Skip to content

  • Home
  • Subscribe / donate
  • Events calendar
  • News
    • Local
    • National
    • Israel
    • World
    • עניין בחדשות
      A roundup of news in Canada and further afield, in Hebrew.
  • Opinion
    • From the JI
    • Op-Ed
  • Arts & Culture
    • Performing Arts
    • Music
    • Books
    • Visual Arts
    • TV & Film
  • Life
    • Celebrating the Holidays
    • Travel
    • The Daily Snooze
      Cartoons by Jacob Samuel
    • Mystery Photo
      Help the JI and JMABC fill in the gaps in our archives.
  • Community Links
    • Organizations, Etc.
    • Other News Sources & Blogs
    • Business Directory
  • FAQ
  • JI Chai Celebration
  • JI@88! video
Scribe Quarterly arrives - big box

Search

Follow @JewishIndie

Recent Posts

  • Saying goodbye to a friend
  • The importance of empathy
  • Time to vote again!
  • Light and whimsical houses
  • Dance as prayer and healing
  • Will you help or hide?
  • A tour with extra pep
  • Jazz fest celebrates 40 years
  • Enjoy concert, help campers
  • Complexities of celebration
  • Sunny Heritage day
  • Flipping through JI archives #1
  • The prevalence of birds
  • לאן ישראל הולכת
  • Galilee Dreamers offers teens hope, respite
  • Israel and its neighbours at an inflection point: Wilf
  • Or Shalom breaks ground on renovations 
  • Kind of a miracle
  • Sharing a special anniversary
  • McGill calls for participants
  • Opera based on true stories
  • Visiting the Nova Exhibition
  • Join the joyous celebration
  • Diversity as strength
  • Marcianos celebrated for years of service
  • Klezcadia set to return
  • A boundary-pushing lineup
  • Concert fêtes Peretz 80th
  • JNF Negev Event raises funds for health centre
  • Oslo not a failure: Aharoni
  • Amid the rescuers, resisters
  • Learning from one another
  • Celebration of Jewish camps
  • New archive launched
  • Helping bring JWest to life
  • Community milestones … May 2025

Archives

Tag: Supreme Court

דיקטטור נכנס לבית הלבן והקהל מריע

בסרטים מצוירים רואים את החיה החזקה ביותר עומדת על גבעה וכל שאר החיות החלשות מריעות ומקבלות את מרותה. בארה”ב היום אותו כלל חל על הנוכל דונלד טראמפ שחזר לבית הלבן, והאמריקנים – בטיפשותם שבחרו בו – מריעים עכשיו בשמחה לעומתו

כל מי שקצת בדק את ההיסטוריה של טראמפ וכנראה לא הרבה אמריקאים עשו זאת, יכול למצוא בקלות אינפורמציה רבה שמוכיחה עד כמה הקריירה העסקית שלו מבוססת על נוכלות, רמיה, עושק ובדיות. בני משפחתו, משקיעיו, עובדיו ורבים אחרים מספרים בפרטי פרטים עד כמה טראמפ שיקר ורימה אותם, והמציא מציאות מדומה על מצבו הכלכלי – אך הוא לא נפגע מכך. המערכת המשפטית בארה”ב היא כה חלשה כך שלטראמפ התאפשר להמשיך ולרמות במשך כחמישים שנותיו הראשונות כאיש עסקים. עם הכרזתו שהוא רץ לנשיאות, המפלגה הרפובליקנית קיבלה אותו בזרועות פתוחות, במקום להעיף את הנוכל. מדוע? כי במפלגה הרפוליקנית בעידן הנוכחי הנורמות נשחקו עד דק והרצון לשלוט הוא הערך הכמעט יחידי שרלוונטי. מצד שני עומדת מפלגה דמוקרטית חלשה ונאיבית שחבריה מדברים על ערכים דמוקרטיים לטובת מדינתם, בזמן שהרפוליקנים השתלטו במהירות יחסית על כל ארבע מערכות הממשל: בית המשפט העליון, הבית הלבן ושני בתי המחוקקים. בעוד שהדמוקרטים מדברים על ערכי שוויון, חופש ועזרה לזולת ולא יכולים להגיע להסכמה שתאחד אותם, הרפובליקנים חיפשו רק את מושכות השלטון וכל דרך היא לגיטימית מבחינתם, להגשמת ערך זה עליון זה. כולל שקרים, איומים והפחדות. כך היה בקמפיין הבחירות הראשון של טראמפ וכך היה גם בקמפיין השני. וזאת בשיתוף פעולה מלא של ההמון ברחובות שהרגיש כאילו טראמפ הוא קומיקאי שמספק להם לחם ושעשועים

