first I heard of this situation was on Duffy today. To hear Duffy, the Liberals/NDP and the two journalists, this is right up there with Randy White’s statements regarding the courts (another sleaze job by the media, by the way), and shows the far right wing agenda of the CPC. I was concerned about the situation.
Then I got to your site Kate ( hallellua – the comment withdrawal is over – I can get my fix) and red yours’ and Black Rod’s facts on the situation. I truly cannot believe how the MSM has reported on this. What a bunch of b*lls*&t!!
I hope that someone more computer savey than me sends this to every media person, media watchdog, and anyone else who will listen.
I wholeheartedly concur with ET’s commentary above.
For Todd, 6:55 PM:
Actually, Mr. Vellacott was paraphrasing the Chief Justice, Todd.
That’s what he was doing.
Amazing a lot of folks, particularly the supposedly all-comprehending MSM, haven’t come to that realization!
Vellacott was PARAPHRASING!
Someone should inform the CBC the election was four months ago. The hidden agenda thing is really really old.
yeah, but unfortunately still just as relevant today. Looks like this government is well on it’s way to being the most secretive in history.
Todd posted:
“Vellacott said: ‘Beverley McLachlin herself actually said that when they step into this role all of a sudden there’s some mystical kind of power comes over them by which everything that they ever decree then is not to be questioned.’
McLachlin never said there was a ‘mystical power [that came] over them’.
Simply put, that’s wrong. She never said that.”
Todd, psst . . . in other words, McLachlin IMPLIED just this. It’s called an “inference”: Kids learn about this in primary school. (I’m a teacher: If I were evaluating Vellacott on using the text–here, the spoken words of McLachlin–he’d get an A at least.)
E.g., Vellacott may not have used the Chief Supreme’s exact words, but he very well conveyed her message.
Now that you have that straight, Todd, I’d be interested to know your response. (Remember, stick to the text.)
PMSH’s strategy:
1. Keep a low profile, party stays mum, CBC reporters and Liberals starving for a shred of evidence.
2. Toss out a tiny morsel and the MSM surrounds it like hungry wolves and begin to howl at the top of their lungs.
3. The morsel is actually a grenade that explodes in the face of the Liberals and media and they desperately back-track while the blogosphere delights in their pain and anguish.
4. Harper is a super genius.
5. Karl Rove lights up another cigar.
Why has he apologized if he wasn’t in the wrong?
From Canada.com
“His remarks drew a rare response from the chief justice in which she denied through a spokeswoman saying any such thing.
Vellacott wasn’t talking to reporters Monday, but he issued a written apology.
“I alluded to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s Lord Cooke Lecture given on Dec. 1, 2005,” he said in a statement.
“I may have given the impression that in that speech she expressly said that she had “god-like powers.
“I acknowledge that Ms. McLachlin did not literally use those words. I regret the misunderstanding that was created. I extend my apologies to her in this regard.”
Vellacott added that he respects the independence of judges as a “fundamental aspect of a free and democratic society.”
swingvoter, how do i say this? Hmmmmmmmmmm. What a DOLT!!
I’m having a hard time figuring this one out.An elected politician cannot criticize an appointed judge on what she has said or inferred in the past.Why not? This sets the judges way above the rest of us,up on a pedestal,dare I say, almost god-like.
No, Vellacott wasn’t simply paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is rewording for the purpose of clarification. Vellacott was rewording for the purpose of embellishing and making the justice seem deranged. Never did she say that ‘mystical feelings’ come upon them nor did she say that their judgements should ‘never be questioned’.
If Vellacott had simply said that the Supreme Court justices are not interpreting law but are creating new laws based on their own political leanings, that would be one thing. To bring ‘mystical feelings’ into the picture is simply wrong. The only ‘mystical feelings’ that have occurred was Vellacott’s own when he created a ‘lean-to’ or ‘shack’ out in the middle of nowhere which has never been found.
First, let’s spell the poor bastards’s name right; It’s Vellacott.
Vellacott is an idiot.
Vellacott lives in a fantasy world, where “twilight tours” never happened and when they do, it’s misunderstood and it’s not the cops fault.
Vellacott seems to be trying to “help” his PM by citing examples of judges pursuing their own “left wing” agendae. His PM has a case.
Vellacott is not helping his PM.
Vellacott was, is and likely will remain an idiot.
Andy
Oh, and one more thing … I think Carol Macneil is kind of cute!
Andy
Oh, come on, Todd. He was clearly paraphrasing.
You’re claiming malice on the part of Mr. Vellacott. Can you prove that “Vellacott was rewording for the purpose of embellishing and making the justice seem deranged”? No. That’s your opinion.
Come on. People do this all the time. People say of one another, “So he’s saying…” and that sort of thing. Surely you’ve noticed? That’s what I mean by paraphrasing. He didn’t necessarily mean that the Chief Justice actually said those words, for he knew she didn’t, and he never said it was a “direct quote”.
