TILTING THE COURTS ONE JUDGE AT A TIME

Conservatives' Changes To Judicial Appointments Threaten To Bring
Politics Into The Courtroom

It's bad when when judges are appointed based on their political
affiliations. It's worse when they are named to the bench based on
their willingness to deliver the kinds of sentences -- or verdicts --
that the government of the day favours.

The principle of judicial independence matters.

We've decided our elected representatives should pass laws and judges
should then interpret and apply them, based on precedent, the intent
of MPs or MLAs -- one reason those dull debates on legislation matter
- -- and their own best judgment.

Or we have until now.

The Harper government has apparently believes that the principle of
judicial independence is not so important.

Instead, it appears intent on appointing judges who will impose the
kinds of sentences the Conservatives would like.

Since 1988, when the Mulroney government introduced reforms to the
appointment process, prospective judges have been screened by
provincial committees representing the public, judges and lawyers.

They could pass on the names of candidates who were "recommended" or
"highly recommended."

The prime minister then made appointments from among those who made the cut.

It was hardly perfect. Judicial appointments tended to show a
partisan bias, under the Conservatives and the Liberals. That was
regrettable, but the system broadly respected the idea of an
independent judiciary.

The Harper government has been attacking that principle.

It barred committees from indicating which candidates were considered
strongest. They are now all stamped competent, with no distinction
between those meeting a minimum standard and those with an
extraordinary record.

It removed voting power, in most cases, from the one member of the
judiciary on the committee.

At the same time, it increased the number of federal representatives
to four, giving political appointees a majority.

And Harper decided every committee should now include a specific
police representative, part of a professed desire to appoint judges
who will be tougher on crime. In three provinces, the federal
government has given two out of six voting places on the review
committees to police officers, current or retired.

Why? Police have a clear job in gathering evidence and enforcing the
law. They have no right to a special say in how it should be
interpreted or who should be on the bench.

The Harper government is introducing an American approach, where
judges in many states are elected and promise their own approach to
justice -- pledging to lock more people up, or fewer, or target drug
users or corporate executives or whoever is the most politically
unpopular at the moment.

It's a dangerous and wrongheaded change, threatening our basic
principles and the interests of both people accused of crimes and victims.

If judges are selected based on the politics of the day, justice is
sacrificed. Courts are stacked with judges selected for their
predisposition to certain findings and sentences.

Harper wants judges more likely to find people guilty and lock them
up for longer.

The next prime minister might select judges more likely to find
people not guilty, or predisposed to throw the book at white-collar criminals.

The courts, instead of being an impartial place where judges strive
to interpret the law independently, become an arm of government,
shifting according to the latest political fashion.

And that is a dangerous attack on our basic system of justice.