Dr. Jordan Peterson: why does the selection of the judge investigating the Beirut explosion appear to be more independent than the judge hearing his case?

We learned recently from an article by Mr. Joseph Chiummiento, published in the National Post, that “a judge who had publicly supported speech-restricting rules opposed by Peterson” was “assigned to hear the case” (https://shorturl.at/EFG29).

How logical and how fair is that? We are not longer hiding the level of moral, mental, political, intellectual, and so-called professional corruption in Canada. Doesn’t it shock you, whether you agree with any point raised by Dr. Peterson or not, that the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) is “concerned” with the “manner” and “tone” of his comments? Why this level of censorship in our country?

Sadly in Lebanon, Judge Tarek Bitar has been regularly threatened since he was assigned to investigate the August 4 Beirut explosion. One is left to wonder why the Lebanese Judicial system managed to appoint an impartial judge whereas Canada seems to be more biased?

Good luck to Dr. Peterson in his appeal, hoping the Court of Appeal is less pre-determined.

3 thoughts on “Dr. Jordan Peterson: why does the selection of the judge investigating the Beirut explosion appear to be more independent than the judge hearing his case?”

  1. Insofar as I can tell, most judges are reasonably open-minded, even though they of course have their biases. This type of judge will often be found assigned to “normal” cases which don’t have a political bent. If you have a dispute with your neighbour as to the location of the property line, this is most likely the type of judge which you’ll get. You might not get the result that you want, but it’ll likely have been arrived at reasonably honestly.

    The problem is, there’s still a significant number whose rulings are effectively pre-determined, either by biases so strong that they can’t be overridden, by their social connections and expectations, or maybe even by the favours that they owe.

    One can “throw” a case by ensuring that it gets assigned to this second type of judge. And that’s what happens in “political” cases.

    The case assignment procedures are quite murky in Canada. Being a part of the court system, they’re not even explorable by Right to Information requests. Effectively, they seem to come down to the whim of the Chief Justice of the relevant court. Now, there are legitimate reasons to put cases of certain types to judges with relevant experience, but the problem is, that’s not all that happens.

    What really happens is that (effectively) political appointee Chief Justices get to determine the outcome of cases, by assigning them to judges whose biases – to put it generously – are well-known (to them, and perhaps to the general public, as in the Peterson case). That likely explains why the same judge names regularly show up in “political” cases.

    In such cases, the court system is all but impartial, and only barely maintains even the pretence of it. The outcomes are pre-determined, and everyone is supposed to smile and pretend that this isn’t the case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *