As always, a fertile field of study in this regard is the Harris government backbench,
where a bumper crop of socially conservative sorts are endlessly at work, but usually
thwarted, in their quest to turn Ontario into a version of Alabama North.
In the past, members of Mike Harris's Reform-a-Tory Rump -- a group whose motto
is Zero Tolerance -- have risen to pursue things like prayer in schools, abortion
clampdowns, right-to-work legislation, book banning and other favourite pastimes
of the Moral Majority.
The latest charge occurred recently with Oshawa PC Jerry Ouellette's bid to let
MPPs review and fire provincial judges.
His private member's bill was a strange hybrid that would amend both the Courts
of Justice Act and the Ministry of Correctional Services Act. On the latter effort,
there was little opposition. Mr. Ouellette proposed that victims be advised of the
impending release on parole of someone convicted of a crime against them and be
given an opportunity to speak to the parole board.
This seemed the inoffensive camouflage, however, for an unrelated, but much more
provocative, proposition. Mr. Ouellette wanted judges subjected to a three-year
review by a standing committee of the legislature, which would have the power to
remove from the bench those found wanting.
Needless to say, this was considered wacky by no small number of opposition members,
who foresaw the prospect of inciting judicial pandering on a scale not dissimilar
to that practised by campaigning politicians. Not the least of those appalled was
Peter Kormos, the lawyer and devout New Democrat from Welland-Thorold, who called
it an absurd proposal that would seriously undermine the independence of the judiciary.
"I'm not going to endorse a concept of performance evaluation overseen by political
taskmasters which expresses disdain for the quality of the bench É and which
attempts to politicize by creating political supervision of the performance of judges.
That type of interference is repugnant to our long-held judicial traditions."
As it turned out, the bill passed second reading on a voice vote and was referred
to the justice committee, where -- given the disdain expressed for it publicly by
Attorney General Charles Harnick -- it will be condemned to eternal legislative
purgatory.
This Oullette setback occurred, of course, the very day Tories of timorous nature
and pinkish hue were joining opposition heathens to vote against PC backbencher
Frank Sheehan's bid to scrap the Rand formula.
Alas, many are the indignities suffered by the righteous and virtuous men of the
Family Values Caucus. But as we review the backup of paper upon our desk, perhaps
none would have got the FVC so aroused as the letter dispatched last week by Human
Rights Commissioner Keith Norton to whomsoever, the heat and humidity being what
it was, would bother to pay attention.
It had apparently come to Mr. Norton's attention, if not his own personal field
of vision, that some public nudity had occurred during Gay Pride festivities the
other weekend in Toronto. And the commissioner sprang to his keyboard to issue a
warning against flaunting it (whatever it may be).
"If we were to countenance the view that each of us could assert our individual
rights without regard to our responsibilities for the interests of the group --
the greater community -- it would surely be a prescription for chaos and anarchy,"
Mr. Norton wrote.
Now, just wait 'til the boys in Family Values get their mitts on that one! Did Norton
say chaos and anarchy? That's exactly what they've been predicting for ages, along
with plagues of locusts.
Why, the FVC will get so excited over this outrage, they won't know what to ban
first.
Parades. Or gays. Or backsides.