HOMOSEXUAL INPUT IN RECENT APPOINTMENT
TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

On September 30, 1997, Mr. Justice GŽrard LaForest stepped down from the Supreme Court of Canada. This was a severe loss to the pro-family cause because, in 1996, he wrote the majority decision in the same-sex benefits case Nesbit and Egan in which the traditional family was upheld in a close 5-4 decision.

The retirement of Mr. Justice LaForest was met with undisguised satisfaction by the homosexual community, which immediately set about ensuring that the vacancy in the court would be filled by someone more amenable to its agenda.

On September 13, 1997, John Fischer, Executive-Director of the Ottawa-based homosexual lobby group, EGALE (Equality for Gays nd Lesbians Everywhere), sent out a message on the Internet (john@egale.ca) stating:

.. it is vitally important for our communities that LaForest be replaced by someone more committed to equality issues. The Minister of Justice and the PM will replace him by another judge from the Atlantic provinces. ...

We now have a fairly good idea of who the main contenders for the position are, but need some background info on these candidates ... I'm reluctant to post the actual names of the candidates to this list, because of the possibility that there may be anti-glb(sic)"lurkers" on the list, waiting to hear our trade secrets. .... I think it would be imprudent to release the actual names.

... I'd suggest that anyone who is plugged into the Atlantic legal community please E-mail me privately. ...

In response to the homosexuals' access to inside information on judicial appointments, Prof. F.L. Morton of the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary, in an article published in the Globe and Mail on September 22, stated:

... The Egale memo shows that the process of appointing judges is already politicized, except that entry is limited to a select group of insiders.

We can be assured that other political interests who increasingly depend on the courts to protect and promote their interests are also vying for similar access.

This criticism is directed at the government. Egale, LEAF [the legal arm of feminist movement] and others certainly have the right to lobby for a judge who is positively inclined toward their constituencies and concerns. But so do those who think Canadians would be better served by a judge who is supportive of traditional Judeo-Christian morality and who recognizes the important role of intact families in cultural transmission from one generation to the next. Why is one set of interests at the table but not the others?

What deals are being struck between the Egale-LEAF lobbyists and the ChrŽtien government? It has been widely reported that the cabinet is obsessed about making an appointment of someone who will 'get it right' on its upcoming referendum on the legality of a Quebec unilateral declaration of independence. What price is the government willing to pay for the right vote? Will it concede a gay-feminist vote in return for an anti-Quebec-UDI vote? This would certainly be fine by Egale and LEAF. ...

Meanwhile, REAL Women had written to Prime Minister ChrŽtien on September 3, 1997, prior to the appointment stating:

Appointments on this basis (of gender, race, etc.) presuppose that there is no objective standard in law, and that a judge's perspective depends, not on truth or impartial analysis. ...

Our association regards any such special interest appointments as both demeaning to the Court and extremely dangerous as they will only serve to undermine the credibility of and respect for our judicial system.

Mr. ChrŽtien's office subsequently announced that the vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada was to be filled by Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache who was a member of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. In a detailed interview published in the Lawyers Weekly (October 24, 1997) Mr. Justice Bastarache was described as follows:

... His opinions also reveal a social conscience reflected in a concern for human rights and the vulnerable or disadvantaged, including crime victims, minorities, fired employees, women and children, ...

... In general, the judge appears unafraid to break new ground under the Charter, based on a principled approach.

When asked whether he was comfortable with the courts policy-making role under the Charter, Mr. Justice Bastarache replied:

Yes. I am. But I think we have to be very careful also to strike a balance between the role of Parliament and our role, because Parliament not only has a role with regard to just adopting laws but I think, in many instances, it's the proper arbitrator when it comes to very difficult questions of social policy where the population is very divided.

When asked directly whether he has sympathy for gays and lesbians and other equality seekers, Mr. Justice Bastarache stated:

... But yes, in the sense that I try to see things from the perspective of those people, and not only from the perspective of persons making rules and not only from the perspective of what is seen as the mainstream person.

... It's only a question of understanding how people are affected by these rights and how their perception of what is right and wrong is affected by their own values.

In the same sex benefits case of M v. H (a case which will determine whether same-sex partners are entitled to family benefits), REAL Women has been granted Intervenor Status. The case will be argued before the Supreme Court of Canada on February 24, 1998. That decision will help us decide whether the homosexual access to inside information of appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada was successful, or whether Mr. ChrŽtien took REAL Women's recommendation to appoint a judge not on the basis of special interest pressure, but rather on the basis of merit.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS