ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 1819
Sep 30 11 6:56 AM
Interact
Posts: 4344
Sep 30 11 7:03 AM
The Conservatives on Tuesday used their majority strength on the House of Commons Access to Information and Ethics Committee to adopt a list of witnesses that includes Mr. Justice Richard Boivin of the Federal Court.They want him to discuss his ruling in a case brought by the Information Commissioner against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There is little chance Boivin will ever appear before the committee, but the mere attempt underlines the long-simmering feud between the judiciary and Canada’s conservative movement, which bemoans “judge-made law” and complains about the lack of judicial accountability.
They want him to discuss his ruling in a case brought by the Information Commissioner against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There is little chance Boivin will ever appear before the committee, but the mere attempt underlines the long-simmering feud between the judiciary and Canada’s conservative movement, which bemoans “judge-made law” and complains about the lack of judicial accountability.
King Stephen is really pissed about the whole division of powers thing: "How come the provinces and the judiciary continue to have a say? I thought I had a majority."
Posts: 3316
Sep 30 11 7:11 AM
Sep 30 11 7:26 AM
Sep 30 11 7:30 AM
Wobblie wrote:It would also be nice if they explained that Canada is a common law country, which means that by definition "judge-made law" is part of our legal tradition. You know, something we inherited from our colonial past. Maybe we should give our judges the title "Royal Canadian Justice" to remind people of that "important link" to our colonial past - after all we've now reverted to the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force, and I'm sure there are plans afoot to resurrect the Royal Canadian Postal Corps, the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, the Royal Canadian Army Pay Corps and the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps.
Sep 30 11 7:32 AM
Posts: 4456
Sep 30 11 7:35 AM
Link to the decision. Interesting discussion of division of powers between the Feds and the Provinces.
Posts: 4635
Sep 30 11 8:04 AM
Sep 30 11 8:07 AM
Sep 30 11 8:14 AM
Wobblie wrote: Or the JCPC - although I think the Brits have now gone and scuppered that with their Supreme Court.
Sep 30 11 8:36 AM
Posts: 935
Sep 30 11 8:40 AM
Sep 30 11 8:57 AM
Rusty Iron Ring wrote:If you combine recent re-branding trends, I think the Royal Harper Court is more likely.
Posts: 1938
Sep 30 11 9:01 AM
Minister of Love wrote: I always thought Star Chamber had a nice ring to it.
Endless days of low ceilings and nasty crosswinds makes Chicken Little something something.
Posts: 788
Sep 30 11 9:12 AM
Wobblie wrote: It would also be nice if they explained that Canada is a common law country, which means that by definition "judge-made law" is part of our legal tradition. You know, something we inherited from our colonial past. Maybe we should give our judges the title "Royal Canadian Justice" to remind people of that "important link" to our colonial past - after all we've now reverted to the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force, and I'm sure there are plans afoot to resurrect the Royal Canadian Postal Corps, the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, the Royal Canadian Army Pay Corps and the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps.
Sep 30 11 9:20 AM
Sep 30 11 10:41 AM
Sep 30 11 11:19 AM
fringillidae wrote: I disagree, MP. I think this worked out exactly as it should have. The judiciary are here to provide an impartial balance between the power of the state and the rights of the individual. In this case, the state's action would have caused harm to a vulnerable group. It's exactly the Court's job to step in and remedy that imbalance. I'm sure you'll recall the old law school adage about democracy - it's not majority rules, it's protection of minority rights. Which is precisely why politicians should never be given unfettered discretion to decide the rights of the people. Their motives cannot help but be tainted by knowledge that the next election is determined by the majority of votes - a mindset most brilliantly illustrated by the current government's "tough on crime" bullshit agenda.
Sep 30 11 11:22 AM
Share This