Con MP Vellacott resigns from Aboriginal Committee

[konfusion666]

Vellacott resigns as aboriginal committee chair

news link (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060510/vellacott_steppingdown_060510/20060510?hub=TopStories)

summary:

Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott resigned on Wednesday as chairman of the Commons aboriginal affairs committee, after sparking controversy over remarks he made about judges and natives.

contreversy caused by:

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin "herself actually said that when they step into (a judicial activist) role, all of a sudden there's some mystical kind of power that comes over them by which everything they ever decreed is not to be questioned and they actually have these discerning and almost prophetic abilities to be able to come and know the mind of the public and they take on almost these godlike powers," Vellacott told a Canadian broadcaster.

"She said that herself. I didn't say that."

The statement prompted the Supreme Court of Canada to take the unusual step of denying his claims.

Vellacott later released a statement conceding "McLachlin did not literally use those words" and he expressed his "apologies in this regard."

[Shaner]

So much for free speech in this country.

If our politicians can't critisize our justice system, who can? God knows that nothing I say about our judges will make a difference. We need people in power to publically complain. Forcing them to resign when they do so will only hurt us in the end.

[konfusion666]

You don't understand the contreversy?

He didn't just say "I think the Supreme Court of Canada acts like they're Gods" - he specifically attributed some comments to the Chief Justice, who didn't actually make those comments.

[NG]

So much for free speech in this country.

If our politicians can't critisize our justice system, who can? God knows that nothing I say about our judges will make a difference. We need people in power to publically complain. Forcing them to resign when they do so will only hurt us in the end.

Free speech? He lied about what she said? How's that free speech? Then the idiot sends out a copy of the speech from Australia where he claims the statements are and there was *nothing* about Judges being on par with God.

This is just a petty stupid man pissed off at the supreme court for not condemning abortion/gay marriage etc.

Dispite Harper's attempts to keep them muzzled we're already starting to see the ultra conservative idiots in the party. Not that much of a suprise since excpet for a few MPs like Garth Turner that's what most of them are.

[Paksis]

NG I realize it is 30 pages long and it takes a lot of time to read it but at least make the effort. Before you make your usual unsupported, factually incorrect blanket condemnations. You might be enlightened. Just make an effort to be open minded. Remember you don't have to but you can try.

http://www.eugenemeehan.com/english/speeches/UnwrittenConstitutionalPrinciples.pdf

I liked the point in the 2nd page middle paragraph best.

A better analysis than I can make is from http://blackrod.blogspot.com/

[NG]

NG I realize it is 30 pages long and it takes a lot of time to read it but at least make the effort. Before you make your usual unsupported, factually incorrect blanket condemnations. You might be enlightened. Just make an effort to be open minded. Remember you don't have to but you can try.

You're the guy who had an avatar that compared the Liberals to Saddam Hussain right?

http://www.eugenemeehan.com/english/speeches/UnwrittenConstitutionalPrinciples.pdf

I liked the point in the 2nd page middle paragraph best.

Vellacott later released a statement conceding "McLachlin did not literally use those words" and he expressed his "apologies in this regard."

So if she did say that then why the apologies?


A better analysis than I can make is from http://blackrod.blogspot.com/

I'll take Don Newman from Politics with Don Newman over a neo-con punching rants into his blogspot.

[Paksis]

You're the guy who had an avatar that compared the Liberals to Saddam Hussain right?

-And your the guy who was banned for your comments aren't you.


So if she did say that then why the apologies?

-Because Part 2 hasn't started yet.


I'll take Don Newman from Politics with Don Newman over a neo-con punching rants into his blogspot.

Uh yeah ok (closed mind, shut the door and lock then throw away key)
Don Newman??

[d_jedi]

NG I realize it is 30 pages long and it takes a lot of time to read it but at least make the effort. Before you make your usual unsupported, factually incorrect blanket condemnations. You might be enlightened. Just make an effort to be open minded. Remember you don't have to but you can try.

http://www.eugenemeehan.com/english/speeches/UnwrittenConstitutionalPrinciples.pdf

I read it.. and what she says does not suggest Mr. Vellacott's statement that:

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin "herself actually said that when they step into (a judicial activist) role, all of a sudden there's some mystical kind of power that comes over them by which everything they ever decreed is not to be questioned and they actually have these discerning and almost prophetic abilities to be able to come and know the mind of the public and they take on almost these godlike powers," Vellacott told a Canadian broadcaster.

"She said that herself. I didn't say that."
is correct. He is putting words in her mouth that she did not say.

A better analysis than I can make is from http://blackrod.blogspot.com/
Again, I don't think this guy gets it. First off, he has an obvious bias against the CBC.

In particular, I take issue with a few things this blogger said:
"They are not bound by legal precedents; they must create precedents."
McLachlin did not say this. In fact, she said exactly the opposite - her paper was specifically about (if I may summarize..) including "unwritten precedents".

"Got it? Judges have a duty to find these unwritten principles and use them to override laws passed by elected officials whenever judges decide there's a conflict. "
The specific example McLachlin used in her paper was about Germany's "final solution" laws during WW2, which allowed the holocaust. And this in no way suggests the glib comment he makes later:
"So much for anti-terrorism laws, Stephen Harper."
which does not follow from the paper.

[NG]

Your quotes are messed up I think so I'll have to guess at your reply a tad.

First off I am honestly sorry if you were ticked off by my reply but when you accuse me of extreme statements surely you can see how your Saddam/Liberal comparison avatar can be seen in the same light. Like a pot and kettle thing...

I was banned when conservatives Stevethewheel and Feman pulled information off the net to insult me because they disagree with my politics. Including using my disability as a tool to insult me. I didn't at the time consider my reply of "go **** yourself" to be a personal attack. I would have thought so if I wrote "Go **** yourself you blank blank" or something - I just thought of it as a heated obscene reply. I was the only one banned in that case however since I've reported times I've been called an idiot and loser for my politics and nothing was done I can't say I'm really suprised.

"Because Part 2 hasn't started yet?" ok man you've lost me there.


Don Newman??

Don Newman is Senior Parliamentary Editor for CBC News and the host of CBC Newsworld's daily program Politics, an intelligent analysis of major political news stories and newsmakers in Ottawa and around the country.

Newman is also the chief political and special events broadcaster for CBC Newsworld, providing special live coverage of Canadian political conventions, hearings, news conferences, first ministers' meetings, provincial and federal elections and referenda.

In 1989, Newman helped launch CBC Newsworld with live daily broadcasts from Ottawa. At the same time, he hosted and produced a nightly program, Capital Report. As well, Newman continued to do This Week in Parliament, a half-hour weekly program on CBC, which he hosted from 1981 to 1993.

Newman came to work for CBC's Parliamentary bureau in 1981, following a two-year stint as CBC News: The National's senior western correspondent based in Edmonton. Before joining CBC in 1976 as its Washington correspondent, Newman worked for CTV. He opened its Washington bureau in 1972, where he covered Watergate. Since moving to the Parliamentary Bureau in 1981, Newman has covered such major national political stories as the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, the GST, the failed Meech and Charlottetown accords, budget releases, political scandals and resignations, crucial debates over major public policies, legislation in the House and Senate and major decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Newman has served as president of the National Press Gallery and president and treasurer of the National Press Club. He was instrumental in negotiations to bring Canadians live television from the Supreme Court and in expanding coverage from the House of Commons. His contribution to CBC Television coverage of the Meech Lake negotiations led to its Parliamentary Bureau winning a Gemini Award in 1990.

In 1999, Newman was named to the Order of Canada. In 1997, the National Press Club made Don Newman the first recipient of the Charles Lynch Award for outstanding coverage of national affairs. Don Newman was also the recipient of the 2005 Hyman Solomon award for Public Policy Journalism.

Newman is a native of Winnipeg. He was schooled in England, Montreal and Winnipeg. http://www.cbc.ca/politics/don_newman.html

Before you say "left wing bias CBC" There isn't a more informed person on politics in Canada than Don Newman. He even had Steven Harper as one of his pundits back in the 90s so I would imagine that would stand for something with you.

There's nobody I trust more for an impartial view of politics than Newman so if I'm turning to him, as opposed to a blogspot site, to get both sides of the story I'm sure that can be understandable.

