For a Chief Justice, Beverly McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada certainly can make some very ill-considered remarks. For example, at a dinner on May 6, 2002, honouring the retiring Madame Justice Claire L'Heuraux Dubé, hosted by the Ontario Bar Association and the Law Society of Upper Canada, Chief Justice McLachlin stated that Madame Justice Claire L'Heuraux Dubé had given her some good advice:
… Claire gave me a great deal of practical help. I was contemplating these huge red robes with ermine with some consternation. She said, 'Well, they're very hot, but let me tell you my secret. We don't wear anything under them.'
Madame Justice McLachlin then stated, "I invite you to let your imagination run wild!!" How does she want Canadians to envision her? Her less than well thought out comment scarcely promotes either dignity or respect for the court or for herself.
At the recent Canada Bar Association meeting held in St. John's Newfoundland in August 2006, Madame Justice McLachlin was at it again. She stated that the presence of four women out of nine judges on the Supreme Court of Canada made for a "happier" court because the female judges had arranged for yoga classes for themselves. (Can't they participate in the latter on their own time like everyone else?) She also said that because of the women judges, there are now cakes for the judges' birthdays, nicer pictures on the walls, better food in the dining room and a piano. How nice. The women judges are apparently just a group of happy homemakers away from home, building a comfy little nest for their fellow judges - right in line with the stereotype of females.
Yet, she had more to say. She argued that women were essential to the bench because female litigants may feel outnumbered and intimidated if they were to face a courtroom full of men. According to her written remarks, "The reality is that many people, particularly women, may have less than complete trust in a system comprised predominantly of middle-aged white men in pin-striped trousers." Spare us such nonsense. We are much more concerned, for example, by the feminist ideologies of judges on the court than the matter of the judges' gender. Far better nine fair-minded, reasonable, and objective male judges than narrow-minded feminists on the court, who cannot or will not see beyond the sisterhood's agenda.
Finally, Chief Justice McLachlin stated that the justice system needs the perspective that women bring to judging based on their life experiences. "In this respect", she stated, "women can make a unique contribution to deliberations of our courts." Why? Women do not think alike since their "life experiences" differ widely as do those of men. Chief Justice McLachlin hastily acknowledged this in her prepared text, "To suggest a single feminine world view discounts the incredible variety and diversity of women." If so, then why does she suggest that women, who are individuals with views independent of their gender, make a "unique contribution" to the court? Chief Justice McLachlin needs to do a little more thinking before she utters any more such muddled thoughts.
If Chief Justice McLachlin is trying to "humanize" the court by her remarks, she is not doing a terribly good job of it. |
