|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHIEF JUSTICE McLACHLIN AS A SPIN DOCTOR
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme
Court of Canada has come out with all guns blazing, attempting
to justify her Court's privileged position in Canada. In a
speech given to the Canadian Club in Toronto on June 17, 2003,
she insisted that her Court, which operates without any checks
and balances, merely serves as a neutral independent arbiter,
helping citizens in their claims against the government.
In this speech, along with several other talks
she has given, such as one on CBC on April 8, 2003, she has
taken on a new role - that of a spin doctor for the Court.
She is aggressively attempting to form, shape and lead public
opinion as the official PR person for the Court. The Charter
of Rights, however, did not give her or any other judge the
responsibility of propagandizing on behalf of the courts.
The judgements of the Court are supposed to speak for themselves.
Apparently not, however, with the present Supreme Court Chief
Justice.
In her remarkable speech to the Canadian Club,
Chief Justice McLachlin humbly described the work of judges
as "being mere gardeners, shaping and nurturing plants
so that they can grow as intended, occasionally pulling out
a weed that offends the plan on which the garden is based."
This is a charming description but untrue. Such a sophistry
cannot disguise the fact that she and her colleagues are politicians
making decisions on social policy. In her speech, she denied
that judges "pluck meanings from the air according to
their political stripes," and also firmly denied that
judges have an agenda.
Instead, she claimed that judges play a noble
role in protecting citizens from the tyranny of the majority,
stating that the majority alone should not decide minority
rights, since the majority "overlook the need to accommodate
and validate minority views essential to long-term democratic
stability." In effect, she argues that the appointed,
non-screened elitists sitting on the Court should make decisions,
not the majority of Canadians. The word "arrogant"
may adequately describe her comments, which are clearly out
of touch with reality.
Chief Justice McLachlin also made it crystal
clear that the present system of the Prime Minister alone
having the power to appoint Supreme Court judges was an exemplary
practice. She claimed that judges are selected on merit, rather
than on their political perspective. She stated, "why
…. fix the system if it isn't broken?" Sadly, it
is broken - destroying confidence in our judiciary and causing
enormous dissension across the country.
This is made apparent by an Ipsos-Reid Survey
of 1,000 Canadians, conducted in March, 2003, which found
that 66% of Canadians believe that the Supreme Court of Canada
is influenced by partisan politics. Only 20% of Canadians
reported a strong confidence in the Court. These findings
indicate the public's dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice McLachlin further claimed that
in Canada judges are selected for "… their legal
learning, wisdom and impartiality." This is hardly possible
when Chief Justice McMurtry of the Ontario Court of Appeal,
who brought down the same-sex decision in Ontario, former
Supreme Court Judge Claire L'Heureux Dubé and other
court judges involved with the same-sex marriage issue, celebrated
Gay Pride Week 2003 in Toronto. These judges both attended
a panel and a reception which thanked them for advancing homosexual
rights in Canada. ( See "Judges Party with Homosexual
Activists," p….) "Impartial" would not
be a word to describe our courts.
Finally, Chief Justice McLachlin claimed that
a judge's work was "… high-level specialized, intellectual
work." No doubt it is when judges have to come up with
reasons for preconceived conclusions. As former Prime Minister,
Pierre Trudeau, stated in a speech given in March 1991, on
the occasion of the opening of the University of Toronto Law
Library, when referring to a previous decision of the Supreme
Court, Patriation Reference (1981):
… they [the Supreme Court] blatantly
manipulated the evidence before them so as to arrive at
the desired result. Then they wrote a judgement which tried
to lend a fig-leaf of legality to their preconceived conclusion
…
Nothing has changed.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
