[Ted Byfield] Bombshell book: Renegade judges killing Canadian democracy

[Ted Byfield] Bombshell book: Renegade judges killing Canadian democracy

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Supreme Court has become a tool of the Left. Can reform restore its impartial credibility?

VIDEO: [CPAC] First-year Canadian law students learn that the courts do not actually make law; that is, they do not have the power to pass legislation. However, in this video Supreme Court of Canada Justice Clément Gascon states that ‘the role of the Supreme Court as far as I’m concerned is basically to stand as the leader in the country in terms of the making of the law.’ [Nov 10, 2016]

To secure and sustain their respect and dignity before the common people, the courts of Canada and elsewhere conduct themselves with certain grave rituals. When the judge enters the courtroom, for instance, the clerk of the court intones “All rise” and all do. Thereafter, the judge is referred to as “Your Worship” or “Your Honor,” depending on the rank of the court. Rival lawyers refer to one another as “my learned friend,” and people arriving in court or leaving it when it is in session must solemnly bow to the bench. All of this is intended, of course, to assert the fact that this is not a political arena. Here, there must be no mud-slinging, abuse, brays, taunts, jeers and razzing into which parliamentary debate has been known to descend. This is a court of law.

So, anyway, did the judges customarily insist. But that was before the former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau gave us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Through it, the nine appointed judges of the highest court of the land were able to turn that court itself into a kind of nine-man monarchy with a self-endowed authority to over-rule those who were elected to office. It now becomes evident that this dubious authority has gone straight to their heads. No longer, they have plainly decided, need judges confine themselves to declaring what the law is. They must now go forward, and declare also what the law should be!” No longer were they mere jurists. They were now unelected legislators, cause pleaders and propagandists, dictating to the elected members of Parliament and the provincial legislatures what they may and may not do.

Like it or not, therefore, the judges have endowed upon themselves all the freedoms of public debate, often involving principles that came before them — or currently are before them — as judges? They had, of course, to give reasons for their uninvited intervention in the legislative process. So the question naturally arose: Can their court maintain its cherished decorum and ritual objectivity with its members deliberately embroiling themselves in public disputations? Or will it inevitably descend into the same nasty name-calling and abuse that from time to time attends upon those who pass laws? Last month the answer to that question was delivered to the country. It came, not as an official declaration or document, however, but with the publication of a book.

It is some book! Its title neatly sums up its message—”From Democracy to Judicial Dictatorship in Canada: The Untold Story of the Charter of Rights.” But it is not the usual airy-fairy tome written by and for academics. The text excoriates specific judges and specific cases, giving (as the saying goes) “names, dates and weather conditions.” It manifests, that is, what someone once called “an appalling accuracy.” It flatly accuses these worshipful and honorable gentry of the bench of acting, not with juristic objectivity at all, but out of an unrestrained pride of office. Again and again such words as “arrogance,” “hubris,” “egotism,” “conceit” and “elitism” are summoned to describe the real motives behind the new phenomenon of judicial “activism.”

The book has three authors: C. Gwendolyn Landolt, constitutional lawyer, former crown prosecutor, one of the founders of the REAL Women of Canada movement and its national vice president; author and historian Patrick Redmond, and Douglas A. Alderson, a lawyer who has written extensively on constitutional law. The table of contents does not show who wrote which of its 15 chapters, leaving the presumption that all three signed off on the whole 15. Its central assertion, however, is altogether clear. Members of the court in their public non-judicial pronouncements have departed so far from objectivity and neutrality on central principles that the court has effectually lost all judicial credibility.

Its new judicial perspective, though unstated, was nevertheless unmistakable. We (the judges) are right because we are judges. Lesser beings — elected politicians in particular — are not fit to make these decisions. Such is the thinking. Page after page for more than 300 of them, that attitude comes through, and it leaves only one conclusion: Any traditionalist who expects anything resembling fair treatment from such a monstrosity must have lost all touch with reality. He is the lone mouse before a jury of cats. If he stands, that is, for the Canada that once existed, he is not just a litigant before the court. He is its enemy. The court, that is, has been made captive to various special interest groups, so skilled in the techniques of mass communication that they have successfully concealed from public perception the factually paltry numbers of their adherents. They have also frightened the politicians, and hoodwinked the media. Most important of all, however, they have changed the nature of the courts. Judges once stayed well clear of the law-making process. They once had guide books, some still in use, which set forth the dangers and traps that promoters, polemicists, and pleaders could lure judges into.

Best known of such books in Canada was “Ethical Principles,” written by John Owen Wilson, former chief justice of British Columbia. “Judges must, of course, reject improper attempts to influence their decisions,” writes Wilson. “Regardless of the source — ministerial, journalistic or other — it may be safely assumed that every judge will know that attempts to influence a court must only be made publicly in a courtroom.”

The guide book is particularly concerned to warn judges away from political activity. “Judges should avoid any activity or association that could reflect adversely on their impartiality or interfere with the performance of judicial duties.” Even more specifically: “Judges should avoid involvement in causes or organizations that are likely to be engaged in litigation.” Finally: “Judges should refrain from conduct such as membership in groups or organizations, or participation of public discussion which in the mind of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would undermine confidence in a judge’s impartiality with respect to issues that could come before the courts.”

A judge should be ready to disqualify himself from a trial if circumstances suggest possible partiality or unfairness. Judges “should disqualify themselves in any case in which they believe they will be unable to judge impartially. A judge should disqualify him or herself if aware of any interest or relationship which, to a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would give rise to a reasoned suspicion of lack or impartiality.’

With the advent of the Charter, however, all this was about to change. “It was this very requirement of impartiality,” says the three-author book, “that appears to have been the aspect of judicial conduct that has been most vigorously rejected by many judges in the turbulent years following the proclamation of the Charter.”

The three authors knew what they were writing about, for by far the loudest and most outspoken radical feminist voice was none other than that of the sitting Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin herself, who served in that office from January 2000 to December 2017. Instead of providing a model for juridical impartiality and objectivity, she led the pack of cause pleaders. From public platforms as far away as New Zealand she loudly proclaimed the feminist credo and its application to current controversies. Some examples:

  • April 17, 1991 before the feminist Elizabeth Fry Society in Calgary: “The criminal law has failed to accord equality to women… The old myths… are based on the view that women approach sexual encounters in a different and less rational way than do men.”
  • November, 2006, interview at Calgary: The government should not be allowed to appoint police officers to judicial advisory committees. (Such appointments are strictly the government’s affair, not the court’s. This did not restrain the chief justice.)
  • November 30, 2006, at Wellington, New Zealand: Judges should be permitted to render their decisions on the basis of “unwritten constitutional norms,” even in the face of “clearly existing laws or hostile public opinion.” Such “norms,” can be understood only by judges because in becoming a judge they acquire “a judicial conscience,” presumably something mere non-judges do not possess.
  • May, 2015, speaking before the Global Centre for Pluralism, meeting in Toronto: Canada attempted to commit ‘cultural genocide’ against aboriginal peoples in “the worst stain on the Canadian human rights record.”
  • August, 2011 (Speaking in Halifax before the governing council of the Canadian Bar Association, in rebuttal to a point made by then-federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, now premier of Alberta: Declared the chief justice: “We live in a society with a strong commitment to the rule of law. One of the elements of this commitment is a deep, cultural belief in and confidence in the judiciary… it’s the confidence that brings litigants to choose the courts as a forum for resolving their disputes … and it is what allows them to accept the resulting judgments. Citizens have to have the confidence that whatever their problem, whoever’s on the other side … they will have a judge who will give them impartial justice and not be subject to pressures to direct their judgments in a particular way.”

The fact that by making herself a loudspeaker for feminist and other leftwing ideology, Madam Chief Justice McLachlin was posing the very kind of threat to the court’s credibility that she was describing and deploring does not appear to have occurred to her. Whom it very much did occur to, however, was the REAL Women’s movement. They laid a series of complaints before the Canadian Judicial Council, the body designated to hear complaints of judicial misconduct.

The complaints were one after the other dismissed. “Despite its intended purpose,” write the three authors, “the reality is that the Council has shown itself to be a toothless entity because it has failed to protect the public from judicial misconduct. This has created a public scandal. The failure to carry out its responsibilities to the public is due to the fact that the Council acts more as an insiders’ club with a total lack of transparency.”

Whether this situation represents a “scandal” might be debated. If nothing else, it was certainly a farce. The Judicial Council consists of judges only, headed by the chief justice. The person centrally accused of endangering the court’s impartiality is the chief justice herself. So she would have been heading the investigation of herself. “Well,” scoffed one journalistic wag, “at least she‘ll get a fair trial.” Observed Newfoundland’s irrepressible Tory comic John Crosbie: “The Canadian Judicial Council “is a black hole into which complaints about judges disappear, never to be seen again.” Such was certainly the experience of REAL Women. The Council, they said, seemed to view its function as one of defending judges against their critics.

The chief justice was not by any means the only judge-politician to plunge publicly into issues that were, had been, or soon would be before the court. Her close rival would be Madam Justice Claire l’Heureux-Dubé who served on the court from 1987 to 2002. She sounded her feminist and pro-gay views without any discernible effort whatever to preserve impartiality. Two examples:

  • July, 1999, speaking before a conference on same-sex partnerships at the University of London: “The democratic process has not adequately taken into account the needs of gays and lesbians or recognized their status and disadvantages as a cultural minority… Courts are taking the lead in changing society’s attitudes to same-sex partnerships. Despite these developments, however, there is much work to be done.”
  • August, 1999, speaking before the Canadian Bar Association: “Most people would agree that it is appropriate for judges to make changes in the common law and the interpretation of legislation or the constitution when necessary, particularly to adapt it to contemporary values.”

“Judges,” observes the three-author book as it draws to a close, “have used the Charter for their own purposes. Too many of them have used the Charter to strike down legislation they did not personally like. They did so by interpreting the ‘vague’ words of the Charter to suit their own personal perspectives… Judges are in no position and are unqualified to make public policy decisions. It is up to Parliament and the provincial legislatures to do so… This elitism is based on nothing more than judicial hubris — the mistaken belief that judges are somehow superior to the public.”

The three-author book, however, is under no illusions on the difficulties involved in ridding the Supreme Court of renegade judges and restoring an elected Parliament and legislatures as the definitive political power in Canada. The court will do everything it can to preserve the power of the court. The Canadian Judicial Council amply demonstrated itself useless. What can be done? The book advances a two step strategy:

First: Establish the total legitimacy of the “notwithstanding clause,” and put it to work in voiding judge-made laws “Hesitation to invoke the clause over the past 36 years of the Charter’s existence must cease,” says the book, “if we are to restore responsible government in CanadaFN,Parliament and the legislatures must assert themselves by having the final say on legislation.” Since an acquiescent Supreme Court has been a key advantage of the Left, it has always opposed any usage of the clause as representing a total betrayal of democracy. (How enabling an elected Parliament or legislature to overrule a panel of unelected judges constitutes a “betrayal of democracy” is something the left has never been in a hurry to explain.)

Second: Begin the process of constitutional reform that would prohibit judges from public out-of-court discussion of legislative issues. This would require an amendment to the Constitution Act which needs approval of both houses of Parliament and two thirds of the provinces that have in aggregate at least two thirds of the population. Tough terms to meet. no doubt, but another factor argues for some such reform. The spectacle of judges routinely making political speeches becomes increasingly common. It also directly and dangerously erodes the credibility of any court in ways that Chief Justice McLachlin herself has very adequately described ,and also ignored. (See above.)

The three-author book covers two other major issues in which the court effectually made the law. In one, it made Canada offer the world’s most easy access to abortion. In the other, the Trinity Western law school case, made religious rights in education a dying phenomenon. These will be covered in the next two editions of this journal.

FN The term “responsible government” describes one in which the cabinet or executive council is responsible to an elected assembly or legislature which in turn is responsible to the electorate. To gain responsible government, the Canadians waged two rebellions in the late 1830s. Prior to this Canada was governed by an executive council and governor appointed from London. Critics see the current Canadian government, in which the appointed courts can overrule the elected legislators, as a seeming restoration of the old British system.


  1. another reason for the west to separate

  2. Ron Vollans yes it is. It wasn’t right then and it is not right now.

  3. Larry Middleton no wonder the supreme court is so liberal

  4. Que le véritable père Noel se lève…

  5. maybe why ao many large corporations manage not to.respect labour s…collective agreements and Canadian human rights….why maybe there is over 467 complaints of harassment at the Canadian human rights tribunal for one prestigious Canadian employer…saddly true…from access to information act

    1. 467 out of how many??? Millions!

    2. no out of 10.000 employees of AIR CANADA under the union UNIFOR representation

    3. and there is more complaints the 467 number is just for systemic harassment

    4. this info is available through the access to information act

  6. Pat Laughy It is not B.S. The court requires expertise on the Quebec civil code, in part to inform other members whose expertise lies solely in common law, and also to ensure that there are enough qualified votes on the court to ensure that rulings on Quebec’s Napoleonic Code are arbitrated fairly. If you had any knowledge regarding the judicial branch and/or the structure of civil law in Canada, I would not have to explain this…

  7. It does not matter who appointed these judges, they are not good at what they do. They are obviously more Liberal then not in their pathetic judgements.

  8. What total rubbish the conservative party is the most anti democratic and anti Christian organization that Canada ever had

    1. Radical christians are galvanizing towards the Conservative/Republican ideology of “punish poor people for being poor; its their fault they’re stupid and lazy”. Truth is that organized religion prospers in bad times and unequal societies. They need dumb, beaten down poor people to pray to Jesus to bring purpose to their misery. Our radical “Christians”, and our radical “conservatives”, are natural bedfellows and partners in crime.

    2. Garrett Gilmour they FALSE Christians the ones the in the bible warn about

    3. Garrett Gilmour well said. I’d appreciate your take on something I’ve thought about regarding God and “organized religion”. Organized religion started way back when people had no idea about the Stars, Sun, Moon, or even much about Earth. As a result, it’s easy to see how and why Gods and religions began. And even within my lifetime, we had no idea that anything existed beyond our own solar system. People even thought the lines on Mars could be roads for alien Martians. This is within MY lifetime. So still, the ideas of religion could make some sense. But now, we know that the UNIVERSE is so huge as to be incomprehensible and that Earth is just an teeny tiny grain of sand among an unimaginably huge number of others, bigger and smaller. So with that in mind, does it become more difficult to believe that “God”, by whatever name and celebrated within whatever organized religion, is this sole “being”, solely involved with the tiny grain of sand WE CALLED Earth, and unrelated to the greater whole that is the Universe, who sits “somewhere on high”, looking down on us all and making determinations about the acts and thoughts of one species on this grain of sand called Earth ? I’m not including the “idea of faith” in this question as it must be a separate issue. But thinking of these things, does it seem possible that whatever and/or whoever caused this enormous thing called the UNIVERSE, to come into being, made up of more things than we can conceive of, far beyond “Earth”, yet that it seems to keep SOME KIND OF BALANCE, quite apart from and independent of any of us “humans” and/or our thoughts or actions, maybe, what we “humans” came to understand as, or made up as, “God” by whatever name individuals chose to give, is SO MUCH BIGGER AND MORE COMPLICATED YET SIMPLE than we can comprehend? Like, how could there be a “being”, “God” JUST FOR OR RELATED TO THE TEENY TINY GRAIN OF SAND WE CALLED EARTH? I don’t know if that makes sense, and it’s just a question, because we seem never to have adjusted our idea of God that takes in our altered reality that Earth is that single grain of sand among millions of billions of others.

    4. Vic Matthews SNC ring a bell for you ??

    5. Laara Kencayd, I’m 65 and I knew better than that in the 3rd grade!!!

    6. Liberals are nothing but rapist murdering ISIS terrorist supporters and child molesting cowards like ex deputy liberal education minister and convicted child porn scumbag Benjamin Levin under Kathleen Wynne.They hate Christians but love Islam, lmao.

