[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Are the appointments in the Maritimes, or the Yukon, somehow more political than the equivalent ones in BC or Alberta?

[Malthus]

Another point someone made elsewhere: the number of lawyers in the Maritimes are not that high, and many of them are likely Dalhousie grads. In addition, the appointments were made by the provincial party, not the federal Conservatives.

So with what you're saying CC, I guess it's some combination of the first three options.

The Supreme Court appointments are all Federal Appointments (unless there is something special for Maritime Provinces in the Constitution - which is a distinct possibility)  but the way it works is that the Provincial AG's office and local bar have a lot of input.  It would be impossible to appoint someone who in unconnected for the reasons you set out.  And that is the reason all appointments in the Maritimes are political.

Add also - it' probable that some of the other viable candidates aren't politically neutral, but are actively connected to the Liberal party.  It's one thing to hope for the government to appoint non-partisan justices, but I can't really expect a party to appoint meaningful numbers of Justices attached to the opposition.

And CC - Being a one-time Yukon lawyer I've always been sceptical about writing off decisions merely because of their jurisdiction.  There are fine decisions from all across this great country, and if the reasoning of a decision is solid, I will have no hesitation citing it.

One can't pretend that an appellate decision from NS or PEI is given the same weight by the courts as one from Ont or BC (or even Alberta).

[Barrister]

Are the appointments in the Maritimes, or the Yukon, somehow more political than the equivalent ones in BC or Alberta?

Yukon is fairly apolitical, simply because it doesn't matter much, and our local MP rarely has enough pull within cabinet for his/her views to matter much.

[Jacob]

One can't pretend that an appellate decision from NS or PEI is given the same weight by the courts as one from Ont or BC (or even Alberta).

Does that have anything to do with the appointment process, or is it just down to Ontario/ BC (/even Alberta) simply being bigger?

[Malthus]

Are the appointments in the Maritimes, or the Yukon, somehow more political than the equivalent ones in BC or Alberta?

I dunno about the Yukon, but generally the jurisdictions are tiny by comparison.

The impression I get of the maritimes is that they run things differently there - everyone is likely to know everyone; the political and the personal have greater weight and are related. Think "politics" in a small-town setting, versus the big, impersonal megopolis.

[Malthus]

One can't pretend that an appellate decision from NS or PEI is given the same weight by the courts as one from Ont or BC (or even Alberta).

Does that have anything to do with the appointment process, or is it just down to Ontario/ BC (/even Alberta) simply being bigger?

Very much the latter.

[Barrister]

Another point someone made elsewhere: the number of lawyers in the Maritimes are not that high, and many of them are likely Dalhousie grads. In addition, the appointments were made by the provincial party, not the federal Conservatives.

So with what you're saying CC, I guess it's some combination of the first three options.

The Supreme Court appointments are all Federal Appointments (unless there is something special for Maritime Provinces in the Constitution - which is a distinct possibility)  but the way it works is that the Provincial AG's office and local bar have a lot of input.  It would be impossible to appoint someone who in unconnected for the reasons you set out.  And that is the reason all appointments in the Maritimes are political.

Add also - it' probable that some of the other viable candidates aren't politically neutral, but are actively connected to the Liberal party.  It's one thing to hope for the government to appoint non-partisan justices, but I can't really expect a party to appoint meaningful numbers of Justices attached to the opposition.

And CC - Being a one-time Yukon lawyer I've always been sceptical about writing off decisions merely because of their jurisdiction.  There are fine decisions from all across this great country, and if the reasoning of a decision is solid, I will have no hesitation citing it.

One can't pretend that an appellate decision from NS or PEI is given the same weight by the courts as one from Ont or BC (or even Alberta).

I was thinking more of trial level decisions.

I'd agree that Ontario/BC/Alberta decisions have the most weight (and not to slight the QCCA, but since it often deals with it's own unique civil law, and decisions are usually in French which monolingual English lawyers can't read, means it's decisions unfairly get slid down the list).

[crazy canuck]

Are the appointments in the Maritimes, or the Yukon, somehow more political than the equivalent ones in BC or Alberta?

The appointments in the Maritimes are for all the reasons we have already discussed - mainly such a small population.  It would be difficult to find people who are not associated.  Politics in the Yukon is, as I understand it, a different matter as party politics there is a relatively recent phenomenon.  However the population is even smaller so appointment decisions are probably made more by consensus.    The Yukon has the advantage of having their trial decision reviewed by a Court of Appeal which includes justices from the BC Court of Appeal.

In response to BB, there is a very good reason why BC lawyers prefer decisions of our Court of Appeal (binding) and the Ontario Court of Appeal (persuasive).  Quebec law is different so it is rare that their Court of Appeal will provide a persuasive precedent but on some constitutional issues (and I assume criminal law cases) that court is also often cited.

[crazy canuck]

One can't pretend that an appellate decision from NS or PEI is given the same weight by the courts as one from Ont or BC (or even Alberta).

Does that have anything to do with the appointment process, or is it just down to Ontario/ BC (/even Alberta) simply being bigger?

The two issues are connected imo.  A larger (much larger) pool of potential candidates makes for a both for a better process and better potential candidates.

[Josephus]

No talks about the Canadian government's appeal of Federal court ruling on veiled women being allowed to keep their veil on while swearing their oath to become citizen?  No National Post Op-ed about how racist this government is?  No Globe&Mail Editorial about how the racist attitude of this government was the underlying cause of last fall terrorist attacks?  I'm kinda disapointed...

I'm kinda surprised. Typical conservative media.

[crazy canuck]

No talks about the Canadian government's appeal of Federal court ruling on veiled women being allowed to keep their veil on while swearing their oath to become citizen?  No National Post Op-ed about how racist this government is?  No Globe&Mail Editorial about how the racist attitude of this government was the underlying cause of last fall terrorist attacks?  I'm kinda disapointed...

I'm kinda surprised. Typical conservative media.

From what I have heard the announcement was made in Quebec for consumption in Quebec because it is only in Quebec that people think women should not be allowed to keep their veil on - at least in any numbers that might alter the election.

By the way Viper's contention that there as been no discussion elsewhere is not accurate.  the Globe published two op ed pieces condemning the move.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/a-niqab-ban-makes-no-sense-religious-freedom-is-citizenship/article22970289/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/ottawa-should-allow-the-niqab-at-citizenship-ceremonies/article21152267/

[viper37]

I'm not saying they didn't discuss it, I'm saying the language wasn't as strong as when it's Quebec.

But I agree with Harper on this.  You can't veil your face for this, and numerous other acts, like testifying in court, registering for a vote, having your picture taken for a passport or any other identity card that requires it.

If they want to keep their veil on at all times, they're free to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran, they don't have to move here.  I don't see the point of these people coming here to enjoy our freedoms anyway, since they don't want to participate in our society.

Besides, we shouldn't tolerate muslim fundamentalists sent here to establish a beachhead.  It's not like we are in a shortage of moderate muslim immigrants, they can keep their fanatics over there.

[garbon]

Why shouldn't they be able to be veiled at a swearing in ceremony?

[Josephus]

Personally I think women should be uncovered at all times. Especially if they're under 40, slim and reasonably attractive.

[Malthus]

Why shouldn't they be able to be veiled at a swearing in ceremony?

Well, knowing Viper's beliefs, it must be because to remain veiled while at a swearing in ceremony is an insult to his beloved Queen. We all know how strongly Viper feels about the sanctity of royal ceremonial!