Readers comment on judges' demand for a $28K raise, golden handshakes for the civil service, Canada's energy 'insanity,' and more

You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Re: Judges suing Ottawa for fatter salaries are shameless — John Ivison, Dec. 8

Let me get this straight: Canada’s Superior Court judges, who are making in excess of $396K per annum, need another $28K in order to be able to better protect Canadian democracy?

It seems to me that the judiciary as a whole is making a mockery of our democracy and the Charter. Parliament passes legislation, and the Supreme Court, on what seems to be a fairly regular basis, bypasses those laws with its own judgments — usually to the detriment of Canadians as a whole.

In fact, it seems to me that we shouldn’t even have legislators anymore and just let the judges run things; maybe they’d better earn the raise they are now suing for.

This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Platformed will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Interested in more newsletters? Browse here.

It beggars belief that in these economic times these judges would behave in such an egregious manner. As John Ivison writes, they should read the room and drop their application.

Ted Mead, Winchester, Ont.

Re: U.K. policing of hate crimes should be a warning to Canada — Michael Higgins, Sept. 22; How I changed my mind about the Liberals ending religious exemptions for hate speech — John Ivison, Dec. 11

A column written by Michael Higgins this fall focused on the real threat of Bill C-9 (the federal government’s proposed anti-hate law), namely the repealing of the requirement for the attorney general to approve the laying of hate charges. ”By removing attorney general oversight in hate cases in Canada, the Liberals are opening the door to the kind of zeal exhibited by the police in Britain, where arrests for offensive posts on social media and other online platforms now average 30 a day,” Higgins wrote.

Mere weeks ago, this was what was being said about C-9; now, we seemed to have moved past this seismic change in legal procedure to instead focus on the relative minutia of religious exemptions. We are being duped into believing that C-9 is only in need of some minor tweaks, which could not be further from the truth. C-9, with or without religious exemptions, is a threat to freedom of speech, due process and, by extension, democracy in Canada.

Glen Leis, Aurora, Ont.

Re:

© National Post