BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Book Review: Judicial Activism:
A threat to democracy and religion

General editor: Alphonse de Valk
Life Ethics Information Centre
104 Bond Street, Suite 304
Toronto, Ontario M5B 1X9

($19.95 inc. tax
plus $2.50 shipping)

This book is a collection of speeches and articles written from 1999 to 2003 by nine different authors. It traces what one author calls "judicial hyperactivism" in the courts of Canada since the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Court cases challenging established law pertaining to marriage, parental rights, and religious freedom are critically analyzed, crucial quotations expose contradictions among jurists, and weasel words are examined to reveal the bias of our powerful courts.

In this one small volume edited by Alphonse de Valk, one has access to details of case law which has gradually changed the focus of law in Canada from Judaeo-Christian morality to a central concern for subjectively interpreted "equality" rights. Controversial quotations from jurists and their rulings demonstrate a transition from a legal system based on the rule of law to one dependent on the personal biases of unelected judges. Names of judges and dates of court rulings are available in this book.

Edward J. McBride notes how distasteful it is to see "judges as partisan combatants in the cultural wars of the day." In the Vriend and HLI decisions he observes "a deficit of disciplined legal reasoning combined with a surfeit of indulgent judicial imagination." In another essay he thoroughly exposes the multi-faceted incoherence of Justice Antonio Lamer's revelation about his judgment on abortion that "unless you have a vast majority of people to think something is criminal, you should not make it a crime."

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin leaves herself open to criticism in the Surrey School Board ruling where she states that "Children cannot learn tolerance unless they are exposed to views that differ from those they are taught at home." In articles by Alphonse de Valk, David Dooley, and Ian Hunter the secularized courts are shown to have established freedom from religion in Canada rather than freedom of religion.

Gwen Landolt writes that "equality rights in Canada now rest on the claims of a person's feelings" and the courts' subjective perception of "human dignity." She continues that "the Supreme Court of Canada has extended this interpretation to mean, according to the Surrey School Board case... that 'tolerance' of differences now requires acceptance of these differences, despite one's own beliefs"; and "Unlike any other country in the world, the unchecked power of the Canadian courts has led them to become hotbeds of radicalism." Mrs. Landolt concludes that checks and balances are needed in a revitalized legal and political system to remedy the undermining of the social order now taking place.

Rory Leishman demonstrates that "...the Supreme Court of Canada has undermined historic rights and freedoms, usurped the legislative authority of elected representatives and subverted the rule of law." He implicates the actions or inaction of political figures in this decline such as Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Premiers Mike Harris (Ont.) and Ralph Klein (Alta.). He describes the case law used along the way: Vriend, Egan, MvH, Surrey School Board, Hugh Owens, Scott Brockie, Trinity Western. He suggests that judicial activism "undermines the genuine human rights and fundamental freedoms of every citizen."

Geoff Cauchi uses important judicial references to demonstrate that the Marc Hall case was an interference of the civil courts in matters of church domain. Judges like Claire L'Heureux-Dubé (Trinity Western) and R. MacKinnon (Marc Hall) who publicly denounce the adage "hate the sin but love the sinner", are shaping a society where "...the freedom to act on one's beliefs is becoming not just less broad than the freedom to believe [as Justice McLachlin dictated in Surrey School Board] but almost non-existent...." The footnotes to his article are of special interest to those who will be defending religious rights in the future.

The trampling on philosophical and religious principles which is characteristic of the manoeuvering to redefine marriage and to equate sodomy with marriage is clearly explained by Alphonse de Valk, Vincent Foy, Ian Hunter and Peter Stock in their essays. They identify the religious illiteracy which underlies the subversion of religious rights in Canada. Alphonse De Valk states "The current moral relativism is not a rival ethics. It is simply regressive, not progressive, it only knows how to dissolve, not how to build." The authors remind us that the corruption of law is no law.

Concepts rarely tackled by our gutless media are honestly and courageously addressed in this book: "an emasculated Parliament", with "man as the ultimate measure of all things", "moral incoherence", an "anti-social idea of freedom", "biblical illiteracy", "bend the knee before the goddess of Equality", "separation of law and morality", "tyranny of law." It is a valuable resource for writers, concerned citizens who communicate with elected representatives, organizations which defend the traditional rule of law, and Canadians who want to remain informed.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS