|
| HARPER THINKS WE'RE RUNNING A DEMOCRACY - Monday, September 08, 2003 at 23:44 |
|
PUBLICATION: The Calgary Sun ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The current uproar in the American Senate over the appointment of a federal court judge in Georgia is instructive to Canadians, if only because such a controversy is not allowed to occur in Canada. The man nominated by President George W. Bush to serve on the federal appellate court in Atlanta is Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, a practising Catholic who opposes abortion and gay marriage, favours prayer in the public schools, the death penalty (though his church doesn't) and has won wide general public support for fearless integrity in a state that is very strongly Protestant. His appointment to the federal court, however, must pass by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate where every state, regardless of size, elects the same number of senators. The Senate's 19-member judiciary committee has approved the appointment in a 10-9 vote on strict party lines. But before the committee voted, Pryor was examined exhaustively by the senators on his views on a host of issues, indeed on almost any question that a federal judge would have to examine. In the course of this, the Democrats on the committee assailed his "deeply held" religious views, arguing that his conservative positions should disqualify him as a Supreme Court judge. In addition, they said, he had been outspoken in his criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court, calling them "nine octogenarian lawyers." Pryor is 41 years old. The Republicans replied that the Democrats were in effect declaring that anyone with Catholic beliefs should be disqualified from serving on a federal court, thereby applying a religious test to an appointment to federal office, something prohibited by the U.S. constitution. The Democrats replied that they weren't disqualifying all Catholics, but only Catholics who adhere to their church's teachings. Apparently, they would allow only Catholics with "shallow religious beliefs" to serve on a federal court, scoffed the columnist Robert Novak. In any event the vote in the Senate will be a very close thing, and a group called the Committee for Justice, set up to defend Bush's court nominees, is running ads in Maine and Rhode Island newspapers which show the doors to a room marked "Judicial Chambers" with a sign reading, "Catholics Need Not Apply." The reason for the ads is that both these states have heavy Catholic populations and three Republican senators from them have liberal views and might vote against the Pryor appointment. So what has all that to do with Canada? Only this: On Friday Aug. 1, our Prime Minister's Office announced the appointment of one Morris Fish to the Supreme Court of Canada. Note this is not a junior federal court; it is the very top court. Now who, one is prone to ask, is Morris Fish? Answer: He is a judge of the Quebec Court of Appeals. What does he think about abortion? We are not allowed to know. What does he think about gay marriage? We are not allowed to know. What does he think about the right of parents to discipline their children? We are not allowed to know. What does he think of provincial versus federal rights? Not allowed to know. In the Canadian practice, it would be unseemly to allow such questions to arise publicly. All these questions, you see, are really a private matter and will be considered confidentially by the Prime Minister's Office and responsible (meaning Liberal) members of the legal profession. As for actually giving an elected body the right to vote on such a "sensitive" appointment, well of course that would be unCanadian. Moreover, to require such a body to approve the appointment by a two-thirds majority (perhaps threatening the certainty of the outcome), would be ridiculous. Finally, it's also noteworthy that Alliance Leader Stephen Harper observed last week that the federal government has been "stacking" Canada's courts over the years with "liberal-minded judges," who could be counted on to legislate, via the courts, such things as gay marriage. In that way Liberal politicians couldn't be blamed for these things. "They had the courts do it for them, put the judges in they wanted." A federal spokesman called Harper's charge "outrageous" and "insulting to the courts." Of course it is. What does Harper think we're running? A democracy? Don't be silly. To paraphrase the brewery ads: "We are Canadian." |