News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

Started by Josephus, March 22, 2011, 09:27:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

crazy canuck

Quote from: Ancient Demon on February 11, 2018, 11:52:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 11, 2018, 11:25:27 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 10, 2018, 09:57:20 AM
BC's Chief Justice gave an interview regarding his concern over the lack of judges being appointed by the federal minister

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/chief-justice-christopher-hinkson-frustrated-by-judge-shortage-at-the-b-c-supreme-court

This situation is getting absurd and I've never heard a good reason for it.

Supposedly it's because they don't have enough qualified candidates that are sufficiently diverse (women and brown people).

And more than enough qualified candidates who don't meet whatever criteria the Minister has in mind.

I don't think we have ever seen such a politicization of the Judiciary in Canada.

PRC

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 11, 2018, 11:11:42 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on February 11, 2018, 11:52:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 11, 2018, 11:25:27 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 10, 2018, 09:57:20 AM
BC's Chief Justice gave an interview regarding his concern over the lack of judges being appointed by the federal minister

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/chief-justice-christopher-hinkson-frustrated-by-judge-shortage-at-the-b-c-supreme-court

This situation is getting absurd and I've never heard a good reason for it.

Supposedly it's because they don't have enough qualified candidates that are sufficiently diverse (women and brown people).

And more than enough qualified candidates who don't meet whatever criteria the Minister has in mind.

I don't think we have ever seen such a politicization of the Judiciary in Canada.

Is this actually what is occurring?  The stated reason the judiciary is undermanned (under-personed if you prefer) is because of diversity targets?

crazy canuck

Read the link I posted and consider how rare it is for a Chief Justice to speak out on the issue of Judicial appointments

And now we have the government speaking about an acquittal implying there should have been a conviction.

Barrister

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2018, 10:03:55 AM
And now we have the government speaking about an acquittal implying there should have been a conviction.

I don't have a problem with the idea that a minister, even a prime minister, can speak out about disliking the results of a criminal trial.  It's not a great system and it makes mistakes all the time - so why not be able to talk about it?

But the Colton Bushie / Gerald Stanley case had a lot going on.  On the one hand Stanley does shoot Bushie in the back with a handgun (any Yanks reading this - handguns are seriously restricted, and not something your ordinary farmer would usually have).  But on the other hand Bushie and his friends were trespassing on his farm, had been drinking, and admitted to trying to steal a car at his neighbors.

There's lots to comment on the lack of aboriginal jurors (as a Crown I always try to get an aboriginal person or two on a jury, but if defence is committed to use their preemptory challenges in that way it can be unavoidable), but the verdict itself on this case was always going to be tough.


But I'm upset that THIS case is the one getting national attention for how poorly native victims are treated by the courts.  I had an acquittal over a year ago where a white man killed an aboriginal man.  The circumstances on how Colton Bushie came to Stanley's farm were suspicious, but my deceased was only coming home from a Christmas party when he was murdered.  I so wish my family had gone to the media about that case.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

crazy canuck

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2018, 12:49:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2018, 10:03:55 AM
And now we have the government speaking about an acquittal implying there should have been a conviction.

I don't have a problem with the idea that a minister, even a prime minister, can speak out about disliking the results of a criminal trial.  It's not a great system and it makes mistakes all the time - so why not be able to talk about it?


Of course you don't. This was a finding of not guilty after all  :P


But perhaps one should also consider the perception of political interference in the judicial system.   The Minister and the Prime Minister are clearly signaling to the appeal court in this case and the trial judges in subsequent cases the result they would like to see in these circumstances.  Add to that perception that the Minister is screening Judicial appointments according to some criteria known only to her, and the perception of political interference in the judiciary starts to be very concerning.

Barrister

Judicial appointments have always been political though.

You know it hurts me to defend Trudeau, but he's not doing anything out of the ordinary.  Both Conservatives and Liberals have made appointments that were quite nakedly political in the past.  Do recall that former Justice Minister Vic Toews is now a sitting QB Justice in Manitoba, for example.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Malthus

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2018, 01:24:30 PM
Judicial appointments have always been political though.

You know it hurts me to defend Trudeau, but he's not doing anything out of the ordinary.  Both Conservatives and Liberals have made appointments that were quite nakedly political in the past.  Do recall that former Justice Minister Vic Toews is now a sitting QB Justice in Manitoba, for example.

Making appointments of qualified judges on political grounds in one thing (we aren't Americans, our governments don't tend to appoint people who are completely ignorant.  ;) ).

Failing to appoint sufficient judges (allegedly because not enough candidates are both qualified and politically favourable) is quite another. It risks screwing everything up. 
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Oexmelin

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 11, 2018, 11:11:42 PM
I don't think we have ever seen such a politicization of the Judiciary in Canada.

I am curious as to what forms the basis for this observation - genuinely curious, not "I think you are full of shit" curious. :)

On the one hand, as BB said, it was always a political process. Is it a matter that we now have stripped the veneer of neutrality that formerly constituted a tacit agreement of political parties? Does that make the process more transparently political?

On the other, I wonder if this is part of a more global disillusionment with justice - a widening discrepancy between a thirst for justice and the possibilities of law, and the outcomes of a justice system which seem increasingly alien to that thirst. We want justice to do *a lot*, to be the bearers of utopias which were once the realm of the political - and the justice system does not carry well utopias.

And on the third hand (!) I want to be prudent with these generational assessments. I don't have a good grasp of popular impressions of the justice system, say, in the 50s - and the way in which appointments were received and discussed.
Que le grand cric me croque !

