Harper Stacks Judiciary For American Conservative Movement

Brian Abrams is a former Conservative candidate for Kingston and the Islands.  He had a pretty good showing in 2008, but lost to incumbent Peter Milliken. 

After his defeat, the Conservatives launched an all out attack on this riding.  They saturated it with taxpayer funded ten percenters, warning Kingstonians that if we voted for Michael Ignatieff, he would leave us and join the Samurais.

Yes, apparently Michael Ignatieff had once jokingly claimed that he was a Samurai Warrior and it was of vital importance to our national security, for us to know that.

Abrams took a beating in the local press for this waste of our money and also for not supporting the Prison Farm protests.  Local candidates for the Liberal, Green and NDP parties were at every meeting and most rallies.

When it became clear that he would not be able to win an election, the Conservatives bought him off with an appointment to Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice, to make way for their star candidate, local businesswoman Alicia Gordon.  She lost.

I was concerned with Abram's appointment, not only because he was one of the most partisan creatures on the planet, but because he had been the attorney for the local police department.  I believe that the judiciary and law enforcement should be separate. He was also a former RCMP officer.  Could he rule against the police if there was wrongdoing?  Or against Conservative ideology?  I don't think so.

I remember during the 2008 campaign, on his blog he claimed that he was sitting around worrying about the hardships that the Green Shift/carbon tax plan of Stéphane Dion's would impose on people in this riding.  He knew that the plan was revenue neutral, but if he had to lie to get ahead, he could lie with the best of them.  He should have been sitting around worrying about the devastating affects of Climate Change.

However, this isn't really about Abrams, but rather how Stephen Harper chooses his appointments.

Bruce Ryder had an excellent column in the Star yesterday:  Are we appointing the best judges?  While most of the media and some MPs are chasing shiny things, aka: the announcement that one candidate was not bi-lingual, they are missing the obvious.

The views and qualifications of the appointees.

A former selection, Justice Marshall Rothstein, has already taken a stand against collective bargaining, despite the fact that he promised not to let his personal views affect his decisions.

Ryder raises another issue.  Of the four Harper selections to date, NONE are committed to upholding our Charter rights and freedoms.  This is not an accident.

In 2004 Harper actually ran against the charter, promising to use the Notwithstanding Clause to overturn things like abortion laws, gay rights, women's rights and hate speech laws, (which he likened to totalitarianism).

To the Conservatives, the charter is social engineering, elevating individual rights over personal responsibility and undeserving minorities over the taxpaying majority .... Constitutional experts have warned that the Conservative platform is so anti-charter it is a legal minefield. "A lot of this stuff raises serious constitutional issues." the University of Ottawa's Ed Ratushny told CanWest Global News Service. The experts have identified at least 12 positions that either, violate the charter, are ripe for serious court challenges or would require amendments to the Constitution. (Winnipeg Free Press, June 25, 2004)

In the 2005-6 campaign, some in the Canadian media became alarmed with Harper's ties to the American Religious Right and their Conservative Movement, prompting one of their leaders, Paul Weyrich (above right), to send an email to his flock, warning them not to talk to the Canadian press. At first he denied that the email was his, but later confirmed that he had indeed attempted to hide Harper's close relationship with members of his team.  (Harper's U.S. neocon booster changes his story, By Beth Gorham, Canadian Press, January 27, 2006)

When Harper failed to get a majority, Weyrich told his followers not to worry.  Said he:

"It is not widely known in this country that a Canadian prime minister has more power than a United States president. Harper could appoint 5,000 new officials. (No confirmation is required by the Canadian Parliament.) The prime minister also could appoint every judge from the trial courts, to the courts of appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court, as vacancies occur.

"Harper's partisans believe he could maintain power for four years, during which time Conservatives hopefully would witness many vacancies created by Liberals leaving the courts. (ibid)

In his new book Rogue in Power, Christian Nadeau reminds us that Harper has indeed been doing just that.

