[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

Ontario only has 107 seats? That's low.

[crazy canuck]

What did Harper have to gain by this accusation?

I'm not offended by it in the least, but that's my beef - what possible good did he think would come of this?

You are part of the base they wish to appeal to so I am not surprised by your reaction.

[viper37]

Ontario only has 107 seats? That's low.

Smaller territory, more population concentration in southern ontario than in most of Quebec, even Montreal area.

[Grey Fox]

Yes but doesn't that mean Southern Ontario should have more MPs?

[crazy canuck]

Yes but doesn't that mean Southern Ontario should have more MPs?

We just went through a seat alignment to better recognize population shifts.  There are always going to be the constitutional outliers that are over represented - can anyone say Atlantic Canada - but the numbers for Ontario are about right.

[Grey Fox]

Federaly, sure. But for provincial representation?


I don't know, 107 seems so small a number. Quebec has 125 provincial MPs & I say that's about 75 too short.

[crazy canuck]

And now the Deans of all the Law Schools have condemned the attack on the Chief Justice.

As well as the Law Society of British Columbia.

[Jacob]

Will this sway BB? Stay tuned to find out!

[crazy canuck]

Will this sway BB? Stay tuned to find out!

I still dont understand why he is unconcerned that the government accused the Chief Justice of inappropriate conduct when clearly there was no such inappropriate conduct.

I find it quite baffling actually.

[Jacob]

Will this sway BB? Stay tuned to find out!

I still dont understand why he is unconcerned that the government accused the Chief Justice of inappropriate conduct when clearly there was no such inappropriate conduct.

I find it quite baffling actually.

I'm wondering what his take is as well.

[Barrister]

Will this sway BB? Stay tuned to find out!

Nope.

Never been a big fan of the rule that you're not supposed to criticize judges outside of court.  If they make a poor decision they should be called on it (and on the flip side - judges should have more leeway to defend themselves in public as well).

That's why I don't think this is a big deal.  Harper and Co can and should be able to criticize Bev McLachlin.  If their critique is of little merit that's one thing (and as I said, I don't see why they'd bother making this critique), but I don't see it as an attack on our constitutional separation of powers or against the independence of the judiciary.

[Jacob]

Will this sway BB? Stay tuned to find out!

Nope.

Never been a big fan of the rule that you're not supposed to criticize judges outside of court.  If they make a poor decision they should be called on it (and on the flip side - judges should have more leeway to defend themselves in public as well).

That's why I don't think this is a big deal.  Harper and Co can and should be able to criticize Bev McLachlin.  If their critique is of little merit that's one thing (and as I said, I don't see why they'd bother making this critique), but I don't see it as an attack on our constitutional separation of powers or against the independence of the judiciary.

So if you think it's fair to criticize judges outside of court, are you fine with judges responding to criticism as well? As I understand it, judges are not able to respond to such criticism, which would make it a somewhat lopsided process.

How about judges, outside of court, levelling criticism at the government? Is that reasonable as well?

[Malthus]

The issue isn't critiqing judges - the issue is about what appears to be an out and out lie about alleged misconduct by a judge (the chief justice no less).

My admittedly uninformed impression is that Harper, stung by losing a bunch of high-profile cases, basically made up a lie to harm the chief justice's reputation out of spite.

This is not good, for a whole host of reasons.

[Barrister]

The issue isn't critiqing judges - the issue is about what appears to be an out and out lie about alleged misconduct by a judge (the chief justice no less).

My admittedly uninformed impression is that Harper, stung by losing a bunch of high-profile cases, basically made up a lie to harm the chief justice's reputation out of spite.

This is not good, for a whole host of reasons.

How is it a lie?   

McLachlin called, Harper didn't take the call.  This has been confirmed by both parties.

There's a dispute about whether or not that call was routine and ordinary, or not, but that's a matter for legal discussion and analysis.

[Malthus]

The issue isn't critiqing judges - the issue is about what appears to be an out and out lie about alleged misconduct by a judge (the chief justice no less).

My admittedly uninformed impression is that Harper, stung by losing a bunch of high-profile cases, basically made up a lie to harm the chief justice's reputation out of spite.

This is not good, for a whole host of reasons.

How is it a lie?   

McLachlin called, Harper didn't take the call.  This has been confirmed by both parties.

There's a dispute about whether or not that call was routine and ordinary, or not, but that's a matter for legal discussion and analysis.

He carefully crafted his statement to give the objective impression the Chief Justice acted inappropriately, when he knew or ought to have known that she did not. You can call that a "lie" if you like, or quibble about it; it was a dishonest act. 

Come on, you know I'm not knee-jerk anti-Harper. What he did does not pass the smell test. That's why it has aroused a shit-storm.