‘Programming the Canadian Judiciary’

It’s bad enough that Leftist – and racist — ideologues have take over several Canadian law schools but now, the ‘Liberal’ Party federal government is attempting to ensure that judges think the same way as the government. P.S. The so-called ‘Conservative’ Party not only voted in favour of this – they initiated it: 

“A bill that requires sexual assault training for federally-appointed judges has been amended by MPs to also include training on “systemic racism and systemic discrimination” — a change some see as a troubling sign politicians will keep venturing further into judicial training. 

“The legislation, which has now gone through three versions in four years, has seen widespread debate in the legal community over its constitutionality. Judges are self-governed through independent bodies to insulate them from political pressure, and already have their own training programs, including on sexual assault

“…critics worry the bill represents politicians trying to inject their policy preferences into judicial training, and that once the door is opened through this sex-assault training bill, future governments will pile on with their own political priorities… As it turns out, MPs have not even waited for the bill to get through the House of Commons before adding to it.

“‘Liberal’ {Party} MP Greg Fergus told the Commons Justice committee on Tuesday that his amendments are in order because the bill already required the training to consider the “social context” around sexual assault. The new language specifies that social context includes “systemic racism and systemic discrimination”. It does not include any other topics, and does not define those terms.

“I found that this offered us a good opportunity to…include other groups into the purpose of the bill”,
said Fergus, who chairs the {segregated} parliamentary ‘Black’ caucus {Of course…}.

“Those are the reasons why I proposed some ‘small modifications’,”
he said, speaking in French.

“The amendments were carried with ‘Liberal’ {Party}, ‘Conservative’ {Party} and NDP support, though they still need to pass in the full House of Commons and the Senate. Only Bloc Québécois MP Rhéal Fortin voted against them, saying they stray too far off track.

“It’s like we’d gone off to buy potatoes at the store, and we returned home with strawberries”,
Fortin said in French.
“I’m sorry, but that doesn’t work… If we want to work on a different bill than the original one, which was for training on sexual assault, and we want something different on systemic discrimination, that’s fine and well, that can be something we could do. But we’ll have to make another bill completely or reopen the witness list.”

“Fortin also argued that the term “systemic racism” is a politically-popular phrase right now, but it’s not clear to everyone what it means. Arif Virani, the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister, responded that there is ‘wide social consensus’ {‘Leftist support’} around the phrase as it applies to institutions, and it “reflects sort of where we are as a nation, as a continent”. 
{That’s unfortunately true but doesn’t make it right…}

“‘Liberal’ {Party} MP James Maloney said that Fortin’s concerns about judicial independence could also be applied to the original bill, which Fortin supports.
We’ve crossed that threshold, Mr. Fortin”,
Maloney said…

“The first version was introduced by former ‘Conservative’ {Party} leader Rona Ambrose in 2017, but it stalled in the Senate in 2019 over concerns of judicial independence. It was largely rewritten in the Senate…”

–‘MPs amend judge sex-assault training bill to add systemic racism training, sparking new concerns’,
Brian Platt, National Post, Oct. 28, 2020

(City News Edmonton)

“Former ‘Conservative’ MP Rona Ambrose’s last legislative project before leaving Parliament in 2017 was a private member’s bill that would have required lawyers seeking to become federally-appointed judges to complete a mandatory course on sexual assault law…

“Ambrose’s bill never became law, but the ‘Liberal’ {Party} government has now revived the idea. ‘Bill C-5’ introduces a new eligibility requirement for appointment to a superior court. Right now, the only prerequisite is section three of the ‘Judges Act’ that states appointees must have at least 10 years of experience as a qualified lawyer. Under the government’s bill, candidates would also have to promise to “participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context” as a condition of their appointment…

“The idea of judges taking courses on sexual assault law is not new. Canada’s lead judicial training body, the National Judicial Institute, has been offering courses about sexual assault and related criminal law issues for years. The institute has also provided training on broader “social context” issues such as discrimination, ‘Indigenous’ {sic} issues and poverty. The idea that judges, like other professionals, should submit to continuing education courses would have been controversial a generation ago. But it is widely accepted today. The 2018 professional development policy of the Canadian Judicial Council requires new judges to take courses in their first five years of service.

What’s new, and troubling, about ‘Bill C-5’ is not that judges have to take courses. It’s that this requirement is coming from the government. Up to now, judges took courses because they wanted to, or their chief justice suggested it, or the Judicial Council required it. Under ‘Bill C-5’, the training is effectively mandated by law.

“What’s wrong with that? We can all agree that judges should be fully trained before conducting a sexual assault trial. But sexual assault is not the only issue politicians and voters might want judges to know about. If Parliament has the power to force judges to take courses, why stop at sexual assault? Why not put a few more required courses on the judges’ curriculum? Why not train our judges in ‘systemic racism’ {See above}, ‘Indigenous’ laws and rights {That’ll be next}, climate change, national security and counterterrorism, border security and unlawful migration?

“All of these issues are important to at least some voters. So it is not hard to imagine a future federal government adding them, or some other hot-button issue, to the eligibility requirements for judicial appointment. Once we open the door to treating section three of the ‘Judges Act’ as a course list, that list is likely to grow.

“But the problem is not the length of the list. It is the existence of a list at all. Lurking behind the idea of legislated mandatory training for judges is the notion that judicial decision-making is just another means for governments to advance their policy agendas. The implication is that judges, like public servants, can be issued marching orders by the government of the day.

“To some extent, judges can be given marching orders. Every statute Parliament or a province enacts is a sort of direction to judges. Governments and legislatures depend upon courts to give effect to the laws they make. There may not seem to be much of a difference between telling judges what to do by passing a law and telling them what to do by making them take a course. But it is a distinction we should make—it’s the difference between telling judges what to do, and telling them what to think.

“Unlike public servants, whose ultimate job is to carry out government decisions and policies according to law, judges are frequently called upon to scrutinize government action. The core idea behind that elusive phrase, “the rule of law”, is a society where we can meaningfully say that something done by the government was unlawful. The people empowered to reach that conclusion and give it consequences, are the judges.

“For judges to hold governments to account like this, they need to have true independence from the executive and legislative branches of government. And people need to believe they have it. Who will bother suing the government if they think the judges are government stooges?

“These concerns are why Canadian judges keep insisting that judicial education should be “judge-led”. The Judicial Council made that point when the Ambrose bill was before Parliament, and again the day after ‘Bill C-5’ was announced. In the guarded language judges use when forced to talk about current political issues, the Council’s statement (“Judge-led training strengthens confidence in the Canadian justice system”) gently insists that judicial training is “properly and exclusively the judiciary’s role”.

“The Judicial Council is right. Governments setting judges’ curriculums, instead of trusting judges to train themselves as they have done for decades, risks undermining public confidence in our judges’ independence from government. Taken to extremes, government training of judges harms not just public confidence in judicial independence, but independence itself. Most Canadians do not know this risk from personal experience. But some new Canadians do. Other parts of the world are not short of make-believe courts that slavishly follow the leads of their national governments in farcical caricature of what free peoples expect from their judges.

“I won’t venture an opinion about whether ‘Bill C-5’ is unconstitutional in the technical sense of being inconsistent with the written part of our constitution and therefore legally void under ‘Section 52’ of the ‘Constitution Act, 1982’. Governments should not adopt laws that put courts in the awkward position of having to rule on the extent of their own powers and protections. That is another sign that ‘Bill C-5’ is a bad law: for judges to rule on its constitutionality would put them in an unavoidable conflict of interest. Whether technically unconstitutional or not, ‘Bill C-5’ is at odds with our constitutional structure and ethos. Governments should leave judicial training to judges.”

‘Bill C-5: Should the Canadian government train its judges?’,
Gib van Ert, Maclean’s, February 6, 2020
See also:
Aboriginal Industry Training Alberta Lawyers’ (‘Cultural Competency’ Training)
{Jan.6, 2021}:
Lawyers are generating a fortune in profits as the crucial part of the divisive Aboriginal Industry. Here, they are just ensuring that everybody is on the same page:

   “The Law Society of Alberta Board (also known as ‘Benchers’) approved the introduction of mandatory ‘Indigenous’ {sic, they mean ‘Aboriginal’. Off to a bad start!} ‘Cultural Competency’ training for all active Alberta lawyers beginning in early 2021…


Training Legal Warriors To Undermine Canada{April 13, 2018}:
“Courts and academics are transforming the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from a roster of fundamental liberties, into a ‘social-justice’ {‘communist’} charter that justifies curbing individual freedoms instead of protecting them… Individual liberties are no longer fundamental. Everyone is not subject to the same rules. The legal ground is shifting.”

Post also at: 

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 )

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