Harper trying to muzzle judges

[Leafless]

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper is trying to "muzzle" the judiciary by baldly acknowledging he wants judges who are tough on crime, says the former chief justice of Canada.

Antonio Lamer, in an interview with CanWest News Service, said he sympathizes with the Harper government's complaints that some judges hand out soft sentences, but the prime minister shouldn't be trying to influence the judiciary just because he's frustrated his justice bills are not passing in the minority Parliament."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is a former retired federal public servant publicly and openly and boldly criticizing Prime Minister Harper as if Harper is somehow interfering with the current sentencing procedure by judges which he is not.

This ex-chief justice should not be saying anything considering the fact mostly ALL federal court judges, have been appointed by Liberal friendly Quebec prime ministers.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The judge is speaking with some experience I would say. Considering he is retired I would tend to think he spent some time working inside the system. Considering his commentary and background I would suggest that he is entitled to his opinions and that they should be accepted as a credible source of information.

It is not news that governments stack the deck in every corner of bureaucracy to provide a like minded group of individuals working toward similar goals. What is new is that people are finally beginning to see the problems within such a system. At least some citizens are becoming more vocal in their opinions. The time will soon be upon us when there will be changes brought forth by a government that will actually serve the purposes of the citizens instead of the aspirations of those in political power. Not with this government obviously, nor likely with the next government. Even so, times always change, what citizens need to be aware of is that politics changes and society does evolve. Knowing this citizens can actually find some hope in the future.

[watching&waiting]

Lamer's whole position for this is that because Haper is having trouble in ledgislating things requiring harsher sentences, that then making requests for more severe sentences as interfering. I personally think he is wrong. Not only is it societies right to demand harsher sentences from the bench, it is just the way it is supposed to work. Lamers view is that he wants to see ledgislation that then compells a judge to harsher sentences, is wrong and is really just a cowards way out of things.

Judges should be bound by the will of the people as to where sentences should be and it should also be gauged on the damage to society that would make things more compelling to heavier sentences. The PM as the leader of the people not only should be the one who leads the call, it should also be that of many of the leaders in our society to also say when things seem to be unbalanced.

I do not care about who the CPC appoint as judges, as they are just doing the same thing as what has always been done in the past, and it should not be suprising that like minded people will be the ones who get the appointments. Only a fool would pick people who would openly oppose your own views.

Judges should not be forced by political will into making decisions but, there is nothing wrong with the political will of the people being considered and even should be so considered in many situations. The trouble with Latimers view of things, is it makes judges, almost god like and that they should never be. Judges are supposed to consider the harm done and balance that with appropriate sentences, and yes they should be made to consider all sides, and even the political climate, and societies own percepptions, before sentencing anyone. That is have it is supposed to be, not some special guilded chamber where judges only consider the cold rule of law and its small scope. They need to be drawing from a much wider scope of lifes experiences.

[Wilber]

Perhaps if judges stopped consistently handing out conditional sentences at the bottom of the range this would be less of an issue. We have an incident going on in Chilliwack right now where a car was shot at and a mother her small child were hit. According to the local RCMP this was not a random attack and both the owner of the vehicle and the suspects are in their words "very well known to police" meaning a little kid is now in hospital with a bullet in him because our courts continually let these people back out on the street.

[Technocrat]

The PM as the leader of the people not only should be the one who leads the call, it should also be that of many of the leaders in our society to also say when things seem to be unbalanced.

I do not care about who the CPC appoint as judges, as they are just doing the same thing as what has always been done in the past, and it should not be suprising that like minded people will be the ones who get the appointments. Only a fool would pick people who would openly oppose your own views.

Lets be very very very clear. The PM is the 'Leader of the Government', which is different from the 'Leader of the people'. An important distinction that should not be confused.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Sorry guy, that is not the courts fault its the government. The problem is not judicial, but instead legislative. You don't want these guys walking the streets, then you need to change the laws that govern the penalty phase of the judicial system. Change the sentencing, that is the problem here with what we are seeing today. So it goes right back to the government. Is it Harpers fault, yes. Then again is was the fault of all those that came before him, they didn't do anything about it either.

[Leafless]

I edited my opening post to include the link to this story but just noticed its not there, so here is the link:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...89941fe&k=37320

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This has got nothing to do with Stephen Harper appointing judges but rather simply appointing selection committees members that determine whether a candidate is recommended or not recommended and the minister of justice has the final say.

