RADICAL
FEMINIST LIBERALS NOMINATED TO CANADA SUPREME COURT
OTTAWA, August 24, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada, Irwin Cotler today announced two nominees for
appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada: Madam Justice Louise Charron, and
Madam Justice Rosalie Abella -- both from the Ontario Court of Appeal. Charron
and Abella will be vetted in a new parliamentary screening process to start
this week.
In a press release today, Canada's largest pro-life organization is decrying
both the nominees for, and the process involved in, proposed new appointments
to the Supreme Court of Canada by federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.
"We fear that, should they be appointed to the Supreme Court, both Louise
Charron and Rosalie Abella will apply not impartial reason and law to their
decisions, but their own ideological biases, which are decidedly left of
centre," commented Jim Hughes, president of Campaign Life Coalition.
"We are calling on Mr. Cotler and Prime Minister Paul Martin to select
more ideologically centrist candidates, who have views more in keeping with
the sentiments of mainstream Canada."
"The two nominees are known hard-line feminists who will apply not law
and reason but their own ideologies," Gwen Landolt, head of REAL Women of
Canada, said in comments made to LifeSiteNews.com Tuesday. Landolt pointed out
that both Charron and Abella are staunchly pro same-sex "marriage"
and benefits, having both handed down decisions favouring this position.
Abella, in her Rosenberg decision in 1999, insisted the federal government
revise income tax laws to favour same-sex couples.
Charron acted as the associate director of the National Judicial Institute for
two years, a body of feminist legal theorists formed to promote feminist
theory in law, Landolt explained. The Institute produced a "gender
sensitivity program" written by feminists, to be used to train Canadian
judges, Landolt said.
The federal government has convened an ad hoc committee to review the
nominations, necessitated by the recent departures of Justices Louise Arbour
and Frank Iacobucci. Minister Cotler will appear before the ad hoc committee
in a public hearing Wednesday to discuss how and why the nominees were chosen.
"The appointment system is a charade," Landolt said, commenting on
the nomination and selection process. The Liberal government calls the new
process "transparent," however, only Cotler will appear before the
committee for questioning, not the judges themselves, Landolt explained.
Although parliamentarians can ask questions of Cotler, there is no mechanism
in place whereby lawmakers can repeal his nominations. "It's a smoke and
mirrors game," Landolt said.
The ad hoc committee will issue a report Friday providing advice on the
appointment of the nominees, for the consideration of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet.
"This spells the end of the court," Landolt said. "The court is
now a political toy to be kicked and used at the discretion of the
government." These appointments "further undermine Canadians trust
in the courts. There is no more credibility for the Supreme Court."
Tv
------------
NEWS
RELEASE
CANADIAN
FAMILY ACTION COALITION
August
24, 2004
The
proposed appointment of two radical activist judges to the Supreme Court of
Canada has grossly politicized the process, according to CFAC.
PM
Martin grossly politicizes Supreme Court appointment process.
Calgary
– “These
two judges from the
Ontario Appeal Court
have a long history of injecting themselves into the media spotlight for
radical decisions on matters of fundamental social policy. It looks like the
Prime Minister is rewarding these unelected “politicians” with a
promotion,” says Brian Rushfeldt CFAC’s Executive Director.
Rushfeldt
says, “It’s highly ironic that the media establishment is criticizing the
Parliamentary review of these appointments as “politicizing the selection
process” when, in fact, the PM continues to have all the power to appoint
judges, and that is not political. And, just look at the political track
record of these two activists.”
Justice
Louise Charron, in 1999, reduced the 14-month jail sentence of Ivan Cohen to
house arrest and 100 of community service. He had been convicted of possessing
and distributing child pornography depicting children as young as 4 engaged in
sexual acts. Charron concurred in the 1998 M&H decision that redefined
“spouse” for the purposes of family law in
Ontario
. And, Charron concurred in the 2000 Parker decision striking down cannabis
prohibition laws, as unconstitutional.
Justice
Rosalie Abella invented the term “employment equity” and led a Royal
Commission that recommended legislating hiring based on racial and sexual
discrimination. Ironically, Abella comes from a province that abolished the
racist and sexist practice almost a decade ago.
As
an Appeal Court Justice, Abella wrote the Rosenburg decision which rejected
the Supreme Court precedent in Egan (1995) and granted survivors pensions to
homosexual partners. (The federal government refused to appeal Rosenburg.)
Abella also wrote a decision in the 1995 Carmen M case that reduced the age of
sexual consent for sodomy so that men cannot be held criminally responsible
for engaging in sodomy with children as young as 14 years of age.
Indicating
utter contempt for Parliament and the rule of law, Abella wrote in the
Rosenburg decision:
“Elected
governments may wait for changing attitudes in order to preserve public
confidence and credibility. Both public confidence and institutional
credibility argue in favour of courts being free to make independent judgments
notwithstanding those same attitudes.”
“Let
us be clear,” says Rushfeldt, “We support the right of Charron and Abella
to take any position they want on the issues, and even re-write the law with
their colleagues, but our only demand is that they get elected to Parliament
first, rather than doing so from the bench. The PM is politicizing the Court
with these two political appointees and trying to advance the Liberal party
agenda on issues such as drugs, sexual orientation and judicial activism
through the Supreme court. Canadians are not fools Mr. Martin , you again
broke your promise to revise the process ”
·
30-
Brian
Rushfeldt
Executive
Director
C F A C
------------------