Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak admits he “may have” signed a petition calling for the end to abortion funding in the past but promises not to reopen the debate if elected premier.
Hudak was responding to questions from the Star Monday regarding the Association for Reformed Political Action group listing him as someone who has “made it clear that he is pro-life and has signed petitions calling for abortion defunding and conscience legislation.”
Hudak said he will follow Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s lead and not revisit the abortion issue if he becomes premier Oct. 6.
The association has the post on its website, www.arpacanada.ca http://arpacanada.ca/index.php/issuesresearch/canadian-politics/577-ontarios-pc-leadership-race-where-do-the-candidates-stand END. The article addresses Conservative MPPs’ positions on certain issues in advance of the leadership vote in 2009. Hudak won the race on June 27, 2009.
“I may have signed a petition from my riding in that respect, but listen, let me be clear, we are not reopening this debate,” he said.
The Association for Reformed Political Action is a non-profit national organization that aims to make members of reformed churches more a part of public debate, said executive director Mark Penninga.
“The information we provided was all correct,” he said from Vancouver. “The email that made these points didn’t come from Hudak but someone in his campaign team.”
When the Star repeatedly asked Hudak if he is “pro-life” he refused to answer the question and walked away from the microphone.
Premier Dalton McGuinty has previously stated he supports a women’s right to choose. He was not available to comment Monday. But Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said Hudak’s refusal to answer the question speaks to his integrity.
“I think his integrity is an issue,” Duncan said.
“He does one thing then says another and tries to pretend he didn’t do it,” Duncan said, adding he is pro-choice. “I believe in the funding of it. But Mr. Hudak signs these things — I presume he reads them before he signs them — and I think that speaks to his integrity and to the kind of premier he would be.”
The New Democratic Party noted Monday it is the only party whose entire caucus has received a failing grade from the Campaign Life Coalition, a pro-life and pro-family movement.
Both Liberal and Conservative party members have tried to waffle on this issue, said NDP MPP Michael Prue (Beaches-East York).
“If he (Hudak) is a shade of grey, let him be a shade of grey. But don’t be telling one group that you want, and sign a petition, to defund abortion then tell everyone else you don’t want it to be an issue,” he said. “We in the NDP believe every woman has the right to choose.”
The Campaign Life Coalition says on its website that Hudak used to be “solidly pro-life” but has not responded to a questionnaire since 1995.
The website also notes Hudak, in 2009, chose to support an “openly lesbian candidate” in the St. Paul’s by-election. That candidate was Sue-Ann Levy, who lost to Liberal Eric Hoskins.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Conservative Party of Canada president John Walsh sent a letter July 1 that read, in part, that the Tories "appreciate the Chinese Communist Party" and would "look forward to the future relations between the two parties." : hmm so he is in love with the Chinese communists Party thats not going to go over well!!!.
OTTAWA - The political party that backed the creation of an Ottawa monument to victims of communism has also sent a congratulatory letter to the Communist Party of China (CPC) on its 90th anniversary.
Chinese media have reported that Conservative Party of Canada president John Walsh sent a letter July 1 that read, in part, that the Tories "appreciate the Chinese Communist Party" and would "look forward to the future relations between the two parties."
Human rights critics were not shy in their criticism.
Former MP David Kilgour described the letter as "naive with a capital 'N'."
Kilgour, who's no longer a member of any political party, added that the CPC has a nasty legacy that deserves criticism, not praise.
"It's everything that a democratic party in Canada or anywhere else in the world would want to keep at barge pole distance," he said.
Former diplomat and frequent critic of Chinese communists, Brian McAdam, slammed Walsh.
"Obviously the letter-writer, like many other persons in the government unfortunately, has very little knowledge about China," McAdam said. "It's been one of the most appalling regimes in human history."
Aside from religious persecutions, forced abortions and a sorry human rights record, tens of millions of people have been killed through famines and other Chinese communist policies.
McAdam suggests Chinese immigrants would probably be disappointed that the Conservatives had congratulated communist authorities.
"These people voted with their feet to leave China because they don't have any democracy and never will have any democracy in China," he said.
Neither Walsh nor other Tory officials responded to QMI Agency's requests for comment on the letter, but the Prime Minister's Office offered a brief statement.
"The promotion and protection of human rights is a big part of Canada's foreign policy and a priority in our dealings with China," wrote PMO press secretary Andrew MacDougall. "Canada takes every appropriate opportunity to express our concerns to the Chinese government and to urge China to implement and adhere to international standards of human rights."
Tribute to Liberty, a registered charity headed up by Canadians whose countries of ancestry were afflicted by communism, is now raising funds for an Ottawa memorial to the victims of communist crimes
Chinese media have reported that Conservative Party of Canada president John Walsh sent a letter July 1 that read, in part, that the Tories "appreciate the Chinese Communist Party" and would "look forward to the future relations between the two parties."
Human rights critics were not shy in their criticism.
Former MP David Kilgour described the letter as "naive with a capital 'N'."
Kilgour, who's no longer a member of any political party, added that the CPC has a nasty legacy that deserves criticism, not praise.
"It's everything that a democratic party in Canada or anywhere else in the world would want to keep at barge pole distance," he said.
Former diplomat and frequent critic of Chinese communists, Brian McAdam, slammed Walsh.
"Obviously the letter-writer, like many other persons in the government unfortunately, has very little knowledge about China," McAdam said. "It's been one of the most appalling regimes in human history."
Aside from religious persecutions, forced abortions and a sorry human rights record, tens of millions of people have been killed through famines and other Chinese communist policies.
McAdam suggests Chinese immigrants would probably be disappointed that the Conservatives had congratulated communist authorities.
"These people voted with their feet to leave China because they don't have any democracy and never will have any democracy in China," he said.
Neither Walsh nor other Tory officials responded to QMI Agency's requests for comment on the letter, but the Prime Minister's Office offered a brief statement.
"The promotion and protection of human rights is a big part of Canada's foreign policy and a priority in our dealings with China," wrote PMO press secretary Andrew MacDougall. "Canada takes every appropriate opportunity to express our concerns to the Chinese government and to urge China to implement and adhere to international standards of human rights."
Tribute to Liberty, a registered charity headed up by Canadians whose countries of ancestry were afflicted by communism, is now raising funds for an Ottawa memorial to the victims of communist crimes
Sunday, July 17, 2011
We're all human, you know? That's roughly the trick that the hackers most likely relied on when, earlier this year, they managed to steal over 24,000 files from a defense contractor. : Hackers Stole 24,000 Files From The Pentagon.
We're all human, you know? That's roughly the trick that the hackers most likely relied on when, earlier this year, they managed to steal over 24,000 files from a defense contractor.
The Pentagon won't say what files went astray, or the level of secrecy associated with the contents of the stolen data. But we can assume that at least some of it was highly secret--secret enough that Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III felt compelled to admit to the attack during a speech about the future of cyber policy yesterday. Lynn said it concerned some of the U.S.'s "most sensitive systems, including aircraft avionics, surveillance technologies" and more, before hinting that foreign powers were behind the attack and using it to declare cyberspace the next battleground.
What went down? We spoke to Nick Percoco, digital security expert and SVP at Trustwave's SpiderLabs, and familiar with exactly this sort of cyberattack, to get some insight.
How The Hack May Have Begun: Email Scams
The fact that the 24,000 stolen files came from a defense contractor is significant, Percoco notes. It's likely easier to get this sort of data from a contractor than launching an all-out attack on Pentagon servers themselves, because companies are full of people--people who are used to doing business in our digitally connected world. And even though an employee of a defense contractor is probably way more switched on to digital security than you or I, it's still not impossible to cheat someone with access to secret files into placing malware on their work laptop.
All it would take for a dedicated hacker is some basic research. If you wanted to steal data like this, you could start by targeting a particular employee via email--"We've seen this happen to defense contractors," Percoco notes. "Using technology like Google, and LinkedIn and other social networks" hackers could find out who best to target. Say they pick a particular EVP, and work out their email address is "JohnSmith@defencecontractorX.com." Then they work out who their colleagues or bosses may be all the way up to CEO level.
Then it's as simple as going to a source of hacking code using your underworld contacts (or using some of your own) and getting access to a "zero day exploit"--a new loophole in a computer or software system's security that hasn't been publicly discovered yet, and hence is still open for hacking use.
This is where the hack escalates. "In this case, they'd been looking for a zero-day exploit in, say, the Adobe PDF reader. And then they'd take a nice creative pen out and draft up a document that looks like it should be something important," Percoco said. After this, the hacker would set up something like a disposable Gmail account and make the screen name the same as one of the target's peers or the CEO of the company. Then they'd "craft up an email that says 'Here's an important document, some new announcement we're working on. Please review it and be ready for a call at 10 a.m. today.'" The trick is to send this to the target at around 7:30 a.m. local time, because the "best time to send those types of things is right before someone's had their coffee."
Typically the sleep-addled victim would trust the email as it's supposedly from a colleague, then launch the embedded PDF (or other faked document). Usually it causes the newly launched program--Adobe Reader in this example--to crash. But as it crashed, it would actually be installing malicious code on the machine. The virus is injected.
How The Attack Began: Website Sting
A similar attack is possible using a faked-up website that looks like it's actually related to the target company--one of those odd-looking, badly maintained websites that kinda looks official that we've all surfed to at some point and been confused by.
Some of these are actually storage pens for targeted malicious code, carefully honed to appear high on Google searches with SEO tricks. And when, say, a marketing official from the target company Googles to find out how their brand is being referenced around the web, they may stumble across one of these fake sites and trigger the release of malware onto their machine.
What Happened Next: Access Is King
Once the malicious code has been installed on the machine, the "sky's the limit," particularly via the email exploit. A well-coded virus code can evade detection and hide on the computer, doing various wicked things.
Often the "sole purpose of the executable is to go and find files on the person's computer and archive those in a zip file or RAR file, and then attempt to extract them from the system," Percoco said, based on his experience. The code could try lots of different routes, using FTP or HTTP or other protocols to get those files off the system. It's something he's seen in "many environments" and, worryingly, they're often "highly successful in getting those files." The code is typically designed to work on Windows machines, with almost no such exploits targeted at Macs--but Percoco agrees that this is at least partly due to the assumption by a hacker that a business user will be using a PC, not a Mac.
The success would be based on the fact no one's seen this particular kind of attack before (a zero-day exploit payoff) and it would easily circumvent any protective anti-virus software installed on the machine--because the protection doesn't know to look out for this type of virus. The only real way to avoid this sort of attack for the target to "avoid clicking on documents," which is clearly unlikely in the case of a business computer user.
A smarter hacker would select a network administrator at the target company, because they're human, too. Their machine likely has even more interesting files that have data on network security, what kind of code is let in and let out of company firewalls, and so on.
Getting access to this sort of data (via the same email hack as described above) could let a persistent hacker penetrate a company's network and install a backdoor onto it--totally circumventing security because then "the attacker doesn't have to come in from the outside, they have code running on that system that will basically open up a connection back to the attacker"--not something network security is expecting. Then you can gain access to passwords and credentials to worm your way in further, eventually finding whatever sensitive data you're looking for.
The result could be a grim violation of company security. "We've seen those for a number of years, in all sorts of companies including government-type companies as well," Percoco says.
Who Did This?
It's easy to see how a hacker could gain access to a machine and even a company network, and how easy it can be to transfer stolen files from infected computers to the hacker. But who is the hacker? The Deputy Secretary of Defense was careful to link it to "foreign" attackers--and considering this year's hacking news, we're instantly imagining China is to blame.
Percoco says his company does hundreds of investigations every year on attacks like these, and it's "very, very difficult to trace an attack to a specific person and specific political motivation." That's unless it's a hacktivist attack, when a group like Anonymous posts the data online and admits it was to blame--and even then "you don't know where these people are actually located."
A hacker could take his laptop down to a coffee shop, buy a cup of joe and "get on their free Wi-Fi system. And now they go and start looking around the world to find a computer that has a security weakness." Once they find it, they can use the hacked computer for a targeting scenario like the one described above, where they send a tainted email. Anyone tracing the code back after the attack was detected may find it sourced on a corporate computer in, say, China. And then they're stuck--because no one's "going to let the U.S. government come in and do a forensic investigation on some business located in China."
Furthermore, it's rare that even this first Net address is where the attack is coming from--"they're always jumping through one or many systems" Percoco says, which could be in numerous nations and thus completely confound any attempts to track them. Which means the attacker actually could be located anywhere.
The Cold Cyberwar?
Suddenly, there's a much more sinister angle to the Pentagon hack. Forget "The Chinese Way of Hacking." More like "Even More Malicious Hackers Looking Like They're Using The Chinese Way Of Hacking."
The Pentagon won't say what files went astray, or the level of secrecy associated with the contents of the stolen data. But we can assume that at least some of it was highly secret--secret enough that Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III felt compelled to admit to the attack during a speech about the future of cyber policy yesterday. Lynn said it concerned some of the U.S.'s "most sensitive systems, including aircraft avionics, surveillance technologies" and more, before hinting that foreign powers were behind the attack and using it to declare cyberspace the next battleground.
What went down? We spoke to Nick Percoco, digital security expert and SVP at Trustwave's SpiderLabs, and familiar with exactly this sort of cyberattack, to get some insight.
