‘Pro-Quebec Bias on Canada’s Political Court’

Relying on a discriminatory tradition that favours Quebec, the Prime Minister has appointed another Quebecker as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada:

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has named Supreme Court Justice Richard Wagner the next chief justice, which gives the 60-year old Quebecker up to 15 years to put his mark on the country’s most powerful court, and on Canadian law, before mandatory retirement.

“…Justice Wagner was in most respects a conventional choice from a ‘Liberal’ prime minister – the senior judge from Quebec, in keeping with a loose {discriminatory} tradition in which the position of chief justice alternates between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

“He is widely respected and liked by his colleagues, and takes easily to the public duties that come with being chief justice, having regularly given talks around the country in both official languages since he joined the court in 2012.

“He succeeds Beverley McLachlin, the longest-serving chief justice in the history of the Supreme Court of Canada, with 17 years in the job… Chief Justice McLachlin presided over a tumultuous period in which the court reversed many precedents {often on concocted ideological grounds}…and expanded ‘indigenous’ {‘racial’} and union rights. She even did public battle with a sitting prime minister, Stephen Harper…

“The new chief justice has not written constitutional rulings that serve as his “calling card” and spell out his approach in great detail, says law dean Lorne Sossin of York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School…

“Justice Wagner has stood up for ‘minority languages’ {French}. In ‘Caron v Alberta’ (2015), he and Justice Suzanne Côté wrote in dissent that Alberta has a constitutional obligation to translate its laws into French. They said that when Canada annexed the West in 1870, there was an agreement to protect legislative bilingualism. Their view lost 6-3. He also stood up for Quebec, writing a joint dissent with the two other Quebec judges in a 2015 case in which the province sought to retain data from a firearms registry that the federal government wished to have destroyed. The court ruled 5-4 in Ottawa’s favour.

“He is generally considered tougher on crime than many of his colleagues. He dissented in ‘R v Nur’ in 2015, in which the majority declared a mandatory minimum penalty for illegal-gun possession unconstitutional. He wrote for the majority in restoring a 6 1/2-year sentence for an 18-year-old drunk driver who caused the death of his two passengers, saying in a 5-2 ruling that judges should be able to take into account local conditions.

“But he is well within the court’s broad middle. He opposed the new time limits on criminal trials established in ‘R v Jordan’ last year. He wrote a unanimous ruling in ‘R v Whaling’ in 2014, striking down a ‘Conservative’ law that retroactively took away easy access to early parole for non-violent offenders.

“The government had said that law was needed to maintain public confidence in the justice system. But Justice Wagner wrote,

“I would point out that the enactment of Charter-infringing legislation does great damage to that confidence.”

“Like the current Chief Justice, he sees constitutional law as a “living tree{‘Judges get to create new law by ‘interpreting’ the Constitution’}, ‘evolving with the times’ {‘enabling social engineering’}. He told his nomination hearing that he supports the idea of similar {token, impotent} hearings for federally appointed courts (such as the superior courts of provinces), something no government has offered.

“Justice Wagner is the son of the late Claude Wagner, who lost his bid for the ‘Progressive Conservative’ federal leadership in 1976, and who had been a ‘Liberal’ justice minister in Quebec. He is married to Quebec Superior Court judge Catherine Mandeville, and is the father of a daughter and a son, both lawyers. He was educated by Jesuits and received his law degree from the University of Ottawa in 1979. (After being told he could not study law while doing a bachelor’s degree in political science, he asked to see the rule and when administrators could not find it, was let in.)…

“He was a business lawyer for a quarter-century in Montreal, then in 2004 became a judge on the Quebec Superior Court, followed by a brief time on the Quebec Court of Appeal, beginning in 2011.

“The appointment of Justice Wagner was lauded in Quebec…

“In choosing Justice Wagner, Mr. Trudeau opted to look beyond Justice Rosalie Abella, the most senior judge on the court, who was appointed in 2004. Judicial advisers had discussed her possible appointment. At 71, she would have had just 3 1/2 years before retirement. She has been an outspoken defender of ‘equity’ {the Leftist version of ‘equality’} and ‘minorities’ during her career on and off the bench.”

–‘Richard Wagner named new Supreme Court chief justice’,
Sean Fine, Toronto Globe and Mail, December 12, 2017

Feature IMAGE: Justice Richard Wagner is shown at the Supreme Court in Ottawa on Tuesday Feb.10, 2015 (Globe and Mail)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/richard-wagner-named-new-supreme-court-chief-justice/article37301861/

‘Supreme Court of Canada Appointment Process – 2017’:
http://www.fja-cmf.gc.ca/scc-csc/index-eng.html

(Shutterstock)

The inherently discriminatory nature of the Court:
“The ‘Supreme Court Act’ stipulates that at least three of the judges must be appointed from Québec. The rationale for the Québec contingent is based largely on that province’s distinct Civil Code {!}. Judges from other provinces tend to have no experience with it and are thus in a poor position to hear appeals of civil decisions from Québec. Traditionally, one of the Québec judges is from the Montréal legal bar and another is from the Québec City bar.

“Three of the nine judges are invariably drawn from Ontario, one ‎from the Atlantic region and two from the Western provinces. These geographic considerations have been adhered to for so long that they are deemed almost unbreakable {!}

The Supreme Court was created in 1875 under the ‘Supreme Court Act’, a federal statute. However, the ‘Constitution Act, 1982’ essentially constitutionalized the court {without public participation} by providing that any changes to it could only be made through formal constitutional amendment. As of 1982, changes to the composition of the court require the consent of the Senate and House of Commons and the legislative assembly of each province. Other changes to the court require the consent of the Senate and House of Commons and the legislative assemblies of two-thirds of the provinces (seven provinces) with at least 50% of the population of Canada.”

–‘Supreme Court of Canada’,
Historica Canada

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/supreme-court-of-canada/

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-26/FullText.html

See also:
Bad For Democracy’ (Supreme Court) {August 26, 2016}:
“Nine people — unelected people — apparently have the power to determine “what’s best for Canadian society”. With no reference to “the law”. And of course, that is simply a statement of fact. The Court can do anything it wants if it can find a branch on its “living tree” of the Constitution to hang its authority.

‘Native law’ flows from two racist clauses in our constitution. The first, ‘S.91(24)’ of 1867, gave Ottawa exclusive {segregationist} power over “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians”… This has led to the creation of two parallel societies in Canada, one of them based on inheritance and race, and then the rest of us.

“The 1982 amendments gave us ‘S.35’, which entrenched “existing” aboriginal and treaty rights. The framers thought the words entirely cosmetic. The Court has used them to deepen the gulf between the parallel societies

“…The Supremes will continue to tend their “living tree” in Ottawa, doing much as they please… But I say with no doubts that it is bad in a democracy when nine unelected people can make law. Judges should interpret law. When the law is unclear (as in the abstract principles of the Charter), they should consult the intent of the framers…”
https://endracebasedlaw.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/bad-for-democracy/

https://www.facebook.com/ENDRACEBASEDLAW/photos/a.336196793149227.59519.332982123470694/824297254339176/?type=3
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
Post also at:

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s