The Sun editorial board is celebrating the recent John Ibbitson column "Bob Rae and the China Syndrome", where he candidly admits that small-c conservatives and Albertans in particular have reason to be suspicious about media, judges and others in positions of power and influence.
A governing class of senior public servants, academics, artists, journalists, lawyers and judges belongs to a community of common interest physically and intellectually centred in downtown Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa.
Ibbitson continues:
For them, Stephen Harper is not simply a politician, he is a wrecker: a cold-blooded leader of a band of vulgar ideologues that, with every action, destabilizes the liberal consensus that has dominated the federal government for generations.
The Sun finds it ironic that this very frank observation comes from "a senior Globe writer and member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, two institutions many westerners (and others) see as house organs of the eastern liberal elites."
I managed to locate the original column by going through Google. This paragraph really resonated with me:
And on Conservative domestic policy, don't get the liberal consensus started. All this stacking of judicial advisory committees with police representatives, these barbaric proposals to impose mandatory minimum sentences and to abolish the gun registry...
In my recent post, New Drugged-Driving Legislation, Mac voiced his frustration regarding too-lenient judges that undermine the process of sending a serious message about impaired driving. The obvious solution seems to be to get some police input into judicial selection, but of course those elitist judges and lawyers have their knickers in a knot over that idea!
What's refreshing though, is to have a member of the actual power class come out with this admission. So we weren't just dreaming here! It is a real and serious undercurrent running through the Canadian political scene. The elitists see Bob Rae as their best chance of deposing the "wrecker" and regaining solid control of their power entitlements.
The Liberal Leadership Convention and the next general election will both be fascinating to watch as we witness the battle of the elitists vs. the last vestiges of democracy in Canada.
Let's hope that the dog starts wagging the tail again someday very soon.
* * * *
Update: Great editorial in the National Post by two U. of Alberta assistant law professors "Out From the Shadows". Not under subscriber lock!
Very interesting take on Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's protests about the notion of police representatives on judicial advisory committees. The whole idea seems so common sense to me that I have to wonder what she is worried about? Why not get everyone working together so we can actually deal with crime instead of just paying lip-service?
Assistant professors Brown and Yahya put the lie to her feeble concerns about "Judicial independence". Watch for this to be another left-wing mantra to be bandied about by self-serving sanctimonious opponents to Vic Toews' logical suggestion.
Update: Great editorial in the National Post by two U. of Alberta assistant law professors "Out From the Shadows". Not under subscriber lock!
Very interesting take on Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's protests about the notion of police representatives on judicial advisory committees. The whole idea seems so common sense to me that I have to wonder what she is worried about? Why not get everyone working together so we can actually deal with crime instead of just paying lip-service?
Assistant professors Brown and Yahya put the lie to her feeble concerns about "Judicial independence". Watch for this to be another left-wing mantra to be bandied about by self-serving sanctimonious opponents to Vic Toews' logical suggestion.
23 comments:
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you
Swift, how true. This could explain the on-going acrimony between Harper and much of MSM.
With regard to the Globe; I just finished and handed in for marking a 9 page review of the 4 major newspapers available in the Toronto area. I found that the globe was the most left newspaper in the market area(even more than the Toronto Star!!!). The study is about the "War on Terror" in particular and the editorial spin used by the publications over-all. Here is some of my closing statements from the report:My final opinion is that if you read all the major newspapers in the GTA, you will get everything from soft right to hard left opinions. In the end The Star and The Globe see the ‘War on Terror’ as something that can be negotiated into peace, and The Sun and The Post see the war as a fight for our very survival. The ‘War on Terror’, is just a small part of the news cycle that runs each day, everything from the local news reports to geopolitical happenings are painted by the media in the light that their reporters and editors would like the reader to see it in. The total of all media, (papers, magazines, radio, television, internet), plays a large part in the outlook the population has on the news of the day. The question of how much of an influence the media has on people’s outlook is difficult to pinpoint because there isn’t a good way to tell how much of the news and opinion is believed by the reader. I think that over all the readers must buy into the thinking of the writers, to some extent, or the papers would eventually go out of business through lack of sales. The influence of the media in world views holds great sway because people don’t congregate at churches much anymore, so the editors have become the preachers of our time; the beliefs of the editors are not questioned by the readers nearly as much as those held by the preachers. If we are Catholic we don’t go to the Sikh temple for our spiritual teachings, but if we are against abortion or euthanasia, we somehow accept the very writings of the people who endorse what we claim to be against; just because we don’t ask, and the editors are reluctant to tell. If we didn’t subject ourselves to the media at all we would probably hold closer to the morals that our faith and family have traditionally held.
