justice – mackaycartoons

Saturday April 19, 2025

April 19, 2025 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday April 19, 2025

Poilievre’s Notwithstanding Gamble: A Risky Precedent for Canada

May 4, 2024

In a political landscape increasingly characterized by divisive rhetoric and the erosion of democratic norms, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s pledge to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a troubling signal. His proposal to use this powerful constitutional tool to impose consecutive life sentences for multiple murderers may tap into populist sentiments, but it sets a dangerous precedent that should disqualify him and his party from gaining the reins of power.

December 14, 2022

The notwithstanding clause, or Section 33 of the Charter, allows federal and provincial governments to override certain Charter rights temporarily. Traditionally, its use has been confined to provincial matters, such as Quebec’s secularism laws, where it has already sparked controversy. No Canadian Prime Minister has ever used this clause at the federal level, and for good reason. It represents an extraordinary measure intended for exceptional circumstances, not a tool for advancing populist agendas.

December 6, 2022

Poilievre’s willingness to be the first Prime Minister to wield this clause reflects a concerning alignment with tactics seen south of the border under Donald Trump. Trump’s efforts to undermine the judiciary and politicize the courts have led to a weakening of the checks and balances that are foundational to American democracy. Canadians should be wary of similar trends taking root here.

News: Poilievre’s pledge to use notwithstanding clause a ‘dangerous sign’: legal expert

Critics, including legal experts and political leaders, have voiced strong opposition to Poilievre’s plan. They warn that normalizing the use of the notwithstanding clause for routine legislative purposes could erode the Charter’s protections and lead to further politicization of fundamental rights. This slippery slope could extend beyond criminal justice, potentially threatening academic freedom, reproductive rights, and other areas where individual liberties might clash with political agendas.

March 15, 2025

Public sentiment, as reflected in reader comments and broader discourse, reveals deep apprehension about Poilievre’s intentions. The use of the notwithstanding clause is seen not only as an overreach but also as an indication of Poilievre’s authoritarian tendencies—a “trumpy” approach that prioritizes personal opinion over established legal norms. Such a path risks alienating those who value the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.

News: Poilievre says he’ll use notwithstanding clause to ensure multiple-murderers die in prison

November 9 2024

Poilievre’s tough-on-crime rhetoric may resonate with certain voter bases, but the implications of his proposals extend far beyond immediate policy goals. They strike at the heart of Canada’s democratic values and the delicate balance of power that protects citizens’ rights. As we approach the upcoming election, it is crucial for Canadians to consider the long-term consequences of granting power to a leader willing to circumvent the Charter for political gain.

In a time when global democratic institutions face unprecedented challenges, Canada must stand firm in upholding its principles. Poilievre’s promise to invoke the notwithstanding clause is a stark reminder of the stakes at play. It is a promise that, if fulfilled, could fundamentally alter the landscape of Canadian governance. For this reason, it stands as yet another compelling argument.

“Notwithstanding Clause” no doubt instantly triggers eye glazing in vast swaths of Canadians, a nation where many voters remain unaware of its implications until they feel the impact firsthand. Pierre Poilievre, echoing Trump, is using populist outrage to justify potentially overriding judicial independence with the notwithstanding clause, signalling a troubling shift towards authoritarianism. What might have been seen as fear-mongering before an election becomes irrelevant once a movement takes power. When these accusations no longer trigger instinctive reactions, they solidify into harsh realities. Just look south for proof of this. Timbit Trump’s promise to enforce life sentences by bypassing court decisions raises concerns about future threats to constitutional rights, drawing unsettling parallels with recent U.S. politics. Today, Poilievre targets criminal sentencing, but despite denying admiration for Trump, he emulates many strategies from the Trump playbook, suggesting he might next challenge academic freedom, women’s rights, or other constitutional protections. This commitment to undermining judicial independence to consolidate power is the pivotal issue of this election, as it echoes the U.S. pattern of filling the judiciary with like-minded judges and defying court rulings, reflecting a desire to centralize authority. Sure, just what democracy ordered: another leader eager to override court decisions with his own, thanks to the trusty notwithstanding clause. Vote for this at your peril.

Check out my making-of animated editorial cartoon for April 19, 2025, below! If you haven’t yet, please subscribe to my Substack newsletter, where I share weekly editorial cartoons every Saturday morning. Substack is a crucial platform for me amidst the uncertainties of being a staff cartoonist, especially given recent layoffs and newspaper closures affecting our field. As long as I hold my position, subscriptions will remain free. Thank you for your support! This “note” helps craft my weekly posts and showcases animated versions of my cartoons. Enjoy!

