Chief Justice supports criticism of Kenney

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
HALIFAX — The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada has added her voice to the legal profession’s condemnation of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who sparked an uproar earlier this year on the issue of judicial independence.


Speaking on the matter for the first time, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin applauded the Canadian Bar Association on Saturday for protesting comments Kenney made last winter, when he said Federal Court judges weren’t toeing the line of the Harper government’s immigration policies.


In a speech to the CBA’s governing council, McLachlin said:


“I was certainly — and I think all judges were — very pleased when an issue arose earlier this year when a minister of the Crown seemed to suggest that some judges were insufficiently solicitous to government policy. We were very, very gratified to see your president writing a powerful public letter to the minister in question, reminding the minister of the importance of public confidence in an impartial judiciary, that bases its decisions on the law and not on government policy.”


In a controversial speech last February to the law faculty at the University of Western Ontario, Kenney said Federal Court judges, who preside over immigration cases, weren’t doing enough to help the government remove immigrants with alleged criminal pasts, and other unwanted refugees, from Canada.


He accused judges of delaying such cases in the court, and of “heavy-handed” interference in decisions made by immigration department officials.


The comments were loudly condemned at the time by immigration lawyers and by Rod Snow, the CBA’s president....


Read more

the importance of public confidence in an impartial judiciary, that bases its decisions on the law and not on government policy

Well duh!

Good for her!
 

55Mercury

rigid member
May 31, 2007
4,272
987
113
Well, I think she ought to bear in mind that it is government that drafts the laws and it is the intent of the law's author that needs to be considered in passing judgements, not some magistrate's waffling opinion on it.

She can be replaced.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Well, I think she ought to bear in mind that it is government that drafts the laws and it is the intent of the law's author that needs to be considered in passing judgements, not some magistrate's waffling opinion on it.
The SCC needs more then just a single magistrates opinion, to pass down a legal ruling.

I realize this is a silly question, but, what if the gov't passed a law that said everyone that used kitty avatars, would be subject to a new tax?

The SCC must be a separate entity, upholding the Charter, to prevent the gov't from acting as the mob leader.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
Is this the same Chief Justice of the SCC, Bev McLachlan, who forced through the nomination of mass murderer Henry Morgentaler for the Order of Canada, over widespread popular revulsion and of the accepted norms of the nominating committee, which include unanimous approval, universal respect and the absence of the appearance of the promotion a political agenda. She permanently tarnished the award by this action.

This statement only serves to confirm that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has created a judicial tyranny, a law unto itself, monumentally arrogant.. with no respect for or obligation to the Canadian electorate. And that the courts are filled with ideological hacks like McLachlin.

The woman is an incompetent jurist, an intellectual mediocrity and a moral imbecile, so why should anyone care what she thinks about anything.
 

55Mercury

rigid member
May 31, 2007
4,272
987
113
I've got a problem when they start according Canadian Charter rights to non-Canadians, and any immigrant who willfully breaks the contract he/she signed before becoming Canadian deserves their citizenship revoked and no umbrella charter rights.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,748
11,087
113
Low Earth Orbit
I've got a problem when they start according Canadian Charter rights to non-Canadians, and any immigrant who willfully breaks the contract he/she signed before becoming Canadian deserves their citizenship revoked and no umbrella charter rights.
What about permit workers?
 

55Mercury

rigid member
May 31, 2007
4,272
987
113
What do permit workers need Canadian Charter rights for? Is that the only way they'll show up?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I've got a problem when they start according Canadian Charter rights to non-Canadians, and any immigrant who willfully breaks the contract he/she signed before becoming Canadian deserves their citizenship revoked and no umbrella charter rights.

Yes, well that's the rub isn't it. There is a huge difference between breaking a contract, and allegedly breaking a contract.

Also, your notion of who the Charter applies to is far from wrong, it's way wrong. Section 7 of the Charter says everyone has these rights, the clause contains no qualifier to apply the charter only to citizens. Similarly, Section 2 of our Bill of Rights does not mention that fair judicial procedures shall apply only to Canadian citizens. If an American breaks the law in Canada, they get the same rights before the law as a Canadian does.

What do permit workers need Canadian Charter rights for?

Yeah, while you're at it why don't you just shill for Sharia Law...oh yeah, Sharia law is incompatible with our Constitutional documents.
 

55Mercury

rigid member
May 31, 2007
4,272
987
113
Yes, well that's the rub isn't it. There is a huge difference between breaking a contract, and allegedly breaking a contract.

Also, your notion of who the Charter applies to is far from wrong, it's way wrong. Section 7 of the Charter says everyone has these rights, the clause contains no qualifier to apply the charter only to citizens. Similarly, Section 2 of our Bill of Rights does not mention that fair judicial procedures shall apply only to Canadian citizens. If an American breaks the law in Canada, they get the same rights before the law as a Canadian does.



Yeah, while you're at it why don't you just shill for Sharia Law...oh yeah, Sharia law is incompatible with our Constitutional documents.
Personally, I think if an allegation of abuse (no evidence, no proof) is enough to drive a family apart in this country, then it's good enough for immigrants, permit workers and tourists. Deport them. They can have all the hearings they like at their expense in a Canadian Embassy of their choice.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Personally, I think if an allegation of abuse (no evidence, no proof) is enough to drive a family apart in this country, then it's good enough for immigrants, permit workers and tourists. Deport them. They can have all the hearings they like at their expense in a Canadian Embassy of their choice.

And if the allegations were untrue? Your opinion means Canadian tax payers picking up the tab.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Personally, I think if an allegation of abuse (no evidence, no proof) is enough to drive a family apart in this country, then it's good enough for immigrants, permit workers and tourists. Deport them. They can have all the hearings they like at their expense in a Canadian Embassy of their choice.

I imagine in your world a Govt is elected - Then appoints those that will follow Govt Policy as Judge, Jury and Executioner - but not the Law.
 

55Mercury

rigid member
May 31, 2007
4,272
987
113
maybe. but I think the long term costs would be less overall.

aw come on, Goob, the gov't makes the laws.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
maybe. but I think the long term costs would be less overall.

aw come on, Goob, the govt makes the laws.

Okay - The Govt also has the power to invoke the Not Withstanding Clause - could have been done to expel for example refugees not entering the country legally - Both Libs and Cons have decided not to. The SCOC ruled the Charter applies to all - regardless of how they got here -

Kenny was out of line- Much like his BS on stripping Cdn Citizenship - all that happens - worst case is that person reverts to the stage they were at prior to gaining Citizenship - Oh my back to landed immigrant and gotta start all over- What a penalty.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
To start with each case is an individual one and should not be subjected to buldozer tactics
of any government officials. There however, are cases of what I call one upmanship. These
are obvious cases where the government should act or the judicial system should act and
instead of doing the right thing they play games in the system for media benefit.
Some time ago there was a guy who was a killer from the death and concentration camps
in Italy, his name escapes me at the moment. For years the government delayed sending
this old guy to justice, then when they relented the courts delayed it for a few years. He did
the nasty deeds and is in an Italian Prison, but he could have faced justice a lot sooner.
I think we are seeing too many people coming here with lies on their application, the appeal
process allows them a long life under the radar and we should have a set policy in this case
where lies have ZERO tolerance, and its automatic right after a hearing and one appeal
hearing to ensure we have the right person.
We do not want the judiciary rubber stamping the legislative branches concept of justice
regardless of who is in power. At the same time we want to ensure we do not have those
international criminals finding save havens on our shores. If we have smart people who now
administer the system surely they can find a method to satisfy the interests of all concerned,
that those interests primarily are the interests of Canadians as a whole.
 

55Mercury

rigid member
May 31, 2007
4,272
987
113
Based on what facts?
well what the hell... facts? we don't need no stinkin facts. I said "I think", and from that you should have inferred it's my opinion. Now if we have to spend 10 or 20 million on a study to satisfy you, then of course that would eat up any benefit of whatever savings there might have been, now wouldn't it? Just forget the whole thing then. This is one idiotic country.