Putting aside the argument whether her presence legitimizes Beijing's recent actions or not (though I absolutely agree with the author), the biggest jaw-dropping moment for me was the fact that in approximately 5 years on the court, she has not been asked to participate in a single case. So how is she doing good work standing up to the regime if she's not actually doing anything?!? Seriously, if she had any self-respect, let alone respect for her profession, that would be reason enough to resign on its own!
I'm going to guess that you know about as much as I do about how the judiciary in Hong Kong works. The only difference is I went digging.
There are two panels of non-permanent judges, one consisting of former Hong Kong judges and the other consisting of eminent judges from other common law jurisdictions. The total number of non-permanent judges is capped at 30 under the HKCFA Ordinance.
Currently, there are 13 non-permanent judges, McLachlin being one of them. How often they are actually required to sit a case, is seldom (5 years isn't a big deal) but as these are all retired justices they probably aren't being paid by the hour. How often does any country's Court of Final Appeal (or equivalent) sit? I know that some would say too often.
Do you honestly think Beverly McLachlin is lacking in self-respect for herself or her profession? So judgemental.
Ben makes a pretty good argument, at least until he starts in with the blame and shame. Lord Reed (a lot of Brit Lords in the lot) also said, “The courts in Hong Kong continue to be internationally respected for their commitment to the rule of law." Then going on to say they "cannot continue to sit in Hong Kong without appearing to endorse an administration which has departed from values of political freedom..." A bit of political speak there.
I'm sure that Beverly McLachlin knows more about the situation than even Ben Woodfinden does. A rather crappy 5 min CBC interview that was painful to watch was just—painful. I would like to hear or read something more substantial and understand why she thinks it's important to stay available.
I have friends whose parents, or other family came from HK before 97. Not all of them were wealthy (that's a myth in BC) and some went back years later. No one actually expected HK to remain independent for long. McLachlin has her own opinions (she's allowed them you know). Imagine if everyone threw their hands up and quit just when things get tough.
I willingly concede that Justice McLachlin knows more about the situation than me. I'll just note It's not just Ben Woodfinden taking this position, it's the 56 Hong Kong-related associations and NGOs (including some prominent former lawyers) that have asked her and her remaining colleagues to resign. It's also the three former colleagues who have already resigned (and a fourth who declined to renew her term last year). This tells me that it's less a case of Ms. McLachlin having special insight into the situation and more of making a judgement call. I think she's making profoundly the wrong call and if that makes me 'judgemental', then so be it.
So you did some digging of your own. Glad to see it.
All we hear from Ms McLachlin is the 5 min CBC video. Yes I have read others opinions too but we have not really heard from the woman herself other than a few Napo articles. She may decide tomorrow to quit. But that is up to her, not anyone else.
Yes, judgmental: "So how is she doing good work standing up to the regime if she's not actually doing anything?!? Seriously, if she had any self-respect, let alone respect for her profession, that would be reason enough to resign on its own!"
Is she responsible for standing up to the current regime? I know many people want judges to do just that. But that's not how it works. So easy to make snappy judgments isn't it?
The Supreme Court of Canada has already tarnished it’s standing with partisanship and ideological doctrine feeding into its progressive (nothing of the kind) creep. Its past its due date, just as is McLachlin.
Speaking of fascist, they happen to be running the country. The Supreme court has lost its way as has most all of our Institutions. The latest ruling by them on intoxication is not only an affront to your so called "Liberal Democracy", its an afront to any thinking and sane person. The appointed Trudeau head of the Supreme Court is an ideological and corrupt arm of the Trudeau government itself. Any judge, let alone the head of the Supreme Court, who deems people guilty before they have gone to court is not only an afront to any Liberal Democracy it should be an affront to every single Canadian. Notice I did not make an attack on you personally because I disagree with you. I just point out the facts.
Don't worry too much about Terry's opinions. He always apologizes for the Canadian Liberal party's excesses and abuses, so why wouldn't he defend the same actions from the Communist Party of China? I guess if Trudeau can love and admire the CPC it only stands that Terry can and feels the need to defend both too. He's a nice guy, but there's no doubt where he stands. At least Terry is consistent.
No problem but I do think there are a couple of leadership candidates vying for the conservative leadership who are playing footsie with some questionable folks or idéologies too. The nuttiness is, in my opinion, and unfortunately not all just on the liberal side.
Agreed - a guy who's name starts with C and ends in T is the first one who comes to mind for me.
However the most prominent links seem to be on the left from what I've seen.
The rot can't get much higher than when you see Justin Trudeau in a photo with the President of the United Front (Foreign Intelligence Arm of CCP) accepting a $1M check for his Foundation.
That’s a pretty serious accusation. Calling someone ‘corrupt’, especially the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, surely requires some actual proof that the accusation is reasonable. Now you say he ‘deems people guilty before they have gone to court’. Here’s your chance to provide that proof. Not opinion. Not a news story. Proof as defined.
You do tend to carry on because, I expect, you think Free Speech means you can say any old thing you like without concern, and because forums, such as this, are ‘anything goes’. I don’t think this forum is ‘anything goes’ but I grant it sometimes allows comments that sail close to the wind.
I didn't say the Chief Justice is corrupt. My comment regarding the link between some (I said many - perhaps embellishment here) Liberals being in bed with the CCP is not an unproven allegation, nor an unreasonable conclusion given the ties between Canadian business people, universities, politicians, former politicians and others in cahoots with Chinese businesses and institutions given the level of entanglement between these groups.
3 books will explain many of these links: Wilful Blindness by Sam Cooper and Claws of the Panda by Jonathan Manthorpe. You can also read many articles over the years on the Globe & Mail, National Post, among others (except for of course the CBC) on this same issue. You can also read The 100 Year Marathon by Michael Pillsbury to understand how the CCP operates.
I stand by my comments re: these ties.
And again - I did not allege the Chief Justice was corrupt. But I, like the author, question her judgement. Given how close she is to the CCP in her role, she seems naïve about what's going on or there is something else worth understanding if one is inclined to dig. I don't have the time, expertise nor do I care to.
But I do share what I've read because not enough Canadians are aware of how much our nation is being influenced by the CCP. It will shock you.
I said that, so your all wrong. Obviously any judge who deems any individual or group guilty before evidence has even been shown in a lower court of law, is either corrupt or eliminating themselves from ever holding judgement in the case. It’s one thing for the paid for Corporate media to say such things as we expect that from them as they continually misinform and disinform the majority or just omit the truth. For the head of the Supreme Court to do this shows just how infiltrated and ideological the courts have become. It stinks to high heaven of politics within the courts and that means they have become corrupted by ideological dogma and it means the end to Individual rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People who stand behind these actions are doing so at their own peril. The saying, first they came for the people who disagreed with them and I aided them. Then they came for the people who did agree with them, I did nothing. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to defend me. Remember that folks, if nothing else. The ideology of the progressives has infiltrated every institution in the country. Sooner or later your bound to go against their dictate and it will be your turn to face the Supreme Court who deems you guilty before your case is heard. It used to be you were innocent until proven guilty, not any more. You can call that anything you like but I say the system has been corrupted as have those with in it.
As per Eric's comment below. Terry is either a liberal shill or card carrying member of the CCP (where there is plenty of circumstantial evidence many of the former are also the latter!).
He litters this board with insults and dogmatic views. There isn't a single person from the Line community of commenters who is as obnoxious and suggests a Liberal/progressive can do no wrong.
Exhibit A - see his comment below: "I disagree with the author and his premise. She is there as a defiant reminder that the rules HK is supposed to live under have been illegally broken by the XI regime."
How can she be a defiant reminder when she indicates the court is operating independently and as it should despite all the evidence to the contrary shared by the author? You can't make this stuff up.
Gee Sandor, are those our only 2 choices? Terry is a shill or a card-carrying commie. This board is full of insults and dogmatic views. Where have you been? Yes, there are much, much more obnoxious commenters. Even if the comments were always Lib/progs do no wrong why is that such a problem for you? Are we not permitted to say Libs/progs do no wrong if we want to? Your opinion counts but Terry's doesn't? Most of the comments here are Libs/progs are always wrong. That's ok in your book? Dissent will not be tolerated? No wonder you guys can't nail down a leader. You have started to eat your own.
