>>>>>>The "community rep" didn't represent me. Frankly I doubt any one would dare speak out against the judges, so that proves nothing. The panel is completely trustworthy and there was no need of a community rep.
>>>>
>>>>Consider lay representation on professional boards (medical, legal) including in Canada. Few of us know who those representatives are or whether their principles match ours, because what really matters is that these people are smart enough to understand what is going on and to be satisfied with what they see the insider majority doing behind the closed doors. A robust process and its supporters may be convinced that they are above reproach but still they will invite such people in so that justice is not only done, it is seen to be done. And because even the very noblest among us sometimes benefit from an outside perspective! The processes to worry about are the ones that are determinedly secret IMHO.
>>>
>>>Trust me, I wholeheartedly agree. I have been exposed to our court system and lawyers. There is no invited watchdog of the courts - in fact a judge may alter the court transcripts, break constitutional law, and unless you are rich, you cannot fight. To see justice done does not come from blindly trusting. They do not invite anyone to watch, and in fact, often deny you the right to record proceedings.
>>>
>>>http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2760869
>>>
>>>However we all agree that a criminal would not be a good choice for a public watchdog. What this "rep" did was technically identity theft, against a true great in the community, and was publicly admitted. To me this person was a very poor representative of the community.
>>
>>You think that was worse than getting Naomi fired from her job over an online spat? I don't.
>
>Maybe old cans of worms are best left in the can.

Agreed. It just rubbed me the wrong way when Mike Y. made it sound like all the sins were on one side.