Politics On The Supreme Court

It is frequently argued that Canadian judges are politicians handing down political, rather than impartial, judicial opinions. We have proof of this now -- directly -- from none other than the Chief Justice of Canada, Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer.

Addressing students at the University of Toronto last February during a conference on the Law and Contemporary Affairs, the Chief Justice stated that he was opposed to public confirmation hearings for judges because he believed they would be misleading. As an example, he stated that although he was personally opposed to abortion, he voted to strike down the abortion law in January 1988, because he thought a majority of Canadians were against making it a criminal offence. He went on to say that "unless you have a vast majority of people to think something is criminal, you should not make it a crime".

It is shocking that the Chief Justice of Canada, by his own admission, is using his high office to decide grave social issues of the day, not in accordance with the law, but rather in accordance with his own perception of the "majority" view on a given issue.

This leads one to speculate on how Mr. Justice Lamer conducted his private polling on the subject in order to reach his remarkable conclusion. Did he rely on the media -- notorious for their left-wing agenda, which is generally out of touch with the views of the majority of Canadians? Further, after his frank admission as to how he decided the abortion issue, are we to witness more "polling" by him on other controversial issues, such as the legal recognition of same-sex relationships?

There is a vast difference between judging and polling. Judges are supposed to apply reason and logic from basic concepts and earlier rulings. They are required to objectively evaluate the competing interests of the parties appearing before them. Instead, we have the Chief Justice of Canada openly admitting that his ruling on the abortion issue was based on his own perception of public opinion. Simply put, judges are not appointed to change the laws in order to have them better reflect the apparent will of the majority. We have Parliament to do that.

The Canadian justice system today is in disarray and lacks credibility. It is not difficult to understand why this is so.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS