Legal Cowchips

The Supreme Court Had Ruled … (but Citoyen Dion doesn't care)

Mulder

When the highest court in the land makes a ruling, there isn’t a whole lot that can be done to change that ruling. The 9 member panel that is often divided on issues makes decisions regularly without a unanimous consensus. The whole reason for having an odd number of justices on the highest court of the land is to make sure there is not a tie on decisions.

Although a few weeks late, I came across some video which shows Stephane Dion disrespecting the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the anti-terror measures which the Liberals voted against extending. (well, all Liberals present except Tom Wappell.)

Dion claims that the divided court means it is a contentious issue.

No Stephane. A divided court that has ruled means the decision is made and the majority wins.

Watch Citoyen Dion disrespect the Supreme Court by clicking the play button on the video below once.

If you can’t see the above video play, please try clicking the link below and don’t forget to rate the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l47BDssPtxk

FIFA Human Rights Violation … My (Gr)ass

Mulder

One organization says some must wear the hijab for religious reasons, while some may not.

One organization says they must not wear the hijab for safety reasons and it applies to EVERYONE.

Now whom do YOU think the human rights complaint will be filed against?

This is one of those cases when we just need to stop and slap ourselves.

“I think this is something that needs to be taken up with the United Nations in terms of human rights violations,” Anisa Ali of the United Muslim Women of Canada told CTV Newsnet on Saturday. “We, as Muslim women, have a right to participate in sporting activities just like non-Muslim women.”

Her group will be taking action “ASAP,” she said.

I think what any human rights group’s response to this type of complaint should be that Muslim women are not being prevented from playing soccer, but instead it should be viewed that ALL humans are being prevented from playing soccer with a headscarf.

Since EVERYONE is affected by the no headscarves rule, the only possible human rights violation would be the requirement that all Muslim women HAVE to wear a headscarf when Muslim men are exempt.

Aye, there’s the rub…

Human Rights Groups Now Responsible For Commiting Human Wrongs

Mulder

I would love to start a group to sue the Human Rights groups for abusing people with frivolous legal action. We could call it a Human Wrongs group.

Canada’s practice of turning detainees over to Afghan security forces, widely accused of torture and abuse, violates international law and the Charter of Rights, Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association say.

The two groups will Wednesday file an application in Federal Court in Ottawa seeking judicial review of the military’s controversial policy. Named as respondents in the action are Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor, General Rick Hillier, Canada’s Chief of the Defence Staff, and Attorney-General Robert Nicholson.

The legal action will be announced today by Alex Neve, Amnesty International Canada’s Secretary-General, and Shirley Heafey, a B.C. Civil Liberties Association board member.

What these groups don’t realize is that we are not at war with Afghanistan. We are there now in rebuilding/reconstructive role. This means we work WITH their police forces and not against them.

If there are issues with the Afghani police forces, that is a concern and should be addressed via the appropriate Internal Affairs (or similar equivalent) department within their police.

Judicial Committees Need The Insight Of Law Enforcement Officers

Mulder

Yesterday, in the Sun, Greg Weston had a piece titled Tory Control Freaks.

This was a piece about how the recent changes to the judicial committee makeup will change things forever.

Usually Mr. Weston has some pretty good insights and I enjoy when he gets a chance to sit in on Duffy or other interview shows. But this time, Greg has missed the mark.

1) As we have heard, the 50+ judges the Tories appointed last year were all recommended by the previous panel which the Liberals put together.

2) Greg shoots himself in the foot with this statement:

True, many of these judges — maybe even most of them — got where they are with a little help from their respective political pals.

This admission by Greg is pretty accurate which means that after 13 years of Liberal government, the majority of judges appointed the past 13 years will obviously be leaning towards Liberal ideals. This is not a right wing neo-con complaint as Greg says, but it is simply fact. He basically said it himself in the quote above.

3) This third point is very critical. The committee used to be 7 members. It used to contain
* a nominee of the provincial or territorial law society;
* a nominee of the provincial or territorial branch of the Canadian Bar Association;
* a judge nominated by the Chief Justice or senior judge of the province or territory;
* a nominee of the provincial Attorney General or territorial Minister of Justice; and
* 3 nominees of the federal Minister of Justice representing the general public.

Where do judges come from? In Canada they come from the lawyer pool. And as Greg mentions above, they don’t get where they are without some help from their respective political pals. By extension, this means that most lawyers and judges have a vested interest in being politically minded to some extent.

To me it does not matter what Party you are from or support. Having 4 of the 7 people influenced by politics creates an unfair playing field…especially if one party has been in power for 13 years.

The Tory plan, which is just a one year trial at this point, adds an 8th member nominated by the law enforcement community. These are the people who are out there in the communities, meeting people, seeing where law enforcement and judicial systems work and where they break down. I can’t think of a better position to provide input from two perspectives. 1) they know the community and 2) they know the judicial system.

So what happens now is that the third position, or the senior judge, does not vote unless the other seven members on the panel are deadlocked (with an abstention). This does not make any shift in the political leaning of the board, it simply adds an element that is clearly involved on a daily basis with the judiciary, WHO IS NOT PART OF THE JUDICIARY. This will help minimize the “old boys club” aspect that the Judiciary seems to have.

There will be detractors, who spew garbage like “if they want a police officer, they can appoint one with their three positions”. By this logic, any of the positions could be appointed via the governments three nominations. This would include someone from the Bar or Law Society too. I call this the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” defense.

Now to get people like Marlene Jennings to stop quacking.

Accountability Act Delays Cost Taxpayers $5.5 Million (and counting)

Mulder

I just saw a counter that says it has been 158 days that the unelected Liberal slanted Senate has held up the Accountability Act.

158 freaking days!! Thats over 5 months over a single piece of legislation.

Let me do some math for you. 105 Senators paid $122,700/year, pro-rated at 158 days/365 days means we have already paid these guys $5,576,967 (and 12 cents) to get this piece of legislation through and they’re still arguing about it.

This is why our country is so broke taxes are so high my friends. The Liberals seem to think paying people to peruse the paperwork, ponder the paperwork, pander over the paperwork, pretend they are working on the paperwork, pushaw over the paperwork and then plunder the coffers by paying themselves and lawyers for half a year before they give it the A-OK is the way our nation should work.

What ever happened to “put your nose to the grindstone?” or “plant your feet in the same spot until you get the job done?” Why doesn’t the Senate show a little more “Put your money where your mouth is” and a lot less “Put OUR money where they need some trees cut at their cottage?” and get this piece of legislation through?

Talk about the public getting OfficiallyScrewed.