    7. Vic Matthews Really…Back that up.with facts

    8. Jon Paul Beimers what Conservative bullshit

    9. Vic MatthewsIts a good thing the liberal party is such an ethical, upstanding party with no corruption issues! JT loves people like you!

  9. Don J. Goldsmith you mean the Supreme Court that Harper appointed EIGHT judges to? So liberal? hahahaha

  10. Patranage appointments to the supreme court, but they are never biased.

  11. Kill all Christians. “Problem” solved.

  12. Not much of a bomb shell when you look at the author.

  13. Oh great, just what I need on my facebook page. Crazy people ranting.

    1. Den Valdron crazy people ranting? I have never seen that on FB.

  14. Larry, you are full of bullshit. PM’S, including Harper, do appoint Justices to the SCC. That is a much better system than having some troglodyte elected by the unwashed masses.

  15. Another filthy Christians “CON”servative group. That’s why Commie Stephen Harper attack the Supreme Court. He think he was above the law like somebody as moronic as him down south

  16. David P Bentley, Stephen Harper was no liberal, and he held power through multiple elections. Some people don’t like what he did, but no one seriously accuses him of being incompetent.

    Get serious. People aren’t stupid liberals just because they arrive at different conclusions than you might prefer.

  17. Ted Byfield is senile.

  18. Keep your neofascist bent reality to yourselves. Keep your religion in your church and your heart and that goes for ALL religion. Don’t try to impose your religions on me NEVER !!!

    1. double negative means you are wanting them to impose their religion….

    2. Sylvain Robichaud …edit the “NEVER”…to EVER… all fixed!

    3. Bradley Earp yes. correct.

    4. If that’s all you got from my post, contrary to the majority of reactions it received, then you should get off FB and take some time to look at yourself asking if you have full control of your life. Good luck.

  19. Ron Vollans, the composition of the court is determined by the Supreme Court Act (originally passed in 1875), is not part of the 1982 Constitution, and by statute and convention the nine seats are divided as follows:

    Three from QC; three from ON; two from the western provinces, typically one from BC and one from AB, SK, MB, which rotate among themselves; and one from the Atlantic provinces, almost always from NS or NB.

  20. Pamela Sue DiGiovanni Impossible. With the pervasiveness of beliefs and values on the planet, what you suggest isn’t possible. I would suggest irreligious as religious as religion.

  21. Why the hell am I seeing this Christian Taliban garbage? The people who made this post have worms in their brains.

  22. More right wing religious fanatics trying to force us into their way of thinking!!! They can keep their religion in their churches, thank you!!!

  23. so now i have to add them.
    all politicians/bureaucrats/judges are greedy /corrupt and moral bankrupt.

    1. Kim Metcalfe you have hit the Nail Right on. Trudeau corrupt gov

  24. Ya and leave LGBTQ PEOPLE TO LIVE THEIR LIVES. Hitler tried the same hate crap. His master race ensured that every German family turn in their own children, parents, etc, because they did not fit into his master race crap. He didn’t do it overnight, he lulled the German people into it. D Day is the day to remind us of how rotten we can treat each other.
    How fervent we are to ensure Hitlers do not overtake us.
    There is a far right wave attacking this country. It is hooked into very rich and powerful people, regardless of the political stripe.
    Multi National Corporations own the politicians.
    If the politicians do not buy into the sell, they are removed.
    Politicians today do not care about us.
    The only way open to us? Go to your MP’s office demand they give us the world we have paid for by our hard work and paying our taxrs.
    It seems to me that we are pressed harder and harder to pay these pricks via our taxes.
    Also am seeing an escalation in blaming people for who they are and what they do.
    Do you know your history? Hitler tried it with the Jewish people.
    Blaming our next door neighbor is something the Nazi’s excelled in.
    They murdered over 6,000,000 MILLION PEOPLE. HELLLLLOOOOOOO.

  25. James Bugden The apple left on the tree goes bad, like some Judges could. Stephen Harper would e my choice in a second, if only he were running for PM.

