Monday, December 31, 2007

Canadians' Confidence in Judicial System at All-Time Low

...says the B.C. Attorney General.

“The rate of confidence, or public confidence in the system is at an all-time low, and I think everybody in the system has be cognizant of that fact,” he said.

Really? Oh, dear, I hadn't noticed... surely we must trust judges unconditionally to do their job and simply scrupulously administer the law while ensuring it conforms to the Constitution/Charter... precisely as written, as opposed to ignoring all that and rendering decisions based on personal preference, ideology or political correctness (which means whatever the Left says is so at any given moment).

Oh, wait; I'm just being sarcastic. Of bloody course I've noticed... and have blogged a helluva lot about the issue already. I really ripped the system a few new ones, actually attracting the attention of the Supreme Court itself to my more or less inconsequential little blog here, according to my Sitemeter information. I think they quietly are well aware of what we, the People, think of them. Too bad they hardly bother to admit it publicly. Maybe they're instead developing a Machiavellian, Goebbellian propaganda strategy for marketing the dictatorship of the judiciary to us? They do realize that the People have awaken from their delusion and no longer see judges as gods in whom to place unquestioning faith.

“We have to start working towards more confidence in the system, and that means everyone who's involved, including the courts.”

And the judges. It's time for them, if they're Left-wing radical activists, to either abandon their activist ideology completely or step down... or be fired following their next on-the-bench crime, perhaps even charged with a crime against the Constitution or against the Canadian people or something. Perhaps, if there isn't already such a law in force criminalizing judicial activism, there definitely ought to be. (Hmm... perhaps the time to bring this law forth would be the next time the Conservatives are at 40% in polling and the Liberals are down again in the twenties, meaning that the coldly calculating Liberals sit on their hands rather than vote for or against such a law, as they're afraid of taking a stand and even more afraid of going into an election, particularly when they'd have confirmed to Canadians that they sincerely believe that judges don't need to be forced by law to stick to the law and the Constitution/Charter as written and originally intended! Of course, we could do it with a majority. Who could possibly oppose having only judges who uphold the law and the Constitution/Charter? How can anyone make the case that that'd be a bad thing?)

In fact, I believe that judges are effectively above the law as it is, removable only by their elitist legal-system peers, a group that can hardly be considered properly scrupulous itself! Seems to me that judges are usually only removed for doing something that makes the Left mad rather than for being illegally, unconstitutionally activist.

“I think we have to get moving and some of the sentences have to reflect public mores and public standards. I think judges have to be cognizant of what the public thinks of their sentencing process.”

In other words, judges, if they're going to worry about what others think about their judging behavior, they'd be better advised to consider the People as a whole rather than a tiny minority of dangerously delusional Left-wing revolutionary forces demanding special, exclusive rights and exemptions and so on... as some who get these special, exclusive rights/exemptions may, in fact, use them as a way to, with the assistance of the Leftist-dominated state apparatus (including the so-called "Human Rights Commission"), force an extremist agenda upon everyone else against their will.

As a smoking Frenchman I saw on the news a little while ago said, concerning tomorrow's start of the ban on indoor public smoking, "When they start to impose on us, better put the seatbelts on...".

Of course, what I have in mind isn't stuff like reasonably protecting non-smokers from second-hand smoke, but rather, potentially dangerous stuff... and what's stopping judges and commissions from imposing dangerous stuff onto us all merely because some extremists who they like want it to be done?

We'd really rather have a "tyranny" of the democratic will of the People than a tyranny of the few or the one, wouldn't we? I mean, Leftists sometimes ask me, with frighteningly straight faces, if I've ever heard the bizarre phrase, "tyranny of the majority". So I ask them if they'd prefer a dictatorship.

No system of governance has been, nor is, nor will ever be perfect, for we're all mere mortals and cannot create perfection, except in our imaginations. But one thing is for certain: Freedom, democracy and the rule of law works best of all!