Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Two-thirds back electing judges

KIRK MAKIN

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 6:23 AM EDT 09/04/07

Twenty-five years later, poll shows strong support for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Arzie Chant from Canada writes: Yes, and how many of those polled are educated on the Canadian justice system? On ethics? On anything that would make their choice to politize the judicial system meaningful?

    And therein lies the problem. Electing judges is a superficially appealing suggestion. It looks good on the surface like proportional representation or elimination/electing the Senate, but in all cases important checks and balances would be removed and the result would be a Canada that is less fair, less just, and- ironically- less democratic.
  2. Bo Arfai from London, Canada writes: I couldn't agree with Arzie Chant more. An elected judiciary would be a disaster of monumental proportions.
  3. Watcher 1983 from Just around the corner, Canada writes: All rights, freedoms, and prosperity flow from property rights. The Charter of Rights is just another marxist illusion. Something does need to be done about the current crop of socialists hacks appointed to the Supreme Court.
  4. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: This is an absolutely terrible suggestion and shouldn't have even been floated. What expertise does the average citizen have in the judicial system? Essentially none. Judges should be selected based upon their suitability for the job. What's next, electing physicians? police chiefs? The American system serves as an excellent example of why judges should not be elected.
  5. HSC in T.O. from Canada writes: elect our judges!! because our elected politicians are doing such a great job, we should make our legal system a popularity contest too!
  6. Linda Dial from Calgary, Canada writes: Justice does not carry a party card.
  7. Linda Dial from Calgary, Canada writes: To anyone who considers that we should elect the judiciary, PLEASE have a look at an editorial published in the NYT today. Below is the link....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09mon1.html
  8. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: The election of judges poses a substantial threat to judicial independence. If judges are constantly worried that their decisions may impel voters to elect them out of office, their decisions will loose legal legitimacy. They will feel compelled to pander to partisan interests in adjudicating cases, even if the legal basis for their reasoning would be unsound. Political expediency should not factor into legal analysis.
  9. Eclectic Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Unfortunately, this survey exhibits an inconsistency that can only be explained by a profound ignorance of the judiciary and its functions. It is ironic that the majority supports the Charter of Rights and Freedoms yet would prefer to see elected judges. The Charter can only have meaning in a system where judges are completely independent of the political process and apply the Charter according to its intended principles. Even in the United States, judges on federal appeal courts and, of course, the Supreme Court of the United States are appointed rather than elected.
  10. Linda Dial from Calgary, Canada writes: Mr. Lawson, the Canadian judicial system was put in place by the Conservative Party, and Sir John A. Canadians always preferred Sir John A. (drunk) to George Brown (sober), the founder of this publication and the then leader of the Liberal Party.
  11. T.J. Senko from Victoria, Canada writes: What a great idea... lets elect judges so verdicts and sentencing become popularity contests... so campaigns for seats can be contributed to by corporations... so the judiciary can be bought. I swear, people really need to learn how to question whether or not 'democracy' is a very good idea. You can almost hear the hamster wheel turning, 'Elections are good, so electing judges must be good' - WRONG. God help us all if this idiotic idea ever comes to pass.
  12. John Deriso from Edmonton, Canada writes: All this poll says is that Canadians need more education as to the role and function of their current system.

    For the love of God, the last thing you want is a partisan judicial system, if only to avoid the shrill cries of the opposition saying 'ACTIVIST JUDGES!' like they say in America. It's just annoying, and counter productive.
  13. Clark Kent from Canada writes: Justice based on the whims of the People...
  14. Mike Smith from Vancouver, BC, Canada writes: Arzie Chant: While I completely agree that judges should not be elected- I want to go off topic and tell you that our first-past-the-post electoral system is an archaic relic that must be scrapped. If minority governments scare you then so too must the realization that if a party wants a majority it has to have majority support. Proportional representation systems work quite well in other parts of the world. Plus they're actually representative.
  15. Colin McLellan from Vancouver, writes: News flash: Asking people questions about which they are completely uneducated gives strange results. If you told Canadians for two minutes how electing judges works in the States the results of the poll would change significantly. Polling should be used only to ask very general questions on things people have control over... e.g. who are you going to vote for?
  16. evelyn robinson from Canada writes: We do not want Judges selected. We have enough political bs already. Do we need judges making decisions on law or do we want them making 'popular' decisions to get themselves re elected. Decisions that the news media may well sway people to their way of thinking. Bad enough that it is happening with government elections today. Unbiased news is a thing of the past/ now we only hear editorials that promote the news monopoly's points of view. We hear nothing of what their political favorites do that may not find favour with the majority of voters. But overkill on the indiscretions of the other parties.
    the monopolization of Canada's media by the right winged Can West is destroying our Canadian Idenity by controlling what Canadian hear or read.
  17. Seven Aitnine from Cambridge, Canada writes: Judges should be elected. We have many judges that are activists or just plain interpret the law to their bias. The public needs to hear what our judges actually stand for. Once a judge is appointed it doesn't take long for that person to take on the aire of omnipotence. Removal from the bench is pretty much unheard of. Judges allow lawyers to waste time and thereby fill their boots with client money. They all love the system just the way it is. Anyone involved in a criminal case (either side) will see that the judge, prosecution and police are all sitting on one side. Election will certainly keep the judges on their toes and keep them aware of community standards.
  18. I R from Vancouver, Canada writes: Do you really believe this poll?

    Or is it a sounding of public reaction again by the current Government bent on undermining an independent judiciary in order to run things with total unfettered power? Or worse, is political spin being used to undermine Canada's Rule of Law using a fiction of democratic support?

    Just what is the 'Strategic Counsel'? Anyone notice its President is Allan Gregg, claims to have been 'the official pollster of the Progessive Conservative Party' - as his own website states? (www.allangregg.com)

    Why not undermine the independence of judiciary? They have already undermined independence of the media.
  19. I R from Vancouver, Canada writes: I will add one last comment.

    This story has the smell of Harper all over it. The so-called polsters have singled out Quebec and once again attempted to sow seeds of disunity amongst the population of Canada in order to gain short-term political support.

    As a Canadian I resent that. Je ne suis pas quebecois, mais je soutiens mes freres quebecois et avec eux nous sommes unis contre ce type de politique.
  20. Randall Toews from Canada writes: There's no need to extend the political circus of government into the judiciary by electing judges.

    Our justice system can be significantly improved simply by imposing tough minimum mandatory sentences for violent offenders. This should be an issue over which both the left and the right should agree. Who are the primary victims of rapists, murderers, and thugs? Women and children, the most vulnerable in our society.
  21. John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia writes: I am always suspicious when people claim that the average person is not qualified to make decisions on important issues because they just are not qualified - even though these are decisions that impact all individuals personally. Clearly there are some people that still do not understand the concept of democracy and why even though it is not perfect it is the only system one can trust while humans are in charge. The idea that a small group of unelected elites are qualified to make decisions that have overwhelming ramifications on millions of people from different perspectives and walks of life seems in my mind either ignorant, a Marxist sympathizer or blatantly naïve.
  22. Mark Hudson from Western, Canada writes: Thank god everyone doesn't vote.
  23. Petit Karibou from Montreal, Canada writes: About freedom of religion in the Charter, I'm all for the principle, but what is 'reasonable limits'??? Can we invoke our own freedom of conscience to draw a line somewhere? Is everything we do in the name of religion is acceptable in any situation just because it's a religious thing? Do we have to be very religious ourselves to have the right to say this is our limits, our beliefs? Don't get me wrong, the Charter is great for the purpose it was written, BUT it has its flaws. We are not only individuals, we are also part of a collectivity, with coherent values, with a way of doing things, with rules to follow, with uniforms to wear, etc. Religion is a very sensitive matter and it has to be dealed with carefully, but can we just say this particular tradition does not fit our way of living/working/eating without beeing accused of xenophobia? Not by forbidding it, not by falling into extremism like the very stupid code of life of Herouxville, but by putting some limitations in public places like schools, hospitals, workplaces or voting places? Tolerance is great, but when tolerance transforms into foolishness by accepting the unacceptable, there is a problem.

    From what I managed to read from her last article, Sheema Khan thinks Quebec is a racist province. May I remind you she was also for sharia courts in Ontario? If beeing racist is beeing against this type of tribunal, so I'm probably racist from her point of view. The fact my conscience tells me it's going too far doesn't seem to count. Sharia courts finally didn't got through but the Charter is encouraging this kind of thinking and demands. I'm for a multicultural Canada but not for the way we manage multiculturalism, specially religious demands. It should not be bar open like it seems to be right now. It's impossible to please everyone.
  24. Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: This idea has to be the most idiotic one I've ever heard. Elected judges? We're going to choose people to sit on a judges bench through a bloody popularity contest? It's bad enough that Harper has managed to corrupt the selection process by politicizing the selection process, but this?? The American 'justice' system is riddled with corruption because of this idea, and we want to copy that? I guess the saying is true: total population up, total IQ constant.
  25. For a Better Canada from Ontario, Canada writes: The should not be elected (too much money to waste), they should not be chosen by the Party in Power (too much influence). Solution: nomination by a Permanent Advisory Committee from various classes of the society. This could avoid a situation like in Quebec where most of judges are controlled by Caisses Desjardins via personal loans and/or membership in the fascist group.
  26. Rex's Experiment from Canada writes: While elected judges may seem over the top let's look at some recent cases which probably led to people thinking it might be a good idea. Judge tosses a Christmas tree from front lobby to back room to 'not be offensive' - groups of the supposedly offended rally in support of bringing the tree back to the front lobby. So her boss moves it back. She returns to work and has a hissy fit over it. I would definitely vote her out given the chance. Manitoba, young offender kills another person. Spends close to a year in lock up during the trial. Judge's sentece - 1 day to be served since he's been locked up enough already. I'd vote this clown out too. Then we have Justice Jewers, who sentenced a woman to 4 years for the kidnapping and raping of a 12 and 13 year old with her common law husband. And since in Canada custody during trial is considered double time and she spent 2 years in that custody, her four years are considered served and she was released. I'd vote him off the bench too. Or better yet the appointment of Chief Justice McMurtry. A man not known for his legal accumen but rather his political friends. A mediocre lawyer he was appointed top judicial posts under the reigns of both his buddies Bill Davis and Jean Chretian. Electing judges may be flawed but making the bench a political appointment isn't much better.
  27. J. Rollison from Canada writes: So, a poll of a thousand people speaks for a nation of over thirty million...I don't think so...electing judges is the most idiotic idea in history. The problems with the law are not the judges, they are the legislators...guess what people, those are the ones YOU elect. They are the ONLY ones capable of making and changing the LAWS...judges are restricted by the limits (and I am referring to sentencing limits as well) imposed by the legislators. This means your MP's...no one else. So, if you have a problem with the law, talk to your MP...he/she is the only one with the ability to change the law, that is if mr. harper will allow them to...
  28. J. Rollison from Canada writes: Rex...you make one really salient comment all Canadian voters should think about...I would definitely vote her out given the chance...this, in my opinion, is the main problem with voters...voting people OUT instead of voting someone 'IN'. A proactive approach to voting is far more rewarding even if your 'person' doesn't get elected. At least you have spoken your 'true' voice and not one of knee-jerk reaction and opposition. Just a thought...
  29. Patrick Rioux from Ottawa, Canada writes: The idea of elected judges came from the 'populist' political culture and contradicts the principle of judicial impartiality. The practice stays limited to certain US states and never to the federal level, fortunately, so decisions by elected judges can still be overturned by others not subject to popular politics of the day.
  30. Dan Weagle from Halifax, Canada writes: John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia and Rex's Experiment have the truth of this matter. The majority feel uncomfortable with the way many judges are interpreting the Charter in a wide variety of instances; from the rights of criminals, to political correctness in all its guises. I would add one further example to Rex's list and that's the recent case where the father who was disallowed custody or visitation with his son the mother had given up was ordered to pay child support. In any rational legal system that judge would have been removed for a complete disregard for 'justice'. This poll clearly states people want some ACCOUNTABILITY in the system; what's wrong with that? If you can think of another way to get real accountability in without elections please offer solutions and stop whining. The second point is for you pompous meatballs that sit back and claim the average Canadian that responded to this poll can't possibly understand the complexities involved with the current system. I would respectfully suggest that I have read many posts by some of these people and my confidence level in them with respect to their understanding of most political questions is approaching non-existent. Where I would question their 'understanding' and that of millions of my fellow Canadians (what political party you vote for can speak volumes for your intelligence...not in all cases, but with at least 1 party your IQ is clearly up for debate) I would never seriously suggest they shouldn't have the right to vote in elections. Look yourselves in the mirror before you make such asinine comments.
  31. Terry H from Moncton, Canada writes: Elected judges? Just what we need, to be like hick US towns who elect sherrifs and judges and court clerks. Would you trust a judge who golfs and parties with your worst political enemy? Heaven forbid. The judges we have now are too keen to stamp their own personal views on things in their court, can you just imagine if they were politically motivated or personal beliefs and lobby groups are thrown in the equation? Speaking of legal issues, why can't anyone comment on the Conrad Black case here in the Globe and Mail? Does Hollinger own this newspaper too? Seems like the G&M don't want any negative comments on Mr Black. This is a forum, open it up.
  32. Thomas Lee from Australia writes: First I will get this out of the way by saying that I am whole-heartedly against the electing of judges. I believe, as others have mentioned, that it will politicize our courts even further than what they have already become through biased methods of appointment, and take away an important check and balance within our democratic system. I just wanted to say, though, that we should not fault people who have not had, what unfortunately is still a privilege not a right, to further education. We cannot call these people ignorant and say that they just don’t know what’s best for them. By making these comments you are just undermining your own position by saying a democracy will work best when we, who know better, can appoint those like us to positions of power over the less fortunate in our society. However, I believe that McMurtry CJ said it right that to elect judges will cause the administration of justice in our country to fall into disrepute, beyond the healthy doubt and questioning we already have of the system, and into a US-style system that allows quasi-courts like the Guantanamo Bay military tribunals to be created. Yes, there are judges that make controversial decisions in cases. Yes, some may even get decisions wrong. This is why we have appeals courts. However it is a very difficult task to write decisions while interpreting statutory laws and hundreds of years of common law and create a decision that is relevant and prescient where one world event can dramatically change life for all of us. Again, please let us not belittle our Canadian brothers and sisters just because we THINK they don’t know any better.
  33. Scott Anderson from Windsor, Canada writes: What a Joke! Charter of rights! LOL This is Canada where rights are limited and there is no Law for the Law. Come visit Windsor, Ontario on a summer weekend night you might be surprised to watch some of Windsors finest beating a guy in hand cuffs who has not once put of any resistance or problems with being arrested. As for the SIU that is a big joke in its self a perfect organization to cover up wrong doings.

