Rafe, thanks, but you're really scaring me ...

Move over, Robin Mathews, here comes another truth-teller who sees corruption and says, "Hey, there's corruption!" Why am I surprised? Well, in B.C., we don't hear those truth-tellers very often. Hardly ever, in fact.

It's good -- in fact, essential -- to get these things right out in the open. Obviously, not everybody who knows about "these things" is actually willing to start the clean-up process by identifying what or who is the problem.

What scares me is that (a) the B.C. Rail trial is expected to begin on 16 April 2007 ... maybe. And already, in the defence application for disclosure, there are accusations made about the kind of hanky-panky Rafe is talking about here.

So (b) is there a planned approach to getting the trial of Basi, Virk, and Basi (the B.C. Rail trial) dismissed, stayed, thrown out? I mean, who -- except the general public -- would feel sad about that? That's a worry.

No matter what happens to Basi, Virk, Basi, the essential fact has always been: what happened to B.C. Rail?

Some of us took comfort in knowing that there was the Public Inquiry Act which could take up the effort. So the worst scare of all is (c) in last week's legislative session, the Gordon Campbell government rammed through Bill 6, a law to prevent the public from ever knowing the results of a Public Inquiry. Not a misprint: a law which acts AGAINST the public interest.

So British Columbians can call for a Public Inquiry (that's still legal); we can pay for a Public Inquiry (that's still legal); but we can be prevented from hearing the findings (after Bill 6, passed on 15 March 2007).

Please talk about that sometime soon, Rafe? Really, really soon.

The entire province is corrupt

When the court system becomes as corrupt as Rafe states, then civilization, as we know it comes to an end. When the courts put 78 year old women in jail while letting real criminals off scott free, then its time to bell the cat. The problem is "who is not afraid to bell the cat?"

The Campbell Liberals are a party based on deals and secret deals, deals made in secret are corrupt as no one can scrutinize them! Campbell's Liberals no make the Glen Clark NDP look good!

My sympathies are now with that small band of anti-poverty activists (who seem not afraid to bell the cat), who are challenging the status quo, the police (government agents) and the courts. I have no time for the courts as I see then as corrupt; a perfect example that justice is what you can afford.

BC and Canada are sliding down a slippery slope of tainted politicians, corrupt officials and get-quick fraud artists, the end result will be a fractured country, easy pickins for the boys down south, who are real pros at corruption!

Maybe I'll be teaching the current lot of rabble rouser's the fine art of Molotov cocktails, just in time for the Olympics!

You speak it straight, Rafe.

Ah, the stories we never get to hear. I'm sure it won't be long before some nutter shows up and says, "whats the fuss? In regards to...

"Hey, its a court of law. There's such thing as conduct. No special treatment for old ladies, that would be favoritism. They must of ran their mouths of in court. Looks good on 'em. And one died? Old people die all the time! And the fraud factory? So the guys related to Campbell. "Its just a coincidence!" Yah, won't be long before the nutters show up with this kind of talk.

"So whats wrong with a few drinks? Just ask Campbell. Everyone knows the pressures they're under. A buddy of his started asking questions of what the drunkard judge said in public, perhaps afraid of what might be said? Pure speculation, your honor. I asked that any undue suspicions be stricken from the record!"

"And clearly, it was Helms motorcycle asscociate's cocaine. Where's the proof that the coke was in the boxes? All the cops saw was boxes come out of Helms storage that later had large quantities of coke in them. Why, if anyone would just open up their fukin eyes!"

"And court is expensive for the middle incomers? Hodge posh. Look at Cambpell's relation by marriage. Court costs didn't cost him anything..."
:-)

Yah... I can't wait for the nutters to show and profess that Harper is on it!

"These are all old liberal judges after all. Hang 'em higher. Give 'em that taste of old fashioned "western" justice. Heheh. And a little $$$ never hurts. Just remember, its who you know. (wink wink). Yes, the last thing we need is impartial judges in such trying times..."

Yah, it shouldn't be long before the nutters show up with dullard mock quips like these. Shouldn't be long at all.

Good article Rafe. 5 stars, once again. ;-)

Lorne Mccuaig
Revelstoke

Local solution?

Stop looking to Ottawa to solve any problem outside of the 'magic triangle'.

Stop asking Victoria to dispense justice from the other side of Georgia Strait.

Time has come to elect the judiciary, locally, and hold them accountable, locally.

Look away from Ottawa and ask not from Victoria what we can do for ourselves.

Elect the judiciary?

No thanks. Lets educate people to be judges, cut the strings that connect the legal profession to politicians, and make judges real professionals.

Electing, we'd just end up with a worse, American style mess my friend.

"to place highly biased

"to place highly biased people in charge of enforcing fair play..." oh please--this is exactly why Harper is reforming the judicial appointment process, because that is what has been happening for years. Even Mair admits that events and questionable sentences have made current judicial conduct questionable. The federal liberals have been appointing their Liberal legal buddies to judgeships for decades--well qualified Conservative party member lawyers rarely bothered applying in the past because they knew how the quid pro quo system worked. The system is long overdue for a shakeup, and all the bluster from the left and Queen Beverly won't stop it. Their cozy club is about see some new members who have a different worldview.

Options

"Maybe I'll be teaching the current lot of rabble rouser's the fine art of Molotov cocktails, just in time for the Olympics!"

Unfortunately, this is a very real possibility. I listened to Dave Denis, of the United Native Nations, interviewed yesterday morning at 9:00am on 'NW by Cameron Bell (about the only one left there who can ask the right questions and pursue an answer). Scary stuff ahead.

Restrict access to information, fail to consult in a meaningful manner, use the deep pockets of the public purse to bully protesters or hide using the court system, and you choke off the normal avenues of dissent. Pressure will build.

Now we have Bill 6. I didn't hear any public clamour for this. The Liberals obviously anticipated a requirement for it though, and (surprise!) the major changes to the Act sure don't enhance the public's ability to get to the bottom of any government misdeeds. So add one more avenue blocked.

Baloney Dolphin - you don't want real reform at all

You and the conmen just want their turn at the tap is all? This isn't reform, it's just rearranging the chairs.

says Dolphin

So now we'll replace Liberal time servers with Conservative ones?

Wake me when it's over.

Nothing's changed - just the labels on the lapels.

We need real reform and that means getting professional judges onto the bench and not just a bunch of lawyers from establishment law firms. Judges shouldn't even be permitted to vote in any election. That's just one of the prices you pay for real professionalism.

Rafe addressed this a few weeks ago. Although it's far from perfect - the current provincial system of application, vetting and subsequent appointment for judges of the Provincial Court is much better than the Liberal/Conservative old boys club that prevails at the higher judicial levels for federal appointments.

G West

not my 'friend'

neither would we end up with an 'american style mess' as the ability to hold the judiciary accountable LOCALLY is what is needed.

but then we do not have that here, at Tyee, it seems.

Others have tired of it, I have not.

This G West character has used duplicity in the past to advance his arguments, suspect any 'persona' (non grata) that supports any argument put forward by G West.

For more details on this electronic 'persona' check out:
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/02/27/BoyTrouble/

you will need to scroll down and read the commentary a bit, but real 'lousy judgement' can be seen in nearly every word typed in by G West.

Oh and for you, G West:
go away, do not go away angry, just go away

Access is key to a good judiciary

Probably the very worst thing we could do to our judicial system is elect judges. Can politicians ever make unbiased decisions? Just watch Miracle on 34th Street and see the political conversations in the judge's chambers.

The judiciary and the courts are supposed to level the playing field. Political influence and money is supposed to disappear in front of the judge. Unfortunately, those less affluent continue to complain that this isn't the case. Our judicial system is set up to favour those that can afford big legal bills. Conservative governments continue to erode the average person's access by slashing funding where they could rightfully challenge decisions made by ideological governments.

Interestingly enough, it was the NDP that supported the Conservatives changes in the law regarding sexual consent of minors. A reasonable approach in changing laws for the 21st century is clearly available. Politicians too afraid of upsetting their backers are holding us back. Personal fines and jail time for CEOs and Directors that mandate policy that pretty much ensure environmental accidents would be a nice step.

i naively thought this was

i naively thought this was going to be an article about the courts and was looking forward to reading it. unfortunately it became glaringly apparent that it was nothing more than one of rafe's political rants when he said this: "Then there was the skilful abuse of the courts by the provincial government in which the government got the courts in to enforce the government's decision on Eagleridge Bluff." come on raif, you should know better than that, at least i used to suspect so. you sound like an amateur here, and it's actually a little sad. looks like cknw knew something some others didn't.

Thanks for that murdock

Always pleased with a little more publicity.

Now, on the subject at hand: Why do you think 'electing' judges in a good idea?

I'd like to hear some reasons.

errata

that should be 'is a good idea?'

Access and election

In our past, here in BC, we did elect our officials, all of them ~ locally.

Those self-same officials then had to answer for thier actions and decisions ~ locally.

Now, we only 'elect' a party, then when that 'party' takes all the power unto itself, as we have given that power to them, and then makes sure that the rules of the game are sorted out to 'work' in their favor ~ WE COMPLAIN?!?!

WE, collectively, can elect our judges. Whom then will serve locally.

What do I mean locally?

How about by municipality?
Ballots filled out at the same time the municipality are, now the 'party' cannot 'stack' the benches as they please...they will be too busy staying in 'power'.

How about by Provincial Supreme Court?

These judiciary could only serve once they had been elected once in a municipal court bench position, and then cannot serve consecutive terms on Supreme Court (each 'term' being 3-8 years in length). Possibly only 'replacing' 1/2 of the judges on the Supreme Court at any one time.

Ultimately, unless the civil populace has a 'say' in whom governs (writes the laws) and in whom enforces (police, military and judiciary) the laws of that society all you are left with is dictatorship, whether openly displayed or covertly operated.

El

So let me get this straight.

You think house arrest and community service for a serial abuser is an appropriate sentence?

Could we have a short essay on the comparison between the harm Betty Krawczyk inflicted on the community and that of Tom Ellison's 'contributions' to the greater good.

Please remember to refer to that old adage about the punishment fitting the crime.

References to well known politicos like Doug Wall would be helpful.

I'll be waiting. I think Rafe is doing just fine btw.

A platform...

writes Chris H,

I suspect that you would vote for a Judicial candidate that included that in their platform description?

yet you will not take the step of removing the power to appoint from those whom say they 'govern for all'?

Electing judges

Interesting concept murdock...and, conceptually at least, I wouldn't have a problem as long as the choices citizens were making when they vote for judges are not in any way polluted with associations to any political or special interests.

So, if you're willing to support:
(a) a professional training system run independently (as is the case in many European countries) from which all candidates for judicial office must graduate;
(b) that is in no way associated with government, political party nor any private or public law school or legal firm;
(c) that no judge once in office can vote in any election for the rest of his or her natural life; (whether sitting as a judge or not) and
(d) that judicial elections should be nothing more than a list of names on a ballot and that said elections cannot be held concurrently with any other election, federal or provincial, and further that no judge candidate can campaign in any public way beyond listing his or her cv in an approved fashion.

EUnder such a regime then I don't think I would have a problem with elections.

I doubt anyone will go for it.

I still think severing the ties between politics and the potential pool of judicial appointments is a vital need - I just don't think injecting electoral politics into the mix is a good idea.

I am certainly in favour of much shorter terms for judges - whether appointed or elected.