Besides, he did later clarify that he didn’t mean to say those were her actual words.
Why not give the man the benefit of the doubt? It’s reasonable to do so.
Here come the leftists to poo on their latest victim, Mr. Vellacott. They just love it when they have an opportunity.
Of course, the left worships the Supreme Court as if it was their God.
Then again, the left loves to submit to that which is supreme to them and gives them the comfort they seek. That’s why the SCOC is full of leftists, appointed by leftists. It’s godlike in this way.
These folks have their sacred cows.
Hey Canadian Sentinel!
Vellacott is too lame to even be considered a victim.
And just because I (and others) think that Vellacott is an idiot doesn’t imply I (we) are leftists. Realists, OK?
With an exception or two, it’s hard to think of SCOC as full of leftists. Someone with time on his/her hands should look up who appointed whom.
Andy
Vellacott may not be a brilliant M.P., but on this issue he’s spot on. McLachlin clearly indicated that she believes that she can intuitively overide the constitution and the common law, if she feels that they are out of line. Vellacott’s sarcasm was a tad harsh, but he sure as hell got the message right and delivered it well. His apology was pretty wussy, but when you have rattled the chain of someone with the capacity to ruin you, it’s probably wise to duck and dodge. The important thing is that he got the word out – now if the MSM only had the integrity to follow up on it —-
Andy, FYI seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices are Lieberal. Only Justice Major, a PC is scheduled to retire anytime soon. 2013 is the earliest we get rid of a Libber. And quel suprise, all the Libs were appointed by the last two Liberal PMs.
While Vellacourt may have been correct in his comments, this is an area that the Conservatives should stay away from. The public trust of the SCC is very high (especially in contrast to politicians) and politicians who criticize it will be viewed with suspicion. Harper’s best bet is to appoint judges who view their role in the more traditioanl sense of applying the law rather than making it.
Todd, I didn’t say “paraphrasing”, I said “inferencing”: That’s what Mr. Vellacott did. (Please check the dictionary in order to understand the distinction between the meaning of these two words.)
To QUOTE McLachlin, B.:
“I conclude that while it is useful to articulate fundamental constitutional norms insofar as we can, the fact that a principle or its application does not take written form does not provide a principled reason for rejecting judicial reliance on it.
“There do indeed exist unwritten principles without which the law would become contradictory and self-defeating, and it is the duty of judges not only to discover them, but also to apply them.”
That sounds pretty “God-like” to me, Todd. What are these “unwritten principles” on which The Supremes of our High Court must make decisions which profoundly affect the daily lives of every Canadian? (In fact, B. McLachlin’s musings appear “uber-Godlike”: most other religions, e.g., Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc., have Holy Books. Her “Holy Book” appears to be a figment of . . . whoops! . . . in her own head.)
Obviously, if these “unwritten principles”–on which, McLachlin says, the Supreme Court justices must rely–are written down, they would be dictated by seers like her, not Canada’s duly elected representatives. Hmmm . . . such judicial hijacking of the prerogatives of the people of Canada seems pretty transcendent, e.g., God-like, to me.
How to be useful?
1) Not talking to the trolls. What a waste of breath, brain power, and ink.
2) Sending a copy of The Black Rod’s blog on Vellacott and her Supreme Hindquarter’s–er, I mean, Her Supreme–Highness Beverley McLaughlin’s comments on the SCOC in New Zealand, which amounted to pretty much what Vellacott said, to the CBC and to Mike Stuffy Live.
The thing is, these guys have been around so long, they’re totally stuck in their ways, and they don’t want to be corrected or confused with the facts. Because that’s what the truth does to these guys: It confuses them. They’re not used to it. They don’t know how to react to it, except to maintain the usual left/lib fabrications, because it’s all they know.
All we can do, is keep putting the facts in front of them–and, hey, if enough of us were to send them The Black Rod’s blog about this, the light might just start to go on. At the very least, they won’t be able to say “I didn’t know.”
Andy – my 6:41 pm post gives a link to a Fraser Inst article that identifies who appointed SC and when.
mea culpa… my last post contained information gleened from a document from 2004. The last justice appointed was by the CPC on March 1 of this year. However my point still stands, the appointments and accountability of the Supreme Court needs to be addressed.
Texas Canuck:
Mr. Justice John Major retired in December and was “replaced” by Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein, a definitive Conservative. However, whether Lib or Con, the SCOC judges are not really political; they are consensus appointments.
Oy!
Maurice Vellacott is a monster. Period.
Paul I dont know about a lot of other people out there but I dont have a lot of trust or belief that the SCOC speaks for me or a lot of the peons (working people)I know
McLachlin’s “God Head” speech even appeared in the MSM back when the last SCC appointment was made. They have short memories.
I noted that Ms McLachlin referred extensively in her New Zealand speech on the “natural law”.
Does this include “Yogic Flying”???