If the judiciary were to have final say it would overrule the duties and responsibilities of an elected legislature. It would also lead to a situation where political and ideological forces might align to appoint a judiciary which has explicit biases and imposes those biases without consideration for the voting public’s opinion or preference.
One thing Canada and the US have in common is the craven cowardice of its elected parliamentary representatives. Especially when there is a financial reward (gold plated pensions) associated with reelection. And the odds of being reekected are better if you can avoid controversy by actually making decisions which will favor one group of electors over another.
I remember one US legislator 20 or 30 years ago complaining about Congress shirking its responsibilities thereby “passing the buck” to the Supreme Court. And what the US does is usually copied by Canada (out of penis envy 😆) allowing for time to translate to French.
It’s seems popular in certain quarters to say that the current US Administration is “packing the court” with conservative justices. In the last year of his reign Justin Trudeau decreed that all future supreme court justices have to be bilingual in English and French without the use or presence of a translator. Since virtually the only place that produces judges with that qualification is Quebec, if that isn’t packing I don’t know what is. Canada will now have a ten percent “tail” of 4 million or so “old stump”/“pure wool” French Quebeckers wagging a ninety percent non-French “dog”. So in the future, say goodbye to any hope of being tried by your peers if you are one of the ninety percent.
Growing up I never thought I would see a growing "Fuck the Charter" movement (for lack of a better term). It always seemed like such an unalloyed good. I guess this inevitably happens when it stops protecting some groups and absurdly favours others.
Yes. More and more people realize how selectively the "Charter" is applied, and how the courts perverted the original purpose. The "Charter" is useless and often destructive if it is interpreted without common sense. I do not think we need it. The class which brought it into disrepute and into disuse are the "Liberals", the political front for the Laurentian Corruptocrats.
I have been of the opinion that Canada’s needs the Supreme Court in its current form to balance the legislative branch if that branch proposes popular legislation that abrogates the rights of some Canadians. He rightly points out that the American example of the Supreme Court as final arbiter is not encouraging.
Though I am not able to cite many examples, our Supreme Court does seem to have a habit of creating new law in the face of judicial precedents and legislation. Our only response is to propose new legislation that we hope meets with the favour of the Court. Of course, what typically happens is that our legislators throw their hands up in despair, claiming that there is nothing that they can do, the Court has ruled. Perhaps the balance between the judicial and legislative branches, as Mr. Kennedy advocates, is a better method.
It would be easy to think that the Supreme Court operates like that - a welcome check on government power over the individual. Problem is that the Charter and the Courts don't really operate that way. They create new rights for niche identity groups and the rest of us have to live with it. They carve us into groups with different right based on race, gender, language, and income. They prioritize criminals over the rest of society. Seldom do they push back against government overreach that affects everyone, or champion real universal individual rights like property rights (e.g. gun confiscation, private healthcare) or the right to be left the hell alone (e.g. Covid mandates). I can say with confidence that rulings essentially never go in a way that I personally benefit from, but instead I am always in the group that has to shoulder the burden of new "rights" for others.
If the judiciary were to have final say it would overrule the duties and responsibilities of an elected legislature. It would also lead to a situation where political and ideological forces might align to appoint a judiciary which has explicit biases and imposes those biases without consideration for the voting public’s opinion or preference.
I am learning a lot from The Line about how Canada works. Renewing today.
One thing Canada and the US have in common is the craven cowardice of its elected parliamentary representatives. Especially when there is a financial reward (gold plated pensions) associated with reelection. And the odds of being reekected are better if you can avoid controversy by actually making decisions which will favor one group of electors over another.
I remember one US legislator 20 or 30 years ago complaining about Congress shirking its responsibilities thereby “passing the buck” to the Supreme Court. And what the US does is usually copied by Canada (out of penis envy 😆) allowing for time to translate to French.
It’s seems popular in certain quarters to say that the current US Administration is “packing the court” with conservative justices. In the last year of his reign Justin Trudeau decreed that all future supreme court justices have to be bilingual in English and French without the use or presence of a translator. Since virtually the only place that produces judges with that qualification is Quebec, if that isn’t packing I don’t know what is. Canada will now have a ten percent “tail” of 4 million or so “old stump”/“pure wool” French Quebeckers wagging a ninety percent non-French “dog”. So in the future, say goodbye to any hope of being tried by your peers if you are one of the ninety percent.
How about scrapping some laws and so-called precedents wholesale. Bluntly call out and dispose of the bullshit.
Otherwise this crap continues to accumulate like unwashed dirt on the floor and the society ends up a dysfunctional mess, as is today's Canada.
There is nothing "holy" about any court, any judge, any judgement, any lawyer, any law, any "Constitution, any "Charter".
Growing up I never thought I would see a growing "Fuck the Charter" movement (for lack of a better term). It always seemed like such an unalloyed good. I guess this inevitably happens when it stops protecting some groups and absurdly favours others.
Yes. More and more people realize how selectively the "Charter" is applied, and how the courts perverted the original purpose. The "Charter" is useless and often destructive if it is interpreted without common sense. I do not think we need it. The class which brought it into disrepute and into disuse are the "Liberals", the political front for the Laurentian Corruptocrats.
Thanks Gerard, you have clarified a number of points in this which had been unclear.
Yeah. Its kinda strange to see Fraser advocating to override the.... Charter.
Well, nothing strange about "Liberals" effing up everything.
I have been of the opinion that Canada’s needs the Supreme Court in its current form to balance the legislative branch if that branch proposes popular legislation that abrogates the rights of some Canadians. He rightly points out that the American example of the Supreme Court as final arbiter is not encouraging.
Though I am not able to cite many examples, our Supreme Court does seem to have a habit of creating new law in the face of judicial precedents and legislation. Our only response is to propose new legislation that we hope meets with the favour of the Court. Of course, what typically happens is that our legislators throw their hands up in despair, claiming that there is nothing that they can do, the Court has ruled. Perhaps the balance between the judicial and legislative branches, as Mr. Kennedy advocates, is a better method.
It would be easy to think that the Supreme Court operates like that - a welcome check on government power over the individual. Problem is that the Charter and the Courts don't really operate that way. They create new rights for niche identity groups and the rest of us have to live with it. They carve us into groups with different right based on race, gender, language, and income. They prioritize criminals over the rest of society. Seldom do they push back against government overreach that affects everyone, or champion real universal individual rights like property rights (e.g. gun confiscation, private healthcare) or the right to be left the hell alone (e.g. Covid mandates). I can say with confidence that rulings essentially never go in a way that I personally benefit from, but instead I am always in the group that has to shoulder the burden of new "rights" for others.
Yup. Feds wanna confiscate guns? Play ball! Municipality wants to remove a bike lane? That violates the constitutional rights of cyclists!
Favoured groups have more right to their preferred public infrastructure than hated groups have to things they bought with their own money.
Per chance, is this article written by the Gerard Kennedy who once ran for leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party?