THE MORGENTALER
PETITION:
The faith community pushes
back.
THE
SAD CONCLUSION:
Federal Court Rejects Application to Review
Morgentaler Order of Canada
By Patrick B. Craine
TORONTO, Ontario, November 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Federal
Court ruling this week has said that the Governor General's highly
controversial induction of Canada's "father of abortion," Henry
Morgentaler, into the Order of Canada last summer cannot be legally
contested.
In a decision released this week, Order-inductee Frank Chauvin's
application for a federal court review of the award was rejected on
the grounds that it is "plain and obvious that [it] cannot
succeed."
The appointment of Morgentaler, Canada's leading abortionist, has
been acknowledged as the most factious by far in the history of the
Order, sparking a nationwide protest. At least nine previous Order
of Canada inductees returned the prestigious honor, or had it
returned on their behalf, and over 100 Members of Parliament
declared their objection. Polls indicated that well over half of
Canadians opposed the award, and a petition signed by 30,000 was
submitted to the Governor General.
Mr. Chauvin, a retired Windsor police detective, received the Order
in 1987 for his work in support of Haitian orphan girls. He brought
the legal challenge against the Order's Advisory Council in July
2008. He takes issue with the secretive process by which the
Council recommended Morgentaler, and states that the award was
directly contrary to the high purpose of the Order of Canada to
unite Canadians behind truly meritorious recipients.
Mr. Chauvin pointed to reports that the Council altered its
protocol in order to successfully nominate Morgentaler. Though the
proceedings are confidential, the 11-member Council reportedly
allowed a majority vote in the Morgentaler nomination rather than
the customary requirement of consensus.
Additionally Chauvin argues that the Council's chair, Chief Justice
Beverley McLachlin, should have recused herself from voting on the
nomination, given that Morgentaler is currently before the New
Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench seeking public funding for his
private, for-profit abortion facility in that province.
Though she strongly denied the allegation, reports at the time
indicated that Justice McLachlin had personally spearheaded the
effort to nominate the abortionist.
In this week's written decision, Federal Court Prothonotary Kevin
Aalto determined that Mr. Chauvin's application could not succeed
on several grounds.
Firstly, Aalto determined that Chauvin does not have standing to
bring the case, either in support of his personal interests or as a
matter of public interest. Additionally, the judge said that
Chauvin's objection to the Council's recommendation is moot,
because the Governor General has already accepted the
recommendation and bestowed the award.
Further, he said, the decision to award Morgentaler is protected by
royal prerogative. "The Governor General's decision, pursuant to
Royal Prerogative, is not subject to review," he wrote. "It is
therefore arguable that Her Excellency's Advisory Council is not
subject to review."
"I have been quoted in the media as intending to return my award,"
said Mr. Chauvin in response to the news of the decision. "I may
yet do so, but I first wanted Canadians to have a chance to take a
close look at what can happen when an Advisory Council abandons a
consensus model and uses the award to advance a highly divisive
view, in this case the effective promotion of the tragedy of
abortion in Canada."
In a press release today, the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL)
stated that "Morgentaler's nomination effectively served to
politicize further the Canadian honours system by taking sides on a
matter of ongoing political, religious and social
controversy."
The CCRL noted that the ruling effectively prevents any review of
the activities of the Advisory Council, whose deliberations
continue to be strictly confidential.
"The impact of the current decision effectively 'immunizes' any
possible challenge of an Order of Canada conferred by the
Governor-General, and perhaps the deliberations of the Advisory
Council itself," stated CCRL President Philip Horgan. "The Court's
ruling prevented even the disclosure of the records of the Advisory
Council."
While Morgentaler's appointment to the Order was only announced on
July 1, 2008, the court case revealed that Morgentaler was actually
made a member of the Order on April 10, 2008.
"It appears that the only possible objection that could have been
raised to the process would have been by a dissenting member of the
Advisory Council itself," commented Horgan. "However, as those
deliberations remain shrouded in secrecy, Canadians may never learn
what happened on this or on previous occasions."