Accountability hahaha

In our past, here in BC, we did elect our officials, all of them ~ locally.

Those self-same officials then had to answer for thier actions and decisions ~ locally. ... murdock

Yeah, that sure worked great with David Emerson didn't it. I held my nose and voted for him only because it was the best option to block the Conservatives. arrgggghhh

Bitter? Oh, just a tad.

As has been proved in countless elections, and in the Olympic referendum, etc. The determining factor is the amount of money to be spent on advertising, and even more significant the amount of free spin and sabotage provided by the main steam media whores.

Murdock

"I suspect that you would vote for a Judicial candidate that included that in their platform description?"

Absolutely not! You would want a judge writing up new law based on nothing more than his personal beliefs? What you are suggesting is no different than a judge making it a law that everyone had to eat cheese on Friday. The government makes the law; the judiciary interprets that law and makes sure it doesn't conflict with the Charter. Law is debated in the legislature or parliament. We do not need Judge Dredd's walking around. Elected judges in the US don't make law, they interpret and apply law that legislators have enacted. Unfortunately, this is difficult for them to do properly when the proper interpretation of the law will be unpopular with their "base" voters. Judges should be appointed because they have shown great competency in understanding and applying law without bias (ie whatever their personal opinion is on the matter).

Murdock, you don't seem to understand the judiciary at all. There are some excellent courses you can take from SFU on the Canadian Criminal Justice System. Perhaps your views would change if you knew something about it.

Enough already!

About molotov cocktalis:
The time is approaching when a revolution will be our only way to get things changed!
We are being outsmarted by the folks we elected, to the point where we will have no say whatsoever.
In spite of the media,a time will come when even the couch-potatoes will grasp that they are being used.
Yes, we may see some taxbenefits this budget, is that the price of liberty?

I think talk of molotov cocktails is ...

irresponsible.

We need to fix the system for the good of everyone and not burn it up. No one wins if the folks with the power start using violence to keep it - and they will.

In some cultures, like Mexico, it may be a valid method to 'start' considering... here it shouldn't even be on the horizon.

G West

You've got my vote.

I'm willing to take it to the 21'st century.
Remove the bais completely, remove the lawyers!

We have the technology to totally computerize the legal system.

Law enforcements job is to gather evidence.
The lawyers job is to ensure the evidence is
accurate and thorough.

Computers can assess the "evidence" and offer a judgment.

No more buying a verdict.

Disease runs like yeast through the whole dough

Good penning Raif
I hope your training up little Raifs or have apprentices sitting at your feet to share some of the workload, because the system is ripe with corruption to expose, too much for one man alone.

It is a distorted commentary on a society that today "USES" the rule of law to meet out injustice and sift the wheat from the chaff (which appears to be more of a Monsanto terminator variety these days)in affecting its agenda on the commoners crying out with a loud public voice whilst whitewashing the offenses of the elite who keep silent behind their filthy rich lawyers.

Deep inside me I feel bad that I have little remorse for Wally Oppals diseased state. The same cancerous disease that riddles the body of the appointed eunuch head of the BC justice system, infects the system he stands guard over. The spiritual principles in play here are astoundingly clear and righteously true.

The sad fact is.........

Canada is slowly slipping into oblivion; our politicians, craving power, will share non. Good examples are the GVRD and TransLink, where politicos appoint themselves to other political positions, claiming it would be undemocratic to elect people to the same positions.

We have bureaucrats now telling politicians what to do, yet bureaucrats do not answer to the public. The police are a law unto themselves but in a pinch, cover the politicians asses, because the politicians cover their asses.

Drug and other laundered money keeps the various political machines grinding away. In the end, something will snap. Revolutions can be violent or quiet, but I'm afraid in Canada it will be nasty and long.

Evil days are ahead. And if you think I'm nuts;
" And those boxes contained a substantial quantity of cocaine. In acquitting Hehn, Mr. Justice Leask observed: "He'd have had to have been out of his fuckin' mind to store it in his own locker, all right?" That the stuff was in Hehn's locker and two policemen saw him take it from there was apparently insufficient evidence."

There is something wrong and maybe all that is needed is flaming bottle of petrol to ignite the passions of the underclasses.

We are by nature political animals.

G West

The politics will still be there. All the labels that currently exist will continue to be applied.

Just who will be responsible for selecting candidates for judge school?

Baloney They don't have to.

Some judges, even in this day and age, rise above their limitations and background. Professionally trained ones would just do it a lot better and more consistently. You'll also note that I mentioned term limits which will open up the field to a lot more new entrants, by the way.

There are professional schools for justices in a number of European countries snert.

People will get in just as they do into things like medical school today - academic aptitude, interest and desire to be a part of a fairer system than we have now. People even get loans to help pay for higher education, or is that something new to you as well.

Speak for yourself, by the way, politics has no place in ANY court room, just like Mr Justice Peter Leask's bad language had no place in any court room.
You might be interested to know that he had a career before he became a judge too -
Only people who don't want change throw up their hands and suggest it can't happen. Such hopelessness is the sign of a dying culture, not a vital one.

G West

Once again with the deflection. Once more with the the typo ventriloquism.

Another question, what countries? You keep alluding to this. Name them please.

Snert

I'm simply not interested. Okay.
What I said was perfectly clear.

We are by nature political animals.

is what YOU wrote.

I'm interested in finding ways of being more humane and less political. And getting the nonsense out of what is supposed to be a system of justice and not a playground for political appointees.

I have no idea what you're interested in - I think our culture is dying and people with attitudes like yours are evidence of the fact in my view. As to your last question, I have no idea what you're implying.

This is what I wrote:

And I was talking about here, in Canada.

As for countries who train judges specifically for that profession, there are several of them in the EU. If you want to learn about some of them, start with France.

