Talk:Bora Laskin

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 19:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Try writing an original article that isn't derived from the text of this one. It's fine to use it as a source and paraphrase but don't C/P and move things around. That's still a copyvio. Guanaco 04:38, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know enough about copyright law to know whether this version is acceptable. The general principle I've heard is that no one can copyright facts. Nor can the Supreme Court of Canada claim any originality in the idea of presenting a biographic summary in chronological order. Anyway, while you're quite right that an original article would be preferable, it would require more time and effort than I'm willing to put in. If my rewrite is deemed a copyvio, then we'll just have to do without an article on Justice Laskin for now. JamesMLane 04:52, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Laskin was actually the third judge who was not the most senior puisne justice to be elevated to the position of Chief Justice (source is "The Supreme Court of Canada, A History of the Institution, Snell & Vaughan, 1985, esp. at p.224). The general tradition as far as I know was not to alternate the choice among a common-law and civil-law judge but to elevate the most senior puisne justice (same source, and original research).--192.197.82.153 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism? Really? Substantiation?

WP:NOTAFORUM. Criticism of the lack of sourcing is fine but if you want to opine about other issues please do it elswhere. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 15:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Calling it "antisemitism" for unidentified parties not to have hired the young Jewish law graduate (Bora Laskin) is blatant generalized defamation of non-Jews without proof.

It is also manifestly unprincipled and illogical.

How can you say that a man did not get a job specifically because of "antisemitism" when you haven't spoken to those who interviewed him? Who obviously would not publish their views if those were their views? And which therefore cannot be proven.

Moreover, the assumption is that the young Jewish law graduate was such a genius that nobody could possibly have refused to hire him on any ground except that of "antisemitism". This is an outrageous stance to take. There are such things as corporate budgets, economic downturns, and the nephew of the senior partner's uncle who was going to get the job even if Einstein had applied.

It is deeply resented that Wikipedia would sink to such low depths of blanket defamation of non-Jews in order to pump up the "poor Jewish victims" who are not victims at all.

I once personally knew a Jewish poet who was in his late 30s. He was not a great poet. He was a good translator of other people's poems, but he was not a great poet in his own right. Nonetheless, this man baldly asserted that McGill University had denied him the PRIZE for poetry because they were "antisemitic". The prospect that other people might have written better poems was not admissible. This is highly RACIST.

The unsubstantiated nonsense about Bora Laskin's not getting hired on the spot as due to "antisemitism" is more outright anti-Gentile RACISM. Please find something more intelligent to say about Bora Laskin, and drop the anti-Gentile racist hatchet somewhere other than in our backs.

Moreover, it would have been a good idea NOT to hire Bora Laskin, as he ended up leading a constitutional and parliamentary coup d'etat on Canada in 1982, as Chief Justice, when he failed, refused and/or neglected to expose the Trudeau clique for its constitutionally illegal package misnamed "patriation". The one good word to describe Mr. Bora Laskin is TRAITOR. Which is a very good reason not to hire him at any time, and were he not deceased at this point, he ought to be tried for high treason and jailed.

And here's the substantiation:

https://patriationandlegitimacyofthecanadianconstitution.wordpress.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.65.90 (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Murdoch vs Murdoch Mischaracterizes Case

The issue in this case was whether the wife in question is entitled to have her name added as joint or common owner of a ranch owned by her husband before he married her; the question was not one of division of property in marital separation as she still remained married to him - rather, whether the labour she fulfilled on the ranch as his wife itself entitled her to status of common or joint owner which carried implications beyond family law - a common owner can petition the court to sell the property, for example, and divide up the proceeds due to the parties having irreconcilable differences. In theory, then, had Larkin's view been that of the majority, the woman could have demanded the sale of the property even without being granted a divorce which would have given her far more leverage in the subsequent divorce which she did file and for which she received restitution in money. Canlawtictoc (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)