As for that intoxication defence, the Libs want to enact new legislation to update the language of the Criminal Code and hold “extremely intoxicated” people accountable for their violent crimes.
You didn't read what the SC wrote, did you? You only read headlines.
No one called someone guilty, let alone the nameless head of the Supreme Court. You like liberal democracies now, don't you? Being affronted all the time is so tiring.
You truly are a peach. What you consider to be a Liberal Democracy under the rule of Trudeau is anything but Liberal, or democracy. It’s called Totalitarianism, no matter how you frame it or attempt to protect him. That is more facts, not name calling. You seem to be confused about what is a fact, a Liberal, a Conservative, and what is name calling.
McLachlin seems to be another member of the Canadian Laurentian elite, which has always been oddly comfortable with the Chinese Communist Party. There's a perception of opportunity through working with China, and a certain arrogant complacency that it won't force them to compromise their morals or personally impact them. Part of it has always been a belief in the idea that engagement with China will inevitably lead to the political liberalization of the nation. However, that theory has been increasingly undermined by how the Chinese Communist Party has actually behaved. In retrospect, the brutal crackdown in Tiananmen Square in 1989 was evidence that they were not going to slide into history like the European Communist regimes.
Laurentian elite? Born and raised in southern Alberta, educated at U of A, practiced law in AB and BC for a good chunk of her career, before she was invited to sit on the Supreme Court.
When John Ibbitson coined the term, it was in reference to the concentration of holders of the philosophy along the St. Lawrence River. However, it's a more a description of a philosophical consensus than geography.
An easy deflection, although I understand your point. Growing up in the west, one is exposed to the idea that central Canada is not the centre of the universe.
Check the Wikipedia page. For one thing, there are almost no references to it except Ibbitison's books. It didn't really catch on. An exception is a NYT article by one J.Gerson, as it happens, where she describes it as " ...influence runs in a geographic network that we describe in shorthand as the Laurentian Elite..."
(I'm not sure why she says "we" as if all Canada agreed on the concept, which, again, is pretty limited to the National Post.) The other Wikipedia reference to a non-Ibbitson, non-Weissenberger user of the term, which was National Post's Tasha Kheiridden, and again, even the *headline* is specifically geographic, anti-western:
"So the Laurentian elite is back in business. Sorry, western Canada".
Fully agree, Ms McLachln remaining involved in this position is doing nothing positive. She could make a statement by resigning and explaining that she could not continue given the PRC's actions over the past 18 months that have been totally contrary to democratic ideals. George Skinner is correct - Canadians will never be able to achieve a shift towards democracy by a regime like the PRC.
Likely the PRC would dearly love for her to resign. Quite possibly she is not being given assignments as she could well provide judgements embarrassing to China. Better for the West to have a witness to what is going on until they force her out.
"Can anyone imagine how Trudeau would react to that possibility?"
Surely he would react in the most politically correct and virtue-posturing way that occurred to him. There are far greater challenges to the imagination than that.
The unstated and very questionable major premise underwriting the advice offered here is that Beijing shares, or is much concerned about, western conceptions of 'legitimacy.' It's worth asking if Judge McLachlin followed the advice, who would replace her? Is the Appeal Court likely to prove a more effective bulwark against the erosion of democratic freedoms, the more it becomes populated by nominees acceptable to Beijing?
She should have resigned when in June 2021, Justice Maria Yuen was recommended for appointment as a permanent judge by the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission. She was rejected by pro-Beijing legislators, who, by protocol accept the recommendations of the commission. This was an unprecedented breach of the norms of an independent legal system. The legislators, claimed that she might be influenced by her husband, former Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, whose defense of Hong Kong's judicial independence they considered unpatriotic.
