Legal experts question Beverley McLachlin’s position at Hong Kong court; Amir Attaran: “[Her] judgment is deeply lacking – like shamefully – if she thinks it propitious to become a judge in Hong Kong at its peak of its repression. … So what possible good can she do by being there, and collaborating in emergent tyranny? Her moral compass is totally demagnetized.”

Amir Attaran@profamirattaran Replying to @profamirattaran

Fact: “In February, the Court of Final Appeal said it did not have the jurisdiction to constitutionally review the National Security Law.” So what possible good can she do by being there, and collaborating in emergent tyranny? Her moral compass is totally demagnetized.

Legal experts question Beverley McLachlin’s position at Hong Kong court by Nathan VanderKlippe, March 13, 2021, The Globe and Mail

… But a growing number of people in Canada’s legal community are asking why Ms. McLachlin has continued to offer her services – and by extension, her support – to a system that is being used to prosecute protesters and pro-democracy politicians. This is unfolding in a city whose freedoms Beijing is rapidly bringing under its control.

In Britain, Lord Robert Reed, president of that country’s Supreme Court, said this week that a decision will be made soon on whether British judges should withdraw from the Hong Kong court. Currently, 10 of the 14 foreign judges on the Court of Final Appeal are from Britain. Two of them, including Lord Reed, are also sitting judges in Britain. Last year, an Australian judge resigned from the court, citing changes in the legal landscape.

… Elsewhere, critics are renewing questions about whether a person of Ms. McLachlin’s prominence is doing more harm than good by staying.

“It’s exactly because she is so iconic – she stands for something – that it is time she takes a stand and comes back to Canada, draws a line to say, ‘No, I will not be part of this,’” said Chi-Kun Shi, a Hong Kong-born lawyer who is a bencher at the Law Society of Ontario. A bencher is a member of the organization’s governing board.

By staying, “she is nothing more than ornamental to the court,” Ms. Shi said, adding “at this point, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal has become an organ for the Chinese repressive regime.”

New research has sought to delineate the challenges to Hong Kong courts after a series of changes imposed by China, including a National Security Law that has brought Beijing’s definition of proper political expression and patriotism to a city that long enjoyed the freedom to come to its own conclusions.

That law “carries with it quite grave threats to judicial independence in Hong Kong,” scholars at Georgetown Center for Asian Law wrote in an extensive analysis, published in February.

In particular, Article 55 of that law allows for cases to be moved to courts in mainland China, a provision that “carries with it an implicit threat: deliver verdicts that are satisfactory to Beijing, or the Communist Party will simply use Article 55 to take matters into its own hands,” wrote the Georgetown scholars, Thomas Kellogg and Lydia Wong, a pseudonym for a scholar from China.

… Ms. McLachlin did not respond to a request for comment. Last year, she told The Globe and Mail: “the courts in Hong Kong remain independent and impartial.” Court records show she has heard three cases in Hong Kong and written one judgment.

Others aren’t so sure.

In February, Ms. Shi raised a motion before the Law Society that sought to ask Ms. McLachlin to immediately step down from the Hong Kong court. The motion failed, with other benchers expressing support for the former chief justice.

“She may be making a lot of headway in making changes there. I think it would be a mistake and perhaps very embarrassing for us to assume that we have such wide detailed knowledge that we can tell her what to do,” lay bencher Seymour Epstein said.

Jonathan Rosenthal, another lawyer and bencher, called the motion “preposterous and arrogant. Justice McLachlin will make whatever decision she deems appropriate.”

But 17 benchers voted in favour of the motion, in a sign of rising concern over the scale of legal upheaval in Hong Kong and Ms. McLachlin’s position there. “This motion is begging, asking chief justice McLachlin to step down,” said John Fagan, another lawyer and Law Society bencher. “We’re begging her as friends, for her own good.”

Change in Hong Kong has come swiftly.

After a year of peaceful street demonstrations and bloody confrontation between police and violent protesters, China brought in the National Security Law. This week, China’s rubber-stamp parliament ordered the remaking of the electoral process in Hong Kong, giving Beijing a direct say in the nomination of the city’s legislators, in addition to its chief executive.

The changes have raised concerns that Hong Kong, like China, is becoming a place with “rule by law” rather than “rule of law.”