How The Hack May Have Begun: Email Scams
The fact that the 24,000 stolen files came from a defense contractor is significant, Percoco notes. It's likely easier to get this sort of data from a contractor than launching an all-out attack on Pentagon servers themselves, because companies are full of people--people who are used to doing business in our digitally connected world. And even though an employee of a defense contractor is probably way more switched on to digital security than you or I, it's still not impossible to cheat someone with access to secret files into placing malware on their work laptop.
All it would take for a dedicated hacker is some basic research. If you wanted to steal data like this, you could start by targeting a particular employee via email--"We've seen this happen to defense contractors," Percoco notes. "Using technology like Google, and LinkedIn and other social networks" hackers could find out who best to target. Say they pick a particular EVP, and work out their email address is "JohnSmith@defencecontractorX.com." Then they work out who their colleagues or bosses may be all the way up to CEO level.
Then it's as simple as going to a source of hacking code using your underworld contacts (or using some of your own) and getting access to a "zero day exploit"--a new loophole in a computer or software system's security that hasn't been publicly discovered yet, and hence is still open for hacking use.
This is where the hack escalates. "In this case, they'd been looking for a zero-day exploit in, say, the Adobe PDF reader. And then they'd take a nice creative pen out and draft up a document that looks like it should be something important," Percoco said. After this, the hacker would set up something like a disposable Gmail account and make the screen name the same as one of the target's peers or the CEO of the company. Then they'd "craft up an email that says 'Here's an important document, some new announcement we're working on. Please review it and be ready for a call at 10 a.m. today.'" The trick is to send this to the target at around 7:30 a.m. local time, because the "best time to send those types of things is right before someone's had their coffee."
Typically the sleep-addled victim would trust the email as it's supposedly from a colleague, then launch the embedded PDF (or other faked document). Usually it causes the newly launched program--Adobe Reader in this example--to crash. But as it crashed, it would actually be installing malicious code on the machine. The virus is injected.
How The Attack Began: Website Sting
A similar attack is possible using a faked-up website that looks like it's actually related to the target company--one of those odd-looking, badly maintained websites that kinda looks official that we've all surfed to at some point and been confused by.
Some of these are actually storage pens for targeted malicious code, carefully honed to appear high on Google searches with SEO tricks. And when, say, a marketing official from the target company Googles to find out how their brand is being referenced around the web, they may stumble across one of these fake sites and trigger the release of malware onto their machine.
What Happened Next: Access Is King
Once the malicious code has been installed on the machine, the "sky's the limit," particularly via the email exploit. A well-coded virus code can evade detection and hide on the computer, doing various wicked things.
Often the "sole purpose of the executable is to go and find files on the person's computer and archive those in a zip file or RAR file, and then attempt to extract them from the system," Percoco said, based on his experience. The code could try lots of different routes, using FTP or HTTP or other protocols to get those files off the system. It's something he's seen in "many environments" and, worryingly, they're often "highly successful in getting those files." The code is typically designed to work on Windows machines, with almost no such exploits targeted at Macs--but Percoco agrees that this is at least partly due to the assumption by a hacker that a business user will be using a PC, not a Mac.
The success would be based on the fact no one's seen this particular kind of attack before (a zero-day exploit payoff) and it would easily circumvent any protective anti-virus software installed on the machine--because the protection doesn't know to look out for this type of virus. The only real way to avoid this sort of attack for the target to "avoid clicking on documents," which is clearly unlikely in the case of a business computer user.
A smarter hacker would select a network administrator at the target company, because they're human, too. Their machine likely has even more interesting files that have data on network security, what kind of code is let in and let out of company firewalls, and so on.
Getting access to this sort of data (via the same email hack as described above) could let a persistent hacker penetrate a company's network and install a backdoor onto it--totally circumventing security because then "the attacker doesn't have to come in from the outside, they have code running on that system that will basically open up a connection back to the attacker"--not something network security is expecting. Then you can gain access to passwords and credentials to worm your way in further, eventually finding whatever sensitive data you're looking for.
The result could be a grim violation of company security. "We've seen those for a number of years, in all sorts of companies including government-type companies as well," Percoco says.
Who Did This?
It's easy to see how a hacker could gain access to a machine and even a company network, and how easy it can be to transfer stolen files from infected computers to the hacker. But who is the hacker? The Deputy Secretary of Defense was careful to link it to "foreign" attackers--and considering this year's hacking news, we're instantly imagining China is to blame.
Percoco says his company does hundreds of investigations every year on attacks like these, and it's "very, very difficult to trace an attack to a specific person and specific political motivation." That's unless it's a hacktivist attack, when a group like Anonymous posts the data online and admits it was to blame--and even then "you don't know where these people are actually located."
A hacker could take his laptop down to a coffee shop, buy a cup of joe and "get on their free Wi-Fi system. And now they go and start looking around the world to find a computer that has a security weakness." Once they find it, they can use the hacked computer for a targeting scenario like the one described above, where they send a tainted email. Anyone tracing the code back after the attack was detected may find it sourced on a corporate computer in, say, China. And then they're stuck--because no one's "going to let the U.S. government come in and do a forensic investigation on some business located in China."
Furthermore, it's rare that even this first Net address is where the attack is coming from--"they're always jumping through one or many systems" Percoco says, which could be in numerous nations and thus completely confound any attempts to track them. Which means the attacker actually could be located anywhere.
The Cold Cyberwar?
Suddenly, there's a much more sinister angle to the Pentagon hack. Forget "The Chinese Way of Hacking." More like "Even More Malicious Hackers Looking Like They're Using The Chinese Way Of Hacking."
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Airline broke languages act, court says : Among several complaints to the Federal Court of Canada, Michel Thibodeau described how when he asked a unilingual anglophone flight attendant in French for a 7-Up, she gave him a Sprite. Thibodeau characterized the incident and others as "malicious, oppressive and reprehensible," conduct by Air Canada employees that only aggravated the violation of the couple's linguistic rights.
Air Canada has been ordered to pay an Ottawa French-language rights crusader and his wife $12,000 and formally apologize for failing to offer them services in French.
Among several complaints to the Federal Court of Canada, Michel Thibodeau described how when he asked a unilingual anglophone flight attendant in French for a 7-Up, she gave him a Sprite.
Thibodeau characterized the incident and others as "malicious, oppressive and reprehensible," conduct by Air Canada employees that only aggravated the violation of the couple's linguistic rights.
The court Wednesday agreed in part, and ruled the airline breached the Official Languages Act on four occasions in 2009 involving Thibodeau and his wife, Lynda, of Orléans.
"The applicants' language rights are clearly very important to them and the violation of their rights caused them a moral prejudice, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of their vacation," Justice Marie-Josée Bédard wrote in her judgment.
"It is also my opinion that awarding damages in this case will serve the purpose of emphasizing the importance of the rights at issue and will have a deterrent effect."
