Well, are we prepared to take the necessary steps to actually DO SOMETHING about it, or do we merely sit around, and continue to whine like a 2 year old who dropped his lollypop?
It is curious that the people who adamately oppose decisions by "unelected corporate power brokers" do not make a peep when unelected agenda-driven activist judges decide our futures for us. This is more than hipprocritical. This is dishonest.
Jesus...you cannot elect judges, alright? the judiciary must be impartial. judges cannot be impartial if they have to campaign elections and wonder if their next decision might get them voted out.
If you actually think judges in Canada are impartial simply because they are nominated then I have to say you are woefully ignorant of how judges are nominated in canada as well as what is going on in our judiciary. Even the idea that 'one person' should wield such power is pretty elitist, the idea that a judge is better able to discover the truth any better than a jury is pretty biased, and the idea that years of law school make you better able to decide 'right from wrong' or 'fitting punishment' or anything else to do with the penal system is pretty elitist in itself.
The difference is that, ideally, judges are selected based on their proficiency with the law, and CEOs are selected based on their proficiency with earning money for the company. The law is meant to protect citizen's interests, and usually does. For a company, earning money will be done any way possible; if it benefits citizens, that's a side effect. A corrupt judge is one thing, and can be replaced. But even an ideal CEO doesn't care about people or issues; a corrupt CEO will be even worse. So no, I'm not worried about 'activist judges' (a term coined by the Fox Network).
--- Canadians are asking, why do americans hate us? They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to disagree with each other.
In that case, the idea that only engineers should be allowed to design bridges is fairly elitist as well. Having years of training *does* actually make someone more qualified than random people off of the street.
--- Canadians are asking, why do americans hate us? They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to disagree with each other.
The question is does a judge make a decision in his or her self-interest? Once a judge is appointed the law gives him or her the flexibility to interpret the law. It is the parliamentarians who make the law and if they make the law so vague that judges have a greater role that was the decision of our elected representatives who at the time passed the law. It is up to the same representatives to change the law if judges misinterpret the intent of the legislation. It provides a system of checks and balances.
We know that those involved in the "Task Force" are acting in what they perceive as their own self-interest. That is the reason that CEOs and the companies they work for put so much money into these think tanks and lobby groups to work for them. They hire people like John Manley who has close connections with both Liberal and Conservative politicians to increase their creditability and access to the corridors of power. It is when our representatives in Parliament and government begin to see themselves as representatives of these special interests that we must take action to change our representatives. Both Sheila Copps and David Anderson have said that some cabinet ministers act as lobbyists for these groups when in cabinet. This is what we need to worry about because decisions made in the economic self-interest of a few should never be the focus of a democratically elected government.
1. I didn't say judges don't hold personal biases. Obviously they do. Judges are human and they bring with them to the bench their own life experiences and viewpoints. However, you didn not address my point. Judges who have to run for elections are placed in the precarious position of having to administer justice and give decisions always wondering in the back of their minds if this decision will get them kicked off the bench. Instead of rendering a decision based on a fair application of the law to the facts at hand, the judge may render a decision that will seem more palpable to his or her constituency. Lest he lose his or her job. This happens in the states all the time. And need I remind you, federal judges and supreme court judges are NOT elected in the USA either. There, like here in canada, it is these judges that make the most impact with their decisions.
2. The election of judges is contrary to the dignity and raison d'etre of the profession. The judiciary is intended as a check on the legislative branch - to ensure laws are consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution. A constitution, I might add, that was drafted by the legislative branch. Judges do not have the final word on social policy in Canada. Legislators do. s.33 of the charter gives legislators to override the decisions of 'unelected judges.' I might also add that prior to the entrenchment of the Charter, there was no real controversary about 'judicial activism' from 'unelected judges' regarding judicial decisions on division of powers legal issues. Courts have been interpreting our constitution for decades and have not been accused of crossing the line. It is only when the Charter came into existence and judges started interpreting that document in the same stule by which it interpreted the rest of the consitution ('living tree') that social conservatives started ranting the sky was falling.