בקמפיין הראשון טראמפ נעזר בחברת התעמולה האמריקאית השמרנית קיימברידג’ אנליטיקה, שעזרה לו לנצח את הילרי קלינטון. קיימברידג’ הבינה שהיא צריכה להשפיע על כעשרים אלף בוחרים שלא ידעו במי לבחור כדי שטראמפ יזכה לרוב האלקטורים. החברה פימפמה להם שקרים וזה עבד מול הדמוקרטים שחיים בעבר ולא הבינו מול איזה נוכל ושקרן פתולוגי הם התמודדו. קיימברידג’ עזרה קודם לכן לפמפם שקרים בקמפיין שתמך ביציאת בריטניה מהאיחוד האירופי. לא פלא שהחלו חקירות בעניין קייבמרידג’ היא הכריזה על פשיטת רגל שכך שלא נאלצה לספק מסמכים ודוחות

במקפיין הבחירות השני של טראמפ הוא נעזר במכונת תעמולה הרבה יותר אפקטיבית וחזקה – טוויטר (אקס) של אילון מאסק. כל אחד יודע שמאסק הוא האחרון שאפשר לסמוך על אמינותו ויושרו. מאסק חושב רק במונחים של כסף, קפיטליזם טהור ושליטה על ההמונים. ממש כמו חברו הטוב טראמפ. טוויטר שימשה מנוע תקשורתי עצום להאדרת שמו של טראמפ, תוך שהיא מפמפמת שקרים והפחדות אל ההמונים וזה עבד מצויין. מה גם שהמצד השני שוב הדמוקרטים החלשים לא קלטו באיזה עידן הם נמצאים

טועה מי שחושב שאחרי עדין טראמפ החיים יחזרו למסלולם. הוא הצליח בקדנציה הראשונה להביא לרוב של שופטים שמרנים בבית המשפט העליון, וזה ישמר במשך שנים רבות. אותם שופטים כבר גרמו נזק אדיר לנשים ובארה”ב לאחר שביטלו את חוק ההפלות הפדרלי

טראמפ וחבריו יגרמו נזקים רבים למערכות השלטון, האכיפה והצדק בארה”ב, מה שיבטיח לרפובליקנים את את השלטון לשנים רבות בעתיד. והחשוב מכל: שלטונו של טראמפ הוציא את כל השדים הרעים מהבקבוקים ולא ניתן יהיה להחזירם. עבור לא מעט אמריקניים טראמפ משמש דוגמא ומופת שתוך שהוא מוכיח ששקר הוא כמו האמת

Posted on February 19, 2025February 13, 2025Author Roni RachmaniCategories עניין בחדשותTags Democratic Party, Donald Trump, elections, legal system, propaganda, Republican party, Supreme Court, United States, White House, ארה"ב, בחירות, בית משפט העליון, דונלד טראמפ, לבית הלבן, מפלגה דמוקרטית, מפלגה הרפוליקנית, תעמולה

Judges slap down Knesset

Israel’s government pushed the country’s Supreme Court into a corner – but instead of weakening the judicial system and putting more power into the hands of the government, which was the aim of the coalition’s judicial reform package, the gambit incited a showdown that made the court stronger than it had been a year earlier.

That is the synopsis of a leading Israeli legal scholar. Yaniv Roznai, associate professor and vice-dean of the Reichman University’s law school and co-director at the Rubinstein Centre for Constitutional Challenges, was speaking virtually to North American audiences hours after Israel’s Supreme Court released a landmark decision Jan. 1. During the presentation, which was organized by UnXeptable, the international group that emerged in opposition to the judicial reforms, Roznai said the court also now has more legitimacy among the public, according to opinion surveys.