And 'deflection', again, I have no idea what you're talking about. You're actually a waste of time and I'm not interested in being your gopher.

I try to write very simply and clearly. You just need to start reading a little more carefully.

What Countries?

G West

You just had to explain yourself so obviously you don't write as simply and clearly as you think.

.......Wait for it......

So time for a revolution

Rafe’s article simply presents what increasing numbers of Canadians know to be the truth. Most of us however cannot express ourselves as articulately.

The courts are said to be one of the three classic branches of our representative democratic system of government. Until very recently they had remained the one branch that most Canadians still believed warranted their trust. It appears that attitude was largely the result of ignorance. Most of us have little if any direct experience with the courts. As I have said before, as a self-represented litigant facing powerful adversaries one soon has the opportunity to see the reality. And it is quite ugly.

The Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin, is repeatedly cited in the press talking about two issues. One is the judicial appointment process. The other is the plain fact that most Canadians have no practical access to pursue justice in our so-called justice system. Of course the two issues are connected. To date the press has declined to connect the dots and get beyond the most simplistic editorializing.

The appointment process obviously needs to be radically reformed and some good suggestions have been made here about how. What will it take to put that issue before the nation? Perhaps that’s the question.

We are dealing with a political establishment that has, for the most part, a vested interest in preserving the status quo. That establishment includes more than just the obvious government and corporate interests: e.g. academe, the trade unions, the media, and even NGO’s that claim to advocate for change. They are all connected by money and personal relationships. The judges are members of that establishment and so their most important role is preservation of the existing order.

“Law and order.” Order is the goal and law is just a tool. Like any tool it can be used or misused.

We are here discussing these issues through a new medium whose nature and power was unanticipated just a decade or two ago. In the late eighteenth century two unprecedented revolutions, in France and America, overthrew established orders that had refused to embrace change. Those revolutions were the result in large measure of rapidly increasing literacy and the rapid expansion of communications through print media. People began to think for themselves, to debate and develop new ideas and above all to dare to question the wisdom of the established order.

The Americans had to fight a war in order to implement those new ideas. I believe the Internet gives us the means to achieve the same ends without any bloodshed. I expect to be in court again this year and that is part of the message I will deliver to the judiciary.

Lousy Judgment

Posting here.

The "context" is that "judges" are political hacks and the Supreme Court has begun making policies. Anything that can change that trend is positive.

Who cares what the "content" is?

Sorry snert

That's it. Don't bother me.

You are nothing but a waste of time. No one else needed an explanation and now you poke fun at me for providing one for you.

Never again. Keep up or fall back, you're on your own.

Well said Chris B

I wish you well. You'd be surprised how many lawyers would wish to have the system changed for the better too.

Several of them in my own family.

Bonne chance!

Me poke fun at you?

G West

Why would I possibly do that? I ask for a list and you provide one item. A typical tactic of yours. If nobody else cares what you say that's their concern not mine. It was a legitimate question that , for whatever reason, you don't wish to answer so you blame me. No problem keeping up. we're not even on the same road.

snert

What do you not understand about 'I'm not your gopher?'

I told you some countries that use a different method to educate their judges are in the EU. That means the European Union. I told you to start with France.

More than that simply shouldn't be necessary. I write clearly and simply - the onus for actually reading and understanding is on you. Unless you're less than 12 years old.

I could care less what road you're on because I don't even know what that 'means' in this context. I do know you're not keeping up or you wouldn't have required any clarification.

It was not a legitimate question, in my view.

I'm not blaming you - it's apparent you can't help it.

thanks Rafe

another great article. If it wasn't for the Tyee, and writers like you, we would have precious little investigative journalism in BC.

The Jan 29'07 New Yorker had a great article about the stranglehold of the Russian political elite on the Russian media. Striking and startling similarities to BC.

For Chris H

Do you mean that you do not take these items into account when considering whom you will vote for as an MP or MLA?

you completely misunderstand how 'law' gets interpreted in a courtroom, how else does someone whom has been seen WITNESSED by an officer of the law carrying Cocaine out from his locker, then when found with the materials he gets charged. Yet this WITNESS (the habeus corpus of our common law) is dismissed by a judge?

Whom is re-interpreting the LAW?
Whom is 'exercising' Lousy Judgement?
As Rafe Mair has so eloquently put it!

That is what the textbooks in our highschools say...do you know what the reality is?

And that is all I am calling for...nothing more and nothing less. In fact some 'lay' judges whom are not professional litigators can be of some value.

This is YOUR opinion, not the reality that FACTS have borne out in places where judges are elected. Situations like we face now, where rapists are allowed to walk free while a slighted judiciary ~ when confronted with grandmothers reacts like petulant children.

Bull, and whether you will admit to it or not is meaningless. Judges are humans, with opinions and feelings all the same as the rest of us. They are not some 'super-men' that have magically gained intuitive powers just because they put on a black robe. You may belive this bunk if you wish and when the current 'appointees' decide to hand over the reigns of power totally to the legislatures then you can enjoy the bad taste in your mouth.

You make this accusation rather ilghtly, especially considering that I have to prepare evidence for courtroom presentation.

You still think that the textbook definition of what the SFU teachers spout our is reality.

Go sit in a courtroom, see how it does not work, see things like valid WITNESSES being casually thrown out by power-mad judges.

See victims of crime being victimized again, by that all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful judiciary that does not have to face ANY public scrutiny of their actions.

Contempt is another thing...

I have been rather busy these days as a full time parent but I will make one comment:

When it comest to contempt of court, it doesn't matter how old, sickly or justified the accused is. Directly defying a judge's orders will land you in jail.

It is that simple.

ov ~ not paying attention?

regarding accountability.

Members of Parliament, or MP's are not electedby party list, they are elected by the person, or individual Member of Parliament.