What a bombshell! Please...do you have the entire article by Ibbitson?
Well done, Charles! I hope you get an "A" on that report.
The influence of the media in world views holds great sway because people don’t congregate at churches much anymore, so the editors have become the preachers of our time
Very insightful comment. People tend to read editorials, etc. as a quick way to digest the news instead of thinking for themselves, and getting their information from a variety of viewpoints. Probably many people are unaware that they are being manipulated; especially those who just read one paper.
Your take on the War on Terror reminded me of a letter to the editor in today's Record, which is a Torstar spawn (note the signature, BTW):
Bring our boys home
MOHAMAD EL-AINA
(Nov 21, 2006)
Why should Canadian soldiers be involved in the war in Afghanistan?
We should have said no to the Americans. We should make our own decisions, since we are Canadians. We shouldn't bother the people in other countries.
I know that Canada doesn't like to get involved in wars and that we are known to be a peaceful country, but look at what is happening now to our Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Almost every month we lose three to five soldiers in Afghanistan, in a war we could have avoided.
As a Canadian, I think we should bring back our Canadian soldiers from Afghanistan. They are dying now, and for whose sake?
We should make better decisions about how we're spending our money.
We should be helping the Afghan people by building new schools and hospitals, and helping the poor instead of sending our Canadian soldiers to fight.
Mohamad El-Aina
Kitchener
(Never mind that we are already building schools and hospitals, but the area has to be rendered safe or else it will all be blown up again. Sheesh!)
Please...do you have the entire article by Ibbitson?
I don't want to break their copyright restrictions, but just google the title of the article. It's as easy as that.
Joanne,
I read that editorial you showed in this mornings "The Record".
It's another example of someone that doesn't understand anything beyond their front door.
Sounds like the NDP mantra as of late.
K.C. - To be fair, that was a letter to the editor rather than an editorial. However, one wonders how these letters are selected, and to what extent they have an influence on other readers. This isn't the first time that I've read this type of argument. The Record credits itself on a diversity of opinion, and yet I just see the same old left-wing ideology being pumped in the Letters section.
Yes, NDP mantra to be sure. Also it is the Taliban's fondest wish that we withdraw. Maybe time to write another letter to the editor to lend some balance. *Sigh*.
Congratulations Joanne..I was on my coffee break and covered my keyboard with dark roast....as I read the stuff linked to Ibbitson's piece... ;)
I would like to take back all those nasty things I've said about him in the past because he has just (IMO) made amends for all of the dumb ass analysis of politics he's offered in the past. Who would have thought?
Ya' think he'll be getting a bug in the ear from the senior editorial guys at the Globe?
BTW - the list of so called "Governing Class" types...those are ALL people who exist at the largess of the taxpayer and common working man... "SERVICE" jobs....some would even say Self Service ...a class of parasites.
A group that needs to be forcefully reminded that in a democracy it is the citizens in general that rule...not the privileged or self important.
You think that's why WE scare them?
Congratulations Joanne..I was on my coffee break and covered my keyboard with dark roast.
Oops!! Sorry, PGP. I should have posted a warning first! ;)
I seem to have that effect on people. Brian at Home in Hespeler can tell you about a similar incident...
Interesting observation you've made about the elitist class being financially supported by the oppressed taxpayer.
I read an interesting suggestion by a lawyer the other day. Sorry I can't give you a link as I've forgotten which blog. The way to remove bias from our court system (political or otherwise) is as follows.
