Canadians have no option but to accept the infallibility of Supreme Court justices (appointed until they die or turn 75 years) when these justices privately interpret the Charter of Rights according to their own prejudiced views and make legal decisions accordingly. They have changed laws made in parliament with these legal decisions. They have usurped parliament and democracy. They appear to be untouchable in their red gowns. No Canadian Supreme Court justice has ever had to publicly answer a question about his or her special interests.
Special interest groups such as the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund ("LEAF"), Disabled Women's Network Canada ("DAWN Canada") and Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton are allowed and listed as interveners in Supreme Court cases.
1. Could these special interest groups influence the outcome of a Supreme Court case?
2. If the special interests of the interveners and the hidden prejudices of the Supreme Court justices are the same, what would that mean for a defendant?
3. Could special interest groups such as the Para-Dice Riders or police associations be allowed as interveners in Supreme Court cases or is this category only confined to feminist groups?
No prime minister of Canada has ever used the notwithstanding clause despite the many off-the-wall legal decisions homosexual marriages, kiddie porn, Indians fishing out of season while other Canadians look on. Prime Minister Chretien introduced it in parliament himself and called it a safety valve at that time and now the Indians and Fisheries Department officials were shooting at each other in New Brunswick.
The following changes are needed quickly if Canada is to avoid becoming a legal basket case:
1. The Charter should be rewritten, corrected or abandoned.
2. Supreme Court justices should be questioned about their special interests.
Only in Canada they say.