[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, it doesn't seem theoretically possible to handle it deftly and wrap it up quick; though given what's come before, it doesn't seem particularly likely.

I am not sure how that is possible so long as the complainants wont agree to a process unless it is kept confidential and the men who have already been named and punished need the results of any exoneration to be made public.

[Neil]

For sure. Though I've heard it suggested that the NDP basically set him up for a no-win situation.

... though that doesn't really help Trudeau if you think about it, because how you conduct yourself in response to being set up in a no win situation is pretty important.

"How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life" - James T. Kirk

[Jacob]

Yeah, it doesn't seem theoretically possible to handle it deftly and wrap it up quick; though given what's come before, it doesn't seem particularly likely.

I am not sure how that is possible so long as the complainants wont agree to a process unless it is kept confidential and the men who have already been named and punished need the results of any exoneration to be made public.

Heh, I meant to write "does seem theoretically possible" not "doesn't", but luckily you got my meaning.

Okay... how about this for wrapping it up neatly (and this assumes that the involved parties all buy into it):

- if anyone wants to move forward with a formal complaint or laying charges, that is done and that process plays itself out (leading to exclusion from caucus standing/ reinstatement as the results warrant).

- if there is not a formal complaint, some sort of mutually acceptable competent mediator/ adjudicator/ fact finder individual comes in and talks to the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrators and - in private - finds a mutually acceptable outcome. Maybe there are private apologies, maybe someone goes to counselling, maybe there are resignations, maybe the exclusions stand or maybe they are reversed. However, the point is that at least the involved parties feel there was a process that reached closure, allowing them to move forward and for them (or the party leadership on their behalf, if they wish to remain anonymous) to say it's been dealt with satisfactorily - all without breaching privacy concerns.

- whichever one of those two things happen, the parties involved develop - with the help of appropriate experts - a solid procedure to follow in case similar cases arise in the future.

... would that seem acceptably competent to you (leaving aside how likely it is to occur)?

It seems to me that that's about the best case scenario at this point.

[crazy canuck]

Cant work that way now Jacob. Those were viable options before Justin had his brain cramp.  Nothing short of at least an investigation that is released publicly will assist those men now.  And that cannot happen if the complainants dont want to cooperate with that process.  And of course the complainants have no interest in doing that.  There is no upside for them. There best outcome is for the investigator to confirm their accusations.  But in effect, that has alread been done by Justin's actions.  But other possible outcomes of the investigation is that there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint; a finding the complainants did consent to whatever they allege happened; or (worst of all for the complainants) that the complaints were without merit and were brought for an improper purpose.

But of course no one will ever know whether the complaints have any substance because, in his wisdom, Justin decided to act without any investigation of the facts and without providing any form of due process to the men being accused. 

[Jacob]

Seems we have a new judge on the Supreme Court of Canada: http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/11/27/prime-minister-appoints-quebec-lawyer-suzanne-cote-to-supreme-court/#.VHfltIBdWpl

[Malthus]

Seems we have a new judge on the Supreme Court of Canada: http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/11/27/prime-minister-appoints-quebec-lawyer-suzanne-cote-to-supreme-court/#.VHfltIBdWpl

Don't know much about her aside from the public record - obviously, she is a top-ranked lawyer and there can be no question about her legal chops. Dunno about appointing someone with no judicial experience though.

It is interesting to note that a court so heavily composed of Harper appointees has so consistently handed his government legal defeats.  My conclusion is that, for whatever reason, his appointments have proved good ones. 

[Grey Fox]

All of our judges are too close to the Liberal party to be appointed by a conservative.

[crazy canuck]

Seems we have a new judge on the Supreme Court of Canada: http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/11/27/prime-minister-appoints-quebec-lawyer-suzanne-cote-to-supreme-court/#.VHfltIBdWpl

Don't know much about her aside from the public record - obviously, she is a top-ranked lawyer and there can be no question about her legal chops. Dunno about appointing someone with no judicial experience though.

It is interesting to note that a court so heavily composed of Harper appointees has so consistently handed his government legal defeats.  My conclusion is that, for whatever reason, his appointments have proved good ones. 

Agreed on your second point.  Imho all the appointments have been top notch.  I dont know much about the most recent appointment but I understand she is very well respected.

In relation to your first point, although this is a first for the SCC, here in BC there have been a number of appointments to the Court of Appeal directly from practicing lawyers over the years (or at least with very brief stops at the BC Supreme Court).  And in my view they have all been excellent appellate judges.

[Malthus]

Agreed on your second point.  Imho all the appointments have been top notch.  I dont know much about the most recent appointment but I understand she is very well respected.

In relation to your first point, although this is a first for the SCC, here in BC there have been a number of appointments to the Court of Appeal directly from practicing lawyers over the years (or at least with very brief stops at the BC Supreme Court).  And in my view they have all been excellent appellate judges.

I have no doubt a top-ranked lawyer could handle the job - my concern is more that there may be aspects of judging, as opposed to litigating, that have a steep learning curve: that an apprenticeship lower down on the judicial totem pole (even if fairly short) would make sense, before being thrown right in to the shark tank. But then, I've never judged or clerked at the court.

[Jacob]

It is interesting to note that a court so heavily composed of Harper appointees has so consistently handed his government legal defeats.  My conclusion is that, for whatever reason, his appointments have proved good ones. 

Yeah, I've noted that too. There's not even the hint of the appearance of some sort of quid pro quo or political allegiance, which is to the credit of everyone involved.

[crazy canuck]

Agreed on your second point.  Imho all the appointments have been top notch.  I dont know much about the most recent appointment but I understand she is very well respected.

In relation to your first point, although this is a first for the SCC, here in BC there have been a number of appointments to the Court of Appeal directly from practicing lawyers over the years (or at least with very brief stops at the BC Supreme Court).  And in my view they have all been excellent appellate judges.

I have no doubt a top-ranked lawyer could handle the job - my concern is more that there may be aspects of judging, as opposed to litigating, that have a steep learning curve: that an apprenticeship lower down on the judicial totem pole (even if fairly short) would make sense, before being thrown right in to the shark tank. But then, I've never judged or clerked at the court.

In my view being an appellate judge is quite different from being a trial judge.  I think there is actually a much greater learning curve for trial judges than for appellate judges.  Appellate judges essentially do what you and I do on a daily basis in terms of thinking about what the law is or should be. 

[Barrister]

It is interesting to note that a court so heavily composed of Harper appointees has so consistently handed his government legal defeats.  My conclusion is that, for whatever reason, his appointments have proved good ones. 

Yeah, I've noted that too. There's not even the hint of the appearance of some sort of quid pro quo or political allegiance, which is to the credit of everyone involved.

Quite frankly at this point I'd prefer to see a little bit of political allegiance - or at least ideological allegiance.

[crazy canuck]

It is interesting to note that a court so heavily composed of Harper appointees has so consistently handed his government legal defeats.  My conclusion is that, for whatever reason, his appointments have proved good ones. 

Yeah, I've noted that too. There's not even the hint of the appearance of some sort of quid pro quo or political allegiance, which is to the credit of everyone involved.

Quite frankly at this point I'd prefer to see a little bit of political allegiance - or at least ideological allegiance.

The last thing we need is an ideologically driven bench.  One more lesson we can learn from our friends to the South.

[Jacob]

Quite frankly at this point I'd prefer to see a little bit of political allegiance - or at least ideological allegiance.

You're against an independent judiciary? Because... your party has been in government for a while?

[Barrister]

Quite frankly at this point I'd prefer to see a little bit of political allegiance - or at least ideological allegiance.

You're against an independent judiciary? Because... your party has been in government for a while?

Don't mind me - I'm just whining.