Mr. Lamer thinks all committee members should be from the legal community.

[geoffrey]

Mr. Lamer thinks all committee members should be from the legal community.

I tend to agree. You don't hire a bartender to find your next tenure track professor, you don't have store clerk hiring you biologists. The people most suited to judge the characteristics of legal professionals are legal professionals.

But hey, where is Baylee claiming that Lamer is distorting the division of powers and the Canadian system is going to come to end or whatever??

[Canuck E Stan]

I edited my opening post to include the link to this story but just noticed its not there, so here is the link:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...89941fe&k=37320

This has got nothing to do with Stephen Harper appointing judges but rather simply appointing selection committees members that determine whether a candidate is recommended or not recommended and the minister of justice has the final say.

Mr. Lamer thinks all committee members should be from the legal community.

There is a column by Lorne Gunter about this,

An artificial scandal

There are eight members on each of the 12 committees, for a total of 96 nationwide. Seven have a vote on each potential judicial nominee, while the eighth member --a sitting judge--acts only in case of a tie.

The current federal government appoints up to 36 of the 84 voting members, just as the Liberals did before them. It also selects another 12 from lists of police officers (an innovation introduced by the Conservatives), for a total of 48. The other 36 voting members are selected by provincial and territorial governments, law societies and bar associations.

Now it would be true that the Harper government had conspired to give itself voting control of the advisory committees if all 48 of its direct and indirect appointees (police officers included) were identifiable Conservatives. But despite all the digging by Liberal researchers and their admirers at other outlets, only 16 of 84 voting advisors have Conservative ties. That is hardly a partisan coup.

[Catchme]

First off, Lamer, as an retired Chief Justice has every right to make commentary on what he feels would be harmful to our judicial system, and in turn to Canada and Canadians. He is not bound by any oaths or binding rules, unlike Hillier let's say. Moreover, he is not being partisan in anyway, also unlike Hillier. And that fact is quite evident throughout his commentary in the article. As such, his perspective, insight and findings in this regard carry definite weight and Canadians would do well to listen when he says what Harper is doing is flawed.

And what is this with special interests groups? Harper, and the CPC, have long chanted there should be NO consideration given to special interest groups. Apparently, they were only speaking of special interest groups they did not agree with or recognize as being worthwhile. The hypocrisy is outstanding, as are the double standards that they do not appear to recognize as being significant and wrongful.

Then Lamer notes the secrecy about the selection process, and how committee members cannot even know who they really are selecting, as there is no full disclosure. Excuse me, but where is the accountability, and transparency? There is none. Moreover, why would there NOT be full disclosure for the selection, where else would find such a thing in either private or governmental hiring? No where.

Notwithstanding, is the fact how can people chose judges, who know absolutely nothing of the judical system? As Lamer points out, do they hire judges and lawyers to pickout fire fighters, or even police officers? NO. It is ludicrous and reckless, and a path that should not have been trod. The police cannot be considered as those who know the judical sytem, they may well, but they should never have been included in the selection committee in the first place. Judges are the ones who review what the police have done with the investigation and safe guard society with their ability to be impartial, and guard against wrongful convictions. This would be impaired by having police select the judiciary, and further impaired with the inclusion of other special interests groups in the selection process.

Lamer said, he agrees with some of the Harper government's tough-on-crime initiatives.

But the prime minister's assessment of what he wants in the federal judiciary fly in the face of judges' duty to be impartial, guard against wrongful convictions and hand out sentences as they see fit, the former chief justice said.

Lamer also denounced the much-criticized system of appointing judges to the 1,100-member federal bench, saying the process is "flawed" and there is no good reason that either police or community members should be involved in selecting judges.

Under the existing system, eight-member, volunteer panels in each province screen applicants to the provincial superior courts, appeal courts, the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal and Tax Court of Canada. Three members are chosen by the minister of justice, from the community at large, and many of the Harper government's picks are political partisans.

The Harper government recently added a member of the law enforcement community to each panel, sparking widespread condemnation from the legal community.

Police, as a special interest group, should be excluded, and members of the public simply don't know enough about the job of judging to competently select candidates, Lamer said.

Another flaw is the secrecy of the selection process, Lamer said. Committee members cannot ask around about the suitability of a particular candidate, so the committees are deprived of a full picture on the applicants they select.

The Harper government has recently come under fire for naming more than a dozen partisans to the committees, including a Cape Breton firefighter. The Liberals, while in power, also appointed partisan committee members.

Lamer said he takes no issue with the partisan nature of the appointments as much as he does with the fact they are not from the legal community.

"Why not have lawyers and judges on the panels picking the chief of the firefighters?" he asked.

[Canuck E Stan]

"Why not have lawyers and judges on the panels picking the chief of the firefighters?" he asked.

Why not?

[Wilber]

Sorry guy, that is not the courts fault its the government. The problem is not judicial, but instead legislative. You don't want these guys walking the streets, then you need to change the laws that govern the penalty phase of the judicial system. Change the sentencing, that is the problem here with what we are seeing today. So it goes right back to the government. Is it Harpers fault, yes. Then again is was the fault of all those that came before him, they didn't do anything about it either.

In most cases the penalties are there but maximum sentences are a joke because they are rarely if ever given.

[Keepitsimple]

Mr. Lamer's comments, rightly or wrongly, should be viewed in the context of recent stories relating to the Judicial "committees". This whole "tempest in a teapot" saga about the Conservatives unduly influencing the Judiciary - a Judiciary that arguable is already influenced by years of Liberal appointments - is a bunch of baloney. Lorne Gunter of the Post provides a good summary:

Monday » February 19 » 2007

An artificial scandal

Lorne Gunter

National Post

Monday, February 19, 2007

Before we go any further, let's get straight just exactly what the Harper government has and has not done on the judicial-appointment front.

Edited February 20, 2007 by Greg

[Riverwind]

In most cases the penalties are there but maximum sentences are a joke because they are rarely if ever given.

That is because most defence lawyers can usually find some mitigating circumstance that makes the offense in question less serious than the hypothetical 'worst imaginable offense'.

[Wilber]

In most cases the penalties are there but maximum sentences are a joke because they are rarely if ever given.

That is because most defence lawyers can usually find some mitigating circumstance that makes the offense in question less serious than the hypothetical 'worst imaginable offense'.

It is the judge who hands down the sentence not the defence. The sentence range is there and the judge is responsible for his decision, no one else.

[Canuck E Stan]

Mr. Lamer's comments, rightly or wrongly, should be viewed in the context of recent stories relating to the Judicial "committees". This whole "tempest in a teapot" saga about the Conservatives unduly influencing the Judiciary - a Judiciary that arguable is already influenced by years of Liberal appointments - is a bunch of baloney. Lorne Gunter of the Post provides a good summary:

Monday » February 19 » 2007

An artificial scandal

http://www.canada.com/components/print.asp...78-cbdecafd4c42

Keepitsimple,

Don't want to be too critical, but you really should read the posts, I posted this same article at 10:45 am this morning.

[Argus]

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper is trying to "muzzle" the judiciary by baldly acknowledging he wants judges who are tough on crime, says the former chief justice of Canada.

Except that Antonio Lamer said no such thing.

You are reading a report by a third rate reporter on a fourth rate newspaper. Don't expect accuracy.

[scribblet]

This says it for me:http://www.cjob.com/shows/adler.aspx

The Dion gang has also attacked the Conservative strategy to get tougher judges on the Canadian bench, antagonizing every victims right group in the nation. They feel the most appropriate metaphor for justice under the Liberals was a "get out of jail free" card. The Liberals say they aren't opposed to tough judges. They just don't want any with close ties to Conservatives. roblems is Liberals over the years appointed plenty of Judges who not only leaned Liberal, but raised money for the party. The mother's milk of politics is money, and Liberals are nothing if not sourcream on this one.

Not to mention this gem, campaign debates should be interesting !

"Mr. Harper is sending on the TV's in Quebec very negative ads about me, and making people mixed up, " said Dion, while attending a news conference about a new commuter program in Richmond Hill, Ont.

[Argus]

"Why not have lawyers and judges on the panels picking the chief of the firefighters?" he asked.

Why not?

In point of fact, Mr. Lamer's lack of forethought is exposed in this statement, which he used to dismiss the idea of having people who were not legal experts help make recommendations on appointing judges.

