Judging The Judge

There is that about politics and elections and candidates; the leaders never quite know when an individual chosen by a riding association and often given the blessing of the party's head office, will issue a moronic statement that tends to smear the party in greasy embarrassment. Some statements can be overlooked as not being terribly damaging in a social-political context, and others simply cannot, because they reveal unacceptable social biases, even bigotry.

In Wild Rose, Alberta, former judge and Liberal candidate John Reilly stated his opinion based on his decades of experience as a judge that not all sexual offences fall into the same category and need not be treated the same; that minor sex offences did not necessarily warrant mandatory minimum prison sentences.

He may have understood where he was coming from, but to those who heard his statement it sounded as though sex offenders might have had a friend in this judge.

There have been several quite notable instances of late where judges have ruled that forced sex cases, cases of rape, revealed mitigating circumstances in that they claimed the women involved issued unspoken but fairly clear messages leading the rapists to believe the women invited assault. So, rape in these instances was to be considered the result of a simple misunderstanding, and you can't, after all, blame a fellow for thinking he had an all-clear, even while hearing the woman strenuously objecting.

This is a man, eager to become a Member of Parliament under the Liberal banner, whose website explains "He's so disgusted by the proposed Conservative Justice Initiatives that he has resigned his judicial appointment in order to take his concerns to Ottawa and better represent our riding." A conversion, in other words, from one who administers justice under set guidelines allowing a judge certain latitudes, to one who goes beyond the simple administration of the law to proposing changes in the law.

From provincial court judge to Parliament as a newly-minted lawmaker.

So what's the quality of this man's judgement? Well, he took it upon himself to take the Chief Judge of Alberta to court because he refused then-Judge Reilly's expense claim to a conference in Switzerland. The Chief Justice, in refusing Reilly's request explained that the proposed trip did not meet requirements for professional development, but he could go along if he paid for the trip himself, rather than do it on the public purse.

That response didn't suit John Reilly and he asked for a judicial review, lost, took his umbrage to the Alberta Court of Appeal, where the court ruled against him, and when he approached the Supreme Court, it decided against hearing his case. So, because this man felt he wanted to go to Switzerland in his capacity as a provincial court judge, and public payment was denied him, he tied up a layer of succeeding courts at huge public cost.

Are these the actions of a reasonable man capable of exercising sound judgemental capabilities?