Re: Criticism of the Right Honourable the Chief Justice
All of the decisions of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin have been soundly based in rational interpretations of the law, and I would challenge you to present even a single case where the Supreme Court under her leadership has been in error. You can browse the decisions of the Supreme Court
here. Our honourable justices have demonstrated a tremendous ability to be able to deliberate entirely independently of the political ideologies of the day. I understand that you may oppose the very concept of judicial review, but this is function is absolutely required of the courts by virtue of s. 52(1) of the
Constitution Act, 1982.
You've got to be kidding. They've appointed themselves arbiters of Canadian culture and morals. They are infested with ideologies, and filled with arrogance for tradition.. and especially for Christian tradition, and powerlust.
Madam Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin was appointed to the Supreme Court, originally as a puisne justice, on the advice of The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney P.C., C.C., G.O.Q., the 18th Prime Minister. It was a Progressive Conservative prime minister who appointed her to the bench of the Supreme Court, and it was certainly a wise decision to raise her to the position of Chief Justice; she has demonstrated a fantastic understanding of the law, and of the constitutional framework of a contemporary Canada with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You cannot blame the Chief Justice for enforcing the Charter, when questions come before the bench--that is her essential function.
Chretien appointed her Chief Justice, in his small dimensions of appraisal, because it presumably locked up a electoral franchise in women.
The Chief Justice is only the chairperson of that advisory council. Other members include one representative for each of the five regions (Ontario, Quebec, the Western provinces, the Atlantic provinces, and the prairie provinces), the Chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage, the President of the Royal Society of Canada, the President of the Canada Council of the Arts, and the Clerk of Her Majesty the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. Your notion of a "feminist" Chief Justice (which clearly is not the case) leads me to believe, perhaps, that you simply take issue with having a female head of the Canadian judiciary. Is there some difference between the sexes that you feel makes her inappropriate to lead the justice system?
McLachlin chairs the nominating committee. It historically has nominated individuals who have universal praise and received no dissenting votes . Neither was the case with Morgentaler. The award was meant to be a symbol of national unity in a country that is often divided by geographic and political factionalism. You cannot find a more divisive issue than abortion... and yet our dim witted, shrill little Chief Justice overrode all those.. to press her mealy minded agenda. She just doesn't have the character or intelligence to be Chief Justice.. she should be practicing real estate law in Brampton. She's really far, far beyond her level of competence.
This is an appraisal of the McLachlin by a prominent conservative woman's group several years ago. Things have only gotten worse since, as the court has led the homosexual 'cause' in the interests of protecting their designated 'victims' groups from the 'tyranny of the majority'. You can read this as just what it sais.. it is they that define the groups and the motivations of the electorate of Canada, and that will have no bearing on their definition of justice. That is in their hands alone, and they are answerable to no one, except their own diseased consciences. That is real tyranny.
CHIEF JUSTICE McLACHLIN AS A SPIN DOCTOR
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada has come out with all guns blazing, attempting to justify her Court's privileged position in Canada. In a speech given to the Canadian Club in Toronto on June 17, 2003, she insisted that her Court, which operates without any checks and balances, merely serves as a neutral independent arbiter, helping citizens in their claims against the government.
In this speech, along with several other talks she has given, such as one on CBC on April 8, 2003, she has taken on a new role - that of a spin doctor for the Court. She is aggressively attempting to form, shape and lead public opinion as the official PR person for the Court. The Charter of Rights, however, did not give her or any other judge the responsibility of propagandizing on behalf of the courts. The judgements of the Court are supposed to speak for themselves. Apparently not, however, with the present Supreme Court Chief Justice.
In her remarkable speech to the Canadian Club, Chief Justice McLachlin humbly described the work of judges as "being mere gardeners, shaping and nurturing plants so that they can grow as intended, occasionally pulling out a weed that offends the plan on which the garden is based." This is a charming description but untrue. Such a sophistry cannot disguise the fact that she and her colleagues are politicians making decisions on social policy. In her speech, she denied that judges "pluck meanings from the air according to their political stripes," and also firmly denied that judges have an agenda.
Instead, she claimed that judges play a noble role in protecting citizens from the tyranny of the majority, stating that the majority alone should not decide minority rights, since the majority "overlook the need to accommodate and validate minority views essential to long-term democratic stability." In effect, she argues that the appointed, non-screened elitists sitting on the Court should make decisions, not the majority of Canadians. The word "arrogant" may adequately describe her comments, which are clearly out of touch with reality.
Chief Justice McLachlin also made it crystal clear that the present system of the Prime Minister alone having the power to appoint Supreme Court judges was an exemplary practice. She claimed that judges are selected on merit, rather than on their political perspective. She stated, "why …. fix the system if it isn't broken?" Sadly, it is broken - destroying confidence in our judiciary and causing enormous dissension across the country.
This is made apparent by an Ipsos-Reid Survey of 1,000 Canadians, conducted in March, 2003, which found that 66% of Canadians believe that the Supreme Court of Canada is influenced by partisan politics. Only 20% of Canadians reported a strong confidence in the Court. These findings indicate the public's dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice McLachlin further claimed that in Canada judges are selected for "… their legal learning, wisdom and impartiality." This is hardly possible when Chief Justice McMurtry of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who brought down the same-sex decision in Ontario, former Supreme Court Judge Claire L'Heureux Dubé and other court judges involved with the same-sex marriage issue, celebrated Gay Pride Week 2003 in Toronto. These judges both attended a panel and a reception which thanked them for advancing homosexual rights in Canada. ( See "Judges Party with Homosexual Activists," p….) "Impartial" would not be a word to describe our courts.
Finally, Chief Justice McLachlin claimed that a judge's work was "… high-level specialized, intellectual work." No doubt it is when judges have to come up with reasons for preconceived conclusions. As former Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, stated in a speech given in March 1991, on the occasion of the opening of the University of Toronto Law Library, when referring to a previous decision of the Supreme Court, Patriation Reference