It is Michel Thibodeau's second successful legal action against the airline and its subsidiaries. In 2000, he was refused service in French when he tried to order a 7-Up from a unilingual English flight attendant on an Air Ontario flight from Montreal to Ottawa.
Thibodeau filed suit in Federal Court for $525,000 in damages. The court upheld his complaint, ordered the airline to make a formal apology and pay him $5,375.95. Thibodeau was later honoured by the French-language rights group, Imperatif français.
In 2007, he filed a complaint against the City of Ottawa, accusing it of not providing sufficient bilingual services on its buses.
In the latest case, the Thibodeaus initially complained of eight instances in 2009 in which they did not receive services in French at airports in Atlanta, Toronto and Ottawa and aboard three related Air Canada Jazz flights between Canada and the United States.
The Official Languages Act requires Air Canada to communicate and provide services in both official languages in the National Capital Region and elsewhere in Canada, "where there is significant demand for those services in the minority language and where it is warranted by the nature of the office or facility."
In an affidavit filed with court, Michel Thibodeau, who represented the couple, criticized the attitude of a flight attendant on the flight from Charlotte to Toronto on May 12, 2009.
"When I boarded the plane at 11: 00 a.m., I said hello to the flight attendant. She replied in English. I asked her whether she spoke French, and she said 'no' in English. She said that there was no service in French. So, no active offer of services in French, and no service in French on that flight.
"At 10 past 11, the flight attendant came by, and she stopped to tell me that she was not obliged to speak French, that she and several other unilingual English flight attendants had been hired in the '90s and that service in French was not mandatory.
Among several complaints to the Federal Court of Canada, Michel Thibodeau described how when he asked a unilingual anglophone flight attendant in French for a 7-Up, she gave him a Sprite.
Thibodeau characterized the incident and others as "malicious, oppressive and reprehensible," conduct by Air Canada employees that only aggravated the violation of the couple's linguistic rights.
The court Wednesday agreed in part, and ruled the airline breached the Official Languages Act on four occasions in 2009 involving Thibodeau and his wife, Lynda, of Orléans.
"The applicants' language rights are clearly very important to them and the violation of their rights caused them a moral prejudice, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of their vacation," Justice Marie-Josée Bédard wrote in her judgment.
"It is also my opinion that awarding damages in this case will serve the purpose of emphasizing the importance of the rights at issue and will have a deterrent effect."
It is Michel Thibodeau's second successful legal action against the airline and its subsidiaries. In 2000, he was refused service in French when he tried to order a 7-Up from a unilingual English flight attendant on an Air Ontario flight from Montreal to Ottawa.
Thibodeau filed suit in Federal Court for $525,000 in damages. The court upheld his complaint, ordered the airline to make a formal apology and pay him $5,375.95. Thibodeau was later honoured by the French-language rights group, Imperatif français.
In 2007, he filed a complaint against the City of Ottawa, accusing it of not providing sufficient bilingual services on its buses.
In the latest case, the Thibodeaus initially complained of eight instances in 2009 in which they did not receive services in French at airports in Atlanta, Toronto and Ottawa and aboard three related Air Canada Jazz flights between Canada and the United States.
The Official Languages Act requires Air Canada to communicate and provide services in both official languages in the National Capital Region and elsewhere in Canada, "where there is significant demand for those services in the minority language and where it is warranted by the nature of the office or facility."
In an affidavit filed with court, Michel Thibodeau, who represented the couple, criticized the attitude of a flight attendant on the flight from Charlotte to Toronto on May 12, 2009.
"When I boarded the plane at 11: 00 a.m., I said hello to the flight attendant. She replied in English. I asked her whether she spoke French, and she said 'no' in English. She said that there was no service in French. So, no active offer of services in French, and no service in French on that flight.
"At 10 past 11, the flight attendant came by, and she stopped to tell me that she was not obliged to speak French, that she and several other unilingual English flight attendants had been hired in the '90s and that service in French was not mandatory.
"With a sarcastic smile, she asked Lynda and me whether we were from Quebec. We replied that we lived in Ontario, in Ottawa. I asked her name as I was going to file a complaint about the lack of service in French ...
"At 11: 46 a.m., the flight attendant came by and asked my wife and me, 'Anything to drink folks?' Lynda said, "Rien merci" [No, thank you]. I told her "Je vais prendre un 7-Up s.v.p." [I would like a 7-Up, please]. She served me a Sprite."
For its part, Air Canada admitted to the court it is not always able to provide all services in French as required by the Act, but that breaches are occasional and do not reveal a systemic problem, as alleged by the Thibodeaus.
"Air Canada emphasizes that things are evolving within the organization; it has made commitments and it makes considerable efforts to hire bilingual staff and to develop the language skills of its employees and those of Jazz, that service in French has improved over the years and that its complaints track record has improved substantially," Justice Bédard wrote.
Still, the airline, according the reasons for the judgment, admitted four breaches in the new Thibodeau case:
No services in French on board ? ? flight AC8627 flying the Toronto-Atlanta route on Jan. 23, 2009: Air Canada acknowledges there was no bilingual flight attendant on this flight, although it was a flight on which there was significant demand for services in French.
No translation of an announce-? ? ment made in English by the pilot concerning the arrival time and weather on flight AC8622 flying the Atlanta-Toronto route on Feb. 1, 2009: Air Canada acknowledges that the announcement should have been translated by the flight attendant (who was bilingual) because it was a flight on which there was significant demand for services in French.
No services in French on board ? ? flight AC7923 flying the Charlotte-Toronto route on May 12, 2009. Air Canada acknowledges that there was no bilingual flight attendant on this flight and that it was a flight on which there was significant demand for services in French.
Announcement made in English ? ? only to passengers concerning baggage collection at the Toronto airport on May 12, 2009: Air Canada admits that this announcement should have been made in English and French because the Toronto airport is an airport where there is significant demand for services in French.
Air Canada, however, denied the Thibodeaus' complaint that it was responsible for an announcement to passengers made in English only regarding a change of baggage carousal at the Ottawa airport on Feb. 1, 2009.
The airline denied it was its responsibility to make those announcements and told the court it was the airport authority's responsibility since the airlines did not have access to the transmission.
The court ruled Air Canada breached its duty to provide French services four times and awarded the each of the Thibodeaus $6,000 in damages, or $1,500 for each breach, (plus $6,982.19 in costs). The couple had sought $5,000 for each infraction, for a total of $25,000.
The court dismissed the Thibodeaus' claim for $500,000 in exemplary and punitive damages based on allegations of "the systemic nature of Air Canada's breaches and on the arrogant attitude of Air Canada employees."
Justice Bédard did, however, find that a "systemic problem" complying with linguistic requirements exists at Air Canada.