    I look forward to the day when the charter of Rights is tested and the Detroit Free Press any many American Newspapers have a Headline 'Are Americans Civil Rights being abused in Windsor, Ontario' American man beaten by police. U.S. State Department file complaint within the United Nations. Another headline that could say 'Ontario government could loose over $1 billion a year from Americans boycotting Canadian border city casino's in protest to police beating an American man while visiting.' And another could say 'Canadian officer personally getting sued and not protected due to abuse case being forced as a federal issue thru UN intervention U.S. complaint.

    It is amazing how just one or a couple bad apples on a force can cost all tax payers big time. Have to love modern technology as I am sure video will surface at some point that will get some of these bad apples from working for any government position.

    It is also apparent that the SIU is just a big joke in itself. As past police officers should not be allowed to hold any of these positions as it is a conflict of interest when past personal views from being in the line of duty only cloud judgement in favor of police in most cases. And especially if investigating an officer who you may know.
  34. Patrick Rioux from Ottawa, Canada writes: Dan Weagle, it's the politicians we DO elect to make the laws the judges enforce; so the problem of light sentencing falls squarely on the politicians. Canada's tight, closed and insulated party system has forced voters to consider alternatives and unfortunately this is one of them.

    How would it work? Parties nominate judicial candidates? Judges elected with a minority vote...perhaps one party tops the polls and takes a landslide of the judgeships along with a landslide in parliament. Or would judges be elected on a different timetable? And with a direct mandate, would judges claim a mandate to make law?
  35. Scott Anderson from Windsor, Canada writes: I lost all respect for this country as a person who has never been in trouble with the law watched on several occasions some officers stepping over the line beaten on people in handcuffs for no reason what so ever as they were not resisting in any way. And only to say something to an other officer in the back ground that hey that costs us tax payers money if suits end up filed for stuff that the officer over there is doing. He then threw me up against the wall and was intending on arresting me on dummy charges but in the end declined to move further on them as several older couples spoke out in the back ground about the bullshit of what he was doing. After that he moved far away from everything that was going on and moved away from all other officers
  36. Fast Eddie from Lakeshore, Ont, Canada writes: Evelyne Robinson......You sure got that right. I totally agree with you.
  37. John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia writes: Keep in mind that what we are talking about is a selection process - all judges up for selection would have to be qualified to be judges - it is not like the system would allow a plumber to be a judge. There is nothing more politicized than the present system where the ruling party selects judges to help best meet their objectives. What is the best way to select judges? Should the focus be the interests of the public and needs of the community? Who knows best the needs of the community? Or stick with the status quo that simply serves the interests of the ruling political party?
  38. Terry Quinn from Canada writes: Two thirds want elected judges and only about 50% of the population votes in any election. Shows the ignorance out there.
  39. Scott Anderson from Windsor, Canada writes: What RIGHTS!

    THE GREAT DICTATORSHIP OF CANADA!

    The Prime Minister of Canada has more power then the President of the United States.

    I remember in School how they would teach us that we don't have the Draft in the event of War that is what makes Canada a better country then the USA. What Crap in the USA to put the Draft in play 2/3rds of congress have to vote in favor of it.

    In Canada the Prime Minister doesn't take a vote he just signs a bill and it is done they will call it something else. One leader here can force people to be called upon in the USA it is not like that as it takes congress to vote.

    As for us voting for judges what will that do for us? Our old style system which really has not worked anywhere in the world needs to be changed totally.

    Although there really is no perfect system anywhere in the world.

    I would say that if over the past 40 years the democratic system was not hijacked by self serving politicians who became the leaders of the democratic world and piled up massive amounts of debt. Used to buy the people(entitlement programs etc.)/votes for next elections to give the future economic stability away in order to look good and get reelected for many terms leaving problems for future leaders and generations massive debt loads which means major social stability cuts long term.

