CBC omits Federal Court bias-ruling against Gomery in anti-Harper interview

chretien solomon

Noticeably absent in this CBC story based on an interview of retired judge John Gomery by Evan Solomon:

Retired Quebec Superior Court judge John Gomery is adding his voice to those criticizing Stephen Harper’s treatment of the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

“I think it’s appalling that the judiciary should be used for political purposes in this way and I’m puzzled as to the motivation of the prime minister and his office as to why they would take on the chief justice,” Gomery said (see here)

Is that Gomery himself was publicly condemned by the Federal Court for his own remarks:

The Federal Court of Canada has struck down a key finding by the 2005 Gomery commission that former prime minister Jean Chrétien was implicitly involved in the sponsorship scandal where more than $1 million was illegally diverted into Liberal Party coffers and four people so far have been convicted of fraud and sent to jail.

Judge Max Teitelbaum ruled yesterday that commissioner John Gomery demonstrated sufficient bias against Chrétien to set aside the finding.

Teitelbaum claimed Gomery showed bias when he made “inappropriate comments” in media interviews as well as during the hearings themselves, which took place in 2004 and 2005. (see here)

I’ve asked Solomon about the omission and will update if he responds.


solomon gomery


8 Responses to “CBC omits Federal Court bias-ruling against Gomery in anti-Harper interview”

  1. Liz J Says:

    Good luck with a response of any value from Solomon, he’s one of the many reasons we need to sell the CBC. His bias is puke inducing, it oozes through the TV screen, in fact he’s possibly the worst anti-Conservative among the media maggots, he doesn’t even try to hide it.

    • Mary Hines Says:

      He is so anti-conservative, it is pathetic. For “this man” to be called a “true journalist” is a shame!

  2. Jen Says:

    Once a Iraqi gentleman told a foreign reporter “that media is not our media that media belongs to Saddam.”
    Unfortunately we have that same problem in Canada. As I re-quote this gentleman I say “that media is not our media; that media belong to the liberal party of Canada.”
    Use your instinct as the Iraqi gentleman did. He turned to other means like the radio to get the news which he could not get from his own country.

  3. Jen Says:

    It sure is taking Evan Solomon to answer your question Dean.

  4. Alain Says:

    I almost spit out my evening drink when I read that Gomery is appalled that the judiciary should be used for political purposes when this country has been under constant attack by judicial activists thanks to Trudeau the senior. Reading things into the charter that were purposely left out is judicial activism, or using the judiciary for political purposes. Much the same when it comes to defending what is and was purposely put in the charter such as freedom of expression and religion. As for the CBC they lost all credibility ages ago.

    • Sean M Says:

      Rich isn’t it… The “Supreme Court” was politicized the moment Trudeau #1 imposed his Charter of arbitrary rights and freedoms and Court interpretations. It’s almost like these lefty losers don’t believe the Trudeau Charter is a political document until someone challenges it’s political dictates. Fools..

  5. Bec Says:

    If decent Social Studies and History were still taught at a level of competence in this country, perhaps a generation of kids and young adults would know something. It hasn’t and they don’t.

    Back in the day when education meant something, a good teacher would give you a side to research and then debate in a few days. it was called homework, research and not an editorial opinion. You actually learned 2 sides to a story.

    THAT does not happen and it certainly has not happened here. What a surprise, considering the source(s).

  6. Liz J Says:

    The Supreme Court and the Trudeau Charter are a team, together are an affront to this democracy. IMO Chief Justice McLachlan has a superior attitude, thinks she has primacy over the elected Prime Minister and damn the person who criticizes her.

    I’ve always thought anything sent to the SCC for “interpretation” can be accepted or rejected by the elected House ,but for the most part, the politicians follow their decisions, especially if they are tough ones or ones that will affect them politically.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: