A New Hope

KanBob
#1
Finally, we have a more hopeful look for Canada, away from all the screams and smears.

A New Hope
 
the caracal kid
#2
well, that was silly.

Harper is worse than hope, his is a false hope. A better sign to hold up than that first one would be "go away harper, go away"
 
Jersay
#3
Exactly, it is finally coming out what Harper really wants especially what he said about the judiciary.

He is right-wing and his facade is coming off.
 
KanBob
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Exactly, it is finally coming out what Harper really wants especially what he said about the judiciary.

Let's just review, shall we? 89% of all political donations made by federal judicial appointees in Ontario since 1993 went to the Liberal Party of Canada. 92% of all political donations by federal judicial appointees in Quebec went to the Liberal Party of Canada. More than 60% of all federal judicial appointees in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba since 2000 donated exclusively to the Liberal Party of Canada in the three to five years before their appointment. Notice a pattern? (UPDATE: "Would you be surprised to find that almost all federal judges appointed from Saskatchewan are Liberal Party donors?" Why no, no I wouldn't.)

That judicial appointments have been routinely politicized, that the process is in dire need of reform, is only controversial to Liberal Justice ministers. Ask Jacob Ziegler, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto Law School, who has written extensively on the subject. Ask constitutional scholar Peter Russell, ditto. Ask former Conservative Justice minister John Crosbie.

Maybe all these people are wrong. But if there's no problem, why did the Canadian Bar Association recently recommend that "politicians and their partisan operatives should be barred from applying to join the federal judiciary for at least two years after they leave the political arena" (Ottawa Citizen, Oct. 31)? Why did a Commons subcommittee, including several Liberal members, table a unanimous report shortly before the election acknowledging "that the present appointment scheme for Canada's 1,000 appellate and superior court trial judges leaves the door wide open to political patronage" (Ottawa Citizen, Nov. 29)? Why did Judge Constance Glube, on her retirement as chief justice of Nova Scotia, plead with that same subcommittee to "please take the politics out of appointing judges" (Ottawa Citizen, Nov. 19, all three stories by Cristin Schmitz)?

What he said about the judiciary indeed!
 
nomore
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by KanBob

Finally, we have a more hopeful look for Canada, away from all the screams and smears.
[/url]

Here Here!
 
Jersay
#6
So what.

What would he really try to do if Harper had judges that aren't of a progressive mindset, but of a conservative mindset like his.

You would not make the comments if you wanted to run a campaign or government that is not going to gel with the laws of the land.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#7
The Minister of Justice has been clear during his responses at Question Period , as have the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister ; Justices undergo a particularly tight screening process, outside of the scope of undue public influence and pressure, before appointments are confirmed.
 
cyberclark
#8
I can't believe it! I watched the whole thing waiting for the punch line!
 
I think not
#9
Funny you say that cyberclark, I was waiting for the same thing.
 
bluealberta
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Exactly, it is finally coming out what Harper really wants especially what he said about the judiciary.

He is right-wing and his facade is coming off.

Oh please. Surely you are not suggesting that every appointment to the bench the LIberals have made did not involve judges who were sympathetic to Liberal policies? All Harper did was point out a truth, but I can certainly understand how Liberal supporters would not recognise the truth
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#11
bluealberta , are you asserting that every single appointment made by the Liberal Party of Canada in respect of Justices have been made unethically?
 
bluealberta
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

The Minister of Justice has been clear during his responses at Question Period , as have the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister ; Justices undergo a particularly tight screening process, outside of the scope of undue public influence and pressure, before appointments are confirmed.

..........but at the end of the day, the PM alone has the opportunity to select the judiciary. There is no vetting process at all.

The senate is another example, as Harper also truthfully pointed out. For instance, one of the last senators appointed from Alberta was the former leader of the Alberta Liberal Party. His career was a screaming success. Of course the fact that we have duly elected senators in waiting in Alberta for open Alberta senate seats is beyond the comprehension of Martin et al. Yet he continued to talk about solving western alienation. Yeah, right. Another LIberal success story.
 
Finder
#13
Man I feel dity and sick after watching that..

Anyhow two comments.

The "Go Harper Go" sign I think was cut off and it orginal read "Go Harper, GO AWAY!"

