Apr. 9, 2021

How many more embarassments must we endure?

Remember when Trudeau Jr. praised the governance system of China 

He became Prime Minister after that. 

How he has laboured over the sensible idea of rejecting Chinese technology in our communications system. Our friends have! 

Oh, how he accepted inferior Chinese medical equipment since the pandemic? 

And how he was party to a failed attempt to develop a Covid vaccine with the Chinese at one of our Universities? 

This is not fiction, folks. This actually happened. 

And now we learn that a former Chief Justice of our nation still sits on an appellate court in Hong Kong. 

You know the Hong Kong that used to be free and has been stripped of that freedom by China who broke an agreement with the U.K. to accomplish it. 

What can one say, 


Is Beverly McLachlin so blinded that she thinks she can have some influence on a Government that every day reduces the rights of citizens to have a democracy, 


What possesses someone to persist in a course of action that is nothing short of foolish, ignoring the facts on the ground. 

 Last year and again this year The Globe and Mail newspaper has carried a story on this strange affair. Here is a part of the article of last month.

‘Legal experts question Beverley McLachlin’s position at Hong Kong court by Nathan VanderKlippe, March 13, 2021, The Globe and Mail 

But a growing number of people in Canada’s legal community are asking why Ms. McLachlin has continued to offer her services – and by extension, her support – to a system that is being used to prosecute protesters and pro-democracy politicians. This is unfolding in a city whose freedoms Beijing is rapidly bringing under its control.

In Britain, Lord Robert Reed, president of that country’s Supreme Court, said this week that a decision will be made soon on whether British judges should withdraw from the Hong Kong court. Currently, 10 of the 14 foreign judges on the Court of Final Appeal are from Britain. Two of them, including Lord Reed, are also sitting judges in Britain. Last year, an Australian judge resigned from the court, citing changes in the legal landscape.

Elsewhere, critics are renewing questions about whether a person of Ms. McLachlin’s prominence is doing more harm than good by staying. 

“It’s exactly because she is so iconic – she stands for something – that it is time she takes a stand and comes back to Canada, draws a line to say, ‘No, I will not be part of this,’” said Chi-Kun Shi, a Hong Kong-born lawyer who is a bencher at the Law Society of Ontario. A bencher is a member of the organization’s governing board.

By staying, “she is nothing more than ornamental to the court,” Ms. Shi said, adding “at this point, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal has become an organ for the Chinese repressive regime.”

New research has sought to delineate the challenges to Hong Kong courts after a series of changes imposed by China, including a National Security Law that has brought Beijing’s definition of proper political expression and patriotism to a city that long enjoyed the freedom to come to its own conclusions.

That law “carries with it quite grave threats to judicial independence in Hong Kong,” scholars at Georgetown Center for Asian Law wrote in an extensive analysis, published in February.

In particular, Article 55 of that law allows for cases to be moved to courts in mainland China, a provision that “carries with it an implicit threat: deliver verdicts that are satisfactory to Beijing, or the Communist Party will simply use Article 55 to take matters into its own hands,” wrote the Georgetown scholars, Thomas Kellogg and Lydia Wong, a pseudonym for a scholar from China.

Ms. McLachlin did not respond to a request for comment. Last year, she told The Globe and Mail: “the courts in Hong Kong remain independent and impartial.” Court records show she has heard three cases in Hong Kong and written one judgment.’

Without getting into the legal jargon – China now controls Hong Kong, without a shot being fired. The international community looked on. China will decide all matters of consequence concerning Hong Kong. 

Our former Chief Justice must stop the embarrassment and resign from what is now just a fake position.