We could green our economy tomorrow if we could just find some way to harness the emotional and intellectual energy that is wasted by people in this country pretending to be shocked by things that are not shocking.
Last week, Premier Doug Ford made a statement of the blindingly obvious, notable only for being unusually blunt. Asked about the recent appointment of some Ford staffers to the panel that vets people for appointment as provincial judges, Ford agreed that he had put people close to him on the panel and remarked, “We got elected to get like-minded people in appointments … I’m not going to appoint some NDP or some Liberal.” This has set many tongues wagging with indignation about the premier’s politicization of the judiciary and all that jazz.
Can we just ... not? Really? Are we all going to pretend to be stupid?
There may well be reasonable grounds to criticize Ford’s appointments. If a learned legal expert tells me that the individuals are unqualified to do the work that they have been assigned, then that is a genuine concern. We should be angry about that. The judiciary is important, appointing judges is important, and no government should airdrop unqualified individuals into important posts as rewards for prior political service. I think we can all agree on that.
But what we should not do is pretend that governments do not routinely put people who share their broad worldview into positions of authority. This is part of why people want to form the government: you have the power to do things. This is, broadly speaking, what the executive is supposed to do. And the judiciary, for all its importance, is not unique. While it is true that the executive must not direct the judiciary, it must absolutely oversee it. And it is completely reasonable for a government to broadly shape the judiciary in line with its worldview.
There should be limits, of course. We should not have wild pivots in judicial philosophy after every change in government. But, as I said above, I refuse to pretend that I am shocked to find gambling. Governments do not, as a matter of routine, appoint people who do not share their worldview to these kinds of posts. It definitely happens. I sat here for a couple of minutes, reflecting on times that governments had appointed someone who was one of their partisan opponents to a position of oversight or responsibility. And I could come up with a few, usually when a panel needed to be formed to review something. Some examples of that came to mind. But extremely few. It just does not happen that often, and no one really expects it to. Appointing people to positions of authority, in line with their best judgment, is what the executive exists to do.
If Ford did anything unusual last week, it was to be blunt about it — and in a pretty typical Doug Ford way. Granted. But I refuse to believe that anyone who has taken the time to read this is actually so naive as to be shocked that Conservatives prefer to appoint Conservatives. That is just part of how this works, which is why I’m also not outraged when Liberals appoint people who are generally within the Liberal orbit and would not be outraged, assuming the NDP ever gets another chance to appoint anyone, if the NDP chose to appoint people from within its own stable of fellow travellers.
Again, that’s not to say that Ford won’t screw this up or hasn’t already screwed it up. I can’t comment on the fitness of the individuals already appointed to carry out their duties. If they are personally unsuited to the task, then by all means, let’s raise hell until Ford inevitably collapses like a Jenga tower at a dorm party and reverses himself. He would. We all know that. It’s what he does.
In the meantime, though, let’s not pretend to be shocked that politicians appoint judges in line with their worldview. Prime ministers put justices on the Supreme Court that broadly align with their government’s worldview, and that’s fine. It’s accepted and normal and probably healthy — it helps create a court that reflects a diverse country and the competing interests that judges must balance.
We have probably gone too far already down the path of politicians wiping their hands of all matters relating to law enforcement and the courts. As granted above already, we cannot have the executive actively interfering with the police and the courts. Nothing good comes of that. But we have not been well-served by buying into the fiction that policing and/or the courts are just things elected officials must resolutely avoid. I want the executive leadership of this country and province to care what’s happening in the courts. I want the public’s concerns about public safety and the administration of justice — criminal and civil — to matter to the people in positions of authority. I do not want what we have: an accountability void where we mostly see politicians, even the ones specifically entrusted with overseeing policing and the courts, acting like any action on their part (any at all) is inappropriate.
That’s not how our democracy is supposed to work, but it’s how we’re running things, and it might be exactly why things aren’t going well.
I don’t want unqualified political “old boys” shaping justice in this country. I also don’t want judges having a strange overlap with donors to the party in power, and I really don’t want the crisis we have today: a government that has done such a poor job appointing judges that even serious criminal charges are being thrown out because the court system literally lacks the capacity to try them in the mandated timeframe.
I take no position on the fitness of the people Ford appointed. I’m not qualified to do that. But I absolutely am qualified to spot false outrage, and being outraged that Ford is doing what everyone does is exactly that. I also think we’d be better off if more elected officials took an interest in how things are going in the judiciary. It can’t run itself. We should stop pretending like it can — or should.
Donate