Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Trump’s trial defines justice in disrepute – A Canadian perspective

Published

5 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Colin Alexander

Canada and the US both have a problem with rogue judges

Whatever one thinks of former President Donald Trump, his criminal trial violates the jurisprudence established  by England’s Lord Chief Justice Hewart: “It is… of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

Judges too often preside over cases despite having a conflict of interest. Trump’s argument had merit, that having the Democrat stronghold of Manhattan as the venue for his trial was unfair. And the assignment of Acting Justice Juan Merchan for the trial may reasonably be said to be corrupt. The US Judicial Code says: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik says Justice Merchan contributed to the Democrat campaign in 2020. And his daughter, Loren Merchan, is heavily involved in Democrat politics. Stefanik says her firm stood to profit from Trump’s conviction. So, one may presume the judge’s bias against Trump.

The charge against Trump was that money was paid to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet and not undermine his presidential election prospects in 2016. Paying money to suppress prurient assertions is not illegal. But, it was said to violate US election law if intended to influence the outcome of the election—and not merely to protect Trump’s reputation. Given what everyone knows, how could publication of Daniels’s assertions influence a single voter’s intentions?

Many other wandering public figures come to mind. Certainly, Presidents Kennedy and Clinton. Said to be expert on the bedroom ceilings of rich men, Pamela Digby Churchill Hayward Harriman was Clinton’s ambassador to France.

Textbooks and case law forbid judges to hear cases where there could be a perception of bias. A landmark case involved an application by the Spanish government to extradite former President Pinochet of Chile from England. Lord Hoffmann was the swing vote in the decision that immunity did not prevent extradition. The House of Lords set aside that judgment because Lord Hoffmann had been chairman of Amnesty International, which had campaigned for Pinochet’s prosecution. The judges said that the Amnesty link was an automatic disqualification for sitting on the case.

During the 2022 truckers’ protest in Ottawa, Chief Justice Richard Wagner made outlandish comments about an incipient revolution. The Canadian Judicial Council, of which he is head,  exonerated him. By contrast, Justice Thomas Berger of the BC Supreme Court resigned gracefully after being scolded for non-partisan comment on the entrenchment of Indigenous rights in the Charter.

A typical case of conflicted judging is MediaTube v. Bell Canada, discussed at length in my book Justice on Trial. The plaintiff asserting that Bell stole the technology for FibeTV. The Federal Court’s trial judge, Justice George Locke, had been a partner in the firm of Norton Fulbright that acted for Bell. His decision in favour of Bell is gobbledygook. He acknowledged that Bell had constantly changed the description of how their system worked, as if they didn’t know that. Arguably, Bell and their lawyers McCarthy Tétrault committed the criminal offences of perjury and obstruction of justice. Justice David Stratas spoke for the appellate judges despite having previously represented Bell before the Supreme Court. In 130 words, he justified the exclusion of new evidence by citing a case that had analyzed the purported new evidence in 9,000 words.

Trump’s case follows ones described in Christie Blatchford’s book, Life Sentence: Stories from four decades of court reporting—Or how I fell out of love with the Canadian justice system (Especially judges). “The judiciary,” she wrote, “is much like the Senate. Like senators they are unelected, unaccountable, entitled, expensive to maintain and remarkably smug.”

Canadians as well as Americans need outside accountability for lawyers and judges. As US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote, “If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.”

Colin Alexander’s degrees include Politics, Philosophy, and Economics from Oxford. His latest book is Justice on Trial: Jordan Peterson’s case shows we need to fix the broken system.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

It seems we are far too Canadian; Yet not Canadian enough

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Susan Martinuk 

Oh, Canada. You have been too nice.  Too kind.  Too silent. For too long.

And now a noisy minority is undermining our country’s values, laws and institutions.

Protestors have taken over many university campuses and they are fomenting hatred toward Jews and Israel. Few Canadians are speaking out. We seem incapable of responding to bigotry and hatred – even when it is occurring right in front of us.

Our silence has allowed (what at one point were) 15 pro-Palestinian encampments (tent cities) to be established in universities across Canada. It’s as if students no longer have to study or find a summer job to pay for tuition.

Instead of doing something productive, they are protesting against Israel’s war against Hamas (the Palestinian government that is also a designated terrorist group). But, in doing so, they have pushed aside the academic tenets that call for a free exchange of ideas and respectful debate on issues.

They are outright demanding that the universities divest any funding that has ties to/or support for Israel.  Some groups are even demanding that they sever ties with Israeli academics and their institutions.

Negotiating divestments? Asking for a change to financial policies hardly seems like it could lead to hate-filled invective.

It is always a challenge to know where to draw the line between free speech and hate speech. But nasty words can lead to even worse actions and, in this case, it wasn’t long before the protests took a long jump across that line.

Tensions quickly escalated at McGill University when senior administrators were followed and harassed by masked protestors at their homes and offices. Others hung an effigy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a striped outfit resembling the uniforms that Jews were forced to wear in concentration camps – you know, where Nazis deliberately killed six million Jews. Yet the police would only act when protesters stormed the admin building. Fifteen were arrested.

Other blatant displays of anti-Semitism popped up on campuses – chants of “Go back to Europe” and “Zionists are terrorists.” Some Jewish students received threats of “We will find you” on their social media accounts.

Can you imagine the response of Canadians if such slogans targeted aboriginals or homosexuals? What if they were chanting “All Muslims are terrorists”?

The outcry would be immediate and in no time at all the protest camp would be shut down. That can be said with certainty because our twisted and biased sense of morality has already reared its ugly head.

At the University of Toronto, a small group of pro-Israel students tried to establish a camp to counter the anti-Jewish vigil. But they were immediately whisked away by police — because of the huge security risk they posed.

Back at McGill, the tent city is now hosting a “revolutionary youth summer program” and even advertised it with an image of terrorists wearing keffiyehs (black and white scarves), covering their faces and clutching machine guns. It was a picture from decades ago but that doesn’t negate its power to incite fear and violence.

Jewish students told a House of Commons committee that they no longer feel safe and are forced to hide their identities. The University of Waterloo had to tell students making complaints of anti-Semitism that they could no longer do anything about it because there were too many complaints to investigate!

McGill University’s president says, “none of this is peaceful protesting. It is designed to threaten, coerce and scare people.” The president at U of T told MPs that “anti -Semitism has been a growing presence recently in our university.”

As tensions have escalated, very little action has been taken. The police don’t seem to want to act, and administrators are too busy wringing their hands. The primary criticism against taking action is that it would be seen as too ‘authoritarian’ to shut down free speech. After all, this is Canada.

Of course, having to hide your ethnicity and Semitic identity in public doesn’t exactly smack of Canadian values either.

Canadians have been silent as we witness the fragmentation of our civil society. It brings to mind a famous poem entitled “First They Came.” It was written by a German who was initially a Nazi supporter but changed his views when he was imprisoned for speaking out against Nazi control of the churches.

“First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist;

Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist;’

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

 This week, as we celebrate Canada and Canadian values, take some time to think about the things we are willing to stand for and the things which we must stand against.

Susan Martinuk is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of the book, Patients at Risk: Exposing Canada’s Health-care Crisis.

Continue Reading

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Non-partisan think tank calling for Public Inquiry into “Kamloops Graves Hoax”

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy 

Canada Needs a Public Inquiry into the “Kamloops Graves Hoax”

Call for a public inquiry is a step towards uncovering the truth and ensuring such a national scandal never happens again

WINNIPEG, June 28, 2024 – The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is urgently calling for a public inquiry into what has become known as the “Kamloops Graves Hoax.” The May 27, 2021, claim by the Kamloops Indian Band regarding the discovery of “human remains” in the apple orchard area of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School caused national hysteria and moral panic, both domestically and internationally. However, recent admissions have revealed these claims to be false.

In a press release issued three years after the sensational claims, Chief Roseanne Casimir of the Kamloops Indian Band finally admitted that there were no “human remains,” “bodies,” “graves,” or “mass graves” found at Kamloops. What was initially reported as grave sites turned out to be mere soil anomalies, which could easily be attributed to tree roots, rocks, or remnants of prior excavations. Notably, a 1924 excavation in the same area was likely the source of the detected soil disturbances.

The 2021 claims triggered a wave of national and international reactions, including lowered flags, burned churches, and widespread media coverage. These events also prompted the ailing Pope to visit Canada, led MPs to condemn their own country as genocidal, and resulted in the enactment of costly legislation. The Canadian government allocated millions of dollars towards the search for “missing children,” who, as it turns out, never existed. The entire episode is a blemish on Canada’s history, highlighting the need for a thorough public inquiry.

Chief Casimir stated that the initial claims were based on a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) report prepared by Sarah Beaulieu, a young anthropologist from the University of the Fraser Valley. However, it is widely known that GPR can only detect soil anomalies, not graves or human remains. The actual content of Beaulieu’s report remains undisclosed, as the Kamloops Indian Band has refused to release it despite initially promising to do so. This raises serious questions about the veracity of their claims and the possibility that the band knew the information was false.

The Kamloops Indian Band applied for and received $8,000,000 from the federal government based on their false claims. Neither the band nor the federal government has provided details about the representations made to secure these funds or how the money was spent, especially given that no excavation has taken place.

The refusal of the Kamloops Indian Band to release the GPR report, coupled with the federal government’s silence on the matter, indicates a need for a thorough investigation. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) will not investigate unless requested by the Kamloops Band. This leaves the Canadian public in the dark about how and why millions of taxpayer dollars were spent based on a false premise.

The claims made on May 27, 2021, have caused significant disruption in Canada, damaged the nation’s reputation, and led to misleading narratives being taught in schools. It is crucial to understand how these false claims were propagated and why. A public inquiry is essential to provide clarity and accountability and to restore public trust.

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy calls for this inquiry to ensure transparency and address the grave mistakes that have been made. Canadians deserve to know the truth and to hold accountable those who have misled the nation.

About the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent, non-partisan think tank that conducts research and analysis on a wide range of public policy issues. Committed to promoting economic freedom, individual liberty, and responsible governance, the Centre aims to contribute to informed public debates and shape effective policies that benefit Canadians.

Continue Reading

Trending

X