Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Harper admits he's picking judges to advance Tory 'objectives'

Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 2:58 AM EDT 15/02/07

PM hopes to tilt scales of justice in favour of government agenda ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Roger Freel from Toronto, Canada writes: Holy Harpercritter! Man, this is the fastest turnaround I've ever seen!! Didn't he just say yesterday that he wasn't stacking the bench??????

    Please tell me how I'm wrong, paleolithic apologists. Please!
  2. Buddy Oscar from Barbados writes: Kick the bastages out of power then dudes!
  3. von foopendorf from Canada writes: judicial independence has been an illusory sham for decades. the liberals had to stack the courts to hammer through their undemocractic agendas as well. all harper is doing is being up front about it.
  4. Canadian in Canada from Canada writes: What the hell?! That is an overt a pronouncement that Harper is out to undermine judicial independence. Are we living in China or Canada? Holy smokes. Absolutely frightening.
  5. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Hey! Let's not get too upset. The next Minority will probably be Liberal, they'll change the seating arrangement, and ADD a few more judges. More flow-through within the Judicial system. The only real downside I see is when the Automobile Industry challenges independent inventors from marketing their 'Better Ideas' at the expense of increased emissions, like GM did to Ford, through a court challenge in California over their 1998 Electric Pickup trucks. With a slanted pro-conservative bench, any challenge to the Petroleum industry (GM sold their battery division to Chevron) will be in court.

    Apart from that, the regular run of the mill murders, rapes, kidnaps, etc. might get fair sentences. Plus, we won't have to house them in City detention centres where they get 2 days deducted for every day served. Just don't get too creative about solving emissions, its just not christian.
  6. Joseph Freeman from Vancouver, Canada writes: Well, the spin is in full cycle now.

    This has never been about crime. Go to the far-right websites (CFAC, "Real" Women) and take some time to look up the old Reform speeches, many given by Vic Toews and Harper. They have talked for years about re-shaping the judiciary, which they consider an affront to their "values."

    This is all about going after gains for women, homosexual rights, first nation's rights, immigrant rights. They talk openly of turning back the clock on progressive advances Canada has made over the years and openly dream of the day when US-style neoconservatism rules the day.

    This smoke-screen of "protecting us from the scourge of violence" is such a crock. But it certainly spins better than saying your going after law-abiding citizens, doesn't it?

    They can appoint who they want while in power, but to dismantle the process to evaluate judges and lower those standards bodes badly for the future, no matter who runs the government.
  7. Murray Richardson from Canada writes: Well! The oft-cited, oft-denied "Hidden Agenda" is no longer hidden. We have The Leader's own words to indicate that it his his objective to destroy the independence of the judiciary in order to further his political aims. If voters have been complacent up until now about this man and his party, then they must lose their complacency fast. Harper is a threat to democracy. Make no mistake about it.
  8. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: On a scale of credible to incredible, Mr Harper is well into the incredible range. What's the deal here? Has he gotten tired of denying his efforts to stack the deck? Have his advisers made him see honesty is the best policy? Whatever is going on, it's nice to see the Prime Minister actually say what he intends.
  9. Darryl W from Canada, Canada writes: AWESOME!! Harper wants to crack down on crime and make the streets and communities safer.
    Thats what I want too, Get er done Harper.
  10. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I'm glad he changed the Conservative campaign to 'baring the wolf's teeth'. It wasn't much of a doubt, but now it came from the Leader of the Pack. God, that was a cute song, too! Look, if he gets in as another Minority, we just have to get our 60% non-voters to vote. The Liberals put us to sleep. We haven't stood on guard over our political process for decades, and we were lulled into thinking it wouldn't mean much. We're waking up and finding out that it does. The best scenario is a nearly even split in Parliament for 2 more terms. The Parties will get so frustrated that they might actually allow a visionary to step up and Lead for a change, instead of the common Paralysis Through Analysis that we've been inundated with since Trudeau's "Watch Me!" challenge or his "Fuddle Duddle" finger game. We've got graduate Political Science Grads looking for the job, and its just a job with a lot of perks. We need a farmer or a mechanic or a plumber with vision, intelligence and passion for Canada and its People and its Resources. We'll have to put up with this crowd, for a bit more.
  11. Eric Kirkpatrick from Vancouver, B.C., Canada writes: Yeah, awsome display, haven't seen a turn around that impressive since the Exorcist.
  12. Vern McPherson from Toronto, Canada writes: "von foopendorf from Canada writes: judicial independence has been an illusory sham for decades. the liberals had to stack the courts to hammer through their undemocractic agendas as well. all harper is doing is being up front about it. "