Barrister

Quote from: Oexmelin on February 12, 2018, 02:23:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 11, 2018, 11:11:42 PM
I don't think we have ever seen such a politicization of the Judiciary in Canada.

I am curious as to what forms the basis for this observation - genuinely curious, not "I think you are full of shit" curious. :)

On the one hand, as BB said, it was always a political process. Is it a matter that we now have stripped the veneer of neutrality that formerly constituted a tacit agreement of political parties? Does that make the process more transparently political?

On the other, I wonder if this is part of a more global disillusionment with justice - a widening discrepancy between a thirst for justice and the possibilities of law, and the outcomes of a justice system which seem increasingly alien to that thirst. We want justice to do *a lot*, to be the bearers of utopias which were once the realm of the political - and the justice system does not carry well utopias.

And on the third hand (!) I want to be prudent with these generational assessments. I don't have a good grasp of popular impressions of the justice system, say, in the 50s - and the way in which appointments were received and discussed.

I think we have put much more of a "veneer of neutrality" than existed in the past.

Going back 20-30 years (and even more I think) judicial appointments were nakedly partisan.  In solidly blue Alberta I know of several old QB justices who were appointed purely because they were in good standing with the federal Liberal party - often meaning they were former candidates, and had certainly raised money generously for the party.

But since then being so nakedly political has been frowned on - so politicians purport to set up boards to vet judicial nominees.  But of course politicians still want to control who is getting appointed - and the idea that appointments must be balanced based on diversity is no less a political decision than it is to make sure appointments have the right kind of political party membership card.

And I have no stats, but in my experience judges always, always, always have been complaining about the speed of judicial appointments.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Malthus

Quote from: Oexmelin on February 12, 2018, 02:23:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 11, 2018, 11:11:42 PM
I don't think we have ever seen such a politicization of the Judiciary in Canada.

I am curious as to what forms the basis for this observation - genuinely curious, not "I think you are full of shit" curious. :)

On the one hand, as BB said, it was always a political process. Is it a matter that we now have stripped the veneer of neutrality that formerly constituted a tacit agreement of political parties? Does that make the process more transparently political?

On the other, I wonder if this is part of a more global disillusionment with justice - a widening discrepancy between a thirst for justice and the possibilities of law, and the outcomes of a justice system which seem increasingly alien to that thirst. We want justice to do *a lot*, to be the bearers of utopias which were once the realm of the political - and the justice system does not carry well utopias.

And on the third hand (!) I want to be prudent with these generational assessments. I don't have a good grasp of popular impressions of the justice system, say, in the 50s - and the way in which appointments were received and discussed.

The really new aspect is the lack of superior court judicial appointments. For whatever reason, the process appears stalled once this government came into power. BC is running at a deficit of 10% - it is unusual for a provincial chief justice to criticize the administration, as in the above article.

It isn't that the Libs are making "political appointments" (I suspect all governments have done that to some degree); it is that they are unwilling or unable to make enough appointments of any kind, political or not.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Oexmelin

Oh, yes. I understand the specific situation. I was asking more on the issue of politicization of justice.
Que le grand cric me croque !

Malthus

Quote from: Oexmelin on February 12, 2018, 03:00:05 PM
Oh, yes. I understand the specific situation. I was asking more on the issue of politicization of justice.

I cant speak for CC, but I suspect that's his issue: the current situation = evidence of greater politicization of justice.

Don't know if that equation is true or not (for example, I don't know if the current deficit of appointments is really unprecedented).

It is the case that the current situation is worse than under the previous government, in this specific respect. How it ranks historically I don't know.   
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

crazy canuck

Quote from: Oexmelin on February 12, 2018, 02:23:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 11, 2018, 11:11:42 PM
I don't think we have ever seen such a politicization of the Judiciary in Canada.

I am curious as to what forms the basis for this observation - genuinely curious, not "I think you are full of shit" curious. :)

On the one hand, as BB said, it was always a political process. Is it a matter that we now have stripped the veneer of neutrality that formerly constituted a tacit agreement of political parties? Does that make the process more transparently political?

On the other, I wonder if this is part of a more global disillusionment with justice - a widening discrepancy between a thirst for justice and the possibilities of law, and the outcomes of a justice system which seem increasingly alien to that thirst. We want justice to do *a lot*, to be the bearers of utopias which were once the realm of the political - and the justice system does not carry well utopias.

And on the third hand (!) I want to be prudent with these generational assessments. I don't have a good grasp of popular impressions of the justice system, say, in the 50s - and the way in which appointments were received and discussed.

BB is just wrong about his observation that nothing has changed.  This is the first time in BC (and as I talk to my colleagues across the country, in their provinces as well) that fully vetted and approved judicial candidates are not being appointed. 

BB is also wrong about appointments always being political.  Maybe that is how it works in Alberta, but in BC, the federal minister has always appointed the judicial candidates who pass through the rigorous vetting and approval process we have for all judicial appointments to the Provincial and Federal Courts in this province.

Why is the Minister not making the appointments?  This is not an aberration.  This is a practice that has occurred since she has become Minister.  The reason appears to be political.   

Barrister

So this might be the most Canadian news story of all time: Hockey Canada is being criticized for telling announcers to pronounce certain hockey players names in the English pronounciation.  Never mind these players, though of French heritage, are from English Canada and themselves pronounce their names that way.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/heritage-minister-1.4546582
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Josquius

I thought it was usually just the French got upset about that. Strange to see the Anglo Canadians getting language protectionist.
██████
██████
██████