Reboot Alberta

Monday, June 23, 2008

Is Harper Trying to Intimidate the Judiciary?


I see the Harper “government” is continuing to be total consistent in its exercise of poor judgment and for its tendency for using tactics to trump statesmanship.
Now they have delved into the tax returns of our judiciary presumable as a negotiation technique to "settle" compensation negotiations for Judges.
The story the Harper Cons spin is all about putting the judiciary in their fiscal place and showing them that the Prime Minister is the Executive Branch he is the real Sheriff in town. The Judges better toe the line if they know what is god for them - or else.

This Putin-esque and Bush-league breach of privacy was done to bolster the arguments the Cons want to make that the Judges never had it so good and they don’t deserve a pay raise. The “reality” is the Cons wanted to prove was that the Judges are making more money on the Bench than they ever did in private practice. The story indicates that is true some cases and not for others, but so what! When was remuneration of a professional like a lawyer, the best test of their capacity to act independently, courageously and judiciously? In fact it may be evidence to the contrary.

The past private income of Judges when they were lawyers has nothing to do with their capacity and ability to do their job in the judiciary. The fact is the Harper Cons don’t understand this and if they do they don’t care about the privacy of citizens – even those in the judiciary who we depend on to protect us from the abuse of power by the state. Harper’s henchmen believe they are the only authority in government and they can breach the privacy of anyone they choose, including the judiciary.

The fact the Harper Cons believe they can access private tax records of individual citizens to aid their puerile political purposes and that they can do so with impunity only adds to the mounting evidence this bunch are not straight shooters.

I think it is only fair and I would like to see the tax records of the Harper highly paid and pampered Cabinet and Parliamentary Secretaries. Let’s see if they all took a pay cut in order to get into politics. The Cons are there to serve their own greater personal interests in public instead of being persons who are dedicated to serving the public interest.

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:25 pm

    Harper fights dirty. He does not operate within an ethical framework. He lies (income trusts, Senator Fortier), misleads (on many issues relating to Dion and the environment) and treats Canadians as if we are all idiots (oily the splot...c'mon).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:50 am

    I'm not unsympathetic to your thoughts on this one but I think you undercut your post by using language like "Putin-esque" and "Bush-league". It is unnecessary, and no different than the Oily-Spot-Dion ads that you correctly classed as reducing the quality of political discourse.

    The continual refrain of Harper being a Bush-puppy is pretty tiresome and comes more often from those with little else to say. Don't fall into that group. And the term Republican is not a mark of shame, even if the current head of the executive branch in the U.S. is diminishing the brand.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous9:07 pm

    This post is misleading to say the least. The government merely obtained the aggregate figure of the net income of the various federal judges. No judge was singled out. It is a shame that partisans like yourself can mislead the public and distort reality.

    What judges made in their private practice is HIGHLY relevant on what salaries must be obtained in order to keep judicial independence. Harper, unlike Liberals, has not been making massive partisan appointments regardless of merit. The judiciary is stacked with Liberal hacks - Ken, maybe you'll get an appointment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:40 am

    Every PM stacks the judiciary. Chretien sure did.

    Difference is that Harper wants judicial confirmation hearings - a clear step forward. The public has the right to know the background of a would-be life appointee to the nation's highest court. Period.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments are discouraged. If you have something to say, the rest of us have to know who you are