And for Harper, the appointment of judges is ... part of a strategy whose objective is to profoundly change the relationship between government and other institutions to one of master and servant.  Placing judges who hold and will support the neoconservative agenda ....  at least three judicial appointments to higher courts were motivated by religious [Right]reasons—Dallas K. Miller in Alberta, Lawrence O'Neil in Nova Scotia, and David Moseley Brown in Ontario. Miller is the founder of an association that advocates home-schooling. O'Neil has told the Commons that pregnant women have no right to control their own bodies. Brown is known for his battles against gay rights. (Rogue in Power: Why Stephen Harper is remaking Canada by Stealth, By Christian Nadeau, Lorimer Press, ISBN: 978-1-55277-730-5, p. 53-54)

Paul Weyrich is also a founding member of the Council for National Policy, the pro-military, religious organization where Stephen Harper gave his "yes I really hate Canadians this much" speech in 1997.  Said Harper:

"The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things."

Funny.  None of those things horrified me, but the thought of losing them scares me to death.

A Harper Majority and the Supreme Court

In April of 2007, Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms celebrated it's 25th anniversary, but Stephen Harper refused an invitation to be the keynote speaker at an event marking the occasion.

The Harper government is passing on a major Ottawa conference marking the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights, with the Prime Minister and three Cabinet ministers turning down invitations to speak. In fact, the milestone anniversary will be a muted affair within the government ranks ... Mr. Jedwab said Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, Heritage Minister Bev Oda and former justice minister Vic Toews were also invited to address the April 16-17 event, but they declined. (1)

This was not a scheduling conflict but ran contra to Harper's 25 years of attacks on the Charter.

So despite being the prime minister of Canada, a country proud of its Charter of Rights, Harper was not prepared to pretend to honour something he detested.

During the 2004 election campaign, many were sounding the alarm, including Supreme Court justices, who feared that a Harper government would undermine not only the judiciary, but the fundamentals of Canadian law.

Mr. Harper's antagonism to the charter is fundamental and well-documented. He said this week he would propose for the top bench only candidates who agree courts must defer to Parliament. "The role of the court is not to invent rights that are not in the Charter." (2)

And his documented disdain included:

"I share many of the concerns of my colleagues and allies about biased 'judicial activism' and its extremes. I agree that serious flaws exist in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and there is no meaningful review or accountability mechanisms for Supreme Court justices" " (Globe and Mail June 13, 2000)

"I consider the notwithstanding clause a valid part of the Constitution." (Canadian Press March 15, 2004)

"Right from the beginning, the charter has been controversial. There were a large number of politicians who did not support that approach to civil liberties. They prefer the traditional approach of common law and parliamentary supremacy." (Kitchener-Waterloo Record Sept. 29, 1994)

So we have a man who doesn't respect the Supremacy of Parliament, only the supremacy of himself, and believes that the Supreme Court should only answer to Parliament, which must only answer to him.

Scared yet?

And the American neoconservative movement is watching Canada with interest now. In 1997, he told them:

"And we have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and important ... The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things."

The late Paul Weyrich, one of the key players in the American Religious Right/neoconservative group, soothed his followers when Harper only managed to get a minority in 2006:

"It is not widely known in this country that a Canadian prime minister has more power than a United States president. Harper could appoint 5,000 new officials. (No confirmation is required by the Canadian Parliament.) The prime minister also could appoint every judge from the trial courts, to the courts of appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court, as vacancies occur. (3)

Adam Radwanski, wrote in the Globe recently: The Supreme Court: How a Harper majority could really change Canada

Of the nine justices who serve on the Supreme Court of Canada, three – Ian Binnie, Morris Fish and Louis LeBel – will hit the mandatory retirement age of 75 within the next four years. Another, Marshall Rothstein, will come very close to it. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin would be 71 by the end of a majority government’s mandate, and Rosie Abella would be 68.

In other words, Mr. Harper would have an excellent opportunity to shape the country’s top court. And given that court’s enormous role in shaping public policy, particularly since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect nearly three decades ago, that could be a very transformative power.

Now are you scared?

Ignore the polls which are pretty much *fraudulent, and vote for the candidate in your riding best able to beat the Conservatives.

Because if Stephen Harper gets his majority it will forever change who we are as a country. He already controls the Senate and refuses to cooperate with Parliament. Can you imagine if he also controls the Supreme Court?

*Drop the Globe an email and tell them that their headlines re: polls, border on fraud. The margin of error of Nanos polls range from 5.7 to 10.3, meaning they could be off by as much as 11.4 to 20.6. They are intentionally distorting the numbers to confuse strategic voters.

Sources:

1. PM passes on marking Charter anniversary; Rejects invitation, By Janice Tibbetts, National Post, April 11, 2007

2. Harper Hides his Social Agenda, By Frances Russell, Winnipeg Free Press, June 11, 2004

3. Canadians 'liberal and hedonistic' but can change, U.S. right-winger says, CBC News, January 27, 2006

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms Won the 2004 Election. We Need to Rally Around it Again

"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." Stephen Harper

There were many issues that lost the election for the newly formed Conservative Party of Canada in 2004, but the big ticket item ... the thing that caused the most concern for Canadians, was their stand on Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They promised to ignore it and that frightened us. That charter is the pillar of Canadian society. It's our pride and joy. Our baby.

In the editorial above (June 25, 2004), Frances Russell said:

To the Conservatives, the charter is social engineering, elevating individual rights over personal responsibility and undeserving minorities over the taxpaying majority .... Constitutional experts have warned that the Conservative platform is so anti-charter it is a legal minefield. "A lot of this stuff raises serious constitutional issues." the University of Ottawa's Ed Ratushny told CanWest Global News Service. The experts have identified at least 12 positions that either, violate the charter, are ripe for serious court challenges or would require amendments to the Constitution.

And throughout the campaign, Conservative candidates continued to provide soundbites, that caused a great deal of concern to people of all political stripes. Like this one:

Randy White, Conservative candidate in Abbotsford has promised his party will invoke the notwithstanding clause to get around court decisions it dislikes on social issues such as equal marriage and abortion. White pledged the Conservatives would “not be shy” about overriding Charter protection and would “repeal in a minute” changes to the Criminal Code’s hate propaganda protection that make it an offence to target people because of their sexual orientation. “The heck with the Courts,” said White, who has often been touted as a potential Minister of Justice in a Conservative government. White went on to target common-law heterosexual relationships as the root cause of the recognition of new family forms. (June 25, 2004)

And Stephen Harper himself was not shy about his disdain for the charter:

During the election campaign, Mr. Harper said the Charter of Rights does not apply to lesbian and gay people. He dismissed sexual orientation as a “behaviour” and last Friday said lesbians and gays fighting for human rights have it all wrong: “I reject the idea that this is a matter of rights.” “It is clear that the Conservative Party’s leading voices, including Mr. Harper, see lesbian and gay people as a collection of sexual acts rather than as taxpayers, citizens, neighbours, family members and co-workers.” (May 17, 2004)

Harper maintains that parliamentarians should have the final say on upholding traditional marriage and insists that legislators should refuse “to allow unelected, unaccountable judges to decide major social policies.” He has gone so far as to say that he does not think LGBT people are protected by the Charter. (June 21, 2004)

And the aboriginal community was also alarmed:

I believe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an integral aspect of the Canadian Constitution, is threatened by the Conservative Party of Canada and their mantra of Equal Rights. Their plan is to get rid of affirmative action programs, and multiculturalism programs. Do you think Stephen Harper really doesn't know, that under the heading of Equality Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights specifically protects Affirmative action programs?

Apparently he didn't, or did, and just ignored it. Mind you, he had no trouble invoking the Charter to defend corporate advertising for politicians, but finds rights "scary" when they attempt to protect citizens.

By 2006, the Conservative position had softened somewhat, perhaps because they were all put on a tighter leash. When we were reminded of what this party (Reform-Alliance) stood for and tried to warn others of their agenda, we were accused of fear-mongering.

But after five years, of a man who has used every trick in the book to undermine democracy and Parliamentary procedure; to overstep his boundaries with the courts and legislative committees; refuse to listen to experts and citizens alike, and close down Human Rights offices in major centres, where they're needed the most; how can we possibly be accused of fear mongering now?

Harper himself, has proven his critics right.

This election is not about the budget. It is about stopping this party before it's too late. We need to invoke memories of 2004, when the little hairs on the back of our necks stood up. Remember those nagging little doubts and fears that Stephen Harper would attempt to forever change who we were as Canadians.

