Tories Want More ...

[jdobbin]

Seems to me that the pool is made up by people from the judicial system who are under no scrutiny when it comes to picking candidates, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and a closed shop when it comes to who may become a judge. What's the matter with having one representative from law enforcement? They are effected by what this group does as much as anyone.

Which cops would be on that review panel: The RCMP Commissioner? Doesn't he try for maintaining status quo as well?

[Argus]

Now, what can be said about the law enforcement profession? They want guilty people to go to jail.

Most of the rest of the members of the committee are lawyers. What can be said about the legal profession?

They don't care if the guilty go free. They don't care if justice is done. They don't care about right or wrong. They care about the process, and they care about money.

This is really quite pathetic and feeble-minded. For all out there who follow your lead Argus and blame all of the ills of society on lawyers...as though we are a single, unified, homogenous group who all think the same, while we roll around in our vaults of money like Scrooge McDuck, give your damn empty head a shake.

FTA, I recognize that within any group there are good people who try to do their best. But lawyers, as a group, have a lot to answer for. Don't forget that judges are lawyers, and most politicians are lawyers. All our rotten, crappy laws are written by lawyers at the behest of lawyers. Or they're changed and altered beyond recognition by judges (lawyers) because some other lawyer came up with a clever argument, or just because the judge felt like it.

The ethics of the legal profession, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that they must ignore justice in order to do the absolute best for their clients, no matter how evil or cruel or destructive that would be to society. If that means cheating an old widow out of her house (legally) on behalf of the moustachioed, cigar chomping, top-hatted villain, then that is precisely what they'll do.

And while "protecting the innocent" from being railroaded is noble, in theory, it has so surrounded our judicial system with ridiculous "checks and balances" that the rights of the accused far outweigh the well being of the public, or justice for their victims. No matter how absolutely obvious is their guilt, how cruel their crime, the law, as designed and administered by lawyers will protect them and try to cushion any punishment.

The law sucks in so very, very many ways. Whether it's letting murderers go with a slap on the wrist because, well, "you can't prove he wanted to kill someone just because he shot him fourteen times in the head, after all", whether it's old people being booted out of their own homes because some fraudster forged their names on a document and the mighty "LAW" says they no now longer own their homes, or whether it's the legions of soulless lawyers employed by insurance companies to get them out of paying off on valid claims to the sick and homeless, there is little admirable in your profession as a whole.

The presence of lawyers is like an infection in that it breeds the need for more lawyers. The United States has, they say, 2/3rds of all the lawyers in the world, and no one in their right mind would say that has contributed anything good to their society.

One final thing. When the Tories announced they were going to put in place laws to punish those who drive while under the influence of drugs most people thought that was a pretty damned overdue and sensible thing to do. You, on the other hand, ranted about how this would lead to unfairness to your clients, and big pay cheques for lawyers.

[Argus]

Who else sees the way courts operate up front and personal, day after day, week after week, month after month? Aside from the lawyers, that is?

Court clerks, stenographers, journalists, expert witnesses ...

Clerks and stenos work for lawyers. Expert - meaning PAID - witnesses, sell their testimony to lawyers. And journalists rarely attend courts.

Who has more of an axe to grind or personal incentives involved? Police.

What personal incentive do you imagine the police have? The only thing they want in judges are those who will take crime seriously.

That's analyses not bigotry....

I wonder what may lie underneath your vicious anti-lawyerism.

A rather ridiculously naive desire for justice in all things, and a boundless contempt for those who frustrate that justice.

[Argus]

I wonder whom those cops would appoint to the bench?

Who does more damage to society: crooked cops or honest lawyers?

[jdobbin]

Who does more damage to society: crooked cops or honest lawyers?

I don't anyone who would want to find out.

In Los Angeles violent cops caused a race riot.

We've seen evidence in Alberta and Ontario where cops have tried to intimidate police and journalists.

[Argus]

Who does more damage to society: crooked cops or honest lawyers?

I don't anyone who would want to find out.

In Los Angeles violent cops caused a race riot.

Violent cops caused a race riot? Given the level of violence in the communities where the riots took place I find that a little hard to believe. Violent gang bangers murdering people up and down the street didn't cause any race riots. But cops beating a car thief outraged people enough to burn down half their blocks?

Uhm, no. Those riots were brought about due to the societal conditions which can largely be laid at the feet of politicians - who are mostly lawyers.

We've seen evidence in Alberta and Ontario where cops have tried to intimidate police and journalists.

If I ever gave you even the suggestion that I thought every cop was an angel I do apologise. Some very few cops are scum. No doubt about it. Some larger group of cops, thought still a distinct minority, are bullies. But the profession as a whole is quite noble. People become cops because they want to help and protect people and punish bad men. Too many people become lawyers because they want to make money.