The 250,000-word written decision, with contributions from all 15 Supreme Court justices, represents the first time in Israeli history that the high court struck down a component of the Basic Law, which is effectively Israel’s constitution. The opinion overturned legislation the Knesset passed in July curbing the ability of judges to use “reasonableness” as a legal standard.

One justice wrote that Israel’s limited system of checks and balances means that the cancellation of the court’s ability to freely judge decisions by governments and ministers removed much of the ability of courts to defend individual and public interests.

While subjective, the idea of reasonableness has been a legal doctrine in Israel since the 1980s and was used a year ago to prevent Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from appointing Aryeh Deri, the leader of the Shas party, from serving in cabinet because Deri had been convicted of tax fraud and bribery. The court declared it was not reasonable to appoint a convicted felon to lead a government department. This was the apparent impetus for a significant raft of legislation intended to reform the judicial system – proposals critics have called a “judicial coup.”

The reasonableness doctrine is available to the court if judges believe that elected officials did not take into account all relevant considerations before making a decision, or that those considerations were not given appropriate weight. It has been invoked numerous times on significant and less momentous government decisions.

In response to mass protests throughout 2023, the government at least temporarily backtracked on some of its judicial reform proposals, including efforts that would allow the Knesset to overturn court decisions by a majority vote and to give the government more direct control over the appointment of judges. That left the reasonableness doctrine as the remaining portion of the broader judicial reform proposal – and its rejection by the court is a blow to Netanyahu’s government. It also reopens the divisive topic, which has been largely dormant since the terror attacks of Oct. 7, possibly inviting social division at a time of national trauma.

Critics of the legislation, which passed the Knesset in July, argued that eliminating the reasonableness doctrine would allow the government to fire senior civil servants such as the heads of law enforcement agencies, making it easier to subvert the rule of law. Israel’s attorney general, for example, oversees the public prosecution system and determines whether politicians can be indicted on alleged crimes.

Since Israel has no formal constitution, the Basic Law serves as an alternative. However, whereas the American, Canadian and most other national constitutions have complex, in some cases almost impossible, amending formulas, Israel’s Basic Law can be amended by the Knesset by a majority vote. Therefore, Roznai said, “The only real check on political power is the attorney general and the judiciary, and the [Netanyahu government’s] reasonableness amendment was aimed to weaken precisely those two bodies.”

While the decision to overturn the law was close, with eight of the 15 justices in favour and seven opposed, three additional judges agreed that the court has the authority to strike down basic laws, but argued the time was not right.

The government defended the legislation by arguing that the idea of reasonableness was too arbitrary and, therefore, gave the court too much scope to intervene in areas the government considered the purview of the legislative branch. Critics, including Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, responded that the law eliminated guardrails that protect Israeli democracy.

Roznai, speaking Jan. 2, expressed mixed emotions about the court’s decision.

“I’m happy but, on the other hand, I’m a bit sad,” he said, noting that the entire controversy could have been avoided, “if the government had only worked a bit more gently, in a more clever manner. They could have enacted a more balanced amendment and then the court would not interfere.… I do not object to a reform in the judicial system. I think that any governmental system needs reform. In the education system we need to reform, in the health system we need reform, and also in the judicial system we need reform. But we need good reform. We need balanced reform. We don’t want something that would completely destroy the judicial system. We want something that would improve our systems and our democracy.”

A process that engaged different sectors of the society and tried to find a consensus on some of these issues could have resulted in constructive reforms, he said. Instead, millions of people took to the streets and polls showed that 80% of Israelis were opposed to the proposed judicial changes and a political schism has wrenched Israeli society amid a war.

Two days after Roznai spoke, UnXeptable hosted another event for North American audiences, featuring Dr. Tomer Persico, a research fellow of the Shalom Hartman Institute and former Koret Visiting Assistant Professor of Jewish and Israel Studies at the University of California Berkeley, where he was also a senior research scholar in the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies. He is a social activist advocating for freedom of religion in Israel.

Persico warned of cataclysmic impacts on global perceptions not only of Israel but of Jews if the trajectory of Israeli politics does not change. The current Israeli government, he said, includes individuals who are expressing ideas about the treatment of the people of Gaza that advocate ethnic cleansing and even genocide. Amichai Eliyahu, who was Israel’s heritage minister, was suspended from cabinet after saying that dropping a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip was “one of the possibilities” the government is considering. 