    The Great handout of the late 60's & 70's

    In the 1970's government was handing money out to companies who lost money year after year just to keep people working. This same government was taken in about 6 cents for every dollar it was handing out in entitlement and other programs and piling up massive debt that was oh well while I am in office I won't have to worry about it. In my o pion these where the bottom of the crop lawyers who failed in their own law practice so got into politics and failed really bad on finances for the countries future.
  40. J G from Whitby, Canada writes: Anyone thinking this is a good idea has to go and live in the US and experience the mess there. I lived in the US much of the past 10 years. The elections become purely political and hence divisive. We have enough devisiveness in the country caused by politics (just read some of the stupid comments here). Street signs littering the landscape just like when it is election time for say city councillors. Local elections focus on issues like race, gun control, abortion rights etc. Keep politics out of our judicial system.
  41. Tom Willette from Niagara Falls, Canada writes: By the tone of the conversation here you would think that pre Charter Canada was a hell hole with justice denied to the people. Actually the country was running along rather nicely with the people, through their elected politicians, making changes to the laws (and society) at a speed with which the population was comfortable. After the Charter, we still have wrongly convicted people but one hell of a lot more wrongly acquitted people, and a judiciary that tells us what we are to think and when to think it. The elected officials may make laws on our behalf but the unelected judges actually run the country. I remember when Toronto was sneeringly called 'Toronto the Good', and a few other things as well: you couldn't get a beer on Sunday but then chances were you wouldn't be reading about a murder just about every day of the week. People weren't afraid to walk the streets and the city wasn't dirty, graffiti covered and ruled by street gangs. Between Charter decisions and liberal policiticians they sure fixed that. Things weren't perfect but certainly a lot safer than they are now. I don't care much for the idea of elected judges but I do think that there must be a better way than what we are doing now. To those who think that the judges are above politics, give your head a shake, they weren't pre-Charter and it hasn't changed any since then.
  42. Dog's Best Friend from Canada writes: I wholeheartedly disagree with Michael H of Edmonton: You insult Canadians with your flip evaluation of what the average citizen knows of the law and what the average judge does. Actually you mentioned the judiciary which is an even worse slap in the face. Citizens want judges to make sound decisions and not base them solely on their particular perspective. Michael, we have far too many activist judges in this country at all levels and many of their decisions have not been in the best interest of the country but rather have been in the best interest of the jurist him/herself. Judges need to be more of the people if they are to render judgments that benefit both society and its citizens. Michael, your argument is elitist and it is the very poor decisions handed down by the court for the last couple of decades that has flown in the face of the general public at the benefit of some special interest group which even Trudeau said was the primary reason for division among the people when self-interest groups were allowed to dominate the policial agenda. I say we should try the elected route for a period of time, say ten years and if an elected judiciary goes the way that Justice McMurtry seems to think, we can always revert to the selection of judges made by the government. Those who say we can only have one way, are not guided by the tenets of a democracy but are only interested in perserving their own positions. Oh, and there are NO property rights in the Charter.
  43. Wilf Kruggel from Onoway, writes: Appointing anyone to any position usually results in cronnyizm. That's what the communist system is patterned after, just ask the liberals and most thinking Canadians.
    The charter of rights, effectively, created countless jobs for lawyers and the lawyers found a very good hiding place for crimminals, using the charter of rights as their most effective tool. Get rid of the charter of rights. The oldest democracy in the world, Great Britton, does not see fit to have a charter of rights and their system has stood the test of time and worked very well. Wilf.
  44. Scott Anderson from Windsor, Canada writes: evelyn robinson! YES very well put!
  45. Legal Eagle from Toronto, Canada writes:

    We are not America. We are Canada! Electing judges would be a monumantal error. Judges are human and those who monetarily supported a specific judge, would hold a favour card somewhere down the road. The chances for abuse would be enormous.

    Maybe Canadians answered this poll because of their disdain for weak sentencing. We can easily see that the liberal courts and liberal sentencing over the last several years, while honorable, has not worked!

    Don't always blame the judges. Sentencing criminals brings into play jurisprudence, the past of individual, contrition, and public denuciation. Because weak sentences have been handed out in the past, and the crown and defence lawyers make recommendsations to the judge for sentencing requirements, the hands are basically tied.

    The only possiblity to overhaul the system, is to either pass minimum sentences, change the lenient release of criminals after one sixth or one third spent. Also, time spent before incarceration should not count as double time.

    I believe if this is accomplished, Canadians would find new respect for the judicial system. It really is in the hands of the politicians.
  46. Etienne Forest from Japan writes: Tom Willette : I left Canada in 1980 and never came back except as a tourist. I do not remember it as a hell hole. It was a great country without BS of Sharia or Kirpan or Hijab. (Praise Mr. Dumont)

    That country educated me, made a scientist out of me. No complaints.

    As for electing judges, it is a bad idea. The problem is the Charter and the new extended roles the judiciary has. Just look at the same sex marriage. Whether you agree about it or not, it was handled in the same cowardly way politicians handle though issues in the USA: put judges who favour your point of view. Claim that you do not favour changes, and then, hide behind the courts decision.

    It sucks.
  47. gaetan diotte from Ottawa, Canada writes: John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia:

    It's not that a 'small, elite' will dictate to the masses, it is that the 'average' Canadians' knowledge of our legal system is from poor to none. Unlike other GM readers, most Canadians get their news at a grade 5 level interpretation as seen in news sources like the Sun chain.

    Our education system does not cover the the finer points and differences between the British model and the US model. Neither does the real world give us the time to study these complicated concepts.

    This means that the average Canadians' opinion does not contain much of merit by the very fact that they don't have all of the information. It is not that they are stupid, it is that they are working on blind assumptions and that they have had no time to digest all of the information.

    On most given intricate files, the average Joe, does not have a clue as to what should be done. Again, not because they are the 'ignorant masses', but because they do not have all of the information.

    As for the poll:

    Blind polls like this are very dangerous and can quickly lead to mob mentality. As with the example of the French Revolution, rule of the mob can have disastrous results.

    This is a stupid idea, camouflaged with the concept of more democracy.
    There are many in this country who have never liked the of a Charter of Rights and would like to see us go back to the pre-Charter era.
    These same ideologues now paint themselves, in Orwellian manner as the champions of Democracy, choice and you can have it your way.
  48. fedup taxpayer from ottawa, Canada writes: To all you Liberals who object to electing judges because the great unwashed are not well versed in Canadian Law, why not just do away with elections. Everyone in a democracy has the right to vote and given the power weilded by activist judges it is past time they were held accountable for their actions. Elect them
  49. D K from Canada writes: So now people who don't know anything about the issues and vote for politicians are going to vote for judges too? No thanks
  50. gaetan diotte from Ottawa, Canada writes: Dog's Best Friend from Canada

    Activist Judges - do you mean judges that have ruled against your wishes?

    Do you know what is in the best interest of the country?

    As for elitist see my previous post.

    And exactly what are these judgments that benefit both society and its citizens? And who decides which judgment is a benefit?

    As for elected, how would you propose that these same judges are to be protected from the influence of these self-interest groups? Make a Law?

    The problems with changing a system is that you cannot predict the permutations to the original concept.

    As for trying t for ten years, does this mean the any judgment rendered during those ten years would be subject to review, as they could have come under the influence of special interest groups?

    Not quite as easy as it seems now is it?
  51. gaetan diotte from Ottawa, Canada writes: fedup taxpayer:

    Thank you, you are the perfect example on my point of Canadians making decisions with little information. You have proved my thesis.
  52. Anne Millar from Saint John, Canada writes: The very idea of electing judges fills me with horror. Can we not see the potential and real abuses in the United States under such a system.
    We who are so suspicous of polititians would then turn our judges into polititians. Who in the general public has enough knowledge to evaluate the potential judges knowledge and abilities?
  53. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    gaetan diotte from Ottawa: Wonderful Posts! Congrats! Nothing to add!
  54. Malcolm Thistle from Canada writes: Once again we have the effete snobs of the left suggesting that Canadians 'aren't educated enough' on this issues or that this proposal somehow doesn't make sense because it reminds us of America and we all know that if something's American it must be bad right? This is the stuff of liberal propaganda that has permeated our education system for years by the self-serving politicians who just want more control over things. Those who are agiinst this proposal always cite the problems with it but never recognize the problems with the system we have now. Anyway who thinks that judges objectivity would be betrayed by elections anymore than it is now by judges pandering to their political masters is being obscene and naiive. Would the new system be open to abuse? You bet it would! But no more than there is now with the system political appointments by corrupted politicans who want to see their particular brand of justice. If the people want to go to hell, that's their decision but stop this sniveling and naive whining that our system now is 'objective'. It's governed by the greatest two democratic vices - money and power. That's why the people who are i it support it. Let the people run it.
  55. Graham Hanlon from Brampton, Canada writes: It appears that the main argument against electing judges is that most believe the plebeians who live in this country are either too ignorant of our judicial system or that they might be influenced by a 'politicization' of the process that they may elect someone on idealogical politcal grounds as opposed to electing someone others feel is the best qualified.

    Such elitism!
    **************
    If I'm wrong, then please explain why there isn't a significant movement to eliminate these very same people from sitting as jurors - the triers of fact - in court proceedings?
    ***************
  56. john chuckman from Toronto, Canada writes: Elected judges are a terrible idea, and once you put election in place it is very hard to get rid of.

    At many levels in the US, they elect judges. They end up with some of the worst judges you can imagine, absolute idiots.

    Judges who treat every case as an issue for the next election. Judges looking for campaign funds for the next election. Judges ready to tailor their decisions for the highest bidder.

    It should be noted the US keeps its highest courts as appointed, a clear admission of the inappropriate nature of election where the highest issues are at stake.
  57. gaetan diotte from Ottawa, Canada writes: Malcolm Thistle:

    Effete snobs? Liberal propaganda? That's it? Ad hominem attacks?

    As for this statement - self-serving politicians who just want more control over things - this is exactly why we have un-elected judges and why politicians would like to have them elected and under control.

    'judges pandering to their political masters'? Do you mean judges who render decisions against Conservative values only?

    Let the people run it? History is repleat with examples of so-called People's Courts and their horrible decisions.

    If it was so easy to be a Judge then there wouldn't need be Law Schools would there?

    Libertarians, such as you, by default of your individualist doctrines have never had the best interests of the nation in mind.
  58. bill wilson from Taiwan writes: Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. It is all in the phrasing of the question. I can ask a very similar question, with a different twist and get exactly the opposite answer. Since when has the globe started promoting the Conservative agenda.
  59. JP M from Canada writes: Malcolm Thistle, you undermine your own arguement, and in fact highlight the fact that you need to further educate yourself. There are ample examples of an elected judiciary falling prey to outside interests and exchanging the pursuit of 'justice' for money and power....all you have to do is read about them....and listen....and deliberate....and step out of your own narrow self interest.....exercise the sort of 'objectivitiy' we currently expect and in large measure receive from our judiciary, which is highly regarded around the world.

    By the way... might the Globe
  60. Brian MacDonald from Berwick, NS, Canada writes: Leave Karla alone - she paid her debt - in full!

    The People of Ontario are stupid and she knew it. Easy to fool. Judges are just political hacks - they all owe favours.

    Why is Willy being denied his rights?
  61. gaetan diotte from Ottawa, Canada writes: Graham Hanlon from Brampton, Not a great example as the jurors spend all of their time, sometimes weeks, focusing on specific details and are taught the limits of the particular law they are to interpret.

    How many days off of work and hours would you spend studying the whole of the Judicial system in Canada, the history, the reason for its current shape and make up and the historical reasons for the concept of impartiality?

    An hour, a day? Exactly my point. Let's all take a month off and spend it learning the hows and whys of our system before we make the decision. Much better than hoping the Sun reader types get it right.
  62. Brian MacDonald from Berwick, NS, Canada writes: Karla got justice - dont be mad - Thank you People of Ontario
  63. Brian MacDonald from Berwick, NS, Canada writes: Why deny Willy? Free Willy. Free Willy now.
  64. Malcolm Thistle from Canada writes: If only we knew as much as Gaetan and JPM we would be all knowledgeable and have right on our side. Get off your pompous pedestals and get out in the real world. Canada's democracy has more centralized power than almost any others and that's been perpetrated by a little elite who believes in political correctness but not in sharing real power with real people. The arguments that these two snobs make are the same ones that were made centuries ago by the elites in Britain who didn't want to give Canada self-governmenet. Judges and politicans move in the same world and if you think they have peoples interests at heart, you need to get out in the real world. Even Plato supported elected judges.
  65. Brian MacDonald from Berwick, NS, Canada writes: Malcom has it right on.
  66. Anthony B from Sydney, NS, Canada writes: Elected judges? Which political party will candidate judge X declare his support for? Where do I send my campaign contribution and what will I get in return? Elect me and I'll cancel your speeding tickets. When do the attack ads begin?

    I'm starting to think opinion polls don't reflect public opinion..... they manipulate it. After all, if two-thirds of Canadians support elected judges, it must be a good thing. Right?
  67. Proud Canadian from United States writes: Electing judges couldn't happen soon enough; it's time to get rid of those Liberal appointed pansies!!!
  68. Watson Jones from United States writes: There are downsides to electing judges; chief among them having to watch their television ads during a campaign. There are other problems as well, but these problems exist already with other elected positions, and no one suggests they be appointed. In the end, people want ACCOUNTABILITY and, in spite of the costs that others correctly have pointed out, see a net benefit in the election of judges.
  69. Derek Holtom from Swan River, Canada writes: Too many judged let too many violent and deviant criminals out too early. They are not accountable in any way, shape or form. And they're not affected by crime as they live in their rich, gated communities or towers with security.
    Judges in this country need to be elected or have minimum sentences to tell them what to do, because, as a whole, they are all too soft on crime. There are too many repeat offenders in this country.
  70. Lane Myers from Canada writes: You can bet that the legal community will oppose any suggestion to have our judges elected. Under the present system they rely almost entirely on their political party affiliation to get their appointments to the bench.
    How could elected judges be any worse than our current crop of political appointees.

    Take the case of an individual in New Brunswick, who according to court testimony drank 24 beers and a one half bottle of whiskey, got in his vehicle and ran down an cyclist. His sentence---- two years of house arrest with all sorts of provisions to leave his house to go to work, medical appointments and 5 hours a week to attend to personal needs.

    Great system eh, and you suggest we could really do worse with elected officials?
  71. Harvey Mushman from cambridge, Canada writes: I think the poll reflects a genuine dislike and frustration that Canadians have with the lax judiciary here in Canada and a desire to 'fix' it somehow. A valid argument can be made that electing judges is not the way to do that...my guess is that these poll results just indicate people are 'fed up' enough they are willing to go to extreme lengths in order to effect change.
  72. Vern McPherson from Toronto, Canada writes: The idea of electing judges is too silly to even contemplate a response. This poll is a demonstration of the true meaninglessness of polls. I am sure if you asked some people where the sun rises they would say the west.
  73. Vern McPherson from Toronto, Canada writes: What is significant is the idea that something is broken and needs fixing. That is the basis of the entire COns political movement. Truth is very little is broken. Towes is wrong and COns are wrong. There is nothing wrong with the judicary that needs a great amount of fixing. Play with it at your peril. IMO, even suggesting having police officers involved in choosing judges is madness.
  74. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Logic would dictate that if people want elected judges, they are not satisfied with the status quo. I believe this was a mis-leading poll.

    Follow up questions should have also asked the reasons 'WHY' the people want elected judges, leaving it open ended with no multiple choice answers to choose from.

    A single question and the results thereof, lead to possible erroneous conclusions and interpretations.

    I truly believe this would have shown the real concerns as to the exact beliefs and problems concerning the real and perceived issue.

    Just one small example might be people are not satisfied with weak sentences-therefore elected judges would be more harsh. Just an example....