    The above is another one of the big lies COns are told to tell all who are in earshot. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The COns had to change the composition of the selection committees completely in order to influence judicial appointments. The old system wasn't able to do that for them. How the hell was it able to do it for previous governments ?
  13. Vern McPherson from Toronto, Canada writes: Yep yesterday they weren't trying to influence the judiciary. Minister Nicholson said so repeadedly. Now they are. WHat are we waiting for people ? Let's get this dictator out and soon !!!
  14. Bruce Rideout from Phoneyland who's who??? B.C., Canada writes: If I were able to fomulate any agenda it would be labelled criminal or "ill gotten gain' Drown in vomit Harper Welfare cuts in your face.
  15. Jen Stevens from Toronto, Canada writes: Murray Richardson,

    Just exactly how do you think Harper is a threat to democracy?

    Who do we have in Canada to defend democracy anyway? You don't think the Liberals were a threat to democracy? Chretien ran his party with an iron fist. Party discipline was strong and MPs often subordinated their constitutents' interests to the interests of the party as a whole.

    Furthermore, the Liberal Party is run in a very elitist fashion. They had the opportunity to democratize the process of choosing the party leaders by allowing every card carrying Liberal to have a say. They chose not to democratize that process, instead preferring to have select delegates choose the leader. By the way, attending a leader's convention is very costly.

    They are also opposed to senate reform and the election of senators, instead preferring to appoint their friends as senators.

    So, I ask again, who is around to defend democracy in Canada? I do not view the NDP or the Green Party as a serious choice, but perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.
  16. MJ Patchouli from Regina, Canada writes: I don't feel unsafe at all in my community. But I do feel scared of Big Steve and his band of merry men and their agenda for my country. These guys are too right wing for most Canadians, and I can't believe they will ever form a majority government. Just too dam* ugly.
  17. K.G. Hay from Canada writes: Harper doesn't see this issue as affecting his base but I don't see how it is going to win him votes either. But this latest admission is blatant. Ah, he must know something the rest of us don't know (yet).
  18. Jim Goodwin from Canada writes: After this comment the judiciary will not even have the appearance of being independent. The current system was instituted by the Mulroney Progressive Conservative government in the 1980's to take political control out of the process. This is the Americanization of our judicial system, they are already in the process of taking judgement out of being a judge, with mandatory sentencing and the like. These guys are a disaster. My advice for our present government is to look south and see what is happening down there, there is a backlash for a damn the torpedos approach to governance.
  19. Duane Freemantle from writes: Stephan Harper is a captain of a ship that is lost at sea, and he does not realize it. He is demonstrating his total lack of understanding of due process and the problems that can happen when it is not followed.

    Harper said, "it's important that we choose high-calibre judges who will help us to ensure our communities be safer."
    These are meaningless words. It is not the judges responsibility to ensure our communities are safer. Our judiciary is responsible for correcting wrongs against our communities, and ensuring the guilty are the ones punish (not someone convenient).
  20. Randy D from Canada writes: You Libs are so addicted to cream puffs dishing out 'justice' you simply can't stand going back to punishment for the guilty. Guess that is because your party is so dishonest. Can't wait to see the G & M make this an issue when the Libs are back in power and, surprise, surprise, start putting their leftie buddies in the court. Yea, right.
  21. The One and Only True PRAGMATIC PUNDIT Not those Phony LEFTY HACKS who pretend to be me from Canada writes: Maybe a murderer will finally get more than time served. You pinko lefty zealots are beyond pathetic.
  22. Vern McPherson from Toronto, Canada writes: Randy D from Canada

    You loser !! Call preston and ask what it is you are suppopsed to say here. Better yet go to his little website adn read.

    http://www.manningcentre.ca/en/
  23. Michael Sharp from Victoria, daffodils on parade!, Canada writes: Ask Jane Creba what she thinks of the current judicial system.
    Better yet ask the Mahaffy or French families what they think of socially progressive judicial systems.
    Did everybody wish Karla Homolka congrats on her new baby?
    Social progressives make me sick.

    After 13 years of Liberal rule what did we get?
    Two tuxedos on a wedding cake!

    Big freaking deal.
  24. Richard Howes from Vancouver, Canada writes: Stevie Harpo has one concern and one concern only, get re-elected. He will do and say anything and I mean absolutely anything, to achieve this objective. I don't think Canada has ever seen, in all its history, such a shallow, hypocritical and supercilious prime minister. The sooner he and his reform alliance / western separatist party goes the way of the dodo the better. I used to vote Progressive Conservative but Harper and crew have driven me to the point where I will never again cast a vote for any party in Canada that bears the name conservative.
  25. G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: Words from the great 'DECIDER'. SURE HARPER WITH NO LAW DEGREE will decide! His ignorance knows no bounds. Harper is just plain over his head. He has a simple economics degree that he never worked a day with unless you call foaming in right wing think tanks -work and there he is a self declared king who thinks he can trump the Justices of the country. You're right the guy without a passport before he was in opposition now knows more than those educated and experienced in the law. You Harper supporters are the most dim lot I have ever witnessed.
  26. The Original Pragmatic Pundit from Canada writes: And people wonder why most Canadians fear a Harper majority...
  27. bill johnson from Quebec, Canada writes: funny, when Chretien and Martin appointed extreme left wing nuts, the G&M didn't comment on it. They got left wing profs to describe how well qualified the new judges were. e.g. rosalie abella.
  28. Proud Canadian from Canada writes: Many posters here are being intellectually dishonest with their comments. Does anyone really believe that Liberal appointments were without bias and ok while Conservative appointments are totally biased and inherently evil.

    Most people accept that everyone has biases and will use them to further their cause. Those who only believe one party does this must agree with Dion about setting priorities being hard and political life being unfair to him.
  29. Rene from the Bay from Canada writes: I think everyone should forget for a moment, their political stripes and think rationally outside the box if you will. The implications of this is extremely scary.

    Do you think for a moment that HITLER just one day, decided to stand before his people and tell them that from that moment on, their very breadth depended on whether or not he'd allow it? I don't think so. By the time people realized what he was about, it was too late.

    You're so busy fighting for some political stripe. Regardless which colour wins, there is no personal rewards for YOU or ME but take away democracy and consider the effects on us all.
  30. Jen Stevens from Canada writes: Rene from the Bay, Harper is just admitting to what has always been a reality. The point is that nothing has changed.
  31. Douglas MacDONALD from edmontonedmonton, Canada writes: G.Veneta from Calgary good post I totally agree with you my sentiments exactly.
  32. Canadian in Canada from Canada writes: Proud Canadian: the criticisms against Harper's recent initiatives and comments to reform the justice system are valid and are not intellectually dishonest. Harper is making institutional changes in the judicial appointment process that undermine both the appearance and process of non-partisan selection of justices. Most alarmingly, Harper's comments today clearly indicate he has no regard for judicial independence and will take whatever measures necessary to appoint judges that he hopes will uncritically implement his governments criminal law agenda. Here's the point: in a constitutional demcracy like Canada, the courts don't exist to do the bidding of the legislature; they exist to check the power of it. We should expect these sorts of attempts by the legislature to undermine the integrity of the judiciary in third rate developing countries, not in highly develped democracies like Canada which have a strong tradition of judicial independence and adherence to the rule of law. Please spare me and others here the tried, baseless rhetoric that the liberals appointed judges in a biased and partisan manner. The record flies in the face of this theory. I note a few examples: Binnie J. of the Supreme Court, a more conservative justice, was appointed by Chretien. The former McIntyre J., a very conservative justice, was appointed by Trudeau. The former Dube J., a more liberal justice, was appointed by Mulroney. The appointment process for other federally appointed justices is currently conducted in a non-partisan manner. If you have quantitative evidence to suggest otherwise, please share it. Otherwise, enough with the histrionics.
  33. Jen Stevens from Toronto, Canada writes: G Veneta,

    Please define "Harper supporters". I mean, an independently minded person will most likely find themselves agreeing on some things and disagreeing on others. I find it amusing that on these websites, people make the most ridiculous presumptions about a person's entire belief system based on a few simple posts.

    I also think it is naive for people to think that the Liberals did anything differently. Of course they appointed judges who were likely to support their agenda.
  34. Michael Sharp from Victoria, daffodils on parade!, Canada writes: Hey Mr. Veneta?
    How did a socially progressive judiciary benefit the Mahaffys and the Frenchs?
    Homolka had a baby, how's that for social justice?
  35. Canadian in Canada from Canada writes: Michael Sharp: Good grief. Bernardo was sentenced to life and was classified as a dangerous offender. He's not spending the rest of his life anywhere but jail. Homolka got off easy because of the plea bargain she negotiated. As far as I know, that was contrived by the Crown, you know the prosecutors - they guys who work to throw the bad guys in jail, and not by the Courts. Thus, you're anger for that particular travesty of justice should be properly directed at the Crown, not at "liberal" judges. Clear?
  36. Lane Myers from Canada writes: Before you jump all over Harper on this issue get the real dirt on the unbelievable number of judicial appointments of dedicated Liberal party members and contributors that the Liberals made during the time they were last in power. Check out Lucia Corbella's column February 14 in the Calgary Sun. Liberals have been stacking the judiciary at all levels for years now they have the audacity to cry foul. Better that they kept their mouth shut and hope that nobody ever discovered their dismal record on pork barrel politics. No wonder convicted pedophiles can expect nothing more than house arrest.
  37. Jim Goodwin from Canada writes: Canadian in Canada hear, hear, and for Mr. Sharp's earlier post, sterilization was not part of the deal or sentence either.
  38. K.G. Hay from Canada writes: I'd like to know why some people think there is a conspiracy among Liberals to be soft on crime. Who are the real conspiracy theorists anyway?
  39. J M from Ottawa, Canada writes: Its perfect acceptable for a government to appoint people that support their agenda as long as the people appointed are qualified for the job they will hold. It only makes sense. This isn't affecting the independence of the judiciary. The judges are still independent, they will just not be left wing. Liberals will appoint left wing, Conservatives will appoint right wing...ergo balance.
  40. Matt Bibeau from Etobickoe, Canada writes: Good question KG Hay, especially considering the provinces with the lowest crime rates (per capita) are the Liberal strongholds of Ontario and Quebec.