While the pro-democracy groups and individuals who were rallying against the government before Oct. 7 have closed ranks in a show of unity and determination since the Hamas terror attacks, these recent statements – including reports that the government is considering moving Palestinians from Gaza to third countries and returning Israeli settlers to the enclave – make this fragile unity difficult, said Persico.

Most Israelis tell opinion pollsters they want new elections and a different government. Persico warned that approaches to internal and external affairs by the current government might not only further tarnish Israel’s reputation in the world, but Judaism’s. Former governments have failed to find common ground with Palestinians to create a two-state solution, he said, but even the hawkish past administrations publicly expressed support for the concept. With the current government seemingly giving up on the idea and some voices in the coalition speaking of expulsions of Palestinians, Israel is on a path to becoming more of an international pariah, he said.

“There will be a breaking point between Israel and the liberal West and that includes liberal Jews,” he said. “I really fear that Judaism itself is going to be stained by the mark of the occupation.… It might materialize that that Judaism itself will be stained in the same way as Christianity has been stained by the Crusades, the same way as Islam has been stained by Islamic terrorism and ISIS.” 

Posted on January 12, 2024January 11, 2024Author Pat JohnsonCategories IsraelTags Israel, judicial reform, law, Supreme Court, Tomer Persico, UnXeptable, Yaniv Roznai
Do we care about being fair?

Do we care about being fair?

In its decision on Uber Technologies Inc. v. David Heller, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the freedom of contract is not so absolute in its technical application as to undermine its purpose of allowing people to craft their own destinies. (photo from wikipedia)

Does fairness play a role in how we interpret and apply law? After all, doesn’t a person have the right to make bad decisions?

The Torah gives us the written law, similar to legislation, and the Talmud gives us the oral law and commentary, similar to the doctrines and jurisprudence of common law.

So, are we to interpret and apply law strictly, even if it seems unjust? Is there authority to temper the interpretation of law based on the circumstances? The Talmud tells us, yes. In June, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed.

Every businessperson knows that it’s a good idea to get an agreement in writing. We use written agreements to make a record of what the parties have agreed is their shared vision of their business relationship. Part of that shared vision might include agreeing that certain rights ordinarily afforded by the law of the land won’t apply to this relationship. The right to give up a right is central to the freedom of contract.

The freedom of contract is based on the idea that a person knows what’s best for them and wouldn’t agree to something if the bargain weren’t to their liking. The law doesn’t protect you from your own bad decisions, but it is supposed to protect you from bad decisions that you didn’t make freely.

In June of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada decided the case of Uber Technologies Inc. v. David Heller. Heller was an Uber food delivery driver. As such, he signed a standard agreement with Uber – the kind of agreement that is a “take it or leave it” proposition. Very few people read such contracts and, even if they do take the time to read and understand them, they don’t have the opportunity to create the “shared vision” that the freedom of contract is supposed to protect.

One of the terms of the Uber contract was that any dispute would be dealt with through a mediation and arbitration process in the Netherlands, rather than through the court system in Canada. Doing so would require up-front fees of $14,500 US, not including the cost of lawyers and travel. Heller’s annual earnings from Uber are between $20,000 and $30,000 Cdn. In other words, it would cost at least half of his annual earnings just to file his dispute, let alone pursue it.

The Supreme Court of Canada found in Heller’s favour.

If this had been a freely negotiated contract, Heller would have made a bad decision, but it would have been his decision to make and thus enforceable. However, it was clear to the court that Uber put this clause into the contract to make sure their drivers simply could not bring any dispute against them.

The court could have said that, according to the strict letter of the law, Heller agreed to the contract and is, therefore, bound by it. It doesn’t matter if you now find unfair a contract that you freely agreed to.

Instead, the court said the law in its strictest form is not always applicable, and we must determine whether it is inhumane to apply it strictly or whether circumstances demand we temper it. The court found that, rather than providing an alternative means to justice (i.e. arbitration), Uber imposed an unreasonable barrier to justice; they found a way to make sure that their drivers could not access justice no matter the merit of their complaint.