Because who appoints the chief of firefighters? Firefighters? Nope. Politicians, who are, for the most part, lawyers. The police chief is not appointed by police either. Do we have doctors vote on who runs hospitals? On who gets to be the chief medical officers at various cities?

It must be remembered that Lamer, like almost all Supreme Court justices over the last few decades, was not appointed because he was deemed a towering legal mind with great wisdom. He was appointed because he was friends with the Liberal party.

[Argus]

Sorry guy, that is not the courts fault its the government. The problem is not judicial, but instead legislative. You don't want these guys walking the streets, then you need to change the laws that govern the penalty phase of the judicial system.

There are wide sentence margins for most crimes. The problem is that judges refuse to hand out sentences that are anywhere near the high ends of the spectrum. This leaves the government with little option but to either drastically narrow the spectrum, which would lead to a lot of injustices, to impose mandatory minimums, which it has been in the process of doing, or to otherwise take the discretion away from judges who have shown their inability to handle that discretion.

Or to find a better way of selecting judges who better represent the will of the government and people of Canada.

[Catchme]

Judicial Appointments: Perspective from the Canadian Judicial Council

OTTAWA, Feb. 20 /CNW Telbec/ -

The Canadian Judicial Council released today an information document regarding judicial appointments. The document is intended to provide context to the process of selecting judges, which is of fundamental importance in our democratic society.

The right to an independent and impartial judiciary is one that belongs to all Canadians. As the Council notes in its publication Ethical Principles for Judges, "Judicial independence is not the private right of judges but the foundation of judicial impartiality and a constitutional right of all Canadians."

As one of the three branches of government, the judiciary has an important duty toward every person who comes before the Courts: to impartially hear and resolve disputes, to interpret the laws of the country and to uphold the Constitution. The primary qualifications to serve the public in that role include sound judgement, extensive knowledge of the law as well as the ability to maintain an open mind and put aside preconceived ideas about all issues that come before the Court. The selection process for judges must ensure that we continue to attract outstanding individuals with these qualities to serveas judges.

As we all know, from the Harper theo-con thread, the majority, excluding perhaps 2, latest appointees Harper has made to the judicial committee, have no qualitifactions to determine the quality of Judges need, as outlined above. Moreover, not only do they not have the qualifications, there is stong possibility that they DO NOT have open minds and any ability to put aside pre-conceived ideas that would foster an ability to make wise choices.

[geoffrey]

"Why not have lawyers and judges on the panels picking the chief of the firefighters?" he asked.

Why not?

Don't be silly. I think it's rather clear. That said, I think a more accurate comparision would be to have fire prevention experts on the panel to pick the chief.

Police have some valuable input, they see our justice system more intimately than we do or our judges do. They risk their lives for the justice system. That said, I think they should have some input into our legal system. Having police pick the judges isn't exactly the way I'd do it though.

I do disagree with the CPC on this one quite strongly.

Having a representative panel of police officers advise the government on legislation that would benefit their occupation on the other hand would be a great step.

[Spike22]

Some judges are real dogs and should be muzzled.

[FTA Lawyer]

It must be remembered that Lamer, like almost all Supreme Court justices over the last few decades, was not appointed because he was deemed a towering legal mind with great wisdom. He was appointed because he was friends with the Liberal party.

I'm not sure that former Chief Justice Lamer is the judge to use as your example here...many legal people actually would say he was a meritorious appointment.

True, he was brought up through the ranks by Trudeau, but Mulroney was the one who elevated him to Chief. If he was simply a "Liberal party friend" as you suggest, it's hard to imagine why a Conservative PM would promote him.

FTA

[Argus]

It must be remembered that Lamer, like almost all Supreme Court justices over the last few decades, was not appointed because he was deemed a towering legal mind with great wisdom. He was appointed because he was friends with the Liberal party.

I'm not sure that former Chief Justice Lamer is the judge to use as your example here...many legal people actually would say he was a meritorious appointment.

True, he was brought up through the ranks by Trudeau, but Mulroney was the one who elevated him to Chief. If he was simply a "Liberal party friend" as you suggest, it's hard to imagine why a Conservative PM would promote him.

FTA

Mulroney was not a conservative, he was just a politician from Quebec - as typically soft on crime as Lamer and the rest of Quebec.