Perhaps McLaughlin has been having tea with former Justice Louise Arbour, who, among 18 other eminent Canadians, signed a scurillous letter to PMJT advocating for the release of Meng Wanzhou in the midst of an extradition process. Though unrelated in most respects, these issues have a common thread in that they both seem to show a great deal of political analysis underpinning their positions. I for one would prefer to see our former SCC judges rising above this type of analysis.
I doubt very much that the letter was scurrilous. It's a lovely word, 2 r, 1 l. Unlike fulsome which has been misused so often it now means the opposite of what it once did. Just saying.
McLachlin is a prisoner of her own personality cult.
Hong Kong was one of the greatest cities in the world, but it is no longer, and sadly there is nothing we can do to return it to its former status. McLachlin's continuing presence on the court is a reminder of how the Chinese regime will try and use the trappings of the rule of law to hide and obscure what they have destroyed.
Agree with Terry. Something to be said for having eyes inside the institution. Also doubt it is any fun to live in HK these days, or that she needs the money. Laughable.
Hahaha. If it’s that hard living in HK and she doesn’t need the money, maybe Bev, could, well I don’t know... move instead of propping up the CPC? Just a thought.
Putting aside the argument whether her presence legitimizes Beijing's recent actions or not (though I absolutely agree with the author), the biggest jaw-dropping moment for me was the fact that in approximately 5 years on the court, she has not been asked to participate in a single case. So how is she doing good work standing up to the regime if she's not actually doing anything?!? Seriously, if she had any self-respect, let alone respect for her profession, that would be reason enough to resign on its own!
I'm going to guess that you know about as much as I do about how the judiciary in Hong Kong works. The only difference is I went digging.
There are two panels of non-permanent judges, one consisting of former Hong Kong judges and the other consisting of eminent judges from other common law jurisdictions. The total number of non-permanent judges is capped at 30 under the HKCFA Ordinance.
Currently, there are 13 non-permanent judges, McLachlin being one of them. How often they are actually required to sit a case, is seldom (5 years isn't a big deal) but as these are all retired justices they probably aren't being paid by the hour. How often does any country's Court of Final Appeal (or equivalent) sit? I know that some would say too often.
Do you honestly think Beverly McLachlin is lacking in self-respect for herself or her profession? So judgemental.
Ben makes a pretty good argument, at least until he starts in with the blame and shame. Lord Reed (a lot of Brit Lords in the lot) also said, “The courts in Hong Kong continue to be internationally respected for their commitment to the rule of law." Then going on to say they "cannot continue to sit in Hong Kong without appearing to endorse an administration which has departed from values of political freedom..." A bit of political speak there.
I'm sure that Beverly McLachlin knows more about the situation than even Ben Woodfinden does. A rather crappy 5 min CBC interview that was painful to watch was just—painful. I would like to hear or read something more substantial and understand why she thinks it's important to stay available.
I have friends whose parents, or other family came from HK before 97. Not all of them were wealthy (that's a myth in BC) and some went back years later. No one actually expected HK to remain independent for long. McLachlin has her own opinions (she's allowed them you know). Imagine if everyone threw their hands up and quit just when things get tough.
I willingly concede that Justice McLachlin knows more about the situation than me. I'll just note It's not just Ben Woodfinden taking this position, it's the 56 Hong Kong-related associations and NGOs (including some prominent former lawyers) that have asked her and her remaining colleagues to resign. It's also the three former colleagues who have already resigned (and a fourth who declined to renew her term last year). This tells me that it's less a case of Ms. McLachlin having special insight into the situation and more of making a judgement call. I think she's making profoundly the wrong call and if that makes me 'judgemental', then so be it.
So you did some digging of your own. Glad to see it.
All we hear from Ms McLachlin is the 5 min CBC video. Yes I have read others opinions too but we have not really heard from the woman herself other than a few Napo articles. She may decide tomorrow to quit. But that is up to her, not anyone else.
Yes, judgmental: "So how is she doing good work standing up to the regime if she's not actually doing anything?!? Seriously, if she had any self-respect, let alone respect for her profession, that would be reason enough to resign on its own!"
Is she responsible for standing up to the current regime? I know many people want judges to do just that. But that's not how it works. So easy to make snappy judgments isn't it?