Also just like Conservative policy I found the conservative sign at the end of the video pretty fuzzy and you couldn't read the fine print. (true go look).
 
bluealberta
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

bluealberta , are you asserting that every single appointment made by the Liberal Party of Canada in respect of Justices have been made unethically?

Not unethically, but they were made with Liberal bias in mind. The system needs to be changed to allow for a vetting procedure so that anyone who has interest in this can see the transparency of judicial appointments. Does it not bother you at all that PM Martin, who has the sole authority to appoint Supreme Court Judges (at least until Tuesday), now also wants to get rid of the NW clause that puts virtual power into the hands of these nine, unelected individuals so they can have virtual power over every duly elected member of Parliament? Quite frankly, this is something that scares the hell out of me, and reminds me of a third world dictatorship. If he wants the Supremes to have ultimate and virtual power, what is the need for Parliament?
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#15
bluealberta , in terms of reforming the Senate, I would be in favour of moderate reform; not direct election, since I believe that would create a "mirror image" of the House in the Upper Chamber, but rather by a ratified appointment process.

I would think that perhaps the Governor General should not appoint a Senator (since she makes the formal appointment) unless she receives the recommendation of both the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Lieutenant Governor of the Provinces whom the Senator would serve (obviously, the recommendation of the Senator would represent the consent of the Provincial Legislature, and the recommendation of the Speaker would represent the consent of the House of Commons).
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#16
In terms of the Supreme Court of Canada , I think that it would be a mistake for the House of Commons to repeal the notwithstanding clause; however, perhaps it could be amended, if absolutely necessary, so as to no longer have jurisdiction over Section 12 of the Charter (fundamental freedoms), yet keep its authority over the remainder of the Charter. Maybe that would be a compromise for both sides?

I want to make sure that we don't leave the Court with too little authority, though. We need to ensure that they have the "teeth" they need to put the House in its place when it oversteps its bounds (Liberal, Conservative, I don't care, but the House should not be limitless in its authority).
 
zoofer
#17
The problem is the Supreme Court is chosen by one man, the PM.
Obviously he will chose like minded Judges that will impose his "Canadian values" on the rest of the unwashed.
 
Hank C
#18
That was a great ad, I have not seen it yet on tv but they should play that right away...especially in Ontario. Harper is a great man, the type of guy you would like to have a beer with.
 
Finder
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by zoofer

The problem is the Supreme Court is chosen by one man, the PM.
Obviously he will chose like minded Judges that will impose his "Canadian values" on the rest of the unwashed.

That is the main problem with the Supreme court. I wouldn't mind an american version of the Pm chosing the canidates and the Senate (elected!!!) confirming. =-D
 
Hank C
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

That is the main problem with the Supreme court. I wouldn't mind an american version of the Pm chosing the canidates and the Senate (elected!!!) confirming. =-D

yep, it is much more democratic than our current practices....but then you know only NEO CONS such as Harper would encourage following the evil American way
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#21
The only system of "elected Justices" I would overtly oppose would be directly electing them. I'm very cautious about that kind of thing; I don't want to see our Justices, more particularly our Supreme Court Justices, becoming partisan.
 
Finder
#22
You should be careful with un-democratic statements like that. instead of saying it like that try saying, a multi layered democracy is a safe guard to the charter of rights. Or something like that.

When you say you don't think people should be allowed to elect judges it sounds like you are of a negitive opinion of the people. :P Just some adice. Because I know you are 17th centry when it comes to the practices of democracy but you should always sound at least pro democracy in theory.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#23
lol, would you deny the fact that, if Justices were to be directly elected, that a majority of people would not vote for whoever they saw as being "liberal" or "conservative," depending on their party of preference, rather than the Justice's credibility and experience?
 
zoofer
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

lol, would you deny the fact that, if Justices were to be directly elected, that a majority of people would not vote for whoever they saw as being "liberal" or "conservative," depending on their party of preference, rather than the Justice's credibility and experience?

Do you think that a Liberal PM would choose a Conservative Judge?
The Fiberals have packed the Supreme Court with their choices.

An article
 

Similar Threads

0
Hope for Future
by darkbeaver | Oct 8th, 2007
0
Know anything about Port Hope??
by port | Jun 8th, 2007