In February, the Court of Final Appeal said it did not have the jurisdiction to constitutionally review the National Security Law.

Meanwhile, Chinese state-run media have openly attacked judges for decisions considered unfavourable to Beijing. Late last year, Zhang Xiaoming, deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office that Beijing uses to oversee the city, said it was time to “reform” the city’s judiciary, without specifying what that might mean.

As those pressures mount, “the reasonable observer would query whether the courts can adequately protect their rights,” Hong Kong human-rights lawyer Mark Daly said.

“I would like to hear the justifications for staying on the Court of Final Appeal as a non-permanent judge,” he added. “The Hong Kong justice system is not the 1998 system and not even the 2019 system.”

Still, for someone like Ms. McLachlin to leave “will send mostly a misleading and incorrect message that there is something wrong with the legal system,” said Prof. Young of the University of Hong Kong.

In the future, “there will be many more challenging cases to come before the Court of Final Appeal,” he said. “And there is no reason to think the foreign judges will not continue to make their distinct contributions to jurisprudence.”

A few of the comments:

roger36:

She’s a bit high on herself, these days. 

Motstrebor:

Judge McLachlin should cease participating in Hong Kong’s judicial system for the same reason that Canadian athletes not participate in the upcoming Chinese Olympics.
In both cases participation lends an undeserved legitimacy to the [Chinese communist Party].

moon howler:

Ms. McLachlin is nothing more than a pawn used by a brutal communist dictatorship violently imposing its will and control on a population. Hong Kong never imposed a threat to the Chinese mainland. It prospered, was law abiding and democratic- apparently regarded as a threat to the Chinese communist Party. Her continued presence in Hong Kong sitting on the Court of Final Appeal is and will continue to be used by the CCP as a stamp of legitimacy in support of its brutality. A propaganda tool. There is nothing she can do to change this crisis to make things safer or better. She needs to leave or face a loss of integrity, internationally as well as in Canada, unless it is her intention to join Spavor and Kovrig in incarceration, thereby worsening Canada’s position in dealing with the dictatorship.

Henry Egan:

The correct term is “enabler”.

Was not that great a judge when she was here either…

Yet another Canadian:

@RR: You wrote: 

Of course, there will always be those who wish to politicize judicial appointments and decisions. This is an example of it.

This is not a question of anyone in Canada politicizing judicial appointments. Ms McLachlin retired years ago. It was the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal that selected her as a “non-permanent rotating judge” from a commonwealth jurisdiction. As such, you are deliberately misrepresenting the context. 

As for whether or not she is “trustworthy enough to make the right choice”, that, too, is not what is at issue here. 

The issue is whether or it is wise for one of her stature (she was the first woman to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada) to continue affording credibility to a judicial system that is under enormous pressure from an overweening regime in Beijing.

By remaining, she offers that regime a fig leaf to cover their violation of the autonomy granted to Hong Kong under the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 and China’s own Basic Law. 

From where I stand, remaining (and thus granting legitimacy to what is not credible) only discredits her.

“Trustworthiness” has nothing to do with it. 

Bob Beaker:

Curious that there is no mention of her specific decisions and how they do, or do not, support an independent judiciary. The key question is — what is she doing?

redcat:

She should leave. Period. She’s doing nothing substantive there except lending credibility to a compromised system. Wonder why she stays. Do they pay that well?

kal49;

McLaughlin is there to over see the transfer of power and complete the post nation state. Nothing more.

Peter Lamont:

Step by step the rule of law in Hong Kong is being replaced by the rule of Beijing. Can any reasonable observer doubt that if the foreign judges on the Court of Final Appeal ruled against Beijing’s interests that their service as judges would be terminated? Although it would violate the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a simple edict from the Communist Party of China could abolish the positions of foreign judges in Hong Kong. A senior and well respected jurist should not appear to tolerate such an attack on the independence of the judiciary in a free and democratic society. Ms McLauchlin should resign rather than be fired.

klaus kinkel:

It’s too late for Maclachlan to redeem herself, but it’s not too late for the legal profession in Canada to distance from her position.

Her supporters will trot out the argument that she stays to protect the interests of 300k Canadians in Hong Kong, ignoring the public edict from Beijing there is no longer any use for an independent judiciary.

