Supreme folly

In its decision of June 15, 2018 the activist Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Trinity Western University in its bid to establish a law school.

In doing so the Supreme Court turned the Charter on its head, running roughshod over the rights of a private institution.  The Charter was intended to protect private actors (TWU) from an overbearing state (the law societies and the SCOC).

These two excellent columns discuss this decision at length:

           Bruce Pardy: The Supreme Court's TWU ruling is a cruel joke played on all Canadians

           Chris Selley: Supreme Court strikes a blow against religious freedom

An absurd response to an absurd Supreme Court ruling

Canada's legal education system is producing a surplus of bozos and nitwits (aka liberals).  They are everywhere, most notably even on the Supreme Court.  Dimmer bulbs settle for serving as counsel to cities.  The Richmond Hill city council's legal team, taking an absurd Supreme Court ruling to an even more absurd extreme, appear not to have read even the first sentence of our constitution:



"Liberal" idiocy is out of control! We're doomed!

Doctor-assited death - the SSC greases the slope

Today the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its judgement to allow physician-assisted suicide in limited circumstances.  Some selected paragraphs:

Section 241 (b) and s. 14  of the Criminal Code  unjustifiably infringe s. 7  of the Charter  and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition. ... The declaration of invalidity is suspended for 12 months.

... The prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The object of the prohibition is not, broadly, to preserve life whatever the circumstances, but more specifically to protect vulnerable persons from being induced to commit suicide at a time of weakness. Since a total ban on assisted suicide clearly helps achieve this object, individuals’ rights are not deprived arbitrarily. However, the prohibition catches people outside the class of protected persons. It follows that the limitation on their rights is in at least some cases not connected to the objective and that the prohibition is thus overbroad.

... The appropriate remedy is not to grant a free-standing constitutional exemption, but rather to issue a declaration of invalidity and to suspend it for 12 months. Nothing in this declaration would compel physicians to provide assistance in dying. 

The Feasibility of Safeguards and the Possibility of a “Slippery Slope”
 ... At trial Canada went into some detail about the risks associated with the legalization of physician-assisted dying.  In its view, there are many possible sources of error and many factors that can render a patient “decisionally vulnerable” and thereby give rise to the risk that persons without a rational and considered desire for death will in fact end up dead.  It points to cognitive impairment, depression or other mental illness, coercion, undue influence, psychological or emotional manipulation, systemic prejudice (against the elderly or people with disabilities), and the possibility of ambivalence or misdiagnosis as factors that may escape detection or give rise to errors in capacity assessment.  Essentially, Canada argues that, given the breadth of this list, there is no reliable way to identify those who are vulnerable and those who are not.  As a result, it says, a blanket prohibition is necessary.

The trial judge, on the basis of her consideration of various regimes and how they operate, found that it is possible to establish a regime that addresses the risks associated with physician-assisted death.  We agree with the trial judge that the risks associated with physician-assisted death can be limited through a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards.

Now it's for the government to re-write the law, clearly defining the fuzzy terminology, setting limits and the necessary safeguards.

The slippery slope has just been greased.  We'll have to live (or die) with it.  However, the pro-death activists won't rest until they've got what they're really after - euthanasia.

Notes:
1. Today's decision was unanimous 9-0 with these judges in attendance: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon JJ.

2. The previous assisted suicide judgement of 1993 dismissing the Sue Rodriguez appeal was decided 5-4 with McLachlin and three others dissenting.  McLachlin was the only judge to hear both cases.

Clear as mud

William Watson:

Even people who may not like it ...  seem happy the claim is finally settled.

In Canadian justice, however, “settled” is a relative term....

... Last week’s decision may clarify the guidelines for establishing aboriginal title, and maybe effectively broadens such title, but it’s going to be a long time and legions of lawyers before all such title is clear. And even once it is, there will still be lawyers, just to adjudicate it all.

The "Court Party" and Canada's corrupt judicial appointments system

Ezra Levant:



J.J. McCullough's article on Canada's corrupt judicial appointments system.

Supreme absurdity

In ruling (six to one) that Stephen Harper's appointee to the Supreme Court is  not qualified, the Supreme Court has, once again, embarrassed itself.

Christie Blatchford nailed it last Friday:

"It is a disgraceful decision, the final howl of which is this: How dare the executive branch, the government, have gone and picked a judge and amended a law?" ...

So did Brian Lilley:



Today Andrew Coyne agreed that the Supremes' ruling is absurd:

... "this is just the sort of flaky decision the Court is capable of ..." [although Coyne wanders off into irrelevant territory and ridiculous and gratuitous insults to Judge Nadon.]

 As did  Constitutional Law Professor, Grant Huscroft:

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the Nadon Reference is as bad a decision as the Court has made in recent memory.

... The result is absurd, according to Justice Moldaver, because Judge Nadon would become eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court if he were to rejoin the Quebec bar for as little as a single day.

This supremely absurd decision is a result either of gross over-thinking of the problem or of a conspiracy by activist judges to disqualify someone they don't like. Both possibilities cast serious doubt on the "wisdom" of their previous rulings.

In any case, dissenting Justice Moldaver offered a simple remedy. Nadon should immediately rejoin the Quebec bar. All Stephen Harper has to do is reappoint him.