Kingly Minister

Stephen Harper wants to appoint judges that “are prepared to apply the law rather than make it.” This is a statement against the so-called ‘activist’ judges that fill the high courts these days. Peter McKnight’s article “First, define ‘judicial activism’” in last Saturday’s Vancouver Sun takes a careful look at the issue and come up with some surprising numbers. As it turns out, the Canadian Supreme Court rules far more for the government than against it; and, interestingly the ‘conservative’ judges are far more likely to strike down laws passed by parliament than ‘liberal’ judges. That is to say the ‘activist’ ‘liberal’ judges are far less activist than the ‘respectful’ ‘conservative’ judges. This result is surprising because the right and then the media, who created and popularized the term ‘judicial activism,’ have been telling us that it is the ‘liberal’ elements in the court that are activists. As it turns out, they both either got it wrong or plain lied. McKnight quite rightly pointed out that laws need interpretation to be workable, that Canada is mostly a common-law country (i.e. it works by legal precedent, judgment by judges), that the Supreme Count makes its decision by following the Constitution and Charters of Canada (i.e. applying the supreme laws of the nation). The only reason Mr. Harper complains about ‘activist judges’ is that they make judgements against his wishes. And, of course, that also means that the laws and his interpretations of them are against the Constitution and the Charters. How very kingly of our Prime Minister.