Controversial court

Re: A new light on Canada’s institutions, John Ivison, June 23

I take this as a warning that we are to be subjected to more and more judicial activism of the progressive variety, and that this article is intended to ease us into that by lulling us with promises of openness and “modern, accessible” reports.

“I think we have an obligation to speak to the people and to make sure the people of Canada keep their faith in the judicial system,” Richard Wagner, the new chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, said. Familiarity breeds contempt, and I don’t want the Supreme Court getting too close to “the people.” And why on earth would our new chief justice say something like that, other than to prepare us for a planned outburst of controversial rulings?

After the appalling Trinity Western decision, I want the court to keep its progressive, multicultural paws well away from our moral values. Interpretation of the meaning of our laws on moral grounds will permit an unelected body to trash or change laws as it sees fit, and the powers possessed by our elected representatives cannot be subordinated to those of the Supreme Court.

As for Wagner’s comment, “I like dissent . ... It’s normal in an open society,” is this intended to downplay anticipated negative reactions by the more conservative members of the court towards planned future adventures in legal interpretation?

Perhaps these revelations indicate the fruition of the decades-old activism of groups such as the Law Union of Ontario and its provincial counterparts. Jeff Goodall, Oshawa, Ont.