YouTube: Easter Bunny Rejection https://youtu.be/jDyQEaocYGc

– The Graeme Gallery

Read on Substack

Thursday December 19, 2024

December 19, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday December 19, 2024

Canada Must Stand Firm Against Trump’s Meddling Ways

September 20, 2024

Canada, a proud G7 nation with a history of strong global leadership and cooperation, finds itself in an embarrassing and humiliating position—the subject of repeated provocations from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. His reckless and inflammatory rhetoric, coupled with aggressive policy proposals, has not only strained Canada-U.S. relations but also raised profound questions about sovereignty, national resilience, and the nature of modern foreign interference.

Trump’s antics have been nothing short of disruptive. His comments about Canada becoming the “51st state” and labelling Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “Governor of the Great State of Canada” are not only undignified but deeply undermining. Such statements blur the line between joking and serious political discourse, forcing Canadian leaders to address what should be laughable claims in earnest.

November 18, 2024

This is not a matter of harmless banter. Trump’s provocative rhetoric carries weight, as demonstrated by the $1 billion Canadian border security plan unveiled in response to his criticisms of “ridiculous open borders” and alleged drug trafficking. His proposed 25% tariffs on Canadian imports threaten to destabilize industries and livelihoods on both sides of the border, with Ontario Premier Doug Ford describing it as akin to “a family member stabbing you, right in the heart.” Canada is being forced to react and realign its policies to counteract the whims of a U.S. president-elect who wields his influence like a wrecking ball.

Unlike covert foreign interference—such as the disinformation campaigns and clandestine efforts linked to Russia, India, and Iran—Trump’s meddling is loud, public, and unapologetic. It’s a form of influence that weaponizes social media to provoke, disrupt, and destabilize, all in plain sight. On Truth Social, Trump’s repeated posts about annexation and false claims of the U.S. subsidizing Canada by “over $100,000,000” are designed to stir division and force Canada into a defensive posture.

News: Trump repeats ‘51st State’ jab and false trade-deficit claims

November 8, 2024

As one reader comment noted, “This is how he weasels his ideas into the national conversation, by saying something inappropriate in a joking sort of manner. But we know there is often something serious behind it.” Indeed, Trump’s comments are not just the ramblings of a provocateur but calculated moves to inject his agenda into public discourse and undermine Canada’s standing as a sovereign nation.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this situation is the damage it does to Canada’s sovereignty and international image. Canada is a nation that values its distinct identity, from its universal healthcare system and robust social programs to its commitment to bilingualism and multiculturalism. Trump’s “51st state” rhetoric trivializes these defining elements and reduces Canada to a subsidiary of U.S. interests.

Reader feedback underscores the real danger of such rhetoric. “Calling Canada a ‘state’… could be the beginning of the end of our sovereignty. Lots of water and minerals up here to plunder. We are in danger if this type of rhetoric continues,” one commenter warned. Another drew parallels to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, suggesting that what starts as a joke can evolve into a serious threat.

November 12, 2018

Trump’s meddling extends beyond Canada’s sovereignty to include his vile and misogynistic comments about Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland. Referring to her as “totally toxic” and claiming she was not conducive to making deals, Trump’s remarks echo his long-standing pattern of disparaging strong women in politics, including Kamala Harris, Liz Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi. This behaviour is not only disrespectful but also emblematic of the broader undermining of women’s leadership roles, which should have no place in international diplomacy or politics.

While some Canadian leaders, like Premier Ford, have risen to the occasion with strong rebukes of Trump’s behaviour, others appear less decisive. Trudeau’s “surprise” trip to Mar-a-Lago yielded little more than vague optimism, and his government’s response has yet to fully address the broader implications of Trump’s interference. Meanwhile, political figures like Pierre Poilievre have faced criticism for failing to robustly defend Canada against these affronts.

April 13, 2018

This lack of unity and clarity only emboldens Trump’s meddling. Canada must adopt a coordinated approach that combines assertive diplomacy with tangible measures to protect its interests. This includes strengthening economic resilience against tariff threats, ensuring robust border policies, and unequivocally rejecting any narrative that undermines Canadian sovereignty.

Canadians must also recognize the broader stakes. Trump’s actions are not just an affront to Canada but a symptom of a world where strong nations increasingly exploit weaker ones through overt and covert means. As a G7 country, Canada has a responsibility—to itself and the global community—to stand firm against such tactics and reaffirm the principles of sovereignty, respect, and mutual cooperation.

