Chief Justice of Canada smacks down socons

While I said why in a previous post why I thought Henry Morgentaler probably should not have been awarded membership in the Order of Canada (nothing to do with my pro-life position, by the way), I also accept the reasons given by the judging committee that sifts through the dozens of nominations that go before it. Nominations, it's worth pointing out, are actually made by ordinary Canadians and not the "elites" as alleged by some in the social conservative movement (if you don't believe this, here's the form from the GG's website).

According to the GG's office, about 700 to 800 nominations are received every year (though it doesn't say how many are repeat nominations). About 1 in 10 make the cut so to be invited into the Order is indeed a true honour.

I predicted some would resign from the Order in protest, and some have indeed done so. However, I was outraged to learn some social conservatives had applied to the Canadian Judicial Council to have Beverley McLachlin, the Chief Justice of Canada, removed from the bench. Why? Because McLachlin is also the chair of the committee that vets Order of Canada nominees.

My colleague at Bouquets of Grey shows how the claimed groups are actually less so because of double and triple store fronts -- all related to Canada Christian College. This is the tactic used by the US-based Parents' Television Council to bombard the FCC with dubious form letter complaints about "indecency" on TV, which a US appeals court called them out on last month when it threw out the "wardrobe malfunction" ruling by the broadcast regulators.

A couple of issues. First as Buckets points out a related group, the Evangelical Association, credentials anyone who has $50 and "promises" to take classes at CCC as a minister. This should raise hackles from the Vital Statistics Agencies of all the provinces, which traditionally has insisted on a university diploma in divinity or religious studies to be granted a license as a minister (which license can, among other things, allows the minister to perform both religious and civil wedding ceremonies). We expect professional standards from a minister which is why we license them. I want a real priest or minister to officiate at my wedding whenever it happens and insist on credentials that could be verified. Or I'd go before a judge. Otherwise, I'd rather have a Quaker wedding (where there are no ministers, just an exchange of vows before witnesses) than one officiated by someone who "graduated" from something akin to a diploma mill or had the perception of being one.

And second, as my other able colleague Impolitical notes, the protestors don't have a leg to stand on. It's not just because it's only Parliament that has the right to remove Section 99 judges like the Chief Justice (by a majority vote of both Houses of Parliament). If the Canadian Judicial Council actually accepted the claims of the socons and referred the matter to Parliament (something it's done only a few times before) it would send a chill because it would be the first time someone was sanctioned for what they believed, not actual conduct on the bench or a blatant conflict of interest.

The only two times in recent history the Judicial Council made such a recommendation was once in the 1990s (can't remember the specifics, but the judge resigned before a trial could be scheduled) and once just a couple months ago regarding a judge who issued a restraining order about the reconstruction of the St. Clair Avenue streetcar line in Toronto when it turns out he was also acting as an advisor to the group trying to stop the dedicated right of way -- and failed to recuse himself due to the conflict of interest. The decision, made by a panel of three judges and two lawyers (one prosecutor and one defence lawyer) and chaired by former Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Clyde Wells (now Chief Judge of the province) is currently being reviewed by the council en banc. If the full council affirms the findings, it will go to the Château on the Rideau. Now, if Parliament accept the finding such allegations are true, that is indeed definitely something that should result in impeachment and removal of the judge. I'd go further in suggesting the Law Society should disbar the judge from returning to the practice of law.

Regardless of the merits of a particular case, an impeachment trial would tie up the business of both the House and Senate. If that's what the socons are hoping for with McLachlin, they fail to recognize that, ironically, that is precisely what the same socons object about when they complain about the Opposition Parties' slowing down the business of Parliament (when in fact it's the ruling minority government that has tried to slow down committees where the bulk of the work is done, as my colleague Sabina Becker notes).

It's also because, according to McLachlin herself, she takes her role on the Order of Canada committee seriously. So much so, that she recuses herself from voting on new members or promotions within the order unless there is a tie, which she has had to do only once. She made clear that she was not involved in the Morgentaler vote.

From the Montréal Gazette:

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin distanced herself Saturday from the controversial decision to name Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada, saying she was not the driving force behind the move and intentionally abstained from voting on whether to honour the abortion doctor.

McLachlin, as head of an advisory council that selects Order of Council recipients, shed light on the secretive process as she spoke for the first time about a debate that has persisted since Morgentaler's July nomination.

Canada's chief justice told a news conference she "made a personal policy decision" almost a decade ago to avoid getting involved in appointments by promoting any candidate or voting for their investiture.

"My view is that I'm there to make sure that the meeting runs well and fairly and that the vote is taken fairly and not to weigh in for or against a particular candidate."

[...]

McLachlin, who as a judge must be viewed as impartial, spoke of her struggle to reach "an adequate comfort level" in her role as chairwoman of the advisory body, which makes recommendations to the Governor General.

"I do it because by law I'm required to do it. It's not something I chose to do," she said at an annual gathering of the Canadian Bar Association. "I feel reasonably comfortable in the process doing it the way I have outlined that I do it, not getting involved in promoting a particular candidate, or advocating for a particular candidate or voting for a particular candidate or against."

McLachlin decried the "misinformation" that has been publicly circulated about her personally promoting Morgentaler. She also disputed news reports that it was unusual for the advisory council to vote on a candidate and that the group usually reaches a decision unanimously.

"There has been no practice of consensus," said McLachlin. Rather, the group routinely votes on a nomination and she said she has only voted once to break a tie.

This, you would think, settles the issue. I think it will from the perspective of her fellow judges as well as the regular lawyers who sit on the review panel. It certainly won't from that of socons, however. They'll say, let's just make sure we GOTV to ensure a majority in at least the House -- then we'll bully the Senate to go along with us.

Canadians will see such subterfuge for what is it. A blatant attempt to undermine the judicial independence that makes us one of the least corrupt countries in the world. We don't want, nor should we even desire, a politically responsive judiciary like exists in Mainland China or Saudi Arabia.

The Judicial Council should simply dismiss the complaints as what they really are, political interference, out of hand. Good on McLachlin for calling them out. And for the record, I would defend any judge, liberal or conservative, as long as they stuck to the accepted codes of conduct for judges and didn't make up their own rules as socons want "their" magistrators to do.

As for Stéphane Dion, all I can say is: These front groups for the Conservative Party (often operating with different hats from the same addresses, as proven) should be all the reason you need to pull the plug when Parliament resumes. We Canadians can no longer tolerate the schenanigans we've had to endure the last two years. America has been held hostage by the religious right, and we can't allow that to happen to Canada either. Stand up for Canada ­™, sir. Bring on the election.

UPDATE (9:27 am EDT, 1327 GMT): Just to clarify an important point so I'm not misunderstood: I would not have an issue with an evangelical minister officiating at a wedding if, as it turns out, I wind up getting married to a "born-again" woman -- the only proviso I would insist upon is a real university degree with real credentials. I simply have no tolerance for those who have "doctorates" or even a bachelor's degree from an unaccredited institute. And there are more diploma mills out there than those cited by critics.

It's those factories that put out many of the "leaders" we see out there, that discredit the good name of true evangelical Protestants; and they and their products should be ashamed of themselves.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.