Juridics: Fed Canada: Libs begin smear attack on judicious proposals of Conservative govt

A rather extreme headline appeared over an article by Helen Burnett in Law Times, "Independent judiciary put in peril" (Feb21,2k7).

The Canadian Judicial Council is openly criticizing Prime Minster Stephen Harper’s changes to federal judicial advisory committees, raising questions about the independence of the committees from the government and whether the most qualified candidates will continue to be appointed to the bench.

The author fails to mention that the Federal Canadian system of judges is a h+ly biased single-party entity built up by the law professions pandering to the Liberal Party over many decades. If you want an appoinment, you take your law degree and join the Liberal Party and start working for it and its candidates. That's the lore of Canadian juridics. Every Canadian acquainted with the realities of judging in Canada knows that the system is riddled with false convictions, on the one hand, combined with ideological biases dictating appointments to the bench, on the other. Plus, the law schools haven't had a fresh idea since they haberdashed the concept of "equality" in such a way as to outlaw the recognition of all differences. "Qualified" in Canada largely means a candidate for judge single-mindedly reads everything but the kitchen sink into the Constitution's Charter of R+ts.

Parker MacCarthy says the new judicial appointments system will permit block voting to install judges whose views adhere to those of the government.

MacCarthy is hysterical in this statement heavy on rhetorical flourish, and weak on particulars. The courts, each and every one of them need desperately a policy of jurisprudential diversity, appointment of basically qualified judges in a pattern that seeks competent judges of different philosophies of law. The teaching of philosopy of law in Canada is extremely weak, in English-speaking only one Left Liberal view prevails. And it translates down into the extreme favouritism toward serious law-breakers in sentencing.

Last November, the government announced changes to the appointment process for federal judicial advisory committees, which are responsible for assessing the qualifications of lawyers who apply for federal judicial appointments and for recommending candidates to the minister.

"Qualifications of lawyers" who asspire to appointment in a system dominated by LeftLiberal lawschools churning out a surplus of one philosophy of law, and obstructing the development of another. This apppointment system, again dominated by one party, the same old party and its same old leftwing, has never led to a dialogue of experts who tend to the articulation of points from different law-philosophies to arrive at the settlement of cases after decent interactive deliberation. Indeed, the Liberals set up their "federal advisory committees" as a smokescreen to give the appearance of non-apppointment (Canada seems incapable of even contemplating the election of judges, yet it has had no checks or balances on the multiple decades-long Liberal appointment process based on patronage. That's why the Liberal evolved not only as the party of graft, but as the party of graft and an absurd patronage that saturated the judiciary appointments. It matters very much as the minority Conservative government tries to rectify an historically obscene one-party judiciary that allows criminals to prosper and victims are ignored. These patterns also obtain when the Liberals dominate the provinical judiciaries too.

The changes increase the number of members on the committee from seven to eight, including a judicial representative, one from the provincial attorney general, one from the provincial law society, and one from the Canadian Bar Association.

A patently more fair arrangement which does not do away with the Liberal smokescreen advisory committees, but makes them more widely constituted, and thus permits other views to occasionally come into the picture on the bench in the various federal courts.

The number of ministerial appointments is also boosted from three to four, including a law enforcement officer.

Bravo! A legally-qualified law enforcement officer increases the value of the adcom approach which the Libs have always stacked in favour of judges who followed the party line on liniency for criminals, and disregard of the victims of crime.

Under the new system, the judicial representative is no longer allowed to vote, except in the event of a tie.

A quite healthy provision. The court judges don't themselves become a self-continuing group with a monopoly on determining advice regarding new appointments.

The distinction between “recommended” and “highly recommended” for potential candidates has also been removed.

Excellent! A potential judge is either qualified or not. "H+ly recommended" smacks of a second standard, nothing short of ideological approval.

What's remarkable is that the body of the article does not bear out either the writer's apparent intent (slant) nor the headline writer's inflammatory prejudice against the intelligent just new proposals of the Conservative minority government which would, by way of non-drastic revisions ameliorate the traditional Lib policy of stacking the Fed judiciary. But this flows counter to the obsolescent mindset of the law professions themselves.

It's time for diversity of law philosophies in the Canadian judiciary.

My headline derives from the fact that Law Times' headline is only the opening salvo of a campaign building steam steadily with former Justice Minister in the last deposed Liberal govt, Irwin Cotler (who himself aspires to a seat on the Supreme Court), heaping contumely on the reasonable minority Conservs' proposal, when he himself was responsible for the smokescreen double appointment of two extremely biased Justices to the Supreme Court who had moved to the top of the heap of Liberal approvees. There was no public examination of these then-nominees by Parliament. As a result the Supreme Court of Canada continues to be a grandiose monologue with only one philosophy of law permitted to participate in its "deliberations". Shame!, Mr Cotler.