She ordered the airline to introduce, within six months, "a proper monitoring system and procedures to quickly identify, document and quantify potential violations of its language duties," under the languages act and a language requirement contained in the act under which the former Crown corporation was privatized in 1988.
The airline Wednesday said it was reviewing the judgment and had no comment.
"At 11: 46 a.m., the flight attendant came by and asked my wife and me, 'Anything to drink folks?' Lynda said, "Rien merci" [No, thank you]. I told her "Je vais prendre un 7-Up s.v.p." [I would like a 7-Up, please]. She served me a Sprite."
For its part, Air Canada admitted to the court it is not always able to provide all services in French as required by the Act, but that breaches are occasional and do not reveal a systemic problem, as alleged by the Thibodeaus.
"Air Canada emphasizes that things are evolving within the organization; it has made commitments and it makes considerable efforts to hire bilingual staff and to develop the language skills of its employees and those of Jazz, that service in French has improved over the years and that its complaints track record has improved substantially," Justice Bédard wrote.
Still, the airline, according the reasons for the judgment, admitted four breaches in the new Thibodeau case:
No services in French on board ? ? flight AC8627 flying the Toronto-Atlanta route on Jan. 23, 2009: Air Canada acknowledges there was no bilingual flight attendant on this flight, although it was a flight on which there was significant demand for services in French.
No translation of an announce-? ? ment made in English by the pilot concerning the arrival time and weather on flight AC8622 flying the Atlanta-Toronto route on Feb. 1, 2009: Air Canada acknowledges that the announcement should have been translated by the flight attendant (who was bilingual) because it was a flight on which there was significant demand for services in French.
No services in French on board ? ? flight AC7923 flying the Charlotte-Toronto route on May 12, 2009. Air Canada acknowledges that there was no bilingual flight attendant on this flight and that it was a flight on which there was significant demand for services in French.
Announcement made in English ? ? only to passengers concerning baggage collection at the Toronto airport on May 12, 2009: Air Canada admits that this announcement should have been made in English and French because the Toronto airport is an airport where there is significant demand for services in French.
Air Canada, however, denied the Thibodeaus' complaint that it was responsible for an announcement to passengers made in English only regarding a change of baggage carousal at the Ottawa airport on Feb. 1, 2009.
The airline denied it was its responsibility to make those announcements and told the court it was the airport authority's responsibility since the airlines did not have access to the transmission.
The court ruled Air Canada breached its duty to provide French services four times and awarded the each of the Thibodeaus $6,000 in damages, or $1,500 for each breach, (plus $6,982.19 in costs). The couple had sought $5,000 for each infraction, for a total of $25,000.
The court dismissed the Thibodeaus' claim for $500,000 in exemplary and punitive damages based on allegations of "the systemic nature of Air Canada's breaches and on the arrogant attitude of Air Canada employees."
Justice Bédard did, however, find that a "systemic problem" complying with linguistic requirements exists at Air Canada.
She ordered the airline to introduce, within six months, "a proper monitoring system and procedures to quickly identify, document and quantify potential violations of its language duties," under the languages act and a language requirement contained in the act under which the former Crown corporation was privatized in 1988.
The airline Wednesday said it was reviewing the judgment and had no comment.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/
Friday, July 15, 2011
Guergis violated the parliamentary code of ethics when she wrote a recommendation for a constituent whose business was linked to her husband may be the final nail in the coffin of the Guergis political empire.
The report finding former Conservative MP Helena Guergis violated the parliamentary code of ethics when she wrote a recommendation for a constituent whose business was linked to her husband may be the final nail in the coffin of the Guergis political empire.
And as political empires go, the Guergis one in Ontario's Simcoe Country was impressive.
Helena Guergis' grandfather, who immigrated to Canada after being subjected to life in a refugee camp on the border of Iraq and Turkey during the First World War, was elected reeve of Essa Township in the 1970s.
Subsequent generations followed in "Grandpa George's" footsteps and chose politics as a way to serve their communities.
At one point, there were four Guergis family members serving as elected officials in the Simcoe region.
Helena Guergis' sister, Christine Brayford, was a councillor in Alliston, while her cousin, Tony Guergis, was mayor of Springwater and his brother, David, was mayor of Essa. Helena Guergis, of course, was an elected Member of Parliament.
In civic elections last fall, Brayford was defeated in her run at the deputy mayor's chair in Alliston.
Both Tony Guergis and David Guergis were ousted from their jobs partly because of controversy surrounding support for the waste dump known as Site 41.
Tony Guergis was also criticized for his stance to dissolve the Nottawasaga Conservation Authority.
"Voters rejected the Guergis family in a big way because they had come to symbolize behind-closed-doors politicking," Kate Harries, a board member of the grassroots community group AWARE Simcoe, told the Toronto Star.
Helena Guergis' high-profile controversies - being booted out of the Conservative caucus because of perceived improprieties and Thursday's report from the ethics commissioner, likely put an end to her once promising political career.
She lost her bid to win her riding again as an independent in the May 2 election.
The Guergis family was once dubbed the Kennedy's of Simcoe County. After almost four decades, this dynasty appears to have come to an end.
And as political empires go, the Guergis one in Ontario's Simcoe Country was impressive.
Helena Guergis' grandfather, who immigrated to Canada after being subjected to life in a refugee camp on the border of Iraq and Turkey during the First World War, was elected reeve of Essa Township in the 1970s.
Subsequent generations followed in "Grandpa George's" footsteps and chose politics as a way to serve their communities.
At one point, there were four Guergis family members serving as elected officials in the Simcoe region.
Helena Guergis' sister, Christine Brayford, was a councillor in Alliston, while her cousin, Tony Guergis, was mayor of Springwater and his brother, David, was mayor of Essa. Helena Guergis, of course, was an elected Member of Parliament.
In civic elections last fall, Brayford was defeated in her run at the deputy mayor's chair in Alliston.
Both Tony Guergis and David Guergis were ousted from their jobs partly because of controversy surrounding support for the waste dump known as Site 41.
Tony Guergis was also criticized for his stance to dissolve the Nottawasaga Conservation Authority.
"Voters rejected the Guergis family in a big way because they had come to symbolize behind-closed-doors politicking," Kate Harries, a board member of the grassroots community group AWARE Simcoe, told the Toronto Star.
Helena Guergis' high-profile controversies - being booted out of the Conservative caucus because of perceived improprieties and Thursday's report from the ethics commissioner, likely put an end to her once promising political career.
She lost her bid to win her riding again as an independent in the May 2 election.
The Guergis family was once dubbed the Kennedy's of Simcoe County. After almost four decades, this dynasty appears to have come to an end.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Nancy Grace Prosecutorial misconduct & Controversies!
