[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

That's gotta be one of the most bizarre leaps of assumption I've seen yet. 
Robin Camp isn't the stereotypical  Alberta hardcore fundie Christian Viper appears to assume.
In fact, he's an immigrant. An *African* immigrant. Well, a White African immigrant from South Africa. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Camp
A part of his problem appears to be this: he was appointed to the bench based on his strength as an Oil & Gas litigation practice. By his own account, he knew nothing of criminal law.

and strangely, he works for a an organizations specialized in defending anti-abortion and evengelical groups and he gets promoted to a position where he clearly does not have the required knowledge.

If there was a leap of faith here, it was not by me.

[garbon]

If there was a leap of faith here, it was not by me.

Actually I think it was. I can't find anything religious when typing words like 'Robin Camp religious' 'Robin Camp church' 'Robin Camp christian'.

And what that has to do with a Sikh hypothetically betraying Canada by clinging to his religion...

[Malthus]

This organization seems to specializes in defending extreme christian views:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Centre_for_Constitutional_Freedoms

Man, this gets better and better. 

"Right wing policies" is not the same thing as "extreme Christian". 

The very first case listed in your wiki page:

Allen v. Alberta[edit]

Allen v. Alberta was a legal challenge to the Government of Alberta's monopoly on health insurance within the province (as it applies to seeking out-of-province treatment) by Dr. Darcy Allen, who had elected to pay $77,000 to undergo surgery for his chronic back pain in Montana rather than wait for treatment in Alberta.[6] The case closely mirrored the 2005 case of Chaoulli v. Quebec where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a government monopoly on health insurance, when combined with extremely long wait lists before care could be provided, was a violation of the individual's right to life, liberty, and security of the person - all of which are guaranteed under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Queen's Bench ruled against Allen on March 31, 2014.[6][7]

Nothing says "extreme Christian" like an Alberta group attempting to emulate Quebec. 

[Barrister]

First I don't know what "seated" means.  He almost certainly didn't work for the JCCF.  Looking at their staff page (Hey, I know one of these guys!) they have a staff of 4 permanent lawyers, an articling student, and an admin staff.  Camp was an oil and gas lawyer.  He may well have been on their board of directors, but that's it.

Second, the JCCF isn't a religious rights organization.  While several of their court fights have dealt with pro-life issues, I see they also fought a challenge over health care access and some other freedom of speech issues.

If he's associated with JCCF Judge Camp would definitely be considered right wing, but you haven't shown he's a religious fundamentalist yet.

[Malthus]

and he gets promoted to a position where he clearly does not have the required knowledge.

Just as an aside: this is a chronic problem with appointing judges.

Judges of the provincial courts are supposed to be generalists (although in some places, they are specializing: in Toronto, for example, there is family court, and a separate commercial list). That means they are supposed to be dealing with both criminal and civil cases.

Only problem is, very few lawyers do that these days. Most lawyers are specialists; they do criminal law, or commercial litigation (to name just litigators). It is very difficult to find lawyers who are both prominent in the profession, and know both criminal law and civil litigation well.

Given that judges are recruited from the ranks of prominent lawyers, this causes some concerns; to an extent, they all have to 'learn on the job' if they are assigned cases outside of their previous specialties.

In this case, the fellow was no doubt a crackerjack oil and gas lawyer, but he knew nothing about criminal law.

[Barrister]

In Provincial Court we have specialized judges, and therefore most appointments know their area of law.  But, for example, we have one new appointment who hadn't practiced criminal law - and she's quite painful to appear in front of.

Or I even made a thread about Justice Thomas who makes the nearly unprecedented step of bringing cameras into the courtroom for him to announce his verdict - in which he convicts a man based on a provision declared unconstitutional 26 years ago!

[dps]

Or I even made a thread about Justice Thomas who makes the nearly unprecedented step of bringing cameras into the courtroom for him to announce his verdict - in which he convicts a man based on a provision declared unconstitutional 26 years ago!

But you were happy to finally get a conviction, right?   

[Barrister]

Or I even made a thread about Justice Thomas who makes the nearly unprecedented step of bringing cameras into the courtroom for him to announce his verdict - in which he convicts a man based on a provision declared unconstitutional 26 years ago!

But you were happy to finally get a conviction, right?   

Not in a way that gives him a guaranteed appeal!!!

[viper37]

If there was a leap of faith here, it was not by me.

Actually I think it was. I can't find anything religious when typing words like 'Robin Camp religious' 'Robin Camp church' 'Robin Camp christian'.

Try for any other recent judge or politician in Canada you won't find it either, except for a very few ones in the Conservative Party.

And what that has to do with a Sikh hypothetically betraying Canada by clinging to his religion...

"Up in arms", "betraying", you sure use loaded words.  I never said betraying, I never said he should be hanged from the bridge, so I resent that I am "up in arms" about an "hypothetical betrayal".

At any point, a person of Faith will see contradictions between his/her Faith and her duties.  Catholic faith is against homosexuality and abortion, among other things.  So if a religious person is in a position of power and has to pass judgement, or design laws for the country, they put themselves in a contradiction between their duties and their faith.  Some can put their Faith aside for the good of the whole country and accomplish their duties.  It does not mean they stop believing what they believe, only that they will place their duty as officer of the government/of the law above their personal convictions.  Some others are incapable of that.  Faith must come first and foremost, before anything else.  A creationist science minister is not a good thing as he does not believe in science and does not want to compromise on his faith.

