Ex-justice shows breathtaking arrogance
The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, February 22, 2007
Re: Harper trying to 'muzzle' judges, Feb. 19.

As I read the fulminations of Antonio Lamer, I found myself in a state of disbelief that a former chief justice would entertain such views and be so incautious as to disclose them publicly. We are conditioned to the overblown rhetoric of the judiciary and the legal fraternity in defence of their current monopoly on judicial appointments, but the breathtaking arrogance of Mr. Lamer's assertions opens a new dimension in the debate.
Mr. Lamer states that the prime minister of Canada, speaking in the House of Commons in debate, is out of line in expressing his views on the subject of appropriate sentencing (views that Mr. Lamer acknowledges that he in a large part shares). This constitutes "muzzling" Canada's judiciary. Apparently he does not consider that his view is tantamount to muzzling the Parliament of Canada on a subject upon which most Canadians hold strong views.
He states that only judges and lawyers should appoint new judges, because all other members of the public, including the police, are ignorant of the requirements for such appointments. Thus the current cosy arrangement should continue, whereby lawyers have great influence in nominating other lawyers for federal judgeships. The fact that they have all spent their entire careers viewing the administration of justice from their clients' points of view does not apparently constitute any inherent bias when they sit on the bench.
Mr. Lamer has unintentionally accomplished two things. He has made a clear case for mandatory term limits for judicial appointments, and he has demonstrated the need for a fresh approach to such appointments -- one that grants to Parliament and the public an appropriate role in the appointment process.
D. B. Campbell,
Ottawa
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007

Breath of fresh air
The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, February 22, 2007
Re: Judges lash out at PM's comment, Feb. 21.

According to Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin the courts must be free to make rulings "irrespective of political or ideological considerations." In fact, every taxpayer in this country knows beforehand how the current Supreme Court of Canada will rule in a particular situation. The current justices were handpicked by the Liberals to promulgate their philosophies and ideologies.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has altered the selection committee to oversee the appointments. It is hoped that the new appointees will not create laws but rather interpret the laws provided to them via Parliament.
Personally, I do not call this "tampering." Rather, I see this as a breath of fresh air that just maybe will bring an end to this country's love affair with the perpetrators of crime and wrongdoing.
Leonard Jaros,
Woodlawn
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007

Other perspectives important when choosing judges
The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Re: Harper trying to 'muzzle' judges, Feb. 19.

I was pleased to read the acknowledgment from former chief justice Antonio Lamer that some judges these days are too lenient and some prisoners such as drug traffickers are up for parole too early.
The article also states that Mr. Lamer agrees with some of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's tough-on-crime initiatives. Mr. Lamer's observations validate my long-held views on both counts that I believe are shared by the vast majority of Canadians.
I am puzzled, however, by Mr. Lamer's opinion that judges should be screening judicial candidates seeking promotions and that lawyers should be vetting other lawyers who want to sit on the bench. This strikes me as a rather incestuous process that negates the value of other perspectives. Equally disturbing is his dismissal of the value of contributions by members of the public in the selection of candidates for the judiciary, because they don't know enough about the job of judging.
Perhaps Mr. Lamer should be reminded of our long-standing jury system, where members of the public, who are not experts in the law, are entrusted with the great responsibility of hearing and evaluating complex and often conflicting evidence, and reaching conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of persons accused of serious crimes.
As far as Mr. Harper's acknowledgement that he wants to appoint judges who are tough on crime, it seems to me quite proper for a prime minister who has the responsibility to make such appointments, to be open about what qualities he seeks in potential candidates for these positions. Were he not prepared to make his views known on such matters, he might be seen as having a hidden agenda.
Tony Manera,
Kanata
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007

Too liberal
The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Antonio Lamer's comments only strengthens my view that judges need muzzling.

For far too long Supreme Court of Canada justices have set about making our laws and setting social policies, while criticizing those governments that do not support what has become a decidedly left-wing agenda. They need to return to their primary role of interpreting and applying laws made by Parliament.
When the Harper government attempts to put more balance in our Supreme Court -- and hopefully teeth back in our justice system -- it is accused by people such as Mr. Lamer of interfering with sentencing. Ironically, Mr. Lamer admits there have been cases where sentences were weak. Actually, he should have gone a step further and pointed out that our courts have become a revolving door, with victims' of crime rights being trotted upon, as our courts go all out to protect the rights of suspects.
By suggesting judges should select judges, Mr. Lamer obviously wants to keep the status quo. As an integral part of the overall justice system, contrary to what Mr. Lamer says, having a police representative on the selection committee may in fact bring some common sense and non-partisanship into what has become a closed, an antiquated selection process.
Obviously, Mr. Harper has shaken our Supreme Court's cosy nest by wanting to make changes. Funny that when former prime minister Jean Chretien appointed Justices Rosalie Abella and Louise Charron, decidedly liberal thinkers, there was not a peep from any sitting or former Supreme Court Justice.
This highlights that the current Supreme Court, after years of Liberal government, has taken on a very liberal approach. The sooner our judges return to doing their jobs, rather than making social polices and upholding Liberal philosophies, the better for us all.
Larry Comeau,
Ottawa
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007