Career as prosecutor Grace worked for nearly a decade in the Atlanta-Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney's office as Special Prosecutor. Her work focused on felony cases involving serial murder, serial rape, serial child molestation, and arson.[6]
Grace left the prosecutors' office after the District Attorney she had been working under decided not to run for reelection.[7]
] Prosecutorial misconduct The Supreme Court of Georgia has twice commented on Grace's conduct as a prosecutor. First, in a 1994 heroin drug trafficking case, Bell v. State, the Court declared a mistrial, saying that Grace had "exceeded the wide latitude of closing argument" by drawing comparisons to unrelated murder and rape cases.[8]
In 1997, the court was more severe, overturning the murder-arson conviction of businessman W. W. Carr in the death of his wife. While the court said its reversal was not due to these transgressions, since the case had turned primarily on circumstantial evidence, it nevertheless concluded "the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable."[9] Carr was freed in 2004 when The Georgia Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Fulton County had waited too long to retry him, thereby unfairly prejudicing his right to a fair trial[10].
Despite upholding the conviction she sought, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a 2005 opinion that Grace "played fast and loose" with her ethical duties and failed to "fulfill her responsibilities" as a prosecutor in the 1990 triple murder trial of Herbert Connell Stephens.[11] The court agreed that it was "difficult to conclude that Grace did not knowingly use ... [apparently false] testimony" from a detective that there were no other suspects, despite the existence of outstanding arrest warrants for other men.[11]
Career as broadcasterAfter leaving the Fulton County prosecutors' office, Grace was approached by and accepted an offer from Court TV founder Steven Brill to do a legal commentary show alongside Johnnie Cochran. When Cochran left the show, Grace was moved to a solo trial coverage show on CourtTV.[7]
In 2005, she began hosting a regular primetime legal analysis show on CNN Headline News (now HLN) in addition to her CourtTV show.[6] On May 9, 2007, Grace announced that she would be leaving Court TV to focus more on her CNN Headline News Program and charity work.[12] She did her last show on Court TV on June 19, 2007.
Nancy Grace has a distinctive interviewing style mixing vocal questions with multimedia stats displays. The Foundation of American Women in Radio & Television has presented Nancy Grace with two Gracie Awards for her Court TV show.[6]
Nancy Grace had been covering the Casey Anthony story for years. After the controversial verdict ruled that Casey Anthony was not guilty, her show on HLN had its highest ratings ever in the 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. hour slots on Tuesday, July 5th, 2011. [13]
Controversies Suicide of interviewee Melinda DuckettIn 2006, 21-year-old Melinda Duckett committed suicide following an interview conducted by Grace concerning the disappearance of Duckett's 2-year-old son Trenton.[14]
Grace interviewed Duckett less than two weeks after the child went missing, questioning her for her alleged lack of openness regarding her son's disappearance, asking Duckett "Where were you? Why aren't you telling us where you were that day?"[15] Duckett appeared confused and was unable to answer whether or not she had taken a polygraph test. When Grace asked her why she could not account for specific details, Duckett began to reply, "Because I was told not to," to which Grace responded, "Ms. Duckett, you are not telling us for a reason. What is the reason? You refuse to give even the simplest facts of where you were with your son before he went missing. It is day twelve." According to the CNN transcript, Duckett replied, "(INAUDIBLE) with all media. It's not just there, just all media. Period." Grace then moved on to a media psychologist who asserted that Duckett was "skirting around the issue."[14][15]
The next day, before the airing of the show, Duckett shot herself, a death that relatives claim was influenced by media scrutiny, particularly from Grace.[14][16] Speaking to The Orlando Sentinel, Duckett's grandfather Bill Eubank said, "Nancy Grace and the others, they just bashed her to the end. She was not one anyone ever would have thought of to do something like this."[14] CNN has also been criticized for allowing the show to air in the wake of Duckett's suicide.[17] Police investigating the case had not named Melinda Duckett as a suspect in the case at the time, but after her suicide the police did say that, as nearly all parents are in missing-child cases, she was a suspect from the beginning.[14]
In an interview on Good Morning America, Nancy Grace said in reaction to events that "If anything, I would suggest that guilt made her commit suicide. To suggest that a 15- or 20-minute interview can cause someone to commit suicide is focusing on the wrong thing."[18] She then said that, while she sympathized with the family, she knew from her own experience as a victim of crime that such people look for somebody else to blame.[19]
While describing it as an "extremely sad development," Janine Iamunno, a spokeswoman for Grace,[14] said that her program would continue to follow the case as they had a "responsibility to bring attention to this case in the hopes of helping find Trenton Duckett." Grace commented that "I do not feel that our show is to blame for what happened to Melinda Duckett. The truth is not always nice or polite or easy to go down. Sometimes it's harsh, and it hurts."[14]
On November 21, 2006, thesmokinggun.com exposed pending litigation on behalf of the estate of Melinda Duckett, asserting a wrongful death claim against CNN and Grace. The attorney for the estate alleges that, even if Duckett did kill her own son, Grace's aggressive questioning traumatized Duckett so much that she committed suicide. She also argues that CNN's decision to air the interview after Duckett's suicide traumatized her family. Trenton was never found.[17][20]
On November 8, 2010, Grace reached a settlement with the estate of Melinda Duckett to create a $200,000 trust fund dedicated to locating Trenton. This settlement was reached a month before a jury trial was scheduled to start. According to the agreement, if the young boy is found alive before he turns 13, the remaining proceeds in the trust will be administered by a trustee – Trenton's great-aunt Kathleen Calvert – until he turns 18 and the funds are transferred for his use. If Trenton is not found by his 13th birthday, or if he is found but is not alive, the funds will be transferred immediately to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "We are pleased the lawsuit has been dismissed. The statement speaks for itself," a spokeswoman for CNN said.[21]
Duke lacrosse allegationsGrace took a vehemently pro-prosecution position throughout the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, in which Crystal Gail Mangum, a stripper and North Carolina Central University student, falsely accused three members of Duke University's men's lacrosse team of raping her at a party. Prior to Duke suspending its men's lacrosse team's season, she sarcastically noted on the air, "I'm so glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!" and "Why would you go to a cop in an alleged gang rape case, say, and lie and give misleading information?"[22] After the disbarment of District Attorney Mike Nifong, Attorney General Roy Cooper pronounced all three players innocent of the rape charges made by Mangum and Nifong.[23] On the following broadcast of her show, Grace did not appear and a substitute reporter, Jane Velez-Mitchell, announced the removal of all charges.[24]
Elizabeth Smart kidnappingDuring the Elizabeth Smart case, when suspect Richard Ricci was arrested by police on the basis that he had a criminal record and had worked on the Smarts' home, Grace immediately and repeatedly proclaimed on CourtTV and CNN's Larry King that Ricci "was guilty," although there was little evidence to support this claim. She also suggested publicly that Ricci's girlfriend was involved in the cover-up of his alleged crime. Grace continued to accuse Ricci, though he died while in custody.[25]
It was later revealed that Smart was kidnapped by Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee, two individuals with whom Richard Ricci had no connection.[26]
When CourtTV confronted Grace seven months later to ask whether she was incorrect in her assertion that Ricci was guilty, and whether or not she felt bad about it in any way, she stated that Ricci was "a known ex-con, a known felon, and brought suspicion on himself, so who could blame anyone for claiming he was the perpetrator?" When Larry King asked her about the matter, she equated criticism of herself with criticism of the police in the case. She said: "I'm not letting you take the police with me on a guilt trip."[27]
In July 2006, Grace interviewed Smart, who was promoting a legislative bill. Grace repeatedly asked her for information regarding her abduction. Smart told her she didn't feel comfortable discussing it, despite Grace's persistence in the matter. Finally, Grace stopped when Smart said she "didn't appreciate [Grace] bringing all this up."[28]
Grace left the prosecutors' office after the District Attorney she had been working under decided not to run for reelection.[7]
] Prosecutorial misconduct The Supreme Court of Georgia has twice commented on Grace's conduct as a prosecutor. First, in a 1994 heroin drug trafficking case, Bell v. State, the Court declared a mistrial, saying that Grace had "exceeded the wide latitude of closing argument" by drawing comparisons to unrelated murder and rape cases.[8]
In 1997, the court was more severe, overturning the murder-arson conviction of businessman W. W. Carr in the death of his wife. While the court said its reversal was not due to these transgressions, since the case had turned primarily on circumstantial evidence, it nevertheless concluded "the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable."[9] Carr was freed in 2004 when The Georgia Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Fulton County had waited too long to retry him, thereby unfairly prejudicing his right to a fair trial[10].
Despite upholding the conviction she sought, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a 2005 opinion that Grace "played fast and loose" with her ethical duties and failed to "fulfill her responsibilities" as a prosecutor in the 1990 triple murder trial of Herbert Connell Stephens.[11] The court agreed that it was "difficult to conclude that Grace did not knowingly use ... [apparently false] testimony" from a detective that there were no other suspects, despite the existence of outstanding arrest warrants for other men.[11]
Career as broadcasterAfter leaving the Fulton County prosecutors' office, Grace was approached by and accepted an offer from Court TV founder Steven Brill to do a legal commentary show alongside Johnnie Cochran. When Cochran left the show, Grace was moved to a solo trial coverage show on CourtTV.[7]
In 2005, she began hosting a regular primetime legal analysis show on CNN Headline News (now HLN) in addition to her CourtTV show.[6] On May 9, 2007, Grace announced that she would be leaving Court TV to focus more on her CNN Headline News Program and charity work.[12] She did her last show on Court TV on June 19, 2007.
Nancy Grace has a distinctive interviewing style mixing vocal questions with multimedia stats displays. The Foundation of American Women in Radio & Television has presented Nancy Grace with two Gracie Awards for her Court TV show.[6]
Nancy Grace had been covering the Casey Anthony story for years. After the controversial verdict ruled that Casey Anthony was not guilty, her show on HLN had its highest ratings ever in the 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. hour slots on Tuesday, July 5th, 2011. [13]
Controversies Suicide of interviewee Melinda DuckettIn 2006, 21-year-old Melinda Duckett committed suicide following an interview conducted by Grace concerning the disappearance of Duckett's 2-year-old son Trenton.[14]
Grace interviewed Duckett less than two weeks after the child went missing, questioning her for her alleged lack of openness regarding her son's disappearance, asking Duckett "Where were you? Why aren't you telling us where you were that day?"[15] Duckett appeared confused and was unable to answer whether or not she had taken a polygraph test. When Grace asked her why she could not account for specific details, Duckett began to reply, "Because I was told not to," to which Grace responded, "Ms. Duckett, you are not telling us for a reason. What is the reason? You refuse to give even the simplest facts of where you were with your son before he went missing. It is day twelve." According to the CNN transcript, Duckett replied, "(INAUDIBLE) with all media. It's not just there, just all media. Period." Grace then moved on to a media psychologist who asserted that Duckett was "skirting around the issue."[14][15]
The next day, before the airing of the show, Duckett shot herself, a death that relatives claim was influenced by media scrutiny, particularly from Grace.[14][16] Speaking to The Orlando Sentinel, Duckett's grandfather Bill Eubank said, "Nancy Grace and the others, they just bashed her to the end. She was not one anyone ever would have thought of to do something like this."[14] CNN has also been criticized for allowing the show to air in the wake of Duckett's suicide.[17] Police investigating the case had not named Melinda Duckett as a suspect in the case at the time, but after her suicide the police did say that, as nearly all parents are in missing-child cases, she was a suspect from the beginning.[14]
In an interview on Good Morning America, Nancy Grace said in reaction to events that "If anything, I would suggest that guilt made her commit suicide. To suggest that a 15- or 20-minute interview can cause someone to commit suicide is focusing on the wrong thing."[18] She then said that, while she sympathized with the family, she knew from her own experience as a victim of crime that such people look for somebody else to blame.[19]
While describing it as an "extremely sad development," Janine Iamunno, a spokeswoman for Grace,[14] said that her program would continue to follow the case as they had a "responsibility to bring attention to this case in the hopes of helping find Trenton Duckett." Grace commented that "I do not feel that our show is to blame for what happened to Melinda Duckett. The truth is not always nice or polite or easy to go down. Sometimes it's harsh, and it hurts."[14]
On November 21, 2006, thesmokinggun.com exposed pending litigation on behalf of the estate of Melinda Duckett, asserting a wrongful death claim against CNN and Grace. The attorney for the estate alleges that, even if Duckett did kill her own son, Grace's aggressive questioning traumatized Duckett so much that she committed suicide. She also argues that CNN's decision to air the interview after Duckett's suicide traumatized her family. Trenton was never found.[17][20]
On November 8, 2010, Grace reached a settlement with the estate of Melinda Duckett to create a $200,000 trust fund dedicated to locating Trenton. This settlement was reached a month before a jury trial was scheduled to start. According to the agreement, if the young boy is found alive before he turns 13, the remaining proceeds in the trust will be administered by a trustee – Trenton's great-aunt Kathleen Calvert – until he turns 18 and the funds are transferred for his use. If Trenton is not found by his 13th birthday, or if he is found but is not alive, the funds will be transferred immediately to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "We are pleased the lawsuit has been dismissed. The statement speaks for itself," a spokeswoman for CNN said.[21]
Duke lacrosse allegationsGrace took a vehemently pro-prosecution position throughout the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, in which Crystal Gail Mangum, a stripper and North Carolina Central University student, falsely accused three members of Duke University's men's lacrosse team of raping her at a party. Prior to Duke suspending its men's lacrosse team's season, she sarcastically noted on the air, "I'm so glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!" and "Why would you go to a cop in an alleged gang rape case, say, and lie and give misleading information?"[22] After the disbarment of District Attorney Mike Nifong, Attorney General Roy Cooper pronounced all three players innocent of the rape charges made by Mangum and Nifong.[23] On the following broadcast of her show, Grace did not appear and a substitute reporter, Jane Velez-Mitchell, announced the removal of all charges.[24]
Elizabeth Smart kidnappingDuring the Elizabeth Smart case, when suspect Richard Ricci was arrested by police on the basis that he had a criminal record and had worked on the Smarts' home, Grace immediately and repeatedly proclaimed on CourtTV and CNN's Larry King that Ricci "was guilty," although there was little evidence to support this claim. She also suggested publicly that Ricci's girlfriend was involved in the cover-up of his alleged crime. Grace continued to accuse Ricci, though he died while in custody.[25]
It was later revealed that Smart was kidnapped by Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee, two individuals with whom Richard Ricci had no connection.[26]
When CourtTV confronted Grace seven months later to ask whether she was incorrect in her assertion that Ricci was guilty, and whether or not she felt bad about it in any way, she stated that Ricci was "a known ex-con, a known felon, and brought suspicion on himself, so who could blame anyone for claiming he was the perpetrator?" When Larry King asked her about the matter, she equated criticism of herself with criticism of the police in the case. She said: "I'm not letting you take the police with me on a guilt trip."[27]
In July 2006, Grace interviewed Smart, who was promoting a legislative bill. Grace repeatedly asked her for information regarding her abduction. Smart told her she didn't feel comfortable discussing it, despite Grace's persistence in the matter. Finally, Grace stopped when Smart said she "didn't appreciate [Grace] bringing all this up."[28]
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Language is not the supreme criteria for top-court appointments : One of the more contentious debates in the last Parliament centred on a private member’s bill that would have required all Supreme Court of Canada judges to be bilingual.