[jdobbin]

Violent cops caused a race riot? Given the level of violence in the communities where the riots took place I find that a little hard to believe. Violent gang bangers murdering people up and down the street didn't cause any race riots. But cops beating a car thief outraged people enough to burn down half their blocks?

Uhm, no. Those riots were brought about due to the societal conditions which can largely be laid at the feet of politicians - who are mostly lawyers.

If I ever gave you even the suggestion that I thought every cop was an angel I do apologise. Some very few cops are scum. No doubt about it. Some larger group of cops, thought still a distinct minority, are bullies. But the profession as a whole is quite noble. People become cops because they want to help and protect people and punish bad men. Too many people become lawyers because they want to make money.

I guess that's debatable about what was the root causes of the riot. Certainly we know what triggered it. It wasn't so much the beating as the whitewash of the event afterwards.

I don't think cops should be excluded from a panel. I just don't think they should have a reserved place at the table. All vested interests might like a place at the table then.

[jbg]

And having cops select the judges? Don't know. The distinctions in the legal system are there for a reason, to create independance. Having a victims advocate would be acceptable for me... a cop? No.

I believe cops should have input into the system, to ameliorate the pro-defense bias that Bar Associations have. I don't think cops should pick judges.

[jbg]

Who does more damage to society: crooked cops or honest lawyers?

I don't anyone who would want to find out.

In Los Angeles violent cops caused a race riot.

Violent cops caused a race riot? Given the level of violence in the communities where the riots took place I find that a little hard to believe. Violent gang bangers murdering people up and down the street didn't cause any race riots. But cops beating a car thief outraged people enough to burn down half their blocks?

Gee, Argus, when a synagogue in Edmonton was spray-painted with a swastika, you don't remember the massive riot that the Jewish community engaged in? (I guess the media covered it up).

[jdobbin]

Gee, Argus, when a synagogue in Edmonton was spray-painted with a swastika, you don't remember the massive riot that the Jewish community engaged in? (I guess the media covered it up).

In the U.S., you had actions of the Jewish Defence League:

"On December 12, 2001, Irv Rubin, JDL International Chairman, and Earl Krugel, a member of the organization, were charged with conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism. Authorities claimed that the two planned attacks on Arab-American Congressman Darrell Issa's office, and on the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California.

Rubin maintained that he was innocent, and was reportedly eager to wage a vigorous court battle in his defense. On November 4, 2002, at the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, California, Rubin fell 18 feet to the concrete floor below. He was in a coma for 10 days before dying on November 13. Ther prison's official report was that he slashed his own neck before throwing himself over the railing, which would seem an odd suicide attempt to say the least[3]. The incident has been ruled a suicide, though some of Rubin's supporters have alleged murder.

On February 4, 2003, Earl Krugel pled guilty to conspiracy and weapons charges stemming from the terrorist plot, and was expected to serve up to 20 years in prison. He was murdered by another inmate while at the Federal Correctional Institution in north Phoenix, Arizona on November 4, 2005."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defence_League

[Wilber]

Seems to me that the pool is made up by people from the judicial system who are under no scrutiny when it comes to picking candidates, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and a closed shop when it comes to who may become a judge. What's the matter with having one representative from law enforcement? They are effected by what this group does as much as anyone.

Which cops would be on that review panel: The RCMP Commissioner? Doesn't he try for maintaining status quo as well?

I don't know, how does anyone get picked? Other judges and lawyers get to pick their members on the panel. The government picks the rest, probably on the advice of other judges and lawyers. The police have just as big a stake in how the judical system operates as lawyers and judges but have no input. They have to deal with the system's screw ups. I don't know of any police officers who are happy with the status quo. My son says there is never a shift that they aren't briefed on someone who has just been released into the area who is considered a high risk to re offend. They only noitify the public about those they consider present a severe danger.

[jdobbin]

I don't know, how does anyone get picked? Other judges and lawyers get to pick their members on the panel. The government picks the rest, probably on the advice of other judges and lawyers. The police have just as big a stake in how the judical system operates as lawyers and judges but have no input. They have to deal with the system's screw ups. I don't know of any police officers who are happy with the status quo. My son says there is never a shift that they aren't briefed on someone who has just been released into the area who is considered a high risk to re offend. They only noitify the public about those they consider present a severe danger.

Do you think judges should sit on law enforcement review agencies as well? After all, police think they can judge themselves? Why not put a judge on police commissions?

[jbg]

Gee, Argus, when a synagogue in Edmonton was spray-painted with a swastika, you don't remember the massive riot that the Jewish community engaged in? (I guess the media covered it up).

In the U.S., you had actions of the Jewish Defence League:

"On December 12, 2001, Irv Rubin, JDL International Chairman, and Earl Krugel, a member of the organization, were charged with conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism. Authorities claimed that the two planned attacks on Arab-American Congressman Darrell Issa's office, and on the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California.

