The Shotgun Blog
« Liberals For Harper | Main | What's Going On In Cuba »
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Chaoulli update
UPDATE (May 22): The International Herald Tribune picks up the NY Times story here.
Today, the New York Times indirectly references a Western Standard cover story from last October (entitled "Freedom Fighter") on Dr. Jacques Chaoulli's case before the Supreme Court. They write:
"A diminutive man who has trouble keeping his wire-rim glasses on straight, Dr. Chaoulli, 53, hardly looks like the "freedom fighter" that Canada's conservative news media have called him. But if he wins his case he will tear up the third rail of the nation's politics and raze what many Canadians consider to be the bedrock of their national identity."
Of course, by "Canada's conservative news media," the New York Times means the Western Standard. Where was the rest of Canada's news media on this story? If they covered it at all (which not all of them did), they buried the lede in A3. Now I'm not saying that the NY Times is a good indicator of what's important to Canadians. Clearly not. All I'm saying is that if you don't have a subscription to the Western Standard, you will miss the stories the Reader's Digest and NY Times will cover three to six months later.
Anyhow, the article, entitled "A Doctor-Lawyer-Gadfly v. Canada's Medical System," is a good account of Chaoulli's struggles and battles with Canada's health care system. That struggle has been temporarily put on hold, since the Court has not yet issued a ruling in the case. (Chaoulli finished his arguments almost a year ago...)
In my article, scholars that I spoke to expected the decision to come down before the end of last year. Why the delay? No one really knows for sure, but Chaoulli told me that he sees it as a "good sign."
I suppose he must have told the New York Times the same thing, since they write:
"It has been a year since the Canadian Supreme Court heard the case, a rare delay that is raising eyebrows in legal circles. Scholars studying Dr. Chaoulli's challenge say the court is either badly divided or waiting for the appropriate political moment to release a bombshell..."
A bombshell. Now that would be great news for our health care system.
Meanwhile, last August, if you had attended the Liberty Summer Seminar, you would have had a chance to meet the 'freedom fighter' in person. He explained his travails before the Court, and gave a speech on political parties.
I asked Chaoulli to comment on the Times' story, and he writes the following:
The story is very good.
What I would like people reading it to get out of it :
1. It has been unfortunate that Canadian law schools have been
teaching for so long, wrongly in my view, that the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't protect the freedom to
contract, because a society without such a freedom is a Marxist
society.
2. It has been unfortunate that Canadian lawyers didn't challenge
that teaching mentioned above, since they were scared to touch
the taboo being the strong influence of the Marxist-driven labour
unions in Canadian social policies, wrongly put into equation with
the so-called "Canadian national identity."
3. We need in Canada a parallel university system with private law
schools whose teaching would not be driven by socialist
professors of law.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on May 21, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83458b69d69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chaoulli update:
» The Supreme Court Case Nobody Will Report On from small dead animals
P.M. Jaworsk notices that the New York Times is reporting on an important case that no one in the Liberal wing of the Canadian media seems to want to touch; [T]he article, entitled "A Doctor-Lawyer-Gadfly v. Canada's Medical System," is... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-05-21 9:33:18 AM
Comments
Thanks for that. I was wondering what the status of the case was.
Posted by: dr_dog | 2005-05-21 3:04:28 PM
Ah but you see, all of the universities are massively funded by the government. No one could ever start a private university, because (a) the tax burden is such that hardly anyone could afford to attend it, and (b) the attack lemmings in the leftie/liberal/union establishment would find ways to shut it down or tame it with all kinds of regulations and court and tribunal rulings.
Imagine how this would have gone in Canada:
"My Battle with the Thought Police, by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe"
http://www.mises.org/story/1792
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-05-21 8:03:36 PM
I had the opportunity to met Chaoulli at Peter's Liberty Summer Seminar. I certainly look forward to the release of the ruling on his case. Since no political party seems to want to seriously tackle health care reform, a Supreme Court ruling may be the only way to get some positive change. I mean with Paul Martin's disdain for the Not Withstanding Clause and commitment to Charter rights, maybe he'd even support it. Okay, that's probably wishful thinking, but Canada needs some real debate nevertheless.
Posted by: Brendan McLaughlin | 2005-05-23 10:46:02 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.