Category: Courts

…That’s how the Edmonton Sun’s Mindelle Jacobs summed it up in her latest column, and I think the description is bang-on. As for me, I decided that I would bide my time and give some consideration to this whole issue — or, as a friend of mine put it, “sit back, have a beer and cool your jets for a bit” — before writing about it.

By now, everybody and their dog knows about the latest in the long line of Stupid Judge Tricks to come out of the Ontario Court of Appeal. For either of you that haven’t heard yet, here it is: thanks to three social-engineering, can’t-resist-screwing-with-it, legislating-from-the-bench, judicial-robe-wearin’ shitskulls in TO (Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, Justice Marc Rosenberg and Justice Jean-Marc Labrosse), a five-year-old London boy now has one dad … and two moms. All three legally and equally his parents in the eyes of the law.

Uncharted waters, indeed.

Homosexuality lobbyists and advocacy groups, naturally, were practically dancing in the streets at the news. Other groups however, perhaps remembering history’s lessons about monkeying with society, were not amused at all. Me? I think this is a recipe for disaster.

And before any dickheads out there even think about lobbing some of that “keeping up with the times” bullshit at me: don’t even try it. You want to know what I think of that kind of bullshit logic? Do you? Just click on the pic on the left here and tell me what you think you see. Want to know what I see? I see about ten thousand socialists, all of them keeping up with the times. That’s what I think of the “you should change with the times” argument, so shove it up your ass. Just because a thing can be done does not automatically mean that it should be done and most of the monkeying with our society that I see going on in the last few years definitely should not be done if for no other reasons than that a) no one has bothered to seriously consider the long term effects of such tinkering with the very foundations of our civilisation and b) they serve no good purpose whatsoever other than catering to the self-centered “it’s all about me” types who stand to gain from these changes with no regard at all for the possible impacts on others.

You think child custody cases are an emotional meatgrinder for kids now? Wait till you see what happens when some poor kid, or kids, find themselves as the rope in a tug-o-war between 6 moms and 4 dads. What do you think will happen then? And don’t tell me that such a thing will never happen. Every bit of judicial idiocy in this country over the past 30-35 years — and its cultural backlash — has been predicted by socially conservative “fearmongering Chicken Littles” just like me and we’ve been right every God damned time!

So please piss off, shove that red herring up your ass and answer the God damned question: WHAT WILL HAPPEN THEN? Do you think these sociological busybodies even give a damn? Don’t count on it. All they give a shit about is whatever gives them a warm fuzzy feeling right now and to hell with anything else.

Maybe I’m wrong — and I hope I am — and this kid will grow up to be a perfectly happy, productive member of society with his head screwed on nice and straight. But what if I’m not wrong? What if, as a result of this little grand experiment, this kid ends up completely screwed up? As Jacobs put it:

But there are two troubling aspects to this ruling. First, the court of appeal wielded the inherent common-law power of judges to reinterpret the law.

This may be necessary in exceptional circumstances but in this case, surely our lawmakers are best suited to rewriting the law.

Secondly, the future consequences of such a profound redefinition of parenthood are unknown.

Unknown is one hell of an understatement. But hey, what’s the future welfare, mental health, etc of a bunch of snot-nosed brats worth when we’re busy casting off the tyranny of thousands of years of basic truth? Obviously not much. Some people, however, do give a shit:

The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada has called for a royal commission on the future of the family. Considering the furious pace of social and reproductive change in recent years, it’s a wise idea.

“It’s time to hit the pause button – especially as courts redefine basic terms like parenting – to analyze what the long-term outcomes of family-related policies are,” says Dave Quist, executive director of the institute.

“Any gap in existing legislation should not be filled solely by one court. Rather, it needs to be debated in the appropriate public forum – our legislatures and parliament,” he adds.

On a whole host of social issues with potentially far-reaching implications, however, our courts have been stepping in where our legislators fear to tread.

This may be to the tactical advantage of politicians – who can then blame the judiciary for uprooting traditional norms – but it’s a terrible way to set social policy.

You’re damned right it is. To voice your objection to this reckless endangerment to the future wellbeing of an entire generation of Canadian children, call or write your local Member of Parliament.

Now THIS is my kind of cop. The more I read about him, the more I like him. Everybody and their dog knows that the so-called “criminal justice system” in this country is nothing more than a criminal-coddling crock of… well, you know. But Calgary Const. Shaun Horne went and did what damn near every cop in the land — not to mention more than a few just plain decent, law-abiding folks — have been itching to do for years: After idiot JP Kristine Robidoux gave career criminal Albert Walter Brazill — a lifelong scumbag with over 65 criminal convictions — a free pass out of the county bucket, Const. Horne stood up in the courtroom and ripped Her Bullshitness a new one.

You can read more about it here, here, here and here. As Rick Bell put it best in today’s Calgary Sun:

What happens when a city cop tells the truth about our justice system? In PC Calgary, he gets yanked off the street and hit with a suspension

Guilty of speaking what everybody knows to be true.

Our so-called justice system IS a mockery and a joke.

Ask any cop.

Ask any criminal.

Ask any victim of crime.

But Const. Shaun Horne, with 25 years of fighting bad guys under his belt, just doesn’t think the fact. He actually says the words.

And the butt-covering city police bigwigs, anxious not to offend the sensibilities of judges, mete out the discipline at the public school board meeting room.

With the clock ticking off toward his last day, a police hearing suspends the constable for a week without pay.

There is not much more they can do. Horne is out the door early in the new year. But the message is clear.

If the officer had years to go before the finish line they’d be getting the nails and the wood out.

“It would be suicidal,” says Rambo Al Koenig, the mince-no-words police association prez.

“Out of fear of reprisals anyone speaking out would have to swallow their pride and their principles.”

But Horne could speak up and did speak up when one Albert Walter Brazill appeared in court for not paying his bar tab.

Brazill is a piece of work, a career criminal with 65 convictions — everything from extortion, kidnapping, forcible confinement to thefts, multiple break and enters, vehicle theft, armed robbery, frauds, forgeries, assaults, many impaired driving and drug beefs and more than once failing to show up to court.

Brazill has nothing to say but tells justice of the peace Kristine Robidoux he needs an alcohol program.

He says he is in Calgary looking for work as a painter but nobody will get him painter pants. Then he gives some sob story about not being able to score work of any kind because he was hit over the head in Regina and his ID was stolen.

“I can’t win,” he says. But he does win, 65 convictions and all.

Robidoux says: “I am just not satisfied the ends of justice are met by having this person detained for the better part of a week.”

Brazill asks if that’s it, realizes it is, thanks Robidoux and smirks at Horne the cop, who’s seen the revolving door so many times before.

Horne calls him a piece of … you know.

Horne then asks the JP if she is “going to release everybody” and calls Brazill’s walk “a joke” and “a mockery.”

By the way, the released Brazill doesn’t show up for his next court date.

Yesterday, it is Horne on the hot seat, three counts of discreditable conduct. Insp. Paul Manuel, representing the police brass, sounds off like a paragon of virtue.

Horne brought “discredit on the reputation of the service” and there must be a strong message to the ranks that “this type of behaviour will not be condoned and must be dealt with severely.”

Manuel waxes on about Horne’s “barrage” of “insulting and condescending language” stating “the seriousness of the matter cannot be overstated.”

“The public interest must be considered,” says the inspector. Right. Since when was the public interest ever considered.

Besides, the constable won’t say sorry and Robidoux the JP is reportedly shocked and gets angry calls at home from the public.

Manuel asks for Horne to get two weeks without pay. He is given one. It is the sad end for a good cop.

Rambo Al says the badges on the street will now know the drill. “No matter what injustice you see, keep your mouth shut,” says Koenig.

Horne has no regrets. He’d do the same but maybe be a little choosier about the words.

He is still frustrated but gets some small comfort from the support of fellow- officers who every day deal with the cushiness of the courts and the public relations blather from their politically correct superiors.

Horne is not surprised by the outcome.

“In my mind, this was over before it started,” he says.

He retires knowing the system is “nowhere near fair” and it isn’t changing any time soon. But the police officer does not shy away from the consequences. Horne says he was offered a reprimand and wouldn’t take it. He will not bend the knee.

When it is over, Manuel shamelessly offers a handshake and the obligatory happy retirement wish to Horne.

The constable just turns away.

Some people don’t need to be told some things. Some people just already know things like: water is wet; fire is hot; if you run nekkid through a blizzard, you’re going to freeze your twig and berries off… stuff like that. Other folks, though, need to blow a buttload of taxpayers’ money to figure out whether or not a bear craps in the woods. And that‘s just what they got in Nova Scotia, following the 11-month inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Theresa McEvoy (right), who was killed by 16-year old Archie Billard as he was fleeing, stoned, at high speeds from police through the streets of Halifax in October of 2004. Billard was already facing 27 charges related to a string of car thefts.

And guess what the conclusion they reached was? That the YCJA is TOO DAMNED LENIENT!

HALIFAX (CP) – Canada’s youth justice system must be tightened to protect the public from dangerous teens whose lives are “spiralling out of control,” a Nova Scotia inquiry has concluded.

Well, DUUUHHH!!! Figured that out all by themselves, did they? The rest of us have