The Supreme Court of Canada has already tarnished it’s standing with partisanship and ideological doctrine feeding into its progressive (nothing of the kind) creep. Its past its due date, just as is McLachlin.
Why? How?
Speaking of fascist, they happen to be running the country. The Supreme court has lost its way as has most all of our Institutions. The latest ruling by them on intoxication is not only an affront to your so called "Liberal Democracy", its an afront to any thinking and sane person. The appointed Trudeau head of the Supreme Court is an ideological and corrupt arm of the Trudeau government itself. Any judge, let alone the head of the Supreme Court, who deems people guilty before they have gone to court is not only an afront to any Liberal Democracy it should be an affront to every single Canadian. Notice I did not make an attack on you personally because I disagree with you. I just point out the facts.
Don't worry too much about Terry's opinions. He always apologizes for the Canadian Liberal party's excesses and abuses, so why wouldn't he defend the same actions from the Communist Party of China? I guess if Trudeau can love and admire the CPC it only stands that Terry can and feels the need to defend both too. He's a nice guy, but there's no doubt where he stands. At least Terry is consistent.
See my comment above Eric. Thanks for corroborating my views on said topic.
No problem but I do think there are a couple of leadership candidates vying for the conservative leadership who are playing footsie with some questionable folks or idéologies too. The nuttiness is, in my opinion, and unfortunately not all just on the liberal side.
Agreed - a guy who's name starts with C and ends in T is the first one who comes to mind for me.
However the most prominent links seem to be on the left from what I've seen.
The rot can't get much higher than when you see Justin Trudeau in a photo with the President of the United Front (Foreign Intelligence Arm of CCP) accepting a $1M check for his Foundation.
Actually, James, I don’t know Terry personally. But I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I don't know Terry personally either but I'd say he's a nice guy.
That’s a pretty serious accusation. Calling someone ‘corrupt’, especially the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, surely requires some actual proof that the accusation is reasonable. Now you say he ‘deems people guilty before they have gone to court’. Here’s your chance to provide that proof. Not opinion. Not a news story. Proof as defined.
You do tend to carry on because, I expect, you think Free Speech means you can say any old thing you like without concern, and because forums, such as this, are ‘anything goes’. I don’t think this forum is ‘anything goes’ but I grant it sometimes allows comments that sail close to the wind.
Patricia.
I didn't say the Chief Justice is corrupt. My comment regarding the link between some (I said many - perhaps embellishment here) Liberals being in bed with the CCP is not an unproven allegation, nor an unreasonable conclusion given the ties between Canadian business people, universities, politicians, former politicians and others in cahoots with Chinese businesses and institutions given the level of entanglement between these groups.
3 books will explain many of these links: Wilful Blindness by Sam Cooper and Claws of the Panda by Jonathan Manthorpe. You can also read many articles over the years on the Globe & Mail, National Post, among others (except for of course the CBC) on this same issue. You can also read The 100 Year Marathon by Michael Pillsbury to understand how the CCP operates.
I stand by my comments re: these ties.
And again - I did not allege the Chief Justice was corrupt. But I, like the author, question her judgement. Given how close she is to the CCP in her role, she seems naïve about what's going on or there is something else worth understanding if one is inclined to dig. I don't have the time, expertise nor do I care to.
But I do share what I've read because not enough Canadians are aware of how much our nation is being influenced by the CCP. It will shock you.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is Richard Wagner and actually you did, and I quote:
‘The appointed Trudeau head of the Supreme Court is an ideological and corrupt arm of the Trudeau government itself’.
