Nachwahl in Terrebonne | Der Oberste Gerichtshof „wollte Elections Canada bestrafen“, behauptet ein Liberaler [[Translation : Terrebonne by-election | The Supreme Court „wanted to punish Elections Canada,“ claims a Liberal ]]
https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/2026-03-22/election-partielle-dans-terrebonne/la-cour-supreme-voulait-punir-elections-canada-clame-un-liberal.php?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=algovir
3 Kommentare
Marc-Etienne Vien, the lawyer who represented Tatiana Auguste at the Supreme Court, says **she „won fairly and squarely“** in the last general election and that the by-election happened **because the Supreme Court court „wanted to punish Elections Canada.“**
Marc-Etienne Vien is a liberal and was Auguste’s lawyer in the judicial contestation which lead to the by-election getting annuled.
These words created unease as they are of nature of attacking the trust the citizens have in their institutions.
The reason the by-election is redone and the reason the last result in Terrebonne was annuled is in order to ensure the Terrebonne voters get the representative they deserve under our political system. It’s not something about “punishing“ an agency like Elections Canada. Why would that even be the goal of our Supreme Court?
This lawyer is out to lunch here as democracy is important and every vote should count NO MATTER WHAT but, if they say that lawyers must respect the decisions of the courts then doesn’t that also go for all the PQ and Bloc lawyers too when the Supreme Court rules against their positions when they cry foul?
Obviously we must call out anyone who refuses to agree with the Supreme Court based on political beliefs, but there is a double standard here coming from the La presse as there doesn’t seem to be articles calling out the other side too when they cry in the papers about Supreme Court decisions. Curious
wow, questioning the Supreme Court while implying that Elections Canada not being neutral because:
>What the Supreme Court knows, just as we do, is that the largest political party in the country’s history is the Liberal Party of Canada.
does this mean that he wants Liberal to get preferential treatment for being Natural Governing Party of Canada?
even on his scale back, he claimed that his statement was „factual“:
>“On the contrary, we recognize the decision, and it was in the logical course of events and within the context of the election campaign that this comment, **which is factual**, was made.”