The humiliation of responding to Trump’s antics is real, but it is not insurmountable. By taking decisive action and refusing to be drawn into his games, Canada can turn this challenge into an opportunity to showcase its strength, unity, and resolve on the world stage. (AI)

Wednesday July 31, 2024

July 31, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday July 31, 2024

Doug Ford Must Respect Judicial Independence While Addressing Crime Concerns

February 28, 2024

Premier Doug Ford’s recent rhetoric on holding judges and justices of the peace (JPs) “accountable” for their bail decisions has struck a chord with many Ontarians worried about rising crime and declining public safety. However, while the Premier’s tough-on-crime stance resonates with a populace eager for solutions, his approach risks undermining the foundational principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.

Ford’s comments at a recent Mississauga press conference, where he announced the $134-million purchase of new police helicopters, included a vow to collect statistics on bail decisions and ensure judicial officials are held accountable. The Premier’s narrative is clear: lenient bail practices contribute to repeat offences, posing a threat to public safety. “We have some of the greatest justices of the peace and judges in the country,” Ford stated, “but there’s some that continuously give people bail — not once, twice, three times, four times, five times.”

This rhetoric taps into widespread frustration among voters who see the justice system as overly lenient, particularly towards repeat offenders. Supportive comments reflect this sentiment: “Finally, someone is listening! These repeat offenders should NOT be granted bail!” and “We must protect society from Repeat Offenders.”

News: Doug Ford vows to hold JPs and judges ‘accountable’ for decisions

June 16, 2021

However, Ford’s approach to addressing these concerns — by threatening judicial accountability measures and stacking the courts with politically aligned appointees — poses significant risks. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and prominent legal professionals have rightly raised alarms about the potential erosion of judicial independence. Shakir Rahim of the CCLA called Ford’s comments “an unacceptable and dangerous attack on judicial independence, the constitution, and the rule of law.”

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our democracy, ensuring that every person who goes to court has their case heard by an impartial decision-maker, free from political pressure. As Douglas Judson from the Federation of Ontario Law Associations (FOLA) pointed out, the idea that judges could be sanctioned based on political preferences is “clearly disturbing.” Michael Spratt, a prominent criminal lawyer, further noted that incorrect bail decisions can already be appealed by prosecutors, highlighting that existing accountability mechanisms are in place without compromising judicial impartiality.

The worrying parallels between Ford’s approach and the tactics of authoritarian leaders like Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela cannot be ignored. Maduro has notoriously undermined judicial independence by packing the courts with loyalists and using the judiciary to suppress dissent and uphold his regime’s policies. Under Maduro, the Venezuelan judiciary has become an extension of the executive, routinely issuing arrest warrants for political opponents, and failing to protect human rights. This manipulation of the judiciary has enabled widespread human rights abuses and eroded the rule of law in Venezuela. Ford must avoid this authoritarian playbook and respect the independence of Ontario’s judiciary.

December 1, 2022

Instead of encroaching on the judicial branch, Premier Ford should focus on legislative solutions that address public safety concerns without compromising judicial independence. Enhanced data collection on bail decisions and crime statistics is a positive step, as it allows for informed policymaking. However, this data must be used to improve the justice system through legislative reforms, not to intimidate judges or justify political interventions.

Ford’s government could, for example, propose legislative changes that set clearer guidelines for bail decisions, ensuring they balance public safety with the rights of the accused. Investments in crime prevention programs, mental health services, and community support initiatives would also address the root causes of crime, offering a more sustainable solution than simply toughening bail conditions.

Premier Ford’s impulse to take direct action on crime is understandable and resonates with many voters. However, in his eagerness to respond to public concerns, he must not undermine the democratic principles that safeguard our justice system. Respecting judicial independence while pursuing legislative avenues for reform is the only way to ensure that Ontario remains both safe and just.

In the words of Michael Spratt, when these institutions are broken, they are “very, very hard to fix and repair.” Ford must tread carefully, lest his efforts to protect public safety inadvertently damage the very foundations of our democratic society.

Wednesday April 24, 2024

April 24, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday April 24, 2024

Doug Ford’s Rush to Judgment: Lessons from the Umar Zameer Case

May 18, 2023

Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s recent call to reverse the ban on the traditional Keffiyeh scarf within the Ontario legislature intersects with broader concerns about his rush to judgment, as demonstrated in the Umar Zameer case. These instances reveal a need for greater nuance and restraint in navigating complex cultural and legal issues.

News: Ontario Premier Doug Ford calls on Speaker to reverse keffiyeh scarf ban

April 28, 2023

Ford’s swift condemnation of the Keffiyeh ban highlights a tendency to oversimplify nuanced matters. While he frames his stance as a rejection of divisiveness, his approach risks overlooking the deep cultural and religious significance of the scarf for many individuals. This oversimplification mirrors Ford’s handling of the Umar Zameer case, where he prematurely condemned Zameer before all evidence was presented in court, contributing to public outrage and hostility towards Zameer.

Ford’s rhetoric in the Umar Zameer case exemplifies a rush to judgment without full knowledge of the facts. This hasty response undermines the presumption of innocence and due process, underscoring the importance of political leaders exercising restraint and respecting legal processes.

Opinion: Doug Ford, John Tory and Patrick Brown all owe Umar Zameer their ‘deepest apologies’ as well

June 3, 2023

Moreover, Ford’s advocacy for electric vehicles (EVs) in the context of the Keffiyeh debate raises questions about his consistency in embracing innovation while navigating cultural sensitivities. As the EV industry faces challenges and uncertainties, Ford’s approach to complex issues should reflect a commitment to informed dialogue and inclusivity.

News: Honda expected to announce multi-billion dollar deal to assemble EVs in Ontario: sources

The intersection of these issues highlights the need for political leaders to engage thoughtfully with cultural diversity and legal processes. By reflecting on the lessons from the Umar Zameer case and demonstrating a willingness to embrace complexity, Ford can contribute to a more respectful and inclusive public discourse. Moving forward, a nuanced approach to governance is essential to bridge divides and promote unity in Ontario’s diverse society. (IT)

Thursday March 14, 2024

March 14, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday March 14, 2024

From Teenage Antics to Judicial Appointments: Doug Ford’s Peculiar Journey

Young Doug Ford: The Series

Premier Doug Ford’s recent admission of his intent to appoint “like-minded” judges has ignited concerns about the independence and impartiality of Ontario’s judiciary. This revelation, coupled with a satirical look back at Young Doug Ford’s teenage years, paints a surreal picture of the premier’s approach to judicial appointments.

Young Doug Ford and his buddies, Duart and Kyle, are assessing the quality of weed they sell to other youths. Surprisingly, Ford rejects the substance and defers judgment to his two friends, declaring, “You be the judge.” Fast forward several decades, and there before our eyes his penchant for cronyism, Ford has appointed Duart and Kyle to positions as judges.

This journey shines a light on the absurdity of Ford’s recent decisions to appoint individuals with close political ties to key positions within the judicial system. The Globe and Mail’s analysis revealing that over two-thirds of judges appointed since 2018 are former prosecutors adds to the surreal nature of this situation.

News: Ontario lawyers’ group calls for meeting over Ford government’s judicial appointments

February 28, 2024

A Toronto Star editorial rightfully criticizes Ford’s decision to appoint former senior staffers to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, emphasizing the risk of jeopardizing the non-partisan model for judicial appointments. The editorial underscores that merit, not political alliances or teenage friendships, should be the foundation for such crucial appointments.

Ford’s justification for these appointments, echoing his teenage proclamation to “appoint like-minded individuals,” reflects a concerning trend of politicizing a vital aspect of our justice system. The Federation of Ontario Law Associations has aptly condemned these moves, characterizing Ford’s understanding of the role of an independent judiciary as “juvenile.”

Drawing parallels between Ford’s approach and the U.S. Supreme Court under the Trump administration, it becomes evident that his efforts to stack the courts with ideologically aligned judges pose a clear threat to the independence of Ontario’s judiciary. Ford appointing his teenage buddies as judges serves as a symbolic representation of the potential risks associated with his questionable approach to judicial appointments.

March 8, 2019

The peculiar journey from Young Doug Ford’s questionable teenage antics to Premier Ford’s controversial approach to judicial appointments offers a reflection on the potential consequences of mixing personal biases with matters of justice. The fictionalized rejection of suspect substances in his youth, followed by the ironic appointment of his buddies as judges, serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of letting dubious behaviours influence crucial decisions.

As we scrutinize the composition of our courts and consider the values upheld by our leaders, it becomes evident that Young Doug Ford’s past and Premier Ford’s present actions intertwine in a peculiar narrative. The call for voters to prioritize the principles of merit-based selection and the safeguarding of judicial independence remains crucial. Let us ensure that the echoes of Young Doug Ford do not reverberate in the halls of justice, preserving the integrity and fairness of our legal system for generations to come. (AI)