3. I never said judges were more suited to render decisions that juries. This comment is the most revealing in your ignorance of the operation of the Canadian judiciary. The fact that judges answer questions more than juries has nothing to do with the Charter or judiicial activism, but has to do with the development of our judicial civil procedure, which mirrors the devlopment of the English/commonwealth common law civil procedure. Makes sense since we are a parliamentary democracy mondelled on the British system. I won't bore you with the history of Canadian civil procedure (and lord, is it ever boring), but the fact that there are less jury trials in Canada just has nothing at all to do with elitism or any other silliness you conservatives conjure up. The fact is, you have a choice to get tried by judge or jury in this country, and given the choice, I would choose judge simply because a judge is better versed in the legal issues than would be a layperson. And here I'm not sure I understand your point...are you suggesting juries should answer charter questions? Well, more ignorance. Law 101: judges decision questions of law, juries questions of fact. Charter questions are questions of law. If you murdered someone, whether or not you did it, that is a question of fact. judges have the legal authority to answer both questions of law and fact, juries do not and NEVER HAD that choice, in ANY legal system. Juries CANNOT answer questions of law in the USA. Juries CANNOT interpret the bill of rights in teh USA.
In any case the analogy was a false one. CEOs have have no legal or political authority to start amending the social contract behind the backs of the Canadian people. Should Canadians ever want to merge with the USA, that is for the Canadian people to debate in an open forum and for Canadians to decide by referendum.
Judges interpret domestic law and are not trying to annex this country behind closed doors to a foreign power.
Comparing judges with engineers is simply silly. This argument is one of ideologies so of course it just comes down to questions of opinion. My comment above was not to say the american system is better than canada's, although in some ways it is and in some ways it isn't.
I am arguing the ideology of the 'traditional' legal system you are talking about and my opinion is that in our modern society it serves no purpose. The idea of judging somebody based on precedent is remarkably short sighted. Judges are remnants of the elitist english system where those with power and money decided everything for their tenants. The idea was (and is) that they are smarter and better versed and able to judge better than others, but the reality is simply that they hold the power and others don't.
If I kill somebody then those, as said before, are questions of fact and the final 'judgement' is obviously better served by a group of people as opposed to one. Although in Canada you have the choice between judge and jury is irrelevant. Personally, I wouldn't want such decisions to be made by a guy who does nothing but sit in judgement of people all day long, but that's just me. There's an old irish story of the man accused of stealing potatoes, and the judge asks him if he has any friends to serve as witnesses, to which he replies, "no sor, but I have many kin and friends in the jury"
To me, questions of fact are all that is important in a trial, and the 'punishment' is far better meted out by society rather than, again, one old man. This is being discovered here in Ontario where many natives are re-adopting their old practises to prevent recidivism, and many 'british' practitioners are also waking up to the notion that putting somebody behind bars is often the worst thing to do. The idea of precedent is exactly that-to try to maintain the status quo.
That, of course, is just my opinion and isn't stated to be anything else. My opinion is there should be far more 'regulation' and fewer 'laws'. Anybody who has driven down the 401 knows damn well that police presence and the law have little to do with driving behaviours, which have more to do with the weather, traffic, cylinder size and perhaps the age of the driver.
The concept where we elect Members of Parliament to carry out our wishes is giving many of you a hard time. Judges are not and probably shouldn't be elected. And they should not be deciding the things that are reserved for citizens in a democracy. If they are not elected by us they do not represent us, they represent whoever appointed them. Maybe we should we just disband Parliament with its chickenhearted politicans and save the money? Let's rip down the fake scenery and see what we really have. It may not be as bad as I imagine.
As a law student, I can tell you your understanding of how the Common Law works is entirely wrong. You shouldn't be blabbering on about things of which you obviousbly have no understanding.
We've come a long way since the normans invaded england. you should read up on your legal history.
Precedent reinforces the status quo? But I thought you previously stated that our judges are too activist? In any case, the precedent system of the common law is very flexible. Get a lawyer to argue for a wide ratio or a narrow ratio of a precedent, and that precedent either goes out the door or expands to include new circumstances. KNow what a ratio is?
The common law is all about incremental change. THe law changes as society changes. I doubt you would see or understand this, however, given that you probably have not read a work of any English or Canadian case law. Judges are always aware of public policy when they write - it's central to msot of their judgements.
We have law schools for a reason. You opinions clearly demonstrate law cannot be understand in a law fashion.
To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)
Stumble It!
---
Dave Ruston
Kevin
---
Advice from history, which President Bush probably already lives by. "What luck for the rulers, that men do not think
--Adolf Hitler"
---
Advice from history, which President Bush probably already lives by. "What luck for the rulers, that men do not think
--Adolf Hitler"
---
Canadians are asking, why do americans hate us? They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to disagree with each other.
---
Canadians are asking, why do americans hate us? They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to disagree with each other.
