Jump to content
Jambands.ca

UPDATE: Here we go! Harper appoints " lawyer in Christ" to bench

Hux

By Hux
in Politics

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hux Newbie

Hux

Posted
Posted (edited)

PM's pick for bench draws fire

Social activists cite conservative views

KIRK MAKIN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

JUSTICE REPORTER — The appointment of an Ontario judge who is seen as an opponent of pro-choice and gay rights has created a stir among social activists.

Spokesmen expressed concerns yesterday about the appointment of Mr. Justice David Brown, a Toronto lawyer who has represented Christian family-value positions in several cases, and has written papers dealing with legal developments involving the sanctity of life.

Judge Brown will sit on the Ontario Superior Court bench in the Toronto region.

"What we are seeing is something we predicted: The Harper government intends to follow in the footsteps of the Bush government in the U.S. with measures like this," said Carolyn Egan, a spokeswoman for the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.

"In these situations, you find that they not only work for these organizations," Ms. Egan said. "From what we understand, he [Judge Brown] holds these views himself. I think people should be aware of the views he has and how they could potentially impact on future decisions."

Shayna Hodgson, a spokeswoman for Toronto's Morgentaler abortion clinic, reacted with dismay to the appointment. "Slowly, in a stealthy way and under the radar, the Harper government is taking a page from the book of their brothers and sisters in the U.S.," she said.

Ms. Hodgson said the pro-choice movement has been beaten back in the United States by tactics such as appointing judges who oppose abortion and by introducing laws that change the age of consent and rules for notifying parents.

However, Campaign Life Coalition spokeswoman Mary Ellen Douglas said that the courts are packed with judges appointed by Liberal governments, much to the delight of left-leaning pressure groups.

"So long as everything is going their way, they're happy," she said in an interview.

"It's high time we had some balance on the bench. All the judges who have been appointed had the same left-wing agenda as the people who are complaining now. I think it's refreshing to finally have some balance."

While Judge Brown's main area of legal expertise is energy, he has shown considerable interest in issues surrounding the sanctity of life: abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. He also represented Focus on the Family (Canada) and REAL Women of Canada in a court intervention against the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

Gilles Marchildon, executive director of the gay-rights organization Egale Canada, said: "From the information we have gathered so far, it would seem that he is very qualified and has a great depth of experience. But we're concerned that he seems to have been involved in representing opponents of equality in virtually every big lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans case there has been."

Judge Brown acted in defence of anti-abortion demonstrators barred from going close to abortion clinics. He also acted for REAL Women in defence of the right to spank children several years ago.

A newsletter from the organization later praised his "eloquent arguing in support of the important role of the family in raising children and the obligations of parents to correct their children."

Reached at his former law office at the firm of Stikeman Elliott yesterday, Judge Brown said he could not respond to any questions.

"In my past incarnation, I would speak to you," he said. "In my present incarnation, you would have to speak to Chief Justice Heather Smith."

However, Chief Justice Smith could not be reached for comment.

The government has also come under fire this week in regard to another of the 10 judges it appointed on Monday: Mr. Justice Jacques Léger. Judge Léger, a former Conservative Party president, was appointed to the Quebec Superior Court.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Birdy Newbie

Birdy

Posted
Posted (edited)

waiting for birdy's spin on the events...

hah. i was thinking about letting this one slip by.

while i certainly don't share the same views as Mr. Justice David Brown, I like what Campaign Life Coalition spokesperson Mary Ellen Douglas had to say about the entire situation. It's true. The courts are packed with judges who are pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage, etc. If we are to be truly fair to ALL of the citizens of Canada then it only seems right that those citizens of Canada who are pro-life and anti-same sex marriage, the religious folk, what have you, have some representation as well. Put it this way, if the courts were packed with judges who ALL had the same views as this Brown guy, this forum would be in UPROAR about it. How strongly we all feel about someone who is anti-same sex marriage, is the equivolent to how strongly they feel about us, who are pro-same sex marriage. Level playing fields are only fair.

Also the whole "taking a page from good old Bush" thing kinda irks me too. Sure Bush and Harper probably feel the same way about abortion and same sex marriages, but the pro-life movement didn't originate in the US, so Harper appointing this guy as a judge isn't taking a page from anyone other than what he, himself, considers as right.

edit to add: if it were up to me... courts nor government would rule on these kinds of issues. i believe them to be individual concerns that should be left up to the individual to deal with.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
guigsy Newbie

guigsy

Posted
Posted
The courts are packed with judges who are pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage, etc. If we are to be truly fair to ALL of the citizens of Canada then it only seems right that those citizens of Canada who are pro-life and anti-same sex marriage, the religious folk, what have you, have some representation as well.

my problem with this is that pro-choice means you can have a choice either way.. and pro-same-sex-marriage is not the same as anti-different-sex-marriage. these people arent saying you always have to abort and can only marry someone of the same sex.

but the pro-life and anti-same-sex marriage folk dont want you to have those options... even though they do when its the other way around. i dont know whats fair about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Birdy Newbie

Birdy

Posted
Posted

yah i get it.

just saying that there are people out there who feel differently about this stuff than how you and i, or hux or ollie or secondtube or whoever may feel. not extremely fair to push them to the side and say "you know what? you don't know shit. your opinion sucks. and we're not going to have any of it. no judges for you!". there's all kinds of people in this world with all kinds of opinions.. noone is going to agree on everything.. some people will be 100% against something, some maybe only 50% against it. we pride ourselves on representation, than i only see it fit that our courts represent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollie Newbie

ollie

Posted
Posted
yah i get it.

just saying that there are people out there who feel differently about this stuff than how you and i, or hux or ollie or secondtube or whoever may feel. not extremely fair to push them to the side and say "you know what? you don't know shit. your opinion sucks. and we're not going to have any of it. no judges for you!". there's all kinds of people in this world with all kinds of opinions.. noone is going to agree on everything.. some people will be 100% against something, some maybe only 50% against it. we pride ourselves on representation, than i only see it fit that our courts represent.

