Paul Martin huffs and puffs about the non-political nature of judicial appointments.
But listen to this.
According to an article in today's National Post (Janice Tibbetts, January 20, 2006), when a Supreme Court vacancy exists, an advisory panel is commissioned.
Who gets to be on this panel?
MPs.
Legal experts.
Community activists.
Community activists? What are "community activists" doing influencing the choice of Supreme Court appointees? It sounds arbitrary. It sounds ideological. It sounds political. And it sounds undemocratic.
We don't need "activists" choosing Judges. Being an "activist" should automatically disqualify anyone from having a say in who becomes a Judge. Judges must pick-and-choose between competing ideologies; the ideologically-driven should not influence the decision of who becomes a judge.
Who appoints this panel? Who gets to choose the "community activists" that will be have a say in choosing our next Supreme Court appointment?
And who are these community activists? Evangelical Christians with a scary agenda to bring some moral sense back to the nation? Not likely. Gay-rights activists? Women's groups? Poverty activists? Euthanasia avocates? Prostitution advocates? I would like to know.
I'll tell you who probably does. Would-be Supreme Court appointees probably have a very good idea of who typically populates these activist panels. Having to pass muster with them, this further politicizes the appointments process and gives lie to the idea that appointments are august and impartial.
The idea of an impartial and neutral Court is one of the fictions that holds Canada together. It is a fiction which reinforces our contentment to be "ruled" rather than "ruling".
1 comment:
What are those activists doing with their hands in my pocket?
They seem to be constantly trolling for government handouts because no one will willingly finance their causes.
Post a Comment