Nick Van der Graaf fears that Canadians may sleepwalk through this election. We can't allow that to happen.

In November of 2009, Linda McQuaig wrote in the Toronto Star:

If, as polls suggest, Stephen Harper is poised to win a majority, it's largely due to the media notion that his past reputation for extremism no longer holds. In fact, apart from his reluctant embrace of economic stimulus, Harper has shown little of the "moderation" that supposedly now puts his government comfortably within the Canadian mainstream.

We have to remind everyone that the man who is "made up" to appear moderate, with taxpayer funded image consultants, may look harmless, however, his actions are anything but.

We are at risk of not only losing our democracy, but everything that this country once stood for.

In 2003, Harper wrote a paper: "Rediscovering the Right Agenda", that appeared in the Citizens' Centre Report. In it he said:

"The Reagan-Thatcher revolution was so successful that it permanently underminded the traditional social-democratic/left-liberal consensus in a number of democratic countries ... Conservatives must rediscover social conservatism because the welfare state has damaged important institutions, principally the family ... [part of the agenda] strengthening marriage and providing choice of education [private schools].

And he also speaks of the "accepted tenets of social conservatism – preserving historic values and moral insights on right and wrong" and "to play a key role in the emerging debate on the goals of the U.S. as the sole superpower."

The government can dictate morality but not the courts, and Canadians must do everything in their power to ensure that the U.S. remains "the sole superpower".

There was nothing in the paper speaking to the preservation of Canadian goals or values. In fact he held those in contempt.

After the 2004 election, when Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms won, communications consultant and activist, Gilles Marchildon warned: "This election serves as a wake-up call. Canadians who cherish the value of equality need to guard against complacency. The campaign has shown that nothing can be taken for granted. Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are stronger and will continue to hide their full agenda until they can persuade Canadian voters to give them a chance."

We gave them that chance and now they want us to trust them with a majority. What makes anyone believe that this will be better for us, given the enormous damage they have been able to do with a minority? I'm not willing to trust them with either.

As Marchildon says we cannot afford to be complacent, nor, as Van der Graaf warns, can we allow anyone to sleepwalk through this election.

It may be the most important one in our history, because it will determine whether or not we still have one.

The Patriot Game: The Charter of Rights

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"And we have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and
important ... The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things." Stephen Harper (1)

In April of 2007, Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms celebrated it's 25th anniversary. Stephen Harper refused an invitation to be the keynote speaker at an event marking the occasion.

The Harper government is passing on a major Ottawa conference marking the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights, with the Prime Minister and three Cabinet ministers turning down invitations to speak. In fact, the milestone anniversary will be a muted affair within the government ranks ... Mr. Jedwab said Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, Heritage Minister Bev Oda and former justice minister Vic Toews were also invited to address the April 16-17 event, but they declined. (2)

The fact is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has always been a thorn in the side of the Reform movement. Preston Manning preferred that it would have been more like the American model.

On the Charter of Rights, Manning takes the position that Canada should have, like the U.S., a concept of rights which makes no mention of race, gender, or language. His support for triple-E Senate is modelled after the U.S. Senate and is proposed for Canada in spite of the fact that a similar model "often makes government impossible" in Australia, according to Desmond Morton.

Last, Preston Manning wishes to emulate the U.S. by including a provision for property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights. This concept is rooted in American individualism and free-enterprise culture. However, it may be less appealing in Canada, which has had a more co-operative and collective approach to life and to government. (3)

Stephen Harper's views were similar to Manning's but based a lot on the book The Patriot Game by Peter Brimelow, who saw both the patriation of the Constitution, and the Charter as not only an attack on Anglo Canadians, but the endowment of too much power on the judiciary.

Certain aspects of public policy were entrenched, however, notably bilingualism, and a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" was added .. the new constitution clearly does pose a legal threat to much of its nationalist legislation restricting the use of English. More subtly, the constitution represents a break with the British tradition of common law, custom and precedent, and greatly enhances the power of the judicial branch. (4)

What Brimelow opposed the most, and what was reflected in the views of the Reform party members, was that in his mind the English had conquered the French in Canada, so they should accept the Anglo hierarchy. What he failed to understand was that Quebec and French Canadians, were to be equal partners in Confederation as one of our country's founding peoples.

