By Stephen J. Gray
“Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin moved to stifle controversy over her role in awarding the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler today, saying she purposely did not cast a vote at a committee meeting where his name was proposed as a recipient.” [1] (Globe and Mail, August 16, 2008)
The Chief Justice says “she did not cast a vote” for abortionist Morgentaler receiving the Order of Canada. Yet, according to the Globe and Mail of July 3, 2008, “…sources said Chief Justice McLachlin drove the nomination…” [2]
I am not a lawyer, but one would think that if someone “drove the nomination” for a person to receive the Order of Canada, that is as good as a vote. Especially if the driving force is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada who was the chairperson on the committee. Another point to ponder is this: since there has been such a furor over this award to abortionist Morgentaler, surely the minutes of this committee and the discussion on it should be published. Then the public would be able to see exactly what role the Chief Justice played in Morgentaler being nominated. Perhaps even a parliamentary committee should be struck and all the committee including the Chief Justice could give evidence under oath as to how an abortionist, who broke the law of Canada, received the Order of Canada. Or failing that, how about a public inquiry?
Of course, there will be those who will say that the matter has already been reported to the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) for investigation. But quite frankly, I do not believe that is a good enough solution. I do not believe we should have lawyers or judges investigating judges.
The Globe and Mail of August 16, 2008, stated “He, [Chief Justice Scott] said the CJC complaint will undergo an initial examination by staff lawyers to determine whether the possibility of misconduct is so remote that it should be dismissed without a full investigation by the disciplinary committee. Since the target of the complaint [The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada] is a member of the CJC itself, he said, a ‘senior, experienced’ outside lawyer will be asked to review this preliminary decision and provide advice to the disciplinary committee.”
I believe this matter does not need “examination” or “advice” from lawyers or judges. It needs, as I said earlier, a parliamentary or a public inquiry under oath. Nothing else will, or should suffice.
Stephen J. Gray
August 17, 2008.
graysinfo@yahoo.ca website http://www.oocities.org/graysinfo
Note: See excellent detailed complaint by a number of organizations on this matter at: http://www.realwomenca.com/page/mediareleases.html#mreleaseaug1408
Endnotes:
[1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080816.wmclachlin0816/BNStory/National/
[2] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080702.wmorgentaler0702/BNStory/National/