  26. Hey….You Christians.com…..Faaaaaaaaaaaaaack Off

  27. Canada is a secular country!

    1. Where do you people come from?

    2. Gary Norton It has for the large part, rejected Christ, kicking God out of schools, courts and government, embracing murder of the unborn, the love and promotion of perversion, NWO globalism, socialism and has become a drug addled mess. No surprise…when you reject the truth, you fall for every lie of Satan. God, however, is still Sovereign and His prophetic Word concerning end times is being played out ….Revelation. If only people would read it!

    3. Venus Biggar CBC crowd

    4. Brian Charters the truth?? you cant handle the truth!!! yeah, been wanting to say that for a long time now…

    5. Brian Charters No we reject people trying to ram their BS beliefs down our throats.

    6. Brian Charters Everyone has the choice to follow Christ, or not, just as he gave people the choice when he was on the earth 2000 years ago. If Christians are to introduce people to Christ, it can’t be with a stick, nor through condemnation. I think love and grace are the key ingredients of Christ’s message.

  28. why are they dressed like Santa Clause!

  29. You administer the law you do not make it.

  30. Ron Vollans The Supreme court did not exist in 1867; furthermore, up until 1982, it was not even the final court of appeal. That task was assigned to the judicial committee of the British Privy Councl – because the BNA act was an act of the British parliament. This was part of the impetus behind the patriatiion of the Constitution – making it a Canadian constitutional document so it could be amended by Canadian parliament rather than britain. It also mean’t the SCOC became the final court of appeal.

  31. What a pathetic country Canada has become I guess were playing follow the leader… so lie and cheat and go behind people’s backs and don’t forget to tell people that bank is your responsibility cause I get to spend all your money

    1. Don’t forget absoulte loss of transparency!

  32. So you want to make “The Handmaid”s Tale” fact, instead of fiction.

  33. So sad we are as a country. I would have never dreamed this would happen.

    1. I’m glad its g=happen Christians should dictate morality to the individual

  34. Don`t people get it???the supreme court is a bunch of APPOINTED dufusses NOT elected…that tell elected politicians what to do.There goes your democracy..government by the people…just a falicy

  35. Not surprised….when Trudeau brought the Charter of rights beach to Canada there was way too much leeway for interpretation…..his intention I’m sure

  36. All should be hung with Trudeau for being traitors

  37. Trudope screwed us again. Little weasel pos

  38. What total Bill Shit the conservative party is the most anti democratic and anti Christian organization that Canada ever had

  39. Corrupt judges they should all be bared.

    1. Fowler Jones Rojo you mean like naked?

    2. Jeanie Kelly i believe they meant to say disbarred…

    3. Kim Metcalfe just having some good natured fun with the meaning of the word used!

    4. Jeanie Kelly yes. i know. i also … rotflmao.

  40. Tomas Paho Elciario-Escanlar you should really look into why that happened from a law perspective rather than be mad at it from a personal reason.

    The case was unwinnable and he would have likely been awarded more money had he fought. This isn’t corruption.

  41. Chief Justice bet has been a far lefter all her life and abused her authority every day she was on the Supreme Court.thi elected representatives of the people must reject and stand up to judicial activism and legislating from the bench.if not,we don’t need elections…..we will just let the Supreme Court run the country.democracy under judicial threat.

  42. Slowly but surly our right and freedoms are being eroded. When government has all control your hop

  43. There all in on the AGENDA set up by the UNITED NATIONS and CALLED the UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 21THE NWO and OWG
    An the COURTS are falling in line just like the R.C.M.P. as canadians citizens we have a choice sit back and wait for the ENEMY TO TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY OR STAND UP AND FIGHT BACK TO DEPORT THE ENEMY AND THAT IS EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD AND THEY GO HOME AND NO WARE ELSE

  44. I’m very weary of any group based on a religious belief ideology and this post certainly qualifies for that staus.

  45. Get this bigoted bullsh*t of my facebook page.

  46. The bullsh*t that those faux christians want is to put religion back into schools…. their religion

Comments are closed.

Check Also
[Feminism] Left thinks conservative women are traitors to female cause
[Feminism] Left thinks conservative women are traitors to female cause