We know that those involved in the "Task Force" are acting in what they perceive as their own self-interest. That is the reason that CEOs and the companies they work for put so much money into these think tanks and lobby groups to work for them. They hire people like John Manley who has close connections with both Liberal and Conservative politicians to increase their creditability and access to the corridors of power. It is when our representatives in Parliament and government begin to see themselves as representatives of these special interests that we must take action to change our representatives. Both Sheila Copps and David Anderson have said that some cabinet ministers act as lobbyists for these groups when in cabinet. This is what we need to worry about because decisions made in the economic self-interest of a few should never be the focus of a democratically elected government.
2. The election of judges is contrary to the dignity and raison d'etre of the profession. The judiciary is intended as a check on the legislative branch - to ensure laws are consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution. A constitution, I might add, that was drafted by the legislative branch. Judges do not have the final word on social policy in Canada. Legislators do. s.33 of the charter gives legislators to override the decisions of 'unelected judges.' I might also add that prior to the entrenchment of the Charter, there was no real controversary about 'judicial activism' from 'unelected judges' regarding judicial decisions on division of powers legal issues. Courts have been interpreting our constitution for decades and have not been accused of crossing the line. It is only when the Charter came into existence and judges started interpreting that document in the same stule by which it interpreted the rest of the consitution ('living tree') that social conservatives started ranting the sky was falling.
3. I never said judges were more suited to render decisions that juries. This comment is the most revealing in your ignorance of the operation of the Canadian judiciary. The fact that judges answer questions more than juries has nothing to do with the Charter or judiicial activism, but has to do with the development of our judicial civil procedure, which mirrors the devlopment of the English/commonwealth common law civil procedure. Makes sense since we are a parliamentary democracy mondelled on the British system. I won't bore you with the history of Canadian civil procedure (and lord, is it ever boring), but the fact that there are less jury trials in Canada just has nothing at all to do with elitism or any other silliness you conservatives conjure up. The fact is, you have a choice to get tried by judge or jury in this country, and given the choice, I would choose judge simply because a judge is better versed in the legal issues than would be a layperson. And here I'm not sure I understand your point...are you suggesting juries should answer charter questions? Well, more ignorance. Law 101: judges decision questions of law, juries questions of fact. Charter questions are questions of law. If you murdered someone, whether or not you did it, that is a question of fact. judges have the legal authority to answer both questions of law and fact, juries do not and NEVER HAD that choice, in ANY legal system. Juries CANNOT answer questions of law in the USA. Juries CANNOT interpret the bill of rights in teh USA.
Judges interpret domestic law and are not trying to annex this country behind closed doors to a foreign power.
See now how silly that analogy was?
I am arguing the ideology of the 'traditional' legal system you are talking about and my opinion is that in our modern society it serves no purpose. The idea of judging somebody based on precedent is remarkably short sighted. Judges are remnants of the elitist english system where those with power and money decided everything for their tenants. The idea was (and is) that they are smarter and better versed and able to judge better than others, but the reality is simply that they hold the power and others don't.
If I kill somebody then those, as said before, are questions of fact and the final 'judgement' is obviously better served by a group of people as opposed to one. Although in Canada you have the choice between judge and jury is irrelevant. Personally, I wouldn't want such decisions to be made by a guy who does nothing but sit in judgement of people all day long, but that's just me. There's an old irish story of the man accused of stealing potatoes, and the judge asks him if he has any friends to serve as witnesses, to which he replies, "no sor, but I have many kin and friends in the jury"
To me, questions of fact are all that is important in a trial, and the 'punishment' is far better meted out by society rather than, again, one old man. This is being discovered here in Ontario where many natives are re-adopting their old practises to prevent recidivism, and many 'british' practitioners are also waking up to the notion that putting somebody behind bars is often the worst thing to do. The idea of precedent is exactly that-to try to maintain the status quo.
That, of course, is just my opinion and isn't stated to be anything else. My opinion is there should be far more 'regulation' and fewer 'laws'. Anybody who has driven down the 401 knows damn well that police presence and the law have little to do with driving behaviours, which have more to do with the weather, traffic, cylinder size and perhaps the age of the driver.
We've come a long way since the normans invaded england. you should read up on your legal history.
Precedent reinforces the status quo? But I thought you previously stated that our judges are too activist? In any case, the precedent system of the common law is very flexible. Get a lawyer to argue for a wide ratio or a narrow ratio of a precedent, and that precedent either goes out the door or expands to include new circumstances. KNow what a ratio is?
The common law is all about incremental change. THe law changes as society changes. I doubt you would see or understand this, however, given that you probably have not read a work of any English or Canadian case law. Judges are always aware of public policy when they write - it's central to msot of their judgements.
We have law schools for a reason. You opinions clearly demonstrate law cannot be understand in a law fashion.