174 Forward Avenue

Ottawa ON K1Y1L2
Friday, December 19, 2014
Letters to the Editor
The Globe and Mail
444 Front St W
Toronto ON
To the editor,
Re "Judges Transcend Political Labels," December 19:
The article states that "Canadian judges ... have not historically pursued ideological
agendas" and yet "[I]t is easy to [assign] blame for the growing politicization of the
courts." Regardless, "We [article writers Sossin and Webber] are more interested in the
harder question of how to resist this path."
Indeed, this is an interesting question. Like God, the law should be slow to anger (that
is, change; and by that I'm in no way implying that God changes His Mind on occasion
or whatever. One thing's for sure about Him, He's constant.) I write this latter because
by not readily changing, the law is less subject to "flash mob rule." At the same time,
however, when it is recognizably time for the law to change, it should change. And
when is this?
Tacitus stated that the more laws present in a State, the more corrupt it is. Certainly,
when the stench of unchecked unbridled corruption is hanging in the air like the
miasma surrounding The House Of Usher before it fell, it's one indication that perhaps
more consideration than usual should be given to rethinking the body of laws. And is
merely the potential for this situation enough to set alarm bells ringing? Consider the
following hypothetical example: Nation X has entered into a Trade Agreement with
Nation Y. The agreement is completely secret to the public, known only by the coterie
of lawyers working on it. Might it be possible that secrecy in this case could be
unhealthy to the proper continuation of jurisprudence? Being a mere poet, myself, I'm
not sure how to proceed in answering this latter question. Am I supposed to warn
against the--dare I say, "obvious"--possiblity of "lawyers feathering their nests for
when they become judges"? Certainly my cursory examination of the revised Canadian
Elections Act suggests that more is afoot vis-a-vis creating corporatocracy than the
news media tries to make digestible to the public, that is, zilch. Perhaps certain judges
would do better with the latter question regarding the implications of secret trade
agreements, say, as in being required to answer it as a condition to being seriously
considered for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada? The hideous alternative is
for a regular column titled, say, "The Law Is An Albatross" or some such to appear

weekly in the newspaper; hideous in that it might not be written by minds trained in
law.
I'd write more on this, except that my Kraft Dinner smells like it's about to catch fire.
Plus I'm hungry, and I personally prefer to preview futures on a full stomach.
I hope this story gives you a fairer picture of what we're up against.
Yours truly,
Rolf Auer