Many of us are familiar with the first three verses of parshat Shoftim in Devarim (Deuteronomy 16:18-16:20). First, a system of judges is established. Second, the judges are commanded to judge fairly on the merits of the cases. The third verse contains one of the most well-known phrases in the Torah: “Justice, justice shall you pursue.”

Why is the third verse there, and why does it use the word “justice” twice? The second verse has commanded the judges to follow the law without prejudice. Why then tell us to pursue justice? Isn’t that implicit in the establishment of a rule-of-law justice system? And what is “justice, justice” as opposed to “justice”?

In Chapter 2 of tractate Avot in the Mishnah, we are told, “warm thyself by the fire of the sages, but beware of their glowing coals, lest thou be burnt, for their bite is the bite of a fox, and their sting is the sting of a scorpion, and their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their utterances are like coals of fire.”

At the distance where coals keep you warm, you can learn. At this distance, you can also see the coals in the context of providing warmth. If you are close enough that they can bite, sting and hiss, you lose sight of their purpose (warmth) and will be burnt. This applies to law.

Chapter 1 of Avot provides three interpretations of law’s purpose in the olam, world – olam also means the universe and everything in it.

Verse 2 of Chapter 1 says that the world stands on Torah (law), work (the practice of law) and kindness.

Verse 12 directs us to love peace, to pursue peace and to love all creatures bringing them closer to the Torah (law).

Verse 18 tells us that the world stands on justice, truth and peace.

The inclusion of kindness and peace alongside law tells us not to get so close to the coals that we forget their purpose is warmth.

“Justice, justice” is not only law, but law with purpose. Law without purpose may wear a badge of justice, but it is not truly just. Law used for the purpose of subverting justice is not just.

The court determined, in the Uber decision, that the freedom of contract is not so absolute in its technical application as to undermine its purpose of allowing people to craft their own destinies. In this case, Uber’s contract precisely contradicted that purpose: Uber imposed a contract that expressly denied Heller the right to craft his own destiny without his freely given consent.

Jeremy Costin is a business and estates lawyer practising in Vancouver. He sits on the board of directors and the governance committee of the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre, and is a frequent guest instructor at the Law Society of British Columbia.

Format ImagePosted on October 9, 2020October 8, 2020Author Jeremy CostinCategories NationalTags David Heller, Judaism, justice, law, Mishnah, Supreme Court, Uber

Milman now a judge

In Ottawa on June 14, the Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, announced the following appointments under the new judicial application process announced on Oct. 20, 2016: Carla L. Forth, QC, partner at Guild Yule LLP, Michael Tammen, QC, a sole practitioner, Warren B. Milman, a partner at McCarthy Tétrault LLP, and Nitya Iyer, QC, a partner at Lovett Westmacott, were appointed judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The new judicial application process emphasizes transparency, merit and diversity, and will continue to ensure the appointment of jurists who meet the highest standards of excellence and integrity.

Milman, a member of the Jewish community, practised litigation with the Vancouver office of McCarthy Tétrault LLP for 24 years, with a focus on insolvency, commercial litigation, class actions defence and constitutional law. In the course of his practice, he also acted on many occasions for both for the Crown and for the defence in criminal and regulatory prosecutions.

Milman came to the law after earning a bachelor of arts from McGill University and pursuing graduate studies in classical archeology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem from 1985 to 1988. He obtained his LLB and BCL from McGill in 1992. He was called to the British Columbia Bar in 1993 and admitted to the State Bar of California in that same year.

In addition to his private practice, Milman has devoted a substantial part of his career to promoting meaningful access to justice for ordinary Canadians. He has taken on numerous pro bono cases before courts and regulatory tribunals. In addition, he served as chair of Pro Bono Law of British Columbia, both prior to and during the organization’s merger with the Access Justice Society to form Access Pro Bono in 2010. He was appointed a governor of the Law Foundation of British Columbia in 2010 and served as chair of its board of governors in 2015 and 2016.

Posted on August 25, 2017August 22, 2017Author Department of Justice CanadaCategories LocalTags British Columbia, law, Supreme Court, Warren Milman

Compassion in the face of death

Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down the law that makes it illegal for doctors in Canada to provide medical assistance to severely ill patients who wish to die.