Her quiet acquiescence echoes Trudeau’s feeble position that he cannot take a stand against the CCP for fear of angering China into grabbing more hostages.

Neville Chamberlain, step side. You have finally been dethroned as the ultimate appeaser.

app_69115303:

All the foreign judges should refuse such position from Hong Kong. The judiciary system in HK is dead just based on the recent arrests of 47 pro Democratic members. The foreign judges are only used as a propaganda tool to mislead the world that HK still has independent judiciary system.

retired perdiem:

… McLachlin’s continued role in such a regime is no different than corporations like IBM that assisted the Third Reich. An enabler who is willing to turn a blind eye for a pay cheque.

… How is McLachlin a national treasure? Some of her Supreme Court decisions were so awful they required several subsequent decisions to correct the errors or as the court calls it “clarifications”. …

She is still participating in a system that has devolved into a farcical star chamber. The fact that she legitimizes a despotic regime through her participation and at the same time weakens the legitimacy and reputation of the Canadian court system is what is appalling.

Yet another Canadian:

… Clearly Xi Jinping’s government does not share that understanding, which is why critics in Canada are calling on Ms McLachlin to up stakes and return to Canada (so as not to create the impression that she is “okay” with the destruction that we’ve seen in Hong Kong’s legal system since 2015–and which greatly accelerated after 1 July 2020). 

Confused again:

From the article: “Still, for someone like Ms. McLachlin to leave “will send mostly a misleading and incorrect message that there is something wrong with the legal system,” said Prof. Young of the University of Hong Kong.”

Well isn’t it the basic assumption of this article, that there is something wrong with the legal system in Hong Kong??

Benchers bring motion to call on Beverley McLachlin to resign from Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, Other Benchers said such an action would be outside the LSO’s proper role by Aidan Macnab, 25 Feb 2021, Law Times

A motion to write to former chief justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin and ask that she immediately resign her position at the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal failed at the Law Society of Ontario Convocation Thursday.

Moved by Chi-Kun Shi, a lawyer and mediator in Toronto, and seconded by John Fagan, the motion earned 17 votes in favour and 28 opposed, with four abstentions.

McLachlin is an overseas non-permanent judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. Since the passing last year of the Law of the People’s Republic of China for Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, also known as the National Security Law, the former British colony has become increasingly repressive against dissent, says Shi. In January, the lawyer Daniel Wong Kwok-tung was among ten others arrested for allegedly assisting 12 Hong Kongers flee to Taiwan. The arrests came after those of 55 pro-democracy activists and supporters earlier in the month.

The presence of foreign judges on the court are a “fig leaf” used by the Chinese Government to maintain the illusion of legitimacy amid increasing oppression, said Shi’s notice of motion.

“With the National Security Law, the Hong Kong court of final appeal has basically become an arm of the Chinese communist government,” says Shi.

“There’s been a lot of commentary recently about the role of retired Supreme Court Justices, for instance, giving advisory opinions, things of that nature. It’s quite clear that the bar considers them to be part of the leadership of our profession,” says Dr. Ryan Alford, a Bencher and an associate professor at the Bora Laskin Faculty of Law at Lakehead University.

A letter to McLachlin would amount to “collegial advice” to a leader in the profession and would fall under the “core mandate” contained within the oath sworn by every lawyer in Ontario, to promote the rule of law, both individually and collectively, he says.

“So given the fact that we need to promote the rule of law, we need clarity about the rule of law, we need lawyers to understand the importance of upholding the rule of law Yikes! What is the purpose of law school, if lawyers do not know these things after becoming lawyers? And if they do not know these things, no wonder Canada has dreadful access to justice and unreliable when it suits them “client-attorney privilege” and “rule of law.”, giving that collegial guidance, I think, falls squarely within our mandate,” says Alford.

But other Benchers said the Law Society would be stepping outside of its proper role if it were to try to advise McLachlin on whether she should resign from the court. 

“With respect, this motion is entirely inappropriate and irresponsible,” said Bencher Jonathan Rosenthal at Convocation. “… What we are really doing, as a regulator, is effectively interfering with judicial independence, which is offensive to do, especially to a sitting judge. She will make whatever decision she deems appropriate. She doesn’t need our help. This is an embarrassing motion.”