And even tho I have *no* idea how he votes another left wing guy I know who loves his show thinks he's a conservative. I could have sworn someone said he was a board member of the Canada Club awhile ago too but that's not in his bio who who knows.

Regardless of his politics we watch him because he's just that good.

[NG]

Vellacott angered Saskatchewan native groups two years ago when he supported two Saskatoon police officers convicted of dropping a native man on the outskirts of the city on a freezing night. Darrell Night survived.

The case highlighted tensions between the Saskatoon police and the aboriginal community.

Vellacott has served on the aboriginal affairs committee as deputy chair, but some critics say his relationship with aboriginal people isn't good enough for the top job.

Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations Chief Alphonse Bird says he was disappointed when he heard about the appointment.

He said in his three years as FSIN chief, he has never met with Vellacott. He doesn't think Vellacott has a rapport with any First Nation in Saskatchewan.

"When you have opponents that have not necessarily been pro-First Nation for quite some time, it doesn't advance the cause and that worries me," he said.
http://www.cbc.ca/sask/story/vellacott-reaction060502.html


"Vellacott angered Saskatchewan native groups two years ago when he supported two Saskatoon police officers convicted of dropping a native man on the outskirts of the city on a freezing night."....sounds like Vellacott has a screw loose to me...

[flyguy3bua]

In particular, I take issue with a few things this blogger said:
"They are not bound by legal precedents; they must create precedents."
McLachlin did not say this.

She did say it. Maybe not in the link provided by other posters, but she've said it before. I've read it. Look up Alberta Law Review, 1991. No 3 volume 29. page 544.

[lunaticcc]

She did say it. Maybe not in the link provided by other posters, but she've said it before. I've read it. Look up Alberta Law Review, 1991. No 3 volume 29. page 544.

I did read it and just to make things clear, she did not say that quote.
Let me provide the paragraph which you are probably referring to however. But first, a little background should be given because given enough content, one can misquote virtually anyone to your own advantage.
In the article you mention (The Charter: A New Role for the Judiciary?), she talks about laws which violate the Charter only. (Most laws do not involve Charter issues which are supreme-laws prior to the legislatures). The article was written relatively shorty after the Charter was entrenched.

But the process is not as simple as building up rules and cases which can be mechinically applied. If that were the case, we could envisage a day when the Charter jurisprudence was "complete", all vagaries resolved, all lucanae filled. That will never happen, because, as we are increasingly coming to realize, the Charter is not a document like other laws, to which common law precedent can be applied with little difficulty. The Charter by nature is more akin to the Napoleonic Code or the Quebec Civil Code, where precedent is at best of limited value. It sets out general principles which constitute the ultimate law. It is these principles, not the cases which interpret them, which are supreme. The cases must always be essentially secondary. The result is that, as new situations emerge, the courts will inevitably disregard precendent to interpret the Charter in a way which conforms to the prevailing perception of right and wrong. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly stated that the Charter must not be viewed as a static document, frozen in time by this decision or that. Any doubt on this matter is resolved by a look at the American experience. In the 19th century the Bill of Rights was interpreted as upholding slavery; in the twentieth, it became a powerful engine for racial equality and segregation. The Bill of Rights did not change. The old cases remained on the books. What changed was society, and with it the courts' interpretation of what the Constitution meant.

[flyguy3bua]

I'm glad to encounter someone with legal knowledge! Yep Lunaticcc. That's the exact paragraph I'm talking about. :)

Yes, Bev was talking about Charter cases. The court in the post-Charter era is also what Vellacott was refering to when he commented about judges and God-like powers. So how is that misquoting?

More specifically: the courts will inevitably disregard precendent to interpret the Charter in a way which conforms to the prevailing perception of right and wrong

When judges disregard precendent and reserve for themselves solely the right to decide what is the prevailing perception of what's right and wrong, it is exactly what Vellacott meant.

Was Vellacott wrong when he attributed McLachlin to the earlier quote? Yes.
Was Vellacott wrong in his comments about judges having "these discerning and almost prophetic abilities to be able to come and know the mind of the public and they take on almost these godlike powers"? No.