Just because you believe the lies about party control crap or you happen to 'vote' strategically does not change the fundamental fact that you are voting for a person, not a party in the House of Commons.

The lesson to take from this is to no longer accept the party line (lies) and only vote for independant candidates. 308 inde's in the House of Commons would bring about real change in the canada!

In the end Emerson's jumping into power only adds to the need to have the judiciary elected.

Why?

For a municipal bench, those judges would need to consider the needs of the community, something that they do not include at all in their judgements, which mostly come from case law in Ontario; not from the mores and needs of the persons standing before the bench at that time.

For a provincial supreme court bench, the slow march of change in mind and opinion of the electorate would apply pressures to see those whom have 'broken the law' be actually punished! Those judges whom cite ancient case-law and not the habeus corpus of what is actually standing before them would find themselves tossed out on their collective ears, like Emerson will very likely be if he were to run in Vancouver again.

Working Man

regarding 'contempt of court'

I have seen many lawyers toss out for this kind of trite behaviour, so far only one ~ to my knowledge ~ actually stayed in their holding cell more than the afternoon for their 'contempt' and got out without having to perform any appology.

The jailing of Betty Krawczyk for lawful protest is a perfect example of the sort of child-like foot stamping that the judiciary is engaging in by 'giving' her what she wanted.

Considering another member of the bench regularly uses profanity in his courtroom, who cares if Betty Krawczyk called the judge every nasty name under the sun? This is the 'contempt' that she is 'doing time for'.

She was not charged with the interference of the construction site, but with refusal of an order of the court. She would not appologize and continued to flip off the judge, KNOWING that this action would get her what she wanted.

Since our judiciary is supposed to be so very mature and wise and all-knowing then why did the judge give in to his own POOR JUDGEMENT and let this little temper tantrum get in the way of good judgement?

I'll tell you why I think so:
The judge is above the law in the case of contempt of court. Watch for more judges to continue using this tool to get what they want...it will only get worse before it gets better.

Chris H says that he does not want Judge Dredds out there running around doign whatever they want, well make sure you do not piss-off the immature current judge dredds Chris, since you will be charged with contempt and summarily punished, no lawyer, no hearing, no habeus corpus, just jailed.

murdock

I still don't think you've addressed the fundamental problem with electing judges, which I tried, at some length, to do above.

I don't want judges with political coattails either, whether appointed or elected. The real necessity for change is far more radical than a simple election will address, in my view. As for community mandated justice, I'm aware of too many frightful consequences of that kind of thing from history for me to be very sanguine about its prospects.

In my view, you have the argument exactly backward. Elections would only permit more "Emersons" into the mix - this time ones on the Bench - and ones who don't even make pretence about impartiality.

Your observations about the behavior of former UBC law professor and Harvard Graduate, not to mention officer of the BC Law Society, Mr. Justice Peter Leask of the BC Supreme Court may, or may not be accurate as to the facts and the credibility of the witnesses in that case. Unless I'd read the transcript - which I don't think has been published yet - I couldn't possibly comment intelligently. If you were in the court, which I doubt, then I'll accept your interpretation. If you weren't, which I suspect, then I certainly agree at a minimum that the Court was owed an apology and - for the rest of the matter - I'll withhold my judgment.

Much needs to be changed. On that, you have my wholehearted agreement.

The last time....

When was the first timeBetty Krawczyk went up for contempt and who was Premier?

Defying a court order will land you in jail.

Simple, eh?

Appeal

"Chris H says that he does not want Judge Dredds out there running around doign whatever they want, well make sure you do not piss-off the immature current judge dredds Chris, since you will be charged with contempt and summarily punished, no lawyer, no hearing, no habeus corpus, just jailed."

And, I can appeal that decision to a higher court. And, I have been to court as a witness and an observer.

There has to be a line between those that legislate laws and those that enforce them. While I vote for MLAs and MPs who say they might legislate laws I think are needed, I surely wouldn't want them able to act as judge and jury enforcing them. Can't you see the inherent danger in that? It doesn't matter to me if a judge is a conservative or a liberal. What matters is if he/she can interpret the law correctly and without bias. He/she is able to use the various judicial tests to ensure an unbiased verdict. Judges decisions are almost always well thought out, and after reading hundreds of decisions, I could detect no wide-spread problem, particularly by higher courts.

My father-in-law took a large corporation all the way to the supreme court of Canada and won. If it wasn't for his financial resources there is no way he could have lasted the 7 years it took to get there. That is what is wrong with our system, not that our judges are appointed. That is just a right-wing red herring the social conservatives put out there so they can get the biased charter decisions they want to enact their social agenda.

It seems it is the sentencing that makes everyone upset. Remember, the main purpose of our correctional institutions isn't revenge, but protection of the public. The US puts more people in jail than any Western democracy and what has it got them? I agree that Betty K's 10 month term seems out of whack with her crime. I do, however, question the disrespectful tactics she showed the court. The judiciary is there to protect everyone's rights, including hers.

Chris H

I think the distinction comes from the fact that Betty Krawczyk was making a POLITICAL point in the only way she was able to do it.

Rafe pointed this out quite clearly in his article. In fact this is what he wrote:

[my emphasis]

In Betty Krawczyk's case, it is the pusillanimous behavior of the Campbell government that ought be condemned as shameful - not to mention the totally inappropriate suborning of the instruments of justice for such a selfish and political end. Although, from some reports of the sentencing, it appears Madam Justice Brown did not cover herself with glory that day either. Perhaps she was embarrassed – she should have been, in my view.

I think Judges simply can't be 'permitted' to be political and severing the supply chain from politics and establishment law firms (not to mention the law school track to judicial appointment) is the essential first step in a reformed judicial atmosphere.