Canadian MPs call for sanctions against Chinese officials behind Beijing’s crackdown in Hong Kong by Steven Chase, Senior parliamentary reporter, With a report from Reuters, February 25, 2021, The Globe and Mail

An all-party parliamentary committee studying how Canada should respond to Beijing’s crackdown on civil rights in Hong Kong is urging the federal government to work with allies in slapping sanctions on the Chinese officials responsible.

The House of Commons Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, convened after Beijing locked up two Canadians on what Ottawa considers trumped-up charges, released a report Thursday that also calls for universal suffrage in Hong Kong, where residents are denied a direct say in who runs the city.

That’s a challenge to the Chinese Communist Party, which controls the nominations for the top political post in Hong Kong – that of chief executive – and has begun barring pro-democracy politicians from seeking office.

In reference to warnings of Chinese state interference in Canada, the report also urges Ottawa to start scrutinizing the activities of China’s diplomats here. China has roughly 160 diplomatically protected staff accredited to work in Canada, almost as many as the United States does.

“In light of the allegations of threats and intimidation against people in Canada supporting human rights and democracy in Hong Kong, the government of Canada [should] carefully review accredited diplomatic personnel in the People’s Republic of China’s diplomatic missions to Canada,” the report says.

The Chinese Communist Party last June imposed a sweeping new national security law on Hong Kong, which had been a British colony for more than 150 years. Ostensibly to target secession, subversion and terrorism, the law contains vaguely defined offences that critics say effectively criminalize dissent and opposition.

Western countries, including Canada, have accused China’s one-party state of breaking a 1984 treaty in which Beijing pledged to maintain Hong Kong’s autonomy, civil rights and rule of law for 50 years after its handover in 1997. About 300,000 Canadian citizens live in Hong Kong.

Authorities in Hong Kong have conducted sweeping arrests of most of the city’s remaining opposition figures and activists.

The report calls on Ottawa to apply “targeted sanctions” against Chinese or Hong Kong officials “responsible for, or complicit in gross violations of human rights, freedoms and the rule of law in Hong Kong.” It proposes using Magnitsky-style sanctions – named after a Russian whistleblower – that freeze assets and deny financial services to target officials.

The U.S. has already imposed sanctions on Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam, the territory’s current and former police chiefs and eight other top officials.

The Commons report, endorsed by committee members from the minority Liberal government, the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, also calls for stronger immigration measures to help Hong Kongers fleeing Beijing’s clampdown.

MPs are calling on Ottawa to loosen family-reunification rules; it’s harder for Canadians who are not a spouse, partner or child to sponsor relatives hoping to immigrate to Canada.

The crackdown on political opposition in Hong Kong has prompted many pro-democracy dissidents to seek a way out, but COVID-19 travel restrictions do not make it easy for them to board a plane to Western countries. Canada has granted political asylum to at least 14 Hong Kong dissidents, but they arrived before the pandemic hit.

Ottawa has already come up with an immigration program to attract recent graduates and skilled Hong Kongers but MPs say it’s not enough.

“We expect a stronger response,” NDP foreign-affairs critic Jack Harris said.

The Conservative Party wanted to add several more recommendations to the report but could not get sufficient approval from the other parties.

These included asking Ottawa whether it is appropriate for former Supreme Court of Canada chief justice Beverley McLachlin to sit on Hong Kong’s highest appellate court.

In 2018, Ms. McLachlin agreed to a three-year term on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.

But the imposition of China’s national-security law, which erodes Hong Kong’s freedoms and rule of law, has already prompted another foreign judge, James Spigelman of Australia, to step down from the Court of Final Appeal.

Conservative foreign-affairs critic Michael Chong and human-rights critic Garnett Genuis said they also wished the committee’s report had called for a plan to stop Beijing from interfering with people and organizations on Canadian soil.

They noted that witnesses who testified before the committee described increased targeting and bullying of Canadian supporters of democracy in Hong Kong, “particularly through instruments of the Chinese Communist Party.”

The Conservative MPs said “Canada’s government must ensure the safety and security of all people in Canada, including those who are vocal about human rights and democracy abroad, by finally bringing forward a robust plan to respond to foreign-state-backed interference.”