No decision has yet been made with regard to appealing the
decision.
NEWS UPDATE:
October 10, 2008,
despite an overwhelming protest from across the country, from our
elected politicians, AND despite the return of numerous Order of
Canada awards from worthy recipients, despite all of this,
Morgentaler is awarded the Order Of
Canada!
This action is a very sad commentary on the views of our Supreme
Court, the Governor General of Canada and the advisory committee
selecting candidates for the Order of Canada.
With this despicable act, they have put their own agenda and
interests ahead of the country. Shame on them
all!
As many of you know,
Dr. Henry Morgentaler, an abortionist and polarizing figure in
Canadian politics, was recently awarded the Order of Canada. The
events leading up to this award have called into question the
legitmacy of the process and the esteem of the award. In response
to this, 42 organizations, many faith based and together
representing over 1 million Canadians, have filed a lettor of
complaint with the Judicial Council of Canada denouncing the
actions of Supreme Court Justice Beverly McLachlin as the head of
the advisory council, which decides on these awards. This comes in
addition to the nine Order of Canada awards, which have been
returned in protest. The letter is very serious and it has already
caused Justice McLachlin to publicly comment on her conduct, (click
here) which is considered highly unusual for a Supreme Court
Justice.
The organizers of A.C.E.S., which sponsors the Sudbury Christian
Messenger, feel this issue is so compelling to the citizens of
Sudbury, we need to provide developing news of this story, which is
not being covered by the main stream press. For a complete rundown
on the this topic please go here (click here)
Here is the full text of the
letter:
August 12, 2008
Canadian Judicial Council
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0W8
Regarding Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin
Letter of Complaint
Dear Judicial Conduct Committee,
On behalf of Forty-two Canadian organizations and their estimated
one million plus members we collectively file a letter of complaint
with the Canadian Judicial Council about federally appointed chief
justice Beverley McLachlin for conduct that breaches the high
standard of personal conduct required to be a member of the
judiciary. Section 63 of the Judges Act gives CJC authority to
investigate conduct of federally appointed judges.
It is critical for Canadians to have trust in the conduct of the
chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice must not only
be served, it must be seen to be served. If Canadians believe they
cannot receive unbiased, non-political decisions based on the law
of the land from the highest court, our judicial branch of
government is compromised.
The conduct of Advisory Council Chair, chief justice McLachlin,
throughout the process of awarding Dr. Henry Morgentaler the Order
of Canada demonstrates bias, political agenda and a wanton
disregard for the Constitution of the Order of Canada and time
honored regulations. In a 2008 inquiry report on Hon. Theodore
Matlow the committee said "All judges have a duty to conduct
themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their
office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary." It
further explains that "Impartiality is, as the Ethical Principles
for Judges recognizes, 'the fundamental qualification of a judge
and the core attribute of the judiciary'. Certainly the
preservation of the appearance of impartiality and integrity is a
fundamental duty of a judge, and more so of the chief
justice.
The seven following facts stand as evidence of judicial
impropriety:
Under the Policy section of the Constitution of the Order of
Canada, paragraph 3 (b) (ii) disallows a nominee if the person “has
been subject to official sanction, such as a fine or a reprimand,
by an adjudicating body, professional association or other
organization.” The Chair must have been or should have been fully
aware that Dr. Henry Morgentaler was sanctioned by the Disciplinary
Committee of the Professional Corporation of Physicians of Quebec.
In 1976 his medical license was revoked for one year. In fact, he
was found guilty of “not holding a valid interview before an
abortion, for failing almost completely to gather a case history of
his client, for failing to perform the necessary pregnancy test or
blood test, for not obtaining pathological examination of the
'tissues' removed and for failing to follow up the state of health
of his patients afterward."
