A couple of Canada’s activist judges just got busted by journalist Jamie Sarkonak @sarkonakj for some particularly gross views of hard drugs and two-tiered racial views of defendants. - B.C. judge Catherine Murray decided she would praise two hard-drug traffickers, and invent a Charter right to deal those drugs. - Ontario judge Faizal Mirza thought the law should have a race-tiered application in sentencing Canadians, then deployed it. Disgusting ideas. Thankfully not Canadian law. So when these activist judges tried to impose them, Jamie called them out. Great journalism. But then the “Advocates Society” wrote a letter to defend the judges. They made two points and both backfire: First, these judges “make their decisions on the facts and the law – not popular opinion or political expediency.” Second, journalists “vilifying judges who make unpopular opinions or demanding their removal is not accountability. It’s pressure.” Nice try. First, these activist judges didn’t apply facts or the law. They applied personal views not found in Canadian law. Second, calling them out and demanding their removal isn’t ’vilifying’, its asserting a democratic fact: activists don’t get to hi-jack the bench to impose drug dealing and two-tier race screens that Canadians haven’t consented to through legislation. If Catherine and Faizal wish their weird views were the law, they can resign and try to get a legislature to agree. That’s what politics is for. But thats not how jurisprudence work. Activists don’t get to hi-jack the bench for their personal ends just because they sit on it. The Advocates Society knows this. Great journalism by Jamie @sarkonakj defending Canada from activist judges whose bizarre ideas make everyone less safe and less equal before the law.