The Vancouver Riots

Yesterday was a difficult day for Canadians. The night previous – the catalyst being a lost ice hockey game – lawlessness and anarchy ran amok through the heart of Vancouver.

AR hopes this is not due to hockey. Canada is the best hockey nation on the planet and we have nothing to be ashamed about. The Stanley Cup IS HOME. The Boston Bruins are by-and-large Canadian, just like the previous champs, Chicago Black Hawks. The Winnipeg Jets are coming back and we're Olympic Champions.

Perhaps these riots were due to a bunch of spoilt brats searching for a good time. It's increasingly looking like this is the case as young people are exposed via Facebook and other social media.

But Canada deserved better than Wednesday night. We are one of the greatest countries in the world and our justice system needs to bring those who started and participated in this anti-social chaos to JUSTICE.

With that in mind AR would like to post a quote from one of our favourite jurists, Sir Edward Coke:

I as to thee (gentle reader) next to thy duty and piety to God, and his anointed, thy gracious Sovereign, and they honour to their parents, yield due reference and obedience to the common laws of England: for of all laws (I speak of human) these are the most equal and most certain, of greatest antiquity, and least delay, and most beneficial and easy to be observed. If the ancient laws of this noble island had not excelled all others, it could not be, that some of the several conquerors and governors therefore, that is to say, the Romans, Saxons, Danes, or Normans, and especially the Romans, who (as they justly may) do boast of their civil laws, would (as every of them might) have altered or change the same.

Police and Crown Attorneys in British Columbia -- go to work!!!

Neither the Time nor Place

Five days have passed since the “Stop Harper” episode during the Speech from the Throne in the Senate of Canada. The responses have been varied and, upon reflection, AR would like to comment on the matter.

We believe that Ms. Bridgette DePape's protest was done at neither the correct time nor in the correct place.

It Insults the Senate and Crown

Her actions insulted the Senate and the Canadian Crown. The Senate Page Program is an important initiative and while working in political Ottawa, AR came to know the Usher of the Black Rod, the Senate officer who leads it. He was immensely proud of his pages because of the non-partisan work they do. While Ms. DePape has repeatedly stated she did not mean to disrespect her colleagues, this program will undoubtedly now face considerable scrutiny and she has done exactly that.

AR suspects this episode will also call into question the House of Commons Page Program too. Having met a number of Commons pages at both graduate school and while working as a political staffer, AR was always impressed at how bright and motivated these folks were. They knew their politics, had refined political opinions, yet were trusted by partisans to do their job. Surely these programs will survive; but what backlash will they now face?

It Insults the Opposition

Ms. DePape's actions insult the opposition parties of Canada, especially the New Democrats. The NDP, the most left of the opposition parties, has gone 14 seats in the House of Commons in the 37^th parliament (2001-2004) to Official Opposition status and 103 seats in the current parliament.

But they have not done this with gimmickry. No, they've done it with old fashioned political activism – rooted in targeted and aggressive fundraising and intelligent leadership. The Green Party has done likewise, while the Liberal Party of Canada, Canada’s ‘Natural Governing Party’ has become a rump of its former self through complacency and a lack of self-evaluation.

It Insults the Arab Protesters

In Ms. DePape's subsequent press release and television interviews, she remarked how Canada needed an ‘Arab Spring’. This is a ridiculous notion. Her 'counterparts' in Egypt, Bahrain, Syria and elsewhere face despotic regimes which may torture and kill them. Yet, in a valiant attempt to end this, protesters have self-immolated, stared down tanks and assault rifles and gone to war against hardened regimes. Canadians have never faced such opposition, and while the first-past-the-post system is not perfect, it is here and on May 2nd and the people spoke.

Ms. DePape broke an oath to serve the Senate in a nonpartisan fashion . She has always been free to work for change with via the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, NDP, Liberals or Greens. This would have been the correct time and correct place to do things.

Avenue and Ridley reviews Mighty Judgment

Mighty Judgment: How the Supreme Court of Canada Runs Your Life by Phillip Slayton, Allen Lane Canada, 340 pages, $32.00 (2011)

In 1985, then Chief Justice of Canada Brian Dickson remarked that Canada had moved from a country of parliamentary supremacy to constitutional supremacy. He was speaking, of course, about the recently enacted Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and how this entrenched element of the constitution had drastically changed his country and its legal system. Mighty Judgment is account of how the twenty-nine justices of the Charter era have used these entrenched rights to significantly change Canadian society, and is a welcome read for anyone exploring Canada’s highest court and its role in contemporary Canada.

The text is divided into two parts. The first examines the court’s structure and, after an obligatory pre-Charter history, dives into a focused post-Charter analysis. The chapters are demarcated by areas of law, and examine notable cases including: R v Morgentaler, which involved the abortion debate; A.C. v Manitoba and Syndiate Northcrest v Amselem which dealt with religion and Vriend v Alberta which looked at sexual orientation and the Charter. Mr Slayton also cited the Quebec Succession reference and R v Grant and how the Charter has impacted criminal law. An exhaustive list of all cases is beyond the scope of this review, but they illustrate the point made by Mr Slayton – that the Supreme Court has made some incredibly important decisions due to the Charter – often while remaining in relative obscurity.

The second part of the book examines the composition of the court itself, and how the nine current judges* arrived at their jobs. It further discusses how language politics, religious background, province of origin and other uniquely Canadian qualifications find their way into the court’s composition. This is a valuable analysis, as it gives the reader an understanding of how important these people have become to Canada. In Mr Slayton’s words they are: “Nine people doing their best. Like any other group of equals working together to make a difficult decision, there will be crosswinds of competing ambitions, differences of opinion, and clashes of personality... The product of their labours and deliberations is generally good, but not always.”

The final chapter in Part II could stand as a third separate part and outlines some suggestions Mr Slayton believes would befit the judge selection process in the Charter age. This is of particular interest to Avenue and Ridley, as this blog has a great interest in other common law jurisdictions and what these jurisdictions can learn from each other. In this chapter, the selection methods used by Canada’s two most influential legal cousins – the largely apolitical method used by the United Kingdom and the overtly political method of the United States, are briefly examined. Mr Slayton concludes the American model is better but even a hybrid method would be acceptable.

The author pulls no punches when discussing the cases he cites, and uses a cross section of well-cited journalistic, political and legal sources when discussing the effects of the Charter. His argument for an American-style appointment process could have been expanded upon (this blogger remains unconvinced) but the fact that he is shedding light on this glaring public need is welcome, especially in light of recent attention the Harper government has given Senate appointments. Clearly reform of the Supreme Court appointment process deserves similar, if not greater scrutiny, in light of the importance of the Charter.

Upon completion of the book, this blogger immediately recalled Lord Sankey’s speech in British Coal v The King [1935], when it was remarked how the Imperial Parliament could “as a matter of abstract law”, repeal or disregarding a Canadian statute, but this has no relation to current realities. Mr Slayton’s book strikes a similar cord with its sound conclusion. Since 1982, the Charter has created a new reality in Canada and Mr Slayton has made a worthwhile contribution to the story of this. We would do well to incorporate his work into this study.

*In May 2011, Justices Ian Binnie and Louise Charron announced they will be retiring from the court effective August 30, leaving the door open for the Prime Minister to put his personal stamp on the Supreme Court. It also gives parliamentarians, government, the media and the Canadian public an opportunity to consider revisions to the appointment process.