    I believe it is unfair to judge Canadians as to their knowledge or competence concerning judicial issues-one way or the other.
  75. Dale MacDougall from North Lauderdale,FL, United States writes: As a Canadian who has lived in the US for the last 8 years I can't say enough what a bad idea it is to consider an elected judiciary for Canada.
    What average person knows who is a good lawyer and who is a bad one? Who knows what makes a good judge? It all boils down to who has the most money for an ad campaign and who takes the best picture.
    I've read an editorial that said a female candidate would be helped by the fact that she was attractive and thus her name might be better remembered. Yes, she won her election.
    Money and politics don't belong in the impartial and correct application of justice.
  76. Major Pain from Canada writes: Bad idea, bad idea, bad idea.
  77. Malcolm Thistle from Canada writes: Well said Watson Jones. In Canada, it's about breaking up the bottleneck of power that exists at the the federal level to disperse it throughout the system, and if you believe in the mass wisdom and will of the people like I do, down to the lowest possible level. Liberals up here use the anti-American weapon to build up opposition for an idea on the basis that it's too American without even considering the merits of an argument. The Liberal Party has done this on a formal political level for years and we've lost out because of this. Mor importantly, if there's going to be an abuse of authority better it be at the populist level where it can be rectified without the power of money. In many ways Canada is a closed society that needs more democratic power in the form of an elected senate and elected judges. Power to the people. and if you don't trsut them, move somehwere else
  78. george lawrence from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: Include yours truly, among the Two Thirds who favour electioning Judges.It's about time.The snobbery of those so call EDUCATED or so Implied, POSTERS , IS ASTOUNDING.I, for one give the average Canadian far more credit,for their intelligence. A degree from a university doesn't always equate to superior intelligence,or to making sound decisions Re;Former President Clinton a RhodesScholar,in relation to the Monica Lewinsky Affair.Lets give Mr Harper his majority so that we can get on with the task of reforming our JUDICAL SYSTEM.which could include the election of Federal,Judges.It is long over due.
  79. gaetan diotte from Canada writes: Malcolm Thistle:

    Other than name calling, you still have not answered any specific points.

    Please define 'sharing real power with real people' It is a vacuous phrase being bandied about with no real meaning.

    Real people? What does this mean, exactly? Real as in 3D, I can touch you real? Real as in I'm a blue collar type of guy? Real as in I'm a professional, U of T kind of guy? Real in the Platonic sense or in teh Descartes sense?

    Another empty phrase barked by the hounds of the Orwellian dogs.

    Yes and Plato called is perfect city Utopia - meaning Nowhere.
  80. gaetan diotte from Ottawa, Canada writes: Harvey Mushman: lax judiciary? What does this mean? They don't work hard enough? They're lax in their appearance?

    Another empty buzz word.

    However, I can hazard a guess that you mean lax as in you don't like some of the judgments some have rendered and thereby you will tar the whole judiciary with terms of contempt, even though you have not reviewed every decision made by every judge in the last 20 years.

    Of the thousands and thousands of cases yearly, you choose to discredit a whole branch of civil government because of the few judgments you do not like. This is rational thought?

    This is exactly what I mean when I say that the 'average joe' doesn't have all of the information necessary.

    Given time and a chance to study the whole of the judiciary system, I would trust the 'average joe' with decisions on the future makeup of the judiciary.

    It is not elitism nor snobism to want the decisions based on all of the facts and not just empty rhetoric. If we want to change the system the first let us take the time to learn about the whole system.
  81. Geoffrey Diss from Berlin, Germany writes: Oh GAWD! What incredible stupidity. Canadians can't seem to Americanize themselves fast enough. What a mess. How pathetic.
  82. say Bunker News fails in hostile takeover bid of A.P. from Canada writes: Top judicial official in Afghanistan is from Montreal says skyreporter ?

    Leave our judiciary alone until the legislative branch is really cleaned up and not just pretty new faces .
  83. Irene Cornwell from Morinville, Canada writes: I lived in the United States under the elected justice system. Picture your worst enemy having a say in a legal decision. Picture the sleeziest political campaign you have witnessed. Picture political membership turfing excellent, seasoned and proven judges every few years. Are you reassured yet??
  84. Darian Silk from Toronto, Canada writes: Electing judges is a bad idea. People think there are 'activist' judges now? Wait until they are acting to get elected, and their judgements swing towards popular opinion and the current mood of the people instead of the letter of the law. The whole point of the legal system is to be a counterpoint to the political system, which they can't do if they are also politicized. People think that by electing our judges it will make them less political because they will no longer be appointed by politicians, that is a totally backwards way of thinking. Judges will become more politicized because they will have to please the voters to get elected, look at the way American judges are elected, or even chosen to the supreme court, it is so hyper political and has little to do with their skill as judges, all to do with their political opinion. In Canada we still have judges who make decisions based on the law, and not popular opinion and politics. It should stay that way.
  85. Malcolm Thistle from Toronto, Canada writes: Dale MacDougall - you don't think money and politics is at the heart of the current system!!It's all about money and politcs. And power! Thats the problem. In Canada, judges and polticians got to the same scho