Supreme Court Justice Mahmud Jamal has recused himself from the legal challenge against Quebec’s Bill 21 - the rights-infringing “secularism” law - after complaints by the province and two interest groups.
This is a bad precedent for sure. Has anything like this ever happened at the SCC, where a Justice recuse themselves due to a loose connection with an external legal organization? Are there any parallel between this case and the scandal involving Justice McLeod, in your view?
Surely an appointment to the SCC indicates a remarkable ability to separate personal bias in Judgements.
I cannot but wonder if a Supreme Court Judge with a name associated with a religion recuses himself due to the Bill speaking to the "Laicity" of the state. Somewhat ironic imo.
Jamal even believing that he has to recuse himself, which I don't believe he does, or should, is a pure knock on both the Judicial System and where Canada is at, and appears to be heading.
How is one's ethnicity any different than one's political beliefs or affiliation. Unless the other judges can claim to be completely apolitical, then they, too should be recusing themselves from any and all cases.
The influence of the influencers in this case should be brought to the fore – and imho it is they who should be investigated by our media. Of course that will never happen considering the current state of the ownership and bent of much or our Canadian Media today.
The only reason Jamal would "become a major distraction" is if the hedge fund owned media demands that it be so. So sad to see where we are headed in Canada!
It's time to take back our media.
It's time for Canadians to demand #ResponsibleJournalism all across the board.
Thanks, once again, Emmett, for speaking up for Canada!
I think the Court is very sensitive to any issue that could make it appear to be politicized, at least partly to differentiate it from SCOTUS. Is a sense, Jamal recused himself because Clarence Thomas won't.
But we have the precedent from the House of Lords in the Pinochet hearings to reinforce Lord Hewart's maxim, justice must be done and must be seen to be done.
The Pinochet case was dismissed because the wife of the judge was a lawyer for the Intervener, Amnesty International.
This is a bad precedent for sure. Has anything like this ever happened at the SCC, where a Justice recuse themselves due to a loose connection with an external legal organization? Are there any parallel between this case and the scandal involving Justice McLeod, in your view?
Any judge is charged with interpreting a law.
Surely an appointment to the SCC indicates a remarkable ability to separate personal bias in Judgements.
I cannot but wonder if a Supreme Court Judge with a name associated with a religion recuses himself due to the Bill speaking to the "Laicity" of the state. Somewhat ironic imo.
Spot on, Emmett!
Jamal even believing that he has to recuse himself, which I don't believe he does, or should, is a pure knock on both the Judicial System and where Canada is at, and appears to be heading.
How is one's ethnicity any different than one's political beliefs or affiliation. Unless the other judges can claim to be completely apolitical, then they, too should be recusing themselves from any and all cases.
The influence of the influencers in this case should be brought to the fore – and imho it is they who should be investigated by our media. Of course that will never happen considering the current state of the ownership and bent of much or our Canadian Media today.
The only reason Jamal would "become a major distraction" is if the hedge fund owned media demands that it be so. So sad to see where we are headed in Canada!
It's time to take back our media.
It's time for Canadians to demand #ResponsibleJournalism all across the board.
Thanks, once again, Emmett, for speaking up for Canada!
I think the Court is very sensitive to any issue that could make it appear to be politicized, at least partly to differentiate it from SCOTUS. Is a sense, Jamal recused himself because Clarence Thomas won't.
But we have the precedent from the House of Lords in the Pinochet hearings to reinforce Lord Hewart's maxim, justice must be done and must be seen to be done.
The Pinochet case was dismissed because the wife of the judge was a lawyer for the Intervener, Amnesty International.
Could go both ways here, if you know what I mean.