The thing is, people who are pro-life don't share this attitude. They want ALL the judges to be pro-life. So I have no problem pushing equally as hard in the opposite direction.

Taking your argument to the extreme, should we have racist judges on the bench to represent that portion of our society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Birdy Newbie

Birdy

Posted
Posted

yah taking my argument to the extreme isn't a good thing! ;)

i know that people who are pro-life don't share the same attitude, just as much as people who are pro-choice. i'm just doing my best to remain objective.

as for taking things to the extreme, i think we're approaching the day where a person who is anti-same sex marriage would be considered the equivalent of a racist. but because society is measured by what is considered to be socially acceptable behaviour and because being anti-same sex marriage is still considered 'acceptable' by some, it's acknowledged by government. like i said though.. i don't think this will always be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Chameleon Newbie

The Chameleon

Posted
Posted

Just when I thought I hated Harper as much as I could, he does something to make me despise his party and his policies even more. Harper is so out of touch with the vast majoirty of this country it's scary. He speaks really, to no one in an urban center in this country, whcih makes up the majority of the population.

He really is bush light. I am just thankful he has a weak minority and his afgan policy is crucifing his poularity. I pray his ass gets handed to him come next election.

Harper makes me ashamed to be Canadaina at times. Now I know how Americans feel in a small way. }:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hux Newbie

Hux

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here's a great piece by John Ibbitson further to this issue.....

Stacking the courts: fair play?

JOHN IBBITSON

Globe and Mail

Earlier this year, David M. Brown spoke to a gathering of Christian law students at which he stressed the importance of being not simply a lawyer, but a lawyer in Christ.

"In a culture where choice stands as a new god," he warned, they must not be tempted by appeals to set aside faith when practising law.

"As a Christian lawyer, you are called to practise your trade and conduct your life in accordance with your faith," he maintained, "recalling, all the time, that your dignity consists in one's membership in the community founded and sustained by God, and that your freedom lies in the resulting moral responsibility, and not in some free-standing notion of freedom or autonomy."

This week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Mr. Brown to the bench. One day, he might rule on the legality of abortion.

For decades -- even generations -- Liberal governments have appointed judges who generally subscribe to a small-l liberal approach to jurisprudence.

Broadly (even simplistically) speaking, a majority of the Canadian judiciary adheres to several fundamental principles: that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can and should be broadly interpreted to maximize individual and group rights; that the courts have an obligation to defend and even expand those rights, if and when legislatures are unwilling to do so; and that any particular religious belief should have minimal impact on legal reasoning -- indeed, can be seen as contrary to it.

Mr. Harper, as a social conservative, is bothered by this liberal bias in the Canadian judiciary. Since he's the Prime Minister, it is within his power to appoint judges with a very different bias. If he is Prime Minister long enough, Mr. Harper could appoint enough conservative judges to one day fundamentally shift the judicial consensus. Ability to shape the Canadian judiciary is one of the more formidable, if subtle, of prime ministerial powers.

It should be emphasized that Mr. Brown is eminently qualified to sit on the Ontario Superior Court. He is a distinguished commercial lawyer and has been chosen for his expertise in that field.

He has also represented socially conservative and religious groups in several high-profile cases. In Brillinger v. Brockie, for example, he defended the right of a printer to refuse to do business with a gay-rights organization. Arguing on behalf of the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance, Mr. Brown maintained that the law "does not require a person to provide a service to a cause or public advocacy group with which a person disagrees on sincerely held conscientious or religious grounds."

Was Mr. Brown simply representing a client who had obtained his services? Was he simply defending the sanctity of freedom of religion and conscience within the Constitution? One suspects not.

In a 2004 legal debate on proposed same-sex-marriage legislation, Mr. Brown vigorously opposed the new law. "Within a few generations, marriage will have no practical meaning," he warned, "and society will be the worse for that." So when Mr. Brown has represented socially conservative legal challenges, it is clear that he has done so as a matter of personal and religious conviction, and not simply in defence of freedom of religion.

Gay-rights and other social activists complain that Mr. Harper is trying to stack the courts with judges in harness to the religious right. Of course he is. But Paul Martin appointed Rosie Abella -- who, as sole commissioner of the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, literally invented employment equity -- to the Supreme Court. Turnabout is fair play.

But if you were wondering how Mr. Harper will contain the restlessness of the social conservatives in caucus, here, in part, is your answer: judicial appointments.

And remember: Mr. Harper doesn't have to placate the social conservatives in his caucus. He is one of them himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...