I said that, so your all wrong. Obviously any judge who deems any individual or group guilty before evidence has even been shown in a lower court of law, is either corrupt or eliminating themselves from ever holding judgement in the case. It’s one thing for the paid for Corporate media to say such things as we expect that from them as they continually misinform and disinform the majority or just omit the truth. For the head of the Supreme Court to do this shows just how infiltrated and ideological the courts have become. It stinks to high heaven of politics within the courts and that means they have become corrupted by ideological dogma and it means the end to Individual rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People who stand behind these actions are doing so at their own peril. The saying, first they came for the people who disagreed with them and I aided them. Then they came for the people who did agree with them, I did nothing. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to defend me. Remember that folks, if nothing else. The ideology of the progressives has infiltrated every institution in the country. Sooner or later your bound to go against their dictate and it will be your turn to face the Supreme Court who deems you guilty before your case is heard. It used to be you were innocent until proven guilty, not any more. You can call that anything you like but I say the system has been corrupted as have those with in it.
Gold Terry, that’s comedy gold! 😝😂🤣
As per Eric's comment below. Terry is either a liberal shill or card carrying member of the CCP (where there is plenty of circumstantial evidence many of the former are also the latter!).
He litters this board with insults and dogmatic views. There isn't a single person from the Line community of commenters who is as obnoxious and suggests a Liberal/progressive can do no wrong.
Exhibit A - see his comment below: "I disagree with the author and his premise. She is there as a defiant reminder that the rules HK is supposed to live under have been illegally broken by the XI regime."
How can she be a defiant reminder when she indicates the court is operating independently and as it should despite all the evidence to the contrary shared by the author? You can't make this stuff up.
Gee Sandor, are those our only 2 choices? Terry is a shill or a card-carrying commie. This board is full of insults and dogmatic views. Where have you been? Yes, there are much, much more obnoxious commenters. Even if the comments were always Lib/progs do no wrong why is that such a problem for you? Are we not permitted to say Libs/progs do no wrong if we want to? Your opinion counts but Terry's doesn't? Most of the comments here are Libs/progs are always wrong. That's ok in your book? Dissent will not be tolerated? No wonder you guys can't nail down a leader. You have started to eat your own.
All crypto millionaires! Snort!
And...no, fascists are NOT running the country. Google fascist, it'll help.
Who is the head of the SC currently?
As for that intoxication defence, the Libs want to enact new legislation to update the language of the Criminal Code and hold “extremely intoxicated” people accountable for their violent crimes.
You didn't read what the SC wrote, did you? You only read headlines.
No one called someone guilty, let alone the nameless head of the Supreme Court. You like liberal democracies now, don't you? Being affronted all the time is so tiring.
You truly are a peach. What you consider to be a Liberal Democracy under the rule of Trudeau is anything but Liberal, or democracy. It’s called Totalitarianism, no matter how you frame it or attempt to protect him. That is more facts, not name calling. You seem to be confused about what is a fact, a Liberal, a Conservative, and what is name calling.
😜😌😂🤣
I totally agree with this article. Right now Ms. McLachin is doing both the people of Hong Kong and Canadians a disservice.
McLachlin seems to be another member of the Canadian Laurentian elite, which has always been oddly comfortable with the Chinese Communist Party. There's a perception of opportunity through working with China, and a certain arrogant complacency that it won't force them to compromise their morals or personally impact them. Part of it has always been a belief in the idea that engagement with China will inevitably lead to the political liberalization of the nation. However, that theory has been increasingly undermined by how the Chinese Communist Party has actually behaved. In retrospect, the brutal crackdown in Tiananmen Square in 1989 was evidence that they were not going to slide into history like the European Communist regimes.
Laurentian elite? Born and raised in southern Alberta, educated at U of A, practiced law in AB and BC for a good chunk of her career, before she was invited to sit on the Supreme Court.
When John Ibbitson coined the term, it was in reference to the concentration of holders of the philosophy along the St. Lawrence River. However, it's a more a description of a philosophical consensus than geography.
An easy deflection, although I understand your point. Growing up in the west, one is exposed to the idea that central Canada is not the centre of the universe.
Check the Wikipedia page. For one thing, there are almost no references to it except Ibbitison's books. It didn't really catch on. An exception is a NYT article by one J.Gerson, as it happens, where she describes it as " ...influence runs in a geographic network that we describe in shorthand as the Laurentian Elite..."