Rubin maintained that he was innocent, and was reportedly eager to wage a vigorous court battle in his defense. On November 4, 2002, at the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, California, Rubin fell 18 feet to the concrete floor below. He was in a coma for 10 days before dying on November 13. Ther prison's official report was that he slashed his own neck before throwing himself over the railing, which would seem an odd suicide attempt to say the least[3]. The incident has been ruled a suicide, though some of Rubin's supporters have alleged murder.

On February 4, 2003, Earl Krugel pled guilty to conspiracy and weapons charges stemming from the terrorist plot, and was expected to serve up to 20 years in prison. He was murdered by another inmate while at the Federal Correctional Institution in north Phoenix, Arizona on November 4, 2005."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defence_League

Those kinds of incidents would barely make the news if Muslims were involved. This is a case of man biting dog being news, dog biting man not being news.

[jdobbin]

Those kinds of incidents would barely make the news if Muslims were involved. This is a case of man biting dog being news, dog biting man not being news.

The JDL wanted to kill an Arab-American Congressman. How any Jewish Congressmen have Muslims been arrested for killing or attempting to kill in the U.S.

[jbg]

Those kinds of incidents would barely make the news if Muslims were involved. This is a case of man biting dog being news, dog biting man not being news.

The JDL wanted to kill an Arab-American Congressman. How any Jewish Congressmen have Muslims been arrested for killing or attempting to kill in the U.S.

Was the crime vigorously prosecuted? Was there any evidence that the Jewish mainstream community did not vigorously oppose the attempt?

[jdobbin]

Was the crime vigorously prosecuted? Was there any evidence that the Jewish mainstream community did not vigorously oppose the attempt?

I could ask the same about Muslim terrorism plots in Canada and the U.S. Did the mainstream support them? Did they not try to stop them? In Canada, it was Muslims who informed on those that would do Canada harm.

And yet you would have us attack and persecute those same people who have sworn their allegiance to law and order?

[Wilber]

I don't know, how does anyone get picked? Other judges and lawyers get to pick their members on the panel. The government picks the rest, probably on the advice of other judges and lawyers. The police have just as big a stake in how the judical system operates as lawyers and judges but have no input. They have to deal with the system's screw ups. I don't know of any police officers who are happy with the status quo. My son says there is never a shift that they aren't briefed on someone who has just been released into the area who is considered a high risk to re offend. They only noitify the public about those they consider present a severe danger.

Do you think judges should sit on law enforcement review agencies as well? After all, police think they can judge themselves? Why not put a judge on police commissions?

Why, this is about who gets hired, not how they do the job afterward. The police don't sit on the internal review boards concerning the conduct of judges and lawyers. If prosecutors (lawyers) decide that a law has been broken by someone (police , judge or lawyer) they press charges and a judge (another lawyer) decides if it has been broken and determines the penalty.

If we are to have outsiders sit on internal review boards, let's be consistent and apply it to everyone in the justice system.

[jdobbin]

Why, this is about who gets hired, not how they do the job afterward. The police don't sit on the internal review boards concerning the conduct of judges and lawyers. If prosecutors (lawyers) decide that a law has been broken by someone (police , judge or lawyer) they press charges and a judge (another lawyer) decides if it has been broken and determines the penalty.

If we are to have outsiders sit on internal review boards, let's be consistent and apply it to everyone in the justice system.

Then should judges be present in the hiring process of police officers? Makes about as much sense as police officers being given a veto on judges being appointed.

[Wilber]

Why, this is about who gets hired, not how they do the job afterward. The police don't sit on the internal review boards concerning the conduct of judges and lawyers. If prosecutors (lawyers) decide that a law has been broken by someone (police , judge or lawyer) they press charges and a judge (another lawyer) decides if it has been broken and determines the penalty.

If we are to have outsiders sit on internal review boards, let's be consistent and apply it to everyone in the justice system.

Then should judges be present in the hiring process of police officers? Makes about as much sense as police officers being given a veto on judges being appointed.

I thought there was a proposal to have them present in the selection process as to who goes in the pool to be hired, not who is actually hired. No reason why a judge should not have a say when it comes to selecting candidates for police officers but who was talking about anyone having a veto? I wonder how many psychological evaluations lawyers and judges have to go through before they are allowed to work in their professions.

[jdobbin]

I thought there was a proposal to have them present in the selection process as to who goes in the pool to be hired, not who is actually hired. No reason why a judge should not have a say when it comes to selecting candidates for police officers but who was talking about anyone having a veto? I wonder how many psychological evaluations lawyers and judges have to go through before they are allowed to work in their professions.

I think as soon as you set aside slots for vested interests, there will be no end to it. I don't know that it serves justice.