Anyone can apply to be a judge. (I suppose she meant any lawyer but I would open it to everyone)
Applicants would have to pass a test to prove extensive knowledge of the law, and further tests if applying for an appeals court or supreme court position. These tests could be limited to various specialties such as family, criminal, civil etc.
Judges would be paid on a case basis, not a regular salary.
The increase in the number of judges would make the following system possible.
In any court action the two opposing parties would have to agree on a judge.
Perhaps it could be done this way. If there were ten judges available for a case each party would submit a list of six names, at least one judge would appear on both lists. That judge would get the case.
Judges with known biases in an area would soon find their case loads drop to zero in that area. A good lawyer who knows a judge is biased against his client plans his case to give the best chance of getting grounds for appeal before the case begins because he knows the chance of winning the origional judgement are much less than they should be. This system should lead to a decrease in the number of appeals.
While I can see some possible problems with this method of running our judicial system, it does represent a great improvement over the current system of appointed judges or the possibility of changing to elected judges.
I read a piece years ago about the 'ruling cabal". It's not so much liberal vs conservative as it is east vs west. They had no problem with Brian Mulroney, as "one of us". They didn't mind John Turner, but his Bay Street position was further from the Ottawa-Montreal axis than Mulroney.
Interesting thoughts, Swift. With the backlog on the books now, I doubt it is practical, but it probably would get rid of a lot of biased judges if the process could actually be implemented.
L.S. - Good points about the East-West thing. Interesting that Western Standard's Shotgun picked up on my thread this morning.
I must be a Westerner at heart.
Vicki - I just looked that up. The quote reads, "You seem to have forgotten that the press represents the public". That is so lame.
I would have to assume that Greg Weston wrote that. Just one more example of the fact that you can't make a blanket categorization.
Greg Weston is to the Sun as Christie Blatchford is to the Globe. They should both cross the floor.
Four days before the Jan 06 election, Andrew Coyne wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/y73kqf
«Everyone is in hysterics over Harper musing aloud that -- shock! horror! -- the upper reaches of the government, whether the Senate, the civil service or the courts, might tilt a little Liberal after all these years ...»
Mr. Coyne continues:
«Have you met the Liberals? Politicization is what they do. I assume we can take the Senate's patronage role as read, or indeed red ...
And the courts? ... 89% of all political donations made by federal judicial appointees in Ontario since 1993 went to the Liberal Party of Canada. 92% of all political donations by federal judicial appointees in Quebec went to the Liberal Party of Canada. More than 60% of all federal judicial appointees in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba since 2000 donated exclusively to the Liberal Party of Canada in the three to five years before their appointment. Notice a pattern? (UPDATE: "Would you be surprised to find that almost all federal judges appointed from Saskatchewan are Liberal Party donors?"»
OK, some might dismiss Mr. Coyne because he leans to a conservative POV.
Well, here's former BlocQ MP Richard Marceau speaking in the House on a motion re: federal judiciary Appointments:
http://tinyurl.com/y4xgns
«The public perception of a politicized judiciary is based on facts. I would like to refer to the excellent work done by the Gazette and CanWest—and those words are not likely to come often from my lips; perhaps this day should be marked on the calendar. Elizabeth Thompson and Cristin Schmidtz, among others, have come up with the statistics. I will begin by quoting from an article by Elizabeth Thompson which appeared on page A1 of the May 6 Gazette. I will be reading it in the original, so I ask your forbearance for any mistakes of pronunciation I might make.»
Mr. Marceau continues:
«Nearly 60 per cent of lawyers appointed to the bench in Quebec by the federal government since the 2000 election contributed to the Liberal Party of Canada in the years leading up to their appointment, The Gazette has learned
If professors and public servants are factored out, the proportion rises even higher.
Of the 29 law firm lawyers appointed to the Quebec Superior Court or Quebec Court of Appeal for the first time during that period, 21, or 72.4 per cent, had made individual contributions to the Liberals.
In fact, The Gazette's investigation reveals that the overwhelming majority of contributions made by those later named to the bench was to the Liberal Party during the 10-year period of contributions studied.»
The proposal would allow an unlimited number of judges. More judges would eliminate the backlog.
Judges are on the public payroll.
To me this means two things:
First- They are costing me money and I expect them to do their job.
Second- They are SUPPOSED to be accountable to me and every other taxpayer and law abiding citizen.
If they are not doing their job they should be removed and if they are going beyond their authority they should be removed.
Bev McLachlin......... first in line for the boot
Gabby, thanks for that info. The stats are frightening! I don't really think that lawyers and judges should be making political donations at all. JMHO.
More judges would eliminate the backlog Swift, very true.
Bev McLachlin......... first in line for the boot Boy, you've got that right, PGP. She is the epitome of Liberal entitlement and arrogance. (Can I say that?)
Of course the stats are frightening. It's frightening that Coyne would make this stuff up.
Check this out:
http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2006/Riddell.pdf
that might not fit, so snipped:
http://snipurl.com/1305f
Around page 28 they say about 30% of appointees donated to the appointing party.
Perhaps the CPC will do things differently. Perhaps they won't follow the pattern of the defunct Progressive Conservative party which approached judicial appointments the same as the Liberals do. Mulroney did try to reform the system, but it didn't help a lot, even under his own leadership.
But the CPC might find that repudiating the old Progressive Conservative party loses some of the less radical right wingers.
Re: Chief Justice McLachlin, freelance columnist Brigitte Pellerin wrote an interesting article found here:
http://www.brigittepellerin.com/2006/rightsillyjudge.htm
Here's an excerpt:
"The silliness of Canada's top judge" Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday August 22, 2006
«According to the newspaper, Canada’s top judge is of the opinion that "As women more and more occupy important positions in society and in commerce, they need to feel at home in the courtroom" and that "many people, particularly women, may have less than complete trust in a system composed exclusively or predominantly of middle-aged white men in pin-striped trousers."»
Once appointed, a Canadian Supreme Court Justice is extremely difficult to remove from office. Justices are entitled to remain on the Court until the compulsory retirement age of 75, which means Justice McLachlin is there to stay until 2018 or thereabouts.
L.S. - Before you call Coyne a liar, I'd like to know if you followed the caveat on page one, which is to contact the authors of this draft before citing any information.
Gabby - Justice McLachlin is there to stay until 2018 or thereabouts.
Lovely. I'm going back to bed.
Giving a url found through google, and mentioning something from said document is hardly "citing" it in the conventional sense. If I was writing a proper paper, with biblio, references etc, then I would certainly follow standard research procedures. Mentioning that page 28 indicates something contrary to Coyne's view is fair use.
Calling Coyne a liar was not my intent. Making stuff up is a rhetorical comment, based on the fact that he it quoting someone else's work, which is based on admitted guesswork. The problem is matching names of donors to names of judges. The "draft" study considers their metric more strict, and comes up with 35% of appointees made some sort of donation. The one Coyne refers to found 49% of appointees donated. Further, he talks of number of dollars donated, rather than number of appointees donating.
And he doesn't bother to look at pre-1993 to see that the situation under the Mulroney government was not different. He tries to make it sound like only the Liberals benefit from this system.
But in the spirit of your libel chill comment, I hereby apologize to Mr. Coyne if my comment in the middle of someones's blog caused him any offence or caused any impugning of his reputation. I was simply pointing out what I see as mistakes and selective reporting in his piece. I have no reason to believe he is lying.
But in the spirit of your libel chill comment, I hereby apologize to Mr. Coyne if my comment in the middle of someones's blog caused him any offence or caused any impugning of his reputation.
I should be so lucky that he would actually read this blog.
Well my "frightening that he would make this up" was over the top and unnecessary to making my point.
Point being that lawyers contributing to political parties is nothing new. It makes sense that they do, since the Parliament's purpose is to make laws in the first place.
I like swift's comments for reforming the process. I don't like the elected judges idea either, but the appointment process could be improved.
Post a Comment