The Chair was fully apprised that Dr. Morgentaler’s conduct
violated the norms of society. The Policy section of the
Constitution, paragraph 3 (b) (i) requires rejection if “the
conduct of the person constitutes a significant departure from
generally-recognized standards of public behaviour which is seen to
undermine the credibility, integrity or relevance of the Order,”
Dr. Morgentaler admittedly broke Canadian law for 19 years and his
appointment has severely undermined the credibility of the Order
and regard for law of the land.
Chief Justice McLachlin knows that the Constitution’s clause 7. (4)
requires that “The Council shall invite the Deputy Minister of the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to
participate in the review of nominations for honorary Companions,
Officers and Members.” The Chair intentionally did not obey this
section of the Constitution.
Long standing Order of Canada regulations do not allow a new
Advisory Council to overrule the decision of a previous Council.
Two past Advisory Councils rejected Dr. Morgentaler as a nominee.
Chief Justice McLachlin violated this and brought forward and
approved Henry Morgentaler.
In the history of the Order of Canada, Advisory Council consensus
has been required for approval of a nominee. At least two voices of
dissent were present, however the Chair ignored the consensus norm
and allowed the nominee by a vote process.
The votes of dissent represented democratic voices. The Clerk of
the Privy Council and the Deputy Minister of the Department of
Canadian Heritage act according to the elected Government and the
people of Canada. By altering process in the face of democracy the
unelected Chair overruled the votes of the elected
representatives.
The Chief Justice compromised the Supreme Court of Canada’s
neutrality, impartiality and integrity by overriding regulations to
approve of abortion and Henry Morgentaler’s actions. The Chair’s
vote and actions are clear indicators of her position on abortion.
The current New Brunswick case regarding funding of Morgentaler’s
private clinics before the court may have been impacted by her
actions. There is real possibility that this case will come before
the Supreme Court. If a case involving abortion or Henry
Morgentaler comes to the High Court during Beverley McLachlin’s
tenure the Chief Justice’s judgement is predetermined.
The behavior of Beverley McLachlin outside the courtroom on the
Advisory Council clearly has reduced respect for both her and the
Canadian judiciary. Her lack of response to the complaints from the
public have deepened the public’s mistrust of judges, courts and
the system.
In order to preserve the integrity of Canada’s judicial system we
respectfully ask that you consider this complaint seriously,
investigate Beverley McLachlin’s inappropriate behavior and
recommend to Parliament that Ms. McLachlin be removed from
office.
We ask this pursuant to Section 63 of the Judges Act and bylaw 8(1)
which requires a report to Council with findings and recommending
as to the matter of removal from office of a judge whose conduct is
in violation of ethical standards and code of conduct regarding
impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary.
On behalf of the 41 organizations
listed below,
Brian Rushfeldt, Executive Director
Canada Family Action Coalition
4 My Canada
A.J. Slinger Service
Alberta Pro-Life Alliance Association
Active Christians
Engaging Society - Sudbury
Alliance for Life
Ontario
ARPA Canada
Canada Christian College
Canadian Physicians for Life
Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values
Association
Canadian Coalition Democracies
Canadian College of Christian Councilors
Can Am Fabricating and Welding
Can American Stone Spreader
Catholic Civil Rights League
Catholic Diocese of Calgary – Bishop F.B. Henry
Christian Action Federation of New Brunswick
Christian Social Concern Fellowship
Christians United for Israel
Colchester County Right to Life
David Murrell, Phd. UNB, Economics
Eternally Yours Radio and Telecast Ministry
Eternity Club
Evangelical Association
Institute for Canadian Values
Life Canada / Vie Canada
Life Site News
Live-In International
Lutherans for Life
Niagara Chapter - CFAC
North Shore Pro Life
Our Lady of Mercy Parish Pro-Life Burnaby
Pro-Vie Clare
Real Women BC
Real Women of Canada
Renfrew County Family Action Council
Right to Life Association of Newfoundland and Labrador
Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association
Takebackcanada.com
Together for Life Ministries
United Families Canada
Vancouver Jesus Agape Church