We could use a little more criticism of Canada's top court. Actually we could use a lot more.Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been under fire from the media-opposition complex for daring to say Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin acted inappropriately in calling him about a case that might come before the court. The call never happened, but according to the PM's statement, McLachlin did call Harper's office to discuss the looming appointment of Marc Nadon, the judge she and her fellow judges deemed inadmissible to their ranks -- a version of events disputed by the chief justice in her own press release.
Apparently to the folks in the NDP, the Liberal Party and much of the media, you can criticize anything but a Supreme Court judge.
Not in my world.
I'm a regular critic of the court and view McLachlin and her fellow would-be gods as a load of useless gits. Some consider my comments to be contempt of court. Well, I do hold the judges in contempt and I do so because of their rotten track record of trampling basic rights and freedoms.
Last year in the Whatcott decision the court said truth is no defence.
"I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not all truthful statements must be free from restriction," the decision said.
"Truthful statements can be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech."
It's unreal that in Canada saying something that is true can see you charged. So much for freedom of speech.
more
Sun News : A low opinion of the top bench
Apparently to the folks in the NDP, the Liberal Party and much of the media, you can criticize anything but a Supreme Court judge.
Not in my world.
I'm a regular critic of the court and view McLachlin and her fellow would-be gods as a load of useless gits. Some consider my comments to be contempt of court. Well, I do hold the judges in contempt and I do so because of their rotten track record of trampling basic rights and freedoms.
Last year in the Whatcott decision the court said truth is no defence.
"I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not all truthful statements must be free from restriction," the decision said.
"Truthful statements can be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech."
It's unreal that in Canada saying something that is true can see you charged. So much for freedom of speech.
more
Sun News : A low opinion of the top bench