I do agree though that, despite a compromised system, Canada has produced many fine judges – but that is, in my view, beside the point. It’s time we stopped trusting to luck and remade the whole business.

One other tiny point

Folks who, in the modern age, still require costumes of ermine and scarlet to symbolize their gravitas seem to me somewhat out of place in a contemporary courtroom - in a Gilbert and Sullivan Operetta - they would not be out of place at all.

The American press, some of them at least, had the wit to point out how absurd the stripes the late Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist added to his robes when he became Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court actually were - particularly in a Republic. Somebody ought to point out to Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin that she looks more like Mrs. Santa Claus in that picture than the erstwhile leader of our Canadian judicial clan.

Wow us with your intellect but leave the haberdashery and fancy dress in the closet where it belongs, my view.

lousy judgment

The first step to judicial reform must be universal, free legal aid for individuals. Corporations can pay and should be denied the same benefits that must flow to ordinary citizens. The second step must include an evaluation process for each judge. Three poor evaluations over three years and the judge would be given his/her walking papers. Step three must be the elimination of the title "QC"--too many lawyers and judges believe they are above the common man. Step four must include intervention by senior governments to insist that the courts system operate efficiently. I have seen first hand, on a number of occasions, and in different courtrooms, the day to day operations--it sucks--it is grossly inefficient, disorganized and nobody, from court clerk to judge to witnesses to the accused seems to know what is going on. It is absolutely pathetic and a complete waste of the taxpayers' money. Before getting around to looking at the actual sentencing (which is sometimes a complete travesty) the system must be made to operate effectively.

Dugald Christie

Guess you're aware, Pender Paul, that Dugald Christie's case against the BC Govt over the legality of taxing legal services - especially those services provided for the poor and as part of legal aid - is at the Supreme Court. The result will be interesting.

What a shame Christie won't be here to hear it.

Chris H's Appeal

You cannot appeal a contempt of court conviction.

No other judge (dredd) will overturn the comptempt ruling of another for fear of the entire contempt proceedings being seen for what they are...a travesty of justice.

Great that you have been witness and observer, then you at least have had a small taste of what really goes on. Since you have why were you posting that garbage about needing to learn more at SFU?

yes there does, and we DO NOT HAVE ANY SUCH LINE RIGHT NOW.

the legislators get to hand-pick the enforcers at the moment, did you consider that?

you seem to have completely misunderstood my point about electing judges.

THE CANDIDATE FOR MLA or ALDERMAN is NOT the SAME AS THE CANDIDATE FOR JUDGE.

They are different people, having to contest for their positions at the same time. Making it impossible for the MLA or ALDERMAN to be both law maker and interpreter at the same time.

Yes I can totally see the danger in having the Legislators having the POWER to appoint judges as they please...the longer a government remains in power the deeper the connectivity between legislators and judiciary will become, until we get the sort of garbage coming out from the Canadian Supreme Court that we have now, where charter challenges are going to have to be 'notwithstanding' in order to get what the ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the day wants, only because the judiciary is so stacked with back-room boys from the former government.

Separate the two, make them both accountable to US, thee and me ~ at the moment only the ALDERMAN, MLA or MP's are and even then only just barely...

murdock

I'm still far from convinced that you've made any kind of a cogent case for electing judges - at any level. Why do you see that as optimal - at least under the circumstances attendant in most 'political' elections?

I understand your dyspeptic attitude toward the current situation but I see your nascent scheme as being - in terms of special interests - possibly worse and excessively local.

I don't want my next-door neighbour running for a judgeship at any level. He's very popular, but he's an idiot.

Do you get my drift?

Realistically

It’s encouraging to see at last such an open discussion of these issues. Hopefully after this thread is closed it will continue elsewhere.

The subject of contempt of court interests me. I have previously had a judge order me to pay a “costs security” before my case could proceed. I figured that was a pretty sleazy tactic, but how many more are there? Recently I was in court to observe another individual pursuing judicial review against the same adversaries. They got the judge to find that his efforts were “vexatious” (Rule 19(24)) and bar him from any further actions. The government lawyer with whom I am now dealing has said he intends to seek a Rule 19(24) judgement against me because he claims I have no “reasonable claim” (though I cannot see it succeeding).

Can anyone give me a practical explanation of contempt of court? I am anticipating that may be the response of the court to what I intend to say when I get back there. How does that work? Are the proceedings halted while I’m carted off to jail? Am I fined and we continue?

Contempt...realistically

the way I have seen it work is: anything the judge at the moment decides is contemptuous of his position or of his authority of of the authority of the crown.

Translation: if they (the judge dredd) 'feels' that you are being contemptuous, then you are judged as being so, no appeals, no arguments (as this is seen as supporting that you are not contrite about your contemptuous attitude).

good luck, best bet would be to 'phrase' your argument (I do not know what the problem is) in a way that has been accepted by an english court in the past. A good source is the Royal courts of the 1700's as they were really nasty to the crown sometimes and 'got away with it' in court.

anyway the judge wants it to, s/he could ask you to 'rephrase' your statement (in a really nasty tone) or just be like the petulant child in a big black robe with a gavel, bang it down and state that "you are in contempt" then turn to a sheriff and tell them to cart you off to a cell until you are ready to appologize etc.

The carting off I have seen a few times to defence lawyers whom pushed the limits (but they did so in the 1700's techniques) and later in the day (normally just as the judge in question is getting into his car to leave) the lawyer gets released, without ever 'performing' the demanded appology.

nope, not if you have a liar -ahem- lawyer there to represent you. if you do not have such a person you can be found in contempt then assesed whatever after you leave the room (remember that the charge of contempt is decided by the judge in question, so no habeus corpus is needed).

maybe, it all depends on the impossible to predict circumstances and whether the judge in question had a nice breakfast ... ?