The court decision permits physicians to assist in the suicide of “a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of life and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition, including an illness, disease or disability, that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.”

The decision reflects a fundamental shift in societal opinions toward end-of-life issues. It is worth noting, at this point, that attitudes toward death, life and intervention have never been static. As medical technologies advanced in recent decades, some (primarily religious) voices argued that these technologies interfere with the will of God by “artificially” extending life. Now, the reverse is apparently true. It tends to be religious voices today arguing that, in some cases, the withdrawal of life-extending technologies and treatments is akin to exercising the prerogatives of the Divine in ending life.

Whatever moral concerns surround this serious issue, an understandable dissonance has affected Canadians’ attitudes: it has been noted that there are times when we force human beings to endure suffering at the end of life beyond what we would permit our pet animals to experience.

Many Canadians who have watched loved ones suffer excruciating and slow illness and deaths recognize that human suffering could be more compassionately ameliorated. Among the first steps should be the provision of the best palliative care available. When absolutely no better option exists, assisted death may be the best choice for some individuals. Most of us can see this. We may wish it weren’t so and, of course, we hope we and our loved ones are never faced with these decisions. The fact is, many of us will.

Yet, every instance in which an individual, their family and doctor make decisions about end-of-life preparations must be entirely individualized. There is absolutely no way that one can apply the same criteria to two cases. Circumstances are not transferable between diseases, patients, families or belief systems. Two people with identical conditions and prognoses may justifiably choose diametrical endings.

Indeed, we must ensure that assisted death does not become a go-to “solution” when alternatives exist, or that any patient feels the slightest pressure to choose it. There is a real danger that some people will weigh decisions not on what is best for themselves but what they perceive as best for others or based on what others in similar situations have done. Not wanting to be a “burden” should not be a legitimate justification for assisted death.

There is genuine and justifiable fear around the potential for a “slippery slope.” It is important to note that this Supreme Court decision deals

with the rights of an individual of sound mind to make a decision on their own in consultation with those they trust to end a life of suffering dominated by unbearable pain and the absence of hope for recovery.

Euthanasia is an entirely different matter. It does not involve an individual’s free and informed choice. The fear is that the acceptance of assisted death will make our society more amenable to – or at least less vigilant against – euthanasia. This is not a consideration to be dismissed. The sanctity of human life is too great to ignore the fact that human beings have the capability of justification for all sorts of things. So, as Canada engages in discussions about this ruling, we should also be vigilant in reasserting our fundamental beliefs that the value of life is not diminished by the legalization of assisted suicide, but rather our humanity and the right of all Canadians to a decent life and a respectful death is part of a worldview that is life-affirming.

Certainly there is nothing happy about this subject, but if this decision makes the end of life more bearable for some Canadians then it should be welcomed. Safeguards are absolutely crucial and, as a society, as families and as individuals, we must discuss and understand the limits and potential misuses of this new freedom.

It is so important that we as a society get this right. The federal government will address this issue in the coming months. The Supreme Court has spoken, as often happens in this country, leading legislators in social progress. It’s our turn now. Canadians should have a long, thoughtful and nuanced discussion on this topic.

 

Posted on February 13, 2015February 12, 2015Author The Editorial BoardCategories From the JITags assisted death, assisted suicide, Supreme Court
תעלומה סביב הלוטו הכרטיס

תעלומה סביב הלוטו הכרטיס

image - dec 23 interesting in the news - mystery around $52 million Lotto Max winning ticket, Bank of Canada on Bitcoin, Jordan Axani picks an Elizabeth Gallagher

Format ImagePosted on December 23, 2014December 22, 2014Author Roni RachmaniCategories עניין בחדשותTags Bank of Canada, BC Lottery Corporation, Bitcoin, Dalbir Sidhu, Elizabeth Gallagher, Gayleen Elliott, Jordan Axani, lottery, Supreme Court, אליזבט גלאגר, בבנק המרכזי של קנדה, ביטקוין קנדי, ג'ורדון אקסני, גיילין אליוט, דלביר סידו, הלוטו, לבית המשפט העליון
Proudly powered by WordPress