Justin Trudeau haunts us still

It’s election season in the United States, and a total of 320 appellate court seats are up for grabs. In 28 different U.S. States, elections are also being held that will land Judges on that city’s trial court — in the U.S., that’s the Court House “where most civil or criminal cases commence.”

There are even lawn signs. For Judges. And you know what? Like anyone else running for high office, few of those seeking re-election want to be explaining to voters why it is that they’re out-of-step with their community on issues like bail, sentencing and prison terms.

As they say in politics, “when you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

Every time I read about some asinine Canadian judicial decision, I think about our legal traditions. The JCPC, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, Myers & Leenen vs the CBC, etc. The respect that Judges once had for the Legislative process and the difference between passing laws and interpreting them. For decades, I’ve held the Bench in the highest esteem. I’ve sat through hearings at Civil, Criminal and Commercial Court, and have always been impressed with each part of the puzzle.

At some point, not too long ago, that started to change.

Whether it be the Supreme Court, or a local borough, too many Judges seem to capitalizing on their lifetime perch to make laws, to right some perceived wrong, or to concoct a rationale to achieve what was a clearly political outcome.

SCC Chief Justice Richard Wagner sees criticism of this trend as “attacks” against the justice system, but It must be called out for what it is, and what it’s not. These folks are no more infallible that the rest of us, but that’s not the point. It’s the freelancing beyond their narrow remit.

And I think they know it.

I try to imagine Justice William Gorewich of the Ontario Court of Justice door-knocking for re-election following the Court of Appeal’s harsh decision in R. v. H.E.. The Crown sought a prison term of four years, but Justice Gorewich handed down a much lighter sentence — 18 months plus probation, despite the fact that the accused was convicted of “raping his wife repeatedly and beating her along with his children. The assaults were routine, occurring three or four times a month.”

In his Decision, Justice Gorewich had this to say:

“In my considerations, I ask how much weight [should] the cultural impact of moving from Iran to Canada be given. [The accused’s wife] testified in Iran if she complained about any abuse she would be ignored. It is a different culture, it is a different society. As far as I’m able to ascertain from the evidence those cultural differences moved with them from Iran to Canada. It is only a factor in my deliberations, and not a sentencing principle.”

He got trounced on Appeal, as per Canadian Lawyer Magazine:

“On appeal, Associate Chief Justice Alexandra Hoy, on behalf of a unanimous court, took great exception with the notion that one’s cultural background could excuse violent criminal behaviour. “Cultural differences do not excuse or mitigate criminal conduct. To hold otherwise undermines the equality of all individuals before and under the law, a crucial Charter value,” the decision states.

“All women in Canada are entitled to the same level of protection from abusers. The need to strongly denounce domestic violence is in no way diminished when that conduct is the product of cultural beliefs that render women acceptable targets of male violence.”

There may be enough sane Judges at various Courts of Appeal to hold the worst offenders at bay, but as we’ve seen at the Supreme Court, there’s plenty of virtue-signaling to go around. Judges need to be free to interpret the law without fear of a crowd showing up with pitchforks. But as has been clear to many for some time, including Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner (one of my Five Women to watch in 2025): “When it comes to sentencing non-citizens, Canada has essentially adopted a form of two-tier justice.” And there are plenty more examples of woke thinking pervading recent Decisions, beyond the clear cases of two-tier justice. Mr. Trudeau may be off, living his best life, but he’s left us with a serious challenge.

Both B.C. and Alberta allow for the recall of politicians, as do 18 U.S. States, and I don’t see why that can’t be extended to Judicial appointments at both the Federal and Provincial level as an alternative to direct election. Imagine that after years of truly goofy decisions, 70% of a Province’s voters wanted to turf a particular Judge. Why should they continue in that role? No CEO, Pastor or politician could survive that level of stakeholder opposition.

Not a fan, you say?

What about 80%? 90%? At some point, the question should morph from yes/no, to what’s the threshold. During his time in office, Mr. Trudeau appointed more than 860 Judges. You have to assume that he chose from scores of activist candidates who reflect his core values, personified by his reaction to the Boston Marathon terrorist bombing: “‘over the coming days’ it would be necessary to ‘look at root causes.’”

If the woke activist trend continues at scale, Parliament might just need to tackle this unfortunate development.

If you want to see how this week’s Star column ends, buy a print copy tomorrow, use your Apple News, or subscribe to The Star online via my special discount code: www.thestar.com/informed.

“Woke 1.0 was crazy,” according to Democrat Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. As she lays the groundwork for a 2028 U.S. Presidential run, her first priority is to distance herself from that recent political era.

At its peak, the Left’s woke platform covered the waterfront, and included “defunding the police,” having “a real conversation about…prison abolition,” “decriminalizing [illegal] border crossings,” and adopting the term “menstruating person” instead of “woman.”

Closer to home, then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made his own woke mark with phrases like “Peoplekind.” By 2023, he had gone all-in. In his speech to the Liberal Party convention that year, Trudeau wore the label as a badge of honour, dismissing conservative politicians who claimed “our policies are too woke. Too woke!? Hey, Pierre Poilievre, it’s time for you to wake up.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom and Ocasio-Cortez may be contorting themselves to conform to the post-woke political winds, but not a week goes by without a Trudeau-appointed Judge arriving at some inane decision that epitomises woke thinking.

A new twist on the phrase famously associated with his father, Pierre: “He haunts us still.”

Take London, Ontario Judge Kelly Tranquilli. She took pity on 29 year-old Emerson Wright, who was being paid to store illegal handguns that had been smuggled in from the United States. The Crown Attorney sought a three-year jail sentence, which would have been the mandatory minimum in the Stephen Harper era.

For Tranquilli, Wright’s underlying mental health problems reduced his “moral blameworthiness.” The accused was diagnosed with “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and anxiety at a young age,” had a cocaine addiction and was sentenced only to house arrest. It’s no small irony that legal target shooters face potentially higher penalties for, say, unsafe storage than the inconvenience Wright suffered for being part of a “criminal conspiracy.”

In a case involving a sexual assault by a married temporary resident from India, B.C. Judge Kevin Loo decided to reduce the sentence to house arrest because the accused pled guilty and “the victim expressed reluctance to testify in court.” Once he became aware that Singh would face immigration consequences, Loo also decided to refrain from putting him on the national sex offender registry.

A former human rights lawyer, Justice Sandra Nishikawa, gave Mohamad Riahi a 17-month jail sentence for carrying a Glock handgun with two banned high capacity magazines. Nishikawa found “a clear connection between the overt and systemic racism experienced by the accused,” who “identifies as a Muslim, African Canadian of Tunisian heritage,” and his crimes. In this case, the Judge was relying on Trudeau’s 2021 introduction of Impact of Race and Culture Assessment reports, which were launched following George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis, MN.

In a recent high profile case, Judge Gillian Roberts reduced the sentence for a “violent sex assault” from five-years to four, reasoning that “the conviction will have devastating immigration consequences, making any punishment I impose more severe than it otherwise would be.” Even the Defence Counsel in this case agreed with a five-year prison term.

Hit the link to read the rest of the piece.

MRM

(this post is an Opinion Piece)