One of the more contentious debates in the last Parliament centred on a private member’s bill that would have required all Supreme Court of Canada judges to be bilingual.
At the time, it was theory. Now, however, the practical effects of this debate are playing out in an enormously important contest to fill two vacancies in Ontario's contingent of three judges.
It has become conventional wisdom that proficiency in both official languages is a virtual must. Judges who are bilingual have been propelled toward the top of the list.
Perception can quickly create reality. Many top lawyers and jurists worry that the best candidates will be effectively blocked.
A Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by the best available candidate. He or she will spend the next 10 to 20 years deciding key federal-provincial disputes and, perhaps, social issues as momentous as euthanasia and capital punishment.
Fluency in both official languages is highly desirable, and unilingual judges who aspire to the most significant office in Canadian law ought to make an honest effort to fill this gap in within two or three years of their appointment.
But should bilingualism be the overarching qualification for appointment to the nine-judge bench, at the expense of all others?
The Court has as skilled a retinue of translators and staff lawyers as can be found. What's more, if simultaneous translation is good enough for the United Nations Security Council and G8 summits, why not the Supreme Court of Canada?
Consider that Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin was unilingual when she was appointed in 1990, but she swiftly learned French – while two of our greatest jurists, Bertha Wilson and John Sopinka, remained unilingual.
A short list of judicial candidates will soon be completed by an all-party parliamentary committee.
The perceived finalists do include such top-notch, bilingual jurists as Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Robert Sharpe and James MacPherson. But other candidates are thought to have an advantage largely because of their bilingualism.
The chances of some of the leading judges on the Ontario Court of Appeal – perhaps the strongest court in the land – may be handicapped by their linguistic deficiency. They include Eleanore Cronk, David Doherty, Michael Moldaver, Kathryn Feldman, Stephen Goudge, Eileen Gillese, John Laskin and Marc Rosenberg. The same is true of leading candidates from the bar, such as Sheila Block, Ben Zarnett and Linda Rothstein.
Moreover, observers question the chances of two candidates with strong credentials who are currently engaged in intensive French instruction: Federal Court of Appeal Judge David Stratas and Ontario Court of Appeal Judge Russell Juriansz.
If perceptions current in the legal community are being fed by background conversations involving federal government officials, our highest court may be in for troubled times.
We cannot afford to exclude the country’s finest legal minds from the Supreme Court. Prime Minister Stephen Harper must avoiding creating an unalterable convention – let alone a legal requirement – of bilingualism. It can, however, be a solemn commitment for any unilingual new appointee.
At the time, it was theory. Now, however, the practical effects of this debate are playing out in an enormously important contest to fill two vacancies in Ontario's contingent of three judges.
It has become conventional wisdom that proficiency in both official languages is a virtual must. Judges who are bilingual have been propelled toward the top of the list.
Perception can quickly create reality. Many top lawyers and jurists worry that the best candidates will be effectively blocked.
A Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by the best available candidate. He or she will spend the next 10 to 20 years deciding key federal-provincial disputes and, perhaps, social issues as momentous as euthanasia and capital punishment.
Fluency in both official languages is highly desirable, and unilingual judges who aspire to the most significant office in Canadian law ought to make an honest effort to fill this gap in within two or three years of their appointment.
But should bilingualism be the overarching qualification for appointment to the nine-judge bench, at the expense of all others?
The Court has as skilled a retinue of translators and staff lawyers as can be found. What's more, if simultaneous translation is good enough for the United Nations Security Council and G8 summits, why not the Supreme Court of Canada?
Consider that Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin was unilingual when she was appointed in 1990, but she swiftly learned French – while two of our greatest jurists, Bertha Wilson and John Sopinka, remained unilingual.
A short list of judicial candidates will soon be completed by an all-party parliamentary committee.
The perceived finalists do include such top-notch, bilingual jurists as Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Robert Sharpe and James MacPherson. But other candidates are thought to have an advantage largely because of their bilingualism.
The chances of some of the leading judges on the Ontario Court of Appeal – perhaps the strongest court in the land – may be handicapped by their linguistic deficiency. They include Eleanore Cronk, David Doherty, Michael Moldaver, Kathryn Feldman, Stephen Goudge, Eileen Gillese, John Laskin and Marc Rosenberg. The same is true of leading candidates from the bar, such as Sheila Block, Ben Zarnett and Linda Rothstein.
Moreover, observers question the chances of two candidates with strong credentials who are currently engaged in intensive French instruction: Federal Court of Appeal Judge David Stratas and Ontario Court of Appeal Judge Russell Juriansz.
If perceptions current in the legal community are being fed by background conversations involving federal government officials, our highest court may be in for troubled times.
We cannot afford to exclude the country’s finest legal minds from the Supreme Court. Prime Minister Stephen Harper must avoiding creating an unalterable convention – let alone a legal requirement – of bilingualism. It can, however, be a solemn commitment for any unilingual new appointee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)