So the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms set out to right a wrong.

The difficulty Francophones faced in the civil service ... the one addressed by the resulting bilingualism policy, was not discrimination against Francophones as such, but the fact that at the higher levels they had to work in English. Francophones who were prepared to speak English could always in effect resign from their race in working hours, unlike the American blacks. (5)

"Resign from their race in working hours"?

And this was the logic that Stephen Harper found so compelling that he went out and bought ten copies of Brimelow's book to give to friends. And when Harper addressed the Reform Party Assembly in Saskatoon in 1991, and stated emphatically that there would be no special privileges for Quebec, his mind was made up.

And we have to remember that his political views are not organic, but set in stone. He only gave Quebec special status, because he said that he needed to "suck up to them."

Another bone of contention for the movement was the entrenching of rights, including those for women, ethnic groups and Aboriginals, but especially for homosexuals.

One of the Reform Party founders, Ted Byfield, stated that the only thing that should be legislated in Canada was morality, but this charter actually, in his view, attacked morality, by protecting "sin". And protecting that sin was the judiciary.

This would start a war. One that is ongoing.

On June 12, 2000, Harper railed against biased judicial activism. "Serious flaws exist in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and there is no meaningful review or accountability mechanisms for Supreme Court justices" (6)

And on September 2, 2009, at a closed-door speech to Conservative supporters in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., he spoke against judicial independence and made it clear that if he ever obtains a majority, he will stack the bench with judges who are not "left-wing ideologues." (6) "I ask you for a moment to imagine how different things would be if the Liberals were still in power. . . . Imagine how many left-wing ideologues they would be putting in the courts. . . ."

Maurice Vellacott had accused Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of calling herself God, and though it was a lie and he made a meager attempt at an apology in the House of Commons, the sentiment remains.

One of the worst attacks however, has been on Louise Arbour (shown above right). Arbour is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Court of Appeal for Ontario and a former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. She has since July 2009 served as President and CEO of the International Crisis Group.

Someone all Canadians should be proud of. And yet Harper’s ministers refused to recognize her work, while Vic Toews launched a personal attack, as part of his party's policy.

The Conservative grenade hurlers couldn't help themselves. Next up to the plate was Treasury Board Secretary Vic Toews, whose target was Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and a former Supreme Court justice. Arbour had a far more distinguished reputation than Toews did, but that didn't stop him from labelling her a national "disgrace" when she praised a new Arab human rights charter and chastised both sides in the conflict between Israel and Lebanon. Toews hollered "Shame on her!" when the matter was raised in the Commons. (7)

Yes shame on her. How dare she stand up for human rights abuses, earning enough of an international reputation that she would be given such high positions.

We need to start recognizing and supporting our public intellectuals, who have been taking a beating since Stephen Harper came to power. Canadians have always taken pride in the accomplishments of it's citizens and this government would prefer that we forget them, so they can be free to pursue their agenda of Americanization.

U.S. style prisons. U.S style courts. U.S. style justice.

Canadians should be proud of their Charter of Rights and Freedoms and proud of the fact that we have for decades been seen as a Just Society. Harper's law and order agenda is a wrong fit for us. It's not who we are, just who he would like us to be.

One of my favourite quotes about the Reform movement came from the Vancouver Sun, and I share it often:

"Reform is somewhat un-Canadian. It's about tidy numbers, self-righteous sanctimoniousness and western grievances. It cannot talk about the sea or about our reluctant fondness for Quebec, about our sorrow at the way our aboriginal people live, about the geographically diverse, bilingual, multicultural mess of a great country we are." (8)

Sources:

1. Full text of Stephen Harper's 1997 speech, Canadian Press, December 14, 2005

2. PM passes on marking Charter anniversary; Rejects invitation, By Janice Tibbetts, National Post, April 11, 2007

3. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7 4, Pg. 190

4. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3, Pg. 34

5. Brimelow, 1986, Pg. 191

6. The Hill: Harper challenged as silence of the jurists ends, By: Richard Cleroux, Law Times

7. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 130

8. Vancouver Sun, April 8, 1994