    Refer to StatsCan website for detailed interprovincial crime rate statistics.
  41. True North from The Free West, Canada writes: 13 years of Liberal appointees socially re-engineering the country - with gay marriage, unrestricted abortion, and pro-aboriginal apartheid - are let slide with nary a stern word, but the idea that criminals might do more jail time is "scary"? For whom?
  42. Eric Kirkpatrick from Vancouver, B.C., Canada writes: Tonight GlobalMedia (the owner of the conservative Sun newspapers) mentioned that although governments have been appointing judges, the previous administration (i.e. Liberals) have made generally non-partisan appointments. And this was the first time one said that they would be.
  43. Jen Stevens from Toronto, Canada writes: The judges are independent,

    There salary is set on the basis of advice from judicial committees and not determined by politicians. Higher court judges cannot be arbitrarily removed from office. They are not elected. That is an independent judiciary.
  44. Charles Wirrell from Canada writes: So all the lefties want to remain weak on crime and let all the perpetrators go scot-free?
    I hope that some of you lefties get robbed or mugged soon. It might knock some sense into your thick skulls cause nothing else seems to be working!
    Well, OK I don't hope ill will on anyone but surely someone with a 1/2 brain can see that if criminals are not punished there is no incentive to change their ways. The revolving door that has been on the courts of Canada for years is not helping things any.
  45. Canadian in Canada from Canada writes: True North from The Free West:" lol. The following text is from February 13 Globe and Mail' Editorial on this very subject. Read it and weep:

    "In opposition, Mr. Harper accused prime minister Jean Chrétien of appointing judges he knew would approve of gay marriage. The author of the first such appeal-court decision was Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, a Conservative who was appointed by a Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney."
  46. Charles Wirrell from Canada writes: The anonymous "Canadian in Canada" doesn't realize that the Conservative Party of Mulroney and the Liberal Party were basically the same ideologically that is why there arose a party known as the Reform Party.
    Those of us who do not think as the Liberal left could no longer morally cast a vote for the "red" Conservatives under Mulroney.
  47. Canadian in Canada from Canada writes: You know, the central problem in this whole debate is that many people are distilling complex legal and policy issues related to the judiciary and its decisions down to oversimplified black and white conclusions of "crime bad, jail good." Criminal and constitutional law are complex fields whose precepts cannot be simplified to the degree that "weak-on-crime" critics advocate.

    In any case, any perceived liberal bias in our judiciary is just that, it's a perception - not reality. More often than not, courts have being paying heavy deference to the government in Charter litigation over the past few decades. Consider the broad discretion given by the Supreme Court of Canada to police to conduct investigative searches and detentions. The true picture of this case law gets distorted, however, because it's only the most controversial court cases that get splashed over newspapers, like gay marraige. (interestingly, right wing pundits were not complaining of "judicial activism" in the Chaoulli case, now were they?).
  48. spicydoc redux from manitscoldoutside, Kiribati writes: Where are all these right-wing idealogue judges going to come from anyway? I thought that most lawyers, in general, were left-leaning; vetting may simply sift out people who are more left than average. If there
    is in fact a subgroup of fundamentalist pod-people lawyers, I suggest again that they simply be disbarred before they get promoted. The other choice is to limit law school enrolment to LPC supporters. This whole issue is a tempest in a teapot; if someone gets a judgment they don't like, they appeal it anyway (regardless of the bias of the judge).
  49. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: Ralph Klein's new career: "Supreme Court Justice"
  50. Canadian in Canada from Canada writes: spicydoc redux: there are a LOT of conservative types in the law student ranks. The political spectrum is pretty evenly split.
  51. Michael Sharp from Victoria, daffodils on parade!, Canada writes: Canadian in Canada:
    When you say pretty evenly split, do you mean like a melon?
    Banana?

    Your metaphor eludes me.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top