Sure you can appeal

You can appeal any judges decision to a higher court. Here is an example of an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada on a contempt of court:

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc8/2007scc8.html

Murdock, you can rant and rave about how evil Canadian judges are, but it just makes your arguments weaker. The US courts are so highly politicized that I can't see any reasonable Canadian wanting to go there. For all the "accountability" you get out of electing judges, how much accountability is their to the Democrat defendant in red state or a Republican defendant in a blue state? When I go in front of a judge here, his/her politics is irrelevant. It's the law that matters, and that is the way it should be.

murdock

Still no cogent case for electing judges I see.

How come?

appeals and handling the system...

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/12/12/canadian-judicial-council-issues-self-representation-principles/

Tell me, how can you be expected to prepare any sort of case while 'held at a judges pleasure' under a contempt charge?
Sitting in a jail cell and essentially denied any access to the needed library, and do not try and tell me that such things can be found in the lockup downtown!

This is why I suggest having the 'phrasing' of your argument ready before starting down the course of argument with any judge (dredd) so that you avoid getting into a situation that has not been faced before with case law that can be pointed to so that the petulant judge that takes offence gets a lesson...in the law. Lessons that I have seen delivered very very well.

Once again it comes down to the JUDGES' view of what is disrespectful, frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious, or abusive. Given that 'they' (the judges) are all appointed and have NO ONE to answer to, other than themselves, unless they trip over their own massive failures like being caught drunken driving or some other such major public failure; I do not see any such 'appeal' having any thing remotely resembling a snowballs chance in hell of being successful.

I make no statement about the 'blue' or 'red' you rant about from the US. I see a system that is out of control, since there is NO OVERSIGHT on judges, NONE AT ALL.

If the government in power has a problem with the judiciary they are forced to keep silent about it and look for ways to 'appoint' their own to the bench along the way...this is NUTS!

If the individual facing a charge before the 'wrong' judge is then going to get 10 months for contempt, yet the criminal WITH WITNESSES and evidence putting the crime in their hands gets the 'right' judge they get off scott free?

HOW IS THIS ANY BETTER THAN THE BLUE/RED GARBAGE YOU RANT ABOUT?!?!

murdock

I don't disagree with your points about the absurdity of most instances of contempt. I don't disagree with your point about the phony trappings of ecclesiastical splendor that decorate the courtroom and the magistrate or the self-satisfied and insular atmosphere in and around court proceedings.

All of that stuff is absurd, totally absurd. Nevertheless, that being said, I just don't understand how electing local judges would not be worse in terms of the likelihood of favoritism and catering to special interest.

To me it just doesn't logically follow.

murdock

Thanks very much for the link to the extract from the CJC item. Now, follow along with me on this.

An earlier and much shorter HTML version of that item was posted on the CJC site in November, two or three weeks after they received from me a very strong email about my courtroom experiences as a self-represented litigant. The words that you have quoted were the final words in that earlier draft, which obviously was replaced by the current item.

So, was this item prepared in September as they would have us believe? Obviously not. Why the need for such a deception, and from the CJC for God's sake?! Lame. Very very lame!

murdock

The lesson to take from this is to no longer accept the party line (lies) and only vote for independant candidates. 308 inde's in the House of Commons would bring about real change in the canada!

Yes, having 308 independents would make a difference, but until then we have a multi-party system.

I've thought for a long time now that participatory democracy required more than just having a vote. With the advanced communications technology we have now it might be able to get more participation. This would also require that our society was structured so that people had time to participate, one of the planks of the www.WorkLessParty.org platform, and this is the last thing that are ruling elites want.

I's like to move toward having our representatives function like the newshour "talking heads", backed up by a self organizing community which feeds info through a earphone. Each "independent" would in effect have a staff of thousands. Every piece of legislation that is voted on in house would already have been reviewed and debated by citizens of the community. I know this use of technology to replicate the ancient Greek forum has a whole new set of problems associated with it, but once they were worked out I think we would have something that represents the general welfare rather than that of the elite.

When it comes to judges, I think we should look at how we incarcerate the corrupt before we look at voting in the innocent. The current abuse of criminal contempt in this province would be one area where judges should be put on trial, and if found guilty serve hard time in jail. imho

Chris H

Have you ever in fact been in front of a judge? I have, several times, and can attest to the fact that the law, and the facts, are irrelevant if the matter is one with a significant political dimension. I didn’t know that, and probably wouldn’t have believed it, until I went to court myself. Now I have a record that I could put before any jury (as long as there were no Gillian Guests) and they would agree with me.

Hopefully with the action I now have underway, I’m going to apear before another judge, maybe several (depends on them) and I have no choice but to put the full case as I see it to them. This is a lawsuit in which I am alleging that damages flow from the defendants (basically the government) as a direct result of what happened in court before. That’s going to make for a dandy argument that the bench will not be pleased to hear.

Once in a blue moon one of our adjudicators gets caught. E.G. there’s the judge from Prince George that is (I presume) still doing time. We are supposed to believe these are the very rare bad apples. Who has the most opportunity to obstruct justice, and can virtually count on getting away with it? Power corrupts, etc. It’s no different in Canada today than in any other place or at any other time.

complete silence

from murdock

best of luck chris h

ChrisB

the fact that the law, and the facts, are irrelevant if the matter is one with a significant political dimension.

Yup, and we are seeing that with the use of criminal contempt to ram through policy against the public good by doing an end run on both the criminal code of Canada and the constitution.

Last year I read a great trilogy by Neal Stephenson, "The Baroque Cycle", the third book being "The System of the World" which is the back story for the enlightenment model of economic dominance that was instilled according to the mechanical universe philosophy of Isac Newton. Basically that the initial conditions combined with force determined the final outcome like a chain reaction of billiard balls which had no choice but to react according to the cause. In human affairs this has been maintained by allowing people to have a choice only in matters that were insignificant, with any significant choices being illegal.

The political dimension that the status quo is currently trying to maintain is the fallacy of the inevitability of progress as experienced through perpetual growth expressed in neo-liberal economics. This economics deals with materials, processing and distribution; which is three fifth of an ecology that also includes natural resources and waste. The concrete reality of the ecology is motivating people to take a stand against the fiction of economics and this is where the law has to come in and enforce its political will in order to maintain the status quo.

Those in power can do whatever they want, however they have no control over the consequences. When those consequences are inevitably detrimental it is the obligation of citizens to engage in civil disobedience. The law is only as valid as its legitimacy. Such is as its always been.

ov

You must get to know ed Deak.

He posts here under the banner Fiat Lux.

ov & ChrisB

Exactly ChrisB, worse still is the continued abuses of the contempt proceedings.

Best of luck with your coming court presentations, I certainly hope you have the time to look into some similar arguments made in the UK in the 1700's or 1800's; I really think that their attitude towards the crown and the power-that-was can be of great value to litigants today.

Interesting, however any of the 'parties' I see are merely deviations from the norm, and another attempt to organize at POWER, this crew is not any different. In the end only a majority formed from Indi's would have any chance of creating what you are dreaming of.

Regarding time...that is a matter of personal choice, you either choose to take a part in something important, like the power to vote, or absent yourself like most of the canadian sheeple and let others shave you clean.

murdock

Still no rational case for electing judges I see. Just like you have no rational case for your sovereign individual nightmare or your every-man-for-himself society.

Typical.

Bereft of intellectual resources you ignore the problems with your naive approach to reasonable and collective solutions to what IS wrong with modern society.

Injecting politics and personal popularity in to the mix when we chose those to whom we give the responsibility of adjudicating disputes and administering justice is about the most foolish thing I've seen you post here my friend.

Almost as foolish as pretending that personal and pique and high dudgeon means anything in a virtual world. But have it your way. It’s an excellent way to dodge the really difficult questions that you are obviously incapable of answering in a rational way.

Don't worry, I already have enough material for a 'murdock' chapter.

You'll be surprised at how sympathetic it is.

errata

pls strike the 'and' between 'personal' and 'pique' in para 5.

votes

I'm not saying that a person shouldn't vote, only that voting has limited to no influence which is probably the main reason why so few do vote. Sure you can vote for an independent party and get 1% of the vote and chalk it up as a statement but in the end it is the main stream parties that rule the day. Now if we had some electoral reform like was suggested in the recent Civil Assembly then I think we would see a lot of people that would vote for alternatives because it wouldn't be seen as throwing their vote away.

rights lock horns and what is left chatters
saul saw voltaire's bastards as they railed
the bulwark dismiss as extreme what matters
by somnolence of herd the system has failed
ponder options offered and those that ain't
and how important is the color of the paint
on a cattle prod upon which you are impaled

More people all the time are making the choice to step off the rat race treadmill, such as: the work less party, taking back your time, your time or your life, voluntary simplicity, the slow food movement. It's a bit of an uphill battle at first but it helps when you align yourself with like minded people. The community doesn't have to be that large, simply large enough to include those you associate with.

ov

electoral reform is clearly the first step and would answer a lot of people's questions about the relevance of a 'democratic' system that isn't....democratic.

G West

for the last time;

I AM NOT YOUR FRIEND!

I have stopped responding to you, so that when you invent your next multi-ple personality I will recognize it faster.

for those other readers whom do not understand my stance please read:
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/02/27/BoyTrouble/

and I recommend that you do not engage in tit-for-tat with this 'G West' at all.

For you GARTH WEST (if that is really your name), go away.

do not go away angry, just go away.

Hi murdock

So I guess you don't really have any actual response as to why electing judges is a good idea.

Pretty much what I figured.

And I appreciate you posting the advert again - I have nothing to hide about what I've done and why I've done it.

In fact, I'll just post it again here in case your link doesn't work:

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/02/27/BoyTrouble/

Although, you might want to read what I actually WROTE on that thread too, my friend.

And, since you have no good reason for actually choosing to vote for judges and pollute something else with politics I guess we can say that's settled murdock.

As far as tit for tat is concerned I can recall very well several times in the past when you were more than happy to have my assistance.

I won't be going away and I WILL be posting questions and agreement (or disagreement) with whatever you write here from time to time any time I please.

I've broken no rules and GWest and Alcibiades always supported exactly the same point of view. There never were multiple personalities - which, if you'd read what I'd posted - you'd already know my friend.

As to other readers, as I also clearly stated, virtually all of them (with the exception of nightbloom) knew exactly what I was doing and why anyway. And, as I've explained several times, I had a very good reason for doing what I did. In fact, I think the general tenor of conversation on this site now is much more civil than it was this time a year ago and, there are far more people visiting on a regular basis as well.

It's been a very interesting experiment to observe the few people who've gotten their knickers in a twist about it. Very interesting indeed and, I think, it provides a lot of insight into everyone's character.

So, I'm not leaving. What you do is your own business. I always got the feeling you had a little trouble coping with my questions and general disagreement with your agenda anyway.

Oh, just a quick question at the end here, is your name 'really' murdock?

Reality of Party Line

from Rafe's March 26th column

Now the reality. The Commons is a party system and everyone there (with the very rare exception of an independent) was elected on a party ticket. Now please pay attention. Every single MP was permitted to carry the party banner only after his candidacy was approved, formally under the Canada Elections Act, by the party leader. Thus it is that the prime minister is an absolute dictator for his elected term of office. The only time a majority government was ever turfed out was in 1878 when John A. Macdonald resigned over the "Pacific Scandal." In those days there was nothing like the party discipline that prevails today.