Foreign yet familiar by Asia Business Law Journal, 23 September 2020

In an exclusive interview for Asia Business Law Journal, Canadian Justice Beverley McLachlin talks to Edward R Chin about her role as an overseas judge in Hong Kong

… Justice McLachlin is Hong Kong’s first woman non-permanent justice. She served as the Chief Justice of Canada from 2000 to mid-December 2017, and is the longest serving chief justice in Canadian history. In June 2018, she became a Companion of the Order of Canada, the highest honour that can be bestowed on a civilian in that nation. A published best-selling author, she is also an international judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court, and an international arbitrator.

… When asked how she got the position of non-permanent justice in Hong Kong, McLachlin says she was simply invited by the chief justice of Hong Kong, Geoffrey Ma Tao-li.

In terms of her role in Hong Kong, she says: “I think it is very important that the international judge has a very good grounding in the law. For me, it is the common law … [but] the judge has to be able to adapt to other courts and arbitrations, to other laws and legal systems. It could be a civil system, for example, and you apply the law of whatever country is specified in the arbitration agreement, or in reference to the court.

“So basically, I think the quality that you really have to have is a pretty global understanding about how legal rules work throughout the world – the different kinds of legal systems there are. In Canada, I was fortunate because we have a civil system in the province of Quebec and we also have the common law in the other provinces. So, I was familiar with working in different systems, the civil system or a code system, as some people call it, and a common law, precedence-based system.”

… McLachlin acknowledges she brings a different perspective to the table, but says she will always apply the local laws that she has sworn to. She didn’t do that in my case, and didn’t even answer the mandatory constitutional question relating to my case before the Supreme Court of Canada when she was Chief Justice there, none of the judges did. “I think every person who judges has a perspective,” she says. “When I am in Hong Kong, my duty, my sworn duty, is to apply the law of Hong Kong, and so I am very conscious of that. So, I am not going to just apply Canadian law, I wouldn’t do that, but I might personally make mental comparisons as I’m trying to work out the case in Hong Kong, and I might bring different perspectives because of my experiences in my own country.”

… “I have always believed that a good legal system or dispute resolution system is one that guarantees impartial dispute resolution on commercial disputes and establishes a degree of certainty in the rules of the law – what the law is. Yet, that did not happen for my case before the Supreme Court of Canada when McLachlin was Chief Justice there, and the court exceeded the six months time limit for issuing rulings, as per the Canadian Judicial Council, adding horrific stress to me for no reason it seems, than to do just that. I believe those are very important to continued commercial development and expansion – everything from people who want to invest, who want to know they have the security of a good legal system, to people who are making decisions on the ground, and those who look to the court for guidance, and so on. So, this is very fundamental to commercial development in the long run. And as Asia business and commerce expand, it is very important that the legal development keeps up with that.”

So is there anything she observes that Hong Kong might learn from her own Canadian legal system? “It sounds rather presumptive to say you can learn from us, but I do think that Canada has a tradition of bringing together diverse systems,” she says. “A bijural system and diverse people from all over the world, many of whom either have close ties to Asia or come from there … Canada presents a very open face, and you can learn how to judge in an open-texture society where everyone has to be respected with different traditions.

“I’m sure that there’s a very highly developed awareness of this already in Asia, but if I can bring something from the Canadian perspective, it might be respect for diversity and how to work in diverse situations.”

Former Supreme Court chief justice urged to step down from Hong Kong court by Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief, and Steven Chase, Senior parliamentary reporter, July 10, 2020

Former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler, a widely respected champion of human rights, says former Supreme Court of Canada chief justice Beverley McLachlin should consider resigning her seat on Hong Kong’s highest appellate court to protest against China’s crackdown on the Asian city’s legal freedoms.

“I think it would be an important statement if she did,” Mr. Cotler told The Globe and Mail on Thursday.

“The way this national security law is drafted, it effectively removes the independent authority that she has because the national security law is so broad that they would replace her with their own people on a whole gamut of cases. So I think she would make an important statement if she did, in fact, withdraw.”

Ms. McLachlin, who was Canada’s longest-serving chief justice, agreed in 2018 to a three-year term on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, which routinely invites judges from other common-law jurisdictions to be non-permanent members.