(I'm not sure why she says "we" as if all Canada agreed on the concept, which, again, is pretty limited to the National Post.) The other Wikipedia reference to a non-Ibbitson, non-Weissenberger user of the term, which was National Post's Tasha Kheiridden, and again, even the *headline* is specifically geographic, anti-western:
"So the Laurentian elite is back in business. Sorry, western Canada".
Plainspeak to truth. Ego gets in the way of her resigning and probably a lifestyle she likes.
What do you suppose she makes a year for being a judge in HK?
Fully agree, Ms McLachln remaining involved in this position is doing nothing positive. She could make a statement by resigning and explaining that she could not continue given the PRC's actions over the past 18 months that have been totally contrary to democratic ideals. George Skinner is correct - Canadians will never be able to achieve a shift towards democracy by a regime like the PRC.
Likely the PRC would dearly love for her to resign. Quite possibly she is not being given assignments as she could well provide judgements embarrassing to China. Better for the West to have a witness to what is going on until they force her out.
If the PRC wanted her gone, why was her appointment renewed last year?
Some complex kind of mindf* perhaps. Keeping someone on, but not giving them cases…hmmm.
Getting paid to do nothing is a pretty good gig - maybe she needs the money more than her reputation.
The only downside might be being thrown in jail if the communists think her utility has come to an end.
Can anyone imagine how Trudeau would react to that possibility?
"Can anyone imagine how Trudeau would react to that possibility?"
Surely he would react in the most politically correct and virtue-posturing way that occurred to him. There are far greater challenges to the imagination than that.
Understandable
The unstated and very questionable major premise underwriting the advice offered here is that Beijing shares, or is much concerned about, western conceptions of 'legitimacy.' It's worth asking if Judge McLachlin followed the advice, who would replace her? Is the Appeal Court likely to prove a more effective bulwark against the erosion of democratic freedoms, the more it becomes populated by nominees acceptable to Beijing?
She should have resigned when in June 2021, Justice Maria Yuen was recommended for appointment as a permanent judge by the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission. She was rejected by pro-Beijing legislators, who, by protocol accept the recommendations of the commission. This was an unprecedented breach of the norms of an independent legal system. The legislators, claimed that she might be influenced by her husband, former Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, whose defense of Hong Kong's judicial independence they considered unpatriotic.
Perceived conflict of interest is a one-way street?
Show me the MONEY $$$$!!!!
Yes. Well presented, thoughtfully discussed. Ms McLachlin should leave Hong Kong. Now.
She has always thought that she is the smartest person in the room and no one can convince her she isn't.
Perhaps McLaughlin has been having tea with former Justice Louise Arbour, who, among 18 other eminent Canadians, signed a scurillous letter to PMJT advocating for the release of Meng Wanzhou in the midst of an extradition process. Though unrelated in most respects, these issues have a common thread in that they both seem to show a great deal of political analysis underpinning their positions. I for one would prefer to see our former SCC judges rising above this type of analysis.
I doubt very much that the letter was scurrilous. It's a lovely word, 2 r, 1 l. Unlike fulsome which has been misused so often it now means the opposite of what it once did. Just saying.
You're quite right Lou! Serves me right for tossing in an unnecessarily Victorian word choice lol.
I'm sorry, I simply could not help myself.
McLachlin is a prisoner of her own personality cult.
Hong Kong was one of the greatest cities in the world, but it is no longer, and sadly there is nothing we can do to return it to its former status. McLachlin's continuing presence on the court is a reminder of how the Chinese regime will try and use the trappings of the rule of law to hide and obscure what they have destroyed.
Agree. He would act in a predictable manner with predictable results given there would be no other course of action available to him.
I do think it would be a command performance of self-righteous indignation nonetheless.
Hahaha!
Agree with Terry. Something to be said for having eyes inside the institution. Also doubt it is any fun to live in HK these days, or that she needs the money. Laughable.
Hahaha. If it’s that hard living in HK and she doesn’t need the money, maybe Bev, could, well I don’t know... move instead of propping up the CPC? Just a thought.
Hahaha. You really don't have a clue what you are on about, do you?
Does she live in HK? Why would she? It's the 21st century and it's not like the courts move at all quickly.