The principle of reasonable accomodations is that the State must accomodate the religious people, but never the opposite.  The religious people will not bend their Faith to live in our society, to adhere to our principles.  Why should I trust such people in a position in power?  How can I be reasonably convinced they will act upon the moral principles of this society we live in instead of what their religious texts tell them is the ideal society?  If they're unwilling to make any compromise at any time, when the situation is more dire, will they really chose between their Faith and the good of the society?  Of course not.

And as I am not a lawyer, I seek to avoid conflicts, not create them.  The Sikh debate with the Port of Montreal is a very good example of what I've been arguing.  By the time this is over, the Port of Montreal will have sunk, at the very least, a million$ in this trial, but likely above.  That is wasted money, unless you're a lawyer, in which case you are very happy.  This money could have have been used to further an expansion of the port's installation, create more jobs, increase security on the site, hire more security guards, etc, etc.

Could an SMB afford such legal costs?  Of course not.  So there are two things that will happen here: first, the smb would fold.  Second, other SMBs would simply refuse to hire Sikhs, or other immigrants to avoid dealing with such bullshit.  Yes, it's illegal, but there are many ways to circumvent the laws.  Then what happens is you have a bunch of immigrants who don't work and are not integrated in the general society creating ghettos instead of mixing with the general population.

If there was a simple law that said there would be no accomodations on religious grounds, instead of going to court everytime, there would be no problems, less lawyer fees, more investments in developping our economy and a better integration of immigrants in our society.

[viper37]

This organization seems to specializes in defending extreme christian views:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Centre_for_Constitutional_Freedoms

Man, this gets better and better. 

"Right wing policies" is not the same thing as "extreme Christian". 

The very first case listed in your wiki page:

Allen v. Alberta[edit]

Allen v. Alberta was a legal challenge to the Government of Alberta's monopoly on health insurance within the province (as it applies to seeking out-of-province treatment) by Dr. Darcy Allen, who had elected to pay $77,000 to undergo surgery for his chronic back pain in Montana rather than wait for treatment in Alberta.[6] The case closely mirrored the 2005 case of Chaoulli v. Quebec where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a government monopoly on health insurance, when combined with extremely long wait lists before care could be provided, was a violation of the individual's right to life, liberty, and security of the person - all of which are guaranteed under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Queen's Bench ruled against Allen on March 31, 2014.[6][7]

Nothing says "extreme Christian" like an Alberta group attempting to emulate Quebec. 

look at the other cases, they're all about religion.  the first seems to be the exception confirming the rule.

[viper37]

and he gets promoted to a position where he clearly does not have the required knowledge.

Just as an aside: this is a chronic problem with appointing judges.

Judges of the provincial courts are supposed to be generalists (although in some places, they are specializing: in Toronto, for example, there is family court, and a separate commercial list). That means they are supposed to be dealing with both criminal and civil cases.

Only problem is, very few lawyers do that these days. Most lawyers are specialists; they do criminal law, or commercial litigation (to name just litigators). It is very difficult to find lawyers who are both prominent in the profession, and know both criminal law and civil litigation well.

Given that judges are recruited from the ranks of prominent lawyers, this causes some concerns; to an extent, they all have to 'learn on the job' if they are assigned cases outside of their previous specialties.

In this case, the fellow was no doubt a crackerjack oil and gas lawyer, but he knew nothing about criminal law.

I'm not a crackerjack oil&gas lawyer and I don't know much about criminal law either.  But even I would not have used such words to talk to a rape victim...

[Malthus]

look at the other cases, they're all about religion.  the first seems to be the exception confirming the rule.

The wiki site lists a whole two cases they have actually argued. 

One was a case concerning Chaoulli-style arguments about entitlements to health care reimbursements. The Centre lost.

The other, Wilson v. University of Calgary, was an appeal against a university misconduct proceeding (specifically, a refusal to hear an appeal). The Centre won. The court ruled that the university's decision was "unjustified" and "unintelligible".

It is true that the specific student group in question was anti-abortion wackjobs, but that record hardly indicates that the Centre is itself an extreme Christian organization, so that anyone who is a supporter is tainted by association as a religious nutcase. Certainly, the Centre is right-wing. There is no doubt about that.   

[Malthus]

I'm not a crackerjack oil&gas lawyer and I don't know much about criminal law either.  But even I would not have used such words to talk to a rape victim...

You are also not a hick from South Africa.  By all accounts I've seen, South African culture is generally 30-40 years behind where Canada is, when it comes to such matters: rape and "rape culture" is a much bigger problem there. The Judge's words merely reflect that culture.

Part of the education is to learn what is and is not acceptable in the context of a sexual assault trial, no matter what your individual background is.

You have missed your target: you were aiming at "religion", when you ought to have been aiming at "immigrants". 

[Grey Fox]

Or I even made a thread about Justice Thomas who makes the nearly unprecedented step of bringing cameras into the courtroom for him to announce his verdict - in which he convicts a man based on a provision declared unconstitutional 26 years ago!

But you were happy to finally get a conviction, right?   

Not in a way that gives him a guaranteed appeal!!!

So you understand what Justice Thomas did?

[viper37]

Extradition treaty with China: yeah or nay?  What do Liberal supporters think?  Should we send suspected Chinese criminals over there to be tortured and possibly executed?