The court, established in 1997 when the former British colony was handed over to China, has also included judges from Britain, Australia and New Zealand, who occasionally hear cases. Ms. McLachlin has heard three cases since her appointment, which ends in 2021.

But China’s imposition of a national security law erodes the legal freedoms and rule of law that Beijing promised Hong Kong citizens would remain in place for 50 years. In addition to Mr. Cotler, some Members of Parliament and legal experts in Canada also called for Ms. McLachlin to resign.

Hong Kong’s independent judiciary, one of many freedoms guaranteed in the return to Chinese rule, has long been considered key to the city’s success as a global financial hub.

A law professor and human rights lawyer, Mr. Cotler has drawn acclaim for his work as counsel to prisoners of conscience worldwide, from South Africa’s Nelson Mandela to Soviet-era dissident Natan Sharansky. Mr. Cotler was a Montreal MP for nearly 16 years before stepping down in 2015.

Mr. Cotler said he intends to telephone Ms. McLachlin to make the case for her to resign and emphasize that Beijing’s new national security law removes the independence of the judiciary.

“She could take the position that the over-broad, draconian national security legislation would not only compromise the position of an independent appellate court in Hong Kong, but in fact would even exclude them from being able to act as an independent court,” Mr. Cotler said.

The new law imposed by Beijing on Tuesday prohibits any act of treason, secession, sedition, or subversion against China and punishes people for activities that endanger national security.

China’s National People’s Congress has the right to override court rulings in Hong Kong with what are called “interpretations.”

Former Canadian ambassador to China David Mulroney agreed that Ms. McLachlin should step down. He said the presence of foreign judges helps confer legitimacy on the Court of Final Appeal and said that Canada’s July 3 announcement it was suspending an extradition treaty with Hong Kong “is a pretty eloquent statement about what we think of the Hong Kong judicial system right now.”

Last August, after two months of massive protests in Hong Kong over the future of the city, The Globe and Mail asked Ms. McLachlin whether she had considered stepping down. She replied in an e-mail that there was no need.

“The courts in Hong Kong remain independent and impartial and I intend to fulfill my role on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal as best I can,” she said.

Asked again in early July whether she planned to remain on the Hong Kong court, Ms. McLachlin replied: “I am not in a position to comment on this situation.”

NDP foreign affairs critic Jack Harris said the decision to step down should be left to Ms. McLachlin, but added there may be value in having her on the Hong Kong high court for the time being.

“Canada as a country hasn’t yet decided that we should have a no-go zone with respect to China and Hong Kong,” he said. “Obviously in these circumstances, [Ms. McLachlin’s presence] does give prestige to the court and also gives it a flavor of international jurisprudence as opposed to their interpretation of the rule of law that we are seeing in Beijing. We are seeing the imposition of Chinese law on the people of Hong Kong, but how it affects the internal courts at this moment is uncertain.”

University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes, however, said he believes Ms. McLachlin should resign.

“Just to show solidarity with the people of Hong Kong and for the view that Canada has now taken in withdrawing the extradition act is that she should step down,” he said.

Conservative MP Peter Kent said Ms. McLachlin should consider resigning. “She is a very smart and honourable person. She was a good judge,” he said of her time in the Canadian courts. He said her resignation would send a strong message about how Beijing has compromised the rule of law in Hong Kong.

The role of British judges on the court has also come under scrutiny. The chairman of Britain’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee, MP Tom Tugendhat, on Wednesday questioned whether they should continue.

A few of the comments:

The Work Farce:

Not exactly a surprise that Ms. McLachlin’s tenure in Hong Kong coincides with Hong Kong’s loss of democracy 

Alternate Facts:

I’m surprised she hasn’t already resigned. She has more sense than to continue to support a regime that has destroyed individual rights and freedoms in HK. Her reputation is at stake now. It’s time to live up to it.

Refer also to:

2021: If rape-enabling shit sits atop the judicial industry, what runs through it?

2020: Supreme Court of Canada rules Charter does not protect corporations from “cruel and unusual punishment.” When will the court apologize for intentionally publishing lies in their ruling in Ernst vs AER (100% corporate-funded Charter violator) and damaging Charter rights for *non* corporate, non criminal Canadians?

2020: “Rule of Law” or “Rich White Man Law?” US Senate (controls Supreme Court nominees) created to represent the rich: “…to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” John A. MacDonald, 1st thug PM on why Canada needed an appointed Senate: “We must protect the rights of the minority, and the rich are always in fewer number than the poor.”

Emmett Macfarlane@EmmMacfarlane Poli Sci Prof, UWaterloo. Constitutional Law, Public Policy & Cdn Politics. Author & editor of books.

Law is politics people. Never forget.

Canada’s top judge history (are/were any poor, living without water?):

All Supreme Court of Canada appointments to date:

87 White men
10 White women

2020: Federally appointed judges’ expenses to be made public for first time, But judges are objecting and get away with pissing on the rule of law and lying in rulings. Why would they heed a law ordering them to disclose expenses that we pay for?

2019: Secrets & lies by AER & Alberta govt to cover-up Encana’s secrets, lies & frac crimes; Supreme Court of Canada in the cover-up business too? Top Court signs pact to keep records of deliberations secret for at least 50 years; Reserves right to keep some secret forever To permanently keep secret why the top court used me and my case to damage Canada’s Charter and intentionally published a lie in Ernst vs AER? And why it dragged out its ruling for a year? Justice Rosalie Abella lied in her ruling in Ernst vs AER when McLachlin was Chief Justice; McLachlin in her dissent called out Abella’s lie yet allowed the lie to be published (four judges called out the lie, four were silent). Worse, McLachlin allowed the court to include Abella’s lie in their ruling summary sent to the media, while leaving out the dissent calling out the lie. The media of course, published the lie, completing Supreme Court of Canada’s defamation of Ernst. Who was McLachlin/Canada’s high court working for? Brian Mulroney and or Steve Harper? AER’s outside counsel Glenn Solomon (caught on tape explaining how gag orders work to let oil companies pollute drinking water again down the street)? AER? Encana? Israel (it reportedly stole a $4 Billion gas field that must be frac’d)?

2019: Is AER making those who “leave” sign gag orders with payouts to keep secret the dirty goings on at the “Brotherhood” and Orphan Well Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Club? Nicely enabled by Alberta gov’t pretending to “clean” house while ramping up deregulation for industry to pollute and harm more?

2017: Enabling sexual predators? Enabling Canadian judges revictimizing sexual assault victims? Enabling Canada’s demented abusive legal system? Threatening sexual assault victims to keep silent? Galling, throw-women-back-into-the-cave statements to Criminal Lawyers’ Association by Canada’s Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin

2017: Jessica Ernst Open Letter to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin Regarding False and Seriously Damaging Statements in Justice Rosalie Abella’s Supreme Court of Canada Ruling, Ernst v AER

2017 WHILE UNDER MCLACHLIN’S LEADERSHIP AS CHIEF JUSTICE IN CANADA: Damaging the Charter: Ernst vs Alberta Energy Regulator by Lorne Sossin, Dean Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. Comment: “It causes one to question how much both the plurality and the dissent were driven by the desired end-state of the judgment, rather than consistency in applying principles of public law.”

2016: US EPA Releases Final Frac Report: Rosebud Alberta drinking water aquifers frac’d, water wells contaminated with gas.

2016: Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin: Canada has “Cadillac justice for the elite and large corporations”

2016: Big Thinking Lectures at U of Calgary: Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin on rule of law principal that “no one, no matter how important or powerful they are, is above the law in a diverse society.” Except: AER; Encana/Ovintiv et al; the rich and powerful; murdering racist raping police/RCMP; lying, law-violating politicians, lawyers & judges; rapists and pedophiles (how many are judges, politicians, and or lawyers?); churches and raping religious authorities; etc. etc. etc. (with a few token punishments/tosses in the slammer for appearances of upholding the law). Rule of law when it suits them.

2015: Alberta Justice Minister Kathleen Ganley: ordinary Albertans “can’t afford legal services anymore.” Canada’s Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin: people falling through the cracks, “We all know that unresolved legal problems adversely affect people’s lives….”

2011: Canada’s legal system doesn’t work for the majority: “Startingly frank speech” by Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin

This entry was posted in Other Legal. Bookmark the permalink.