A biased judge defends his equally biased peers

Last month, Lukasz Granosik, president of the judges of the superior courts of Quebec, a group of judges appointed by Ottawa, wrote in The duty to defend the work of his peers. In particular, he denounced my numerous criticisms of federal judges.

Reserve duty

This criticism of a judge contravenes his duty of reserve. Above the fray, a magistrate speaks with his judgments. He does not participate in political debates. That’s why I filed a complaint against Mr. Granosik.

Defending the work of judges is up to law professors, lawyers or others. They do not deprive themselves of it.

Several serious journalists and authors have criticized the judiciary in recent years. I myself took part in this debate, in particular with my book The Battle of Londonthanks to which I proved that two Supreme Court justices helped the federal government repatriate the constitution without Quebec.

More recently, I demonstrated that among the Quebec lawyers called to the bench by Trudeau, among those who donated money to political parties, there was no gift for the PQ, QS and the Bloc, nor for the CAQ, where there are many sovereignists. The vast majority of contributions are made to the Liberals, the rest to the Conservatives. I also noted the past of federalist or multiculturalist militants of certain judges and showed that their decisions favor Ottawa rather than Quebec.

To this, Judge Granosik replied that judges take an oath. Suddenly, they would become completely impartial. Their partisan past would be erased as if by magic!

Quebecers discriminated against

It made me think of the former Chief Justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal, Michel Robert. He is a former youth president of the Liberal Party of Canada. During the repatriation, he was the Trudeau government’s lawyer in court. Jean Chrétien then appointed him judge of the Quebec Court of Appeal and then chief justice. He then declared that sovereigntist lawyers are excluded from the bench since they “do not adhere to the federal system”, a blatant case of discrimination based on opinion. However, the person concerned had taken an oath.

Obviously, Mr. Granosik sees no problem here, because he admires Michel Robert. Before being appointed judge, the Honorable Granosik served for two years as President of the Canadian Bar Association, Quebec Division (ABC-Quebec), an organization fundamentally hostile to the French fact, to secularism and to everything the rights of the Quebec national minority. In 2014, he sat on the board of directors of the organization when it created a reward… the Michel Robert prize! This distinction is given to law students. The whole thing is of course to honor this magistrate openly defending the discrimination suffered by sovereigntist lawyers. The person concerned was described as an “eminent jurist” by ABC-Quebec. You can not make that up!

Today, Judge Granosik accuses me of gratuitously discrediting the judiciary. In reality, he is as biased as many of his peers whom he defends.


source site-64