[August1991]

I think as soon as you set aside slots for vested interests, there will be no end to it. I don't know that it serves justice.

The vested interest is the Liberal Party.

Figleaf mistitled the thread and I ignored it. [i'm tired of such petty partisanship.] There's a background to this story that seems to have been ignored too.

Mr. André Arthur (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, during his inquiry, Justice John Gomery learned that federal judge positions in Quebec had been granted, in fact sold, in exchange for contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada, but he refused to investigate. Every citizen who will one day appear before these judges should be worried about this.

Quebec's chief justice is the former president of the Liberal Party of Canada; a credible investigation will not come from the current judicial authorities and the government has a duty to reassure us about the integrity of those who are able to decide on the liberty of other citizens.

Does the government intend to investigate—

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question and for his work and his concern on this file. Judicial advisory committees do operate at arm's length from the Minister of Justice in every province to vet candidates for judicial office. The committees include a variety of individuals from the legal and lay communities.

The government believes there is always room for improvement in the appointment process, as we did with the appointment of Justice Rothstein to the Supreme Court of Canada. The government remains open to examining ways in which the process can be improved.

Hansard

I took the list of judicial appointments made by the federal government since 1995 and combined it with the brilliant Unofficial Canadian Political Contributions Search Tool, and some interesting numbers popped out:

there are 99 unique names on the list of judicial appointments

of those names, 59, or 60%, appear on the Liberal Party donation rolls since 1993 (I eliminated one name that I could not resolve uniquely)

those names are responsible for a total of $109,700.32 in donations, or an average of $1,859.33 each

checking the date of the donation against the date of the corresponding judicial appointment, the total amount of donations subsequent to the judicial appointment totaled $613.09

In other words, fully 99.4% of the donations being made by these people whose names correspond to judicial appointments were made prior to the appointments.

Take for example, Claudette Tessier-Couture. She donated $136.74 in 2000, $1,150.00 in 2001, $1,000.00 in 2002, and $1,000.00 in 2003. She was appointed to the bench by Justice Minister Martin Cauchon in July of 2003. Going forward from 2003, not a dime.

...

What about the other parties?

Bloc Quebecois: $6,103.34

Progressive Conservatives: $2493.40

NDP: $120.oo

...

Total amount of donations to parties not Liberal: $8716.74, or just under 8% of the total donated to the Liberal Party in the same time period.

Link

What's the term the Left pulls out when they want to interfere in a private decision? Stakeholder? Well, choosing our judges is a public affair and it seems to me that the police are legitimate stakeholders in the choice.

[jdobbin]

What's the term the Left pulls out when they want to interfere in a private decision? Stakeholder? Well, choosing our judges is a public affair and it seems to me that the police are legitimate stakeholders in the choice.

So you are saying that judges are politicized and they need to have cops to keep them from being so?

The right wing in Canada and the U.S. has been trying to intimidate the judiciary for some time. This is a big one.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

[jbg]

Was the crime vigorously prosecuted? Was there any evidence that the Jewish mainstream community did not vigorously oppose the attempt?

I could ask the same about Muslim terrorism plots in Canada and the U.S. Did the mainstream support them? Did they not try to stop them? In Canada, it was Muslims who informed on those that would do Canada harm.

And yet you would have us attack and persecute those same people who have sworn their allegiance to law and order?

Oh come on!!!

Yes there are individual anonymous Muslims who rat out bad people. There are likely police informants cooperating in order to reduce their plea.

One constantly, both in Jewish publications and in sermons in synagogue, hears condemnation of the Jewish Defense League and similarly violent factions. There is some Muslim condemnation but overall the silence is deafening. The JDL plots and attacks have been small, pitiful and unfunded. Compare to September 11 anyone?

[jbg]

What's the term the Left pulls out when they want to interfere in a private decision? Stakeholder? Well, choosing our judges is a public affair and it seems to me that the police are legitimate stakeholders in the choice.

Do you have something against judges who paid for their posts or had them paid for by the Liberal Party?

[jdobbin]

Oh come on!!!

Yes there are individual anonymous Muslims who rat out bad people. There are likely police informants cooperating in order to reduce their plea.

One constantly, both in Jewish publications and in sermons in synagogue, hears condemnation of the Jewish Defense League and similarly violent factions. There is some Muslim condemnation but overall the silence is deafening. The JDL plots and attacks have been small, pitiful and unfunded. Compare to September 11 anyone?

September 11 was funded by Muslims outside the U.S. By all accounts, very few people in the U.S. even knew these men. They didn't mix with the Muslim crowd in the U.S. The JDL is funded and protected inside the United States. They often attend synagogues along with the rest of the Jewish population and everyone knows them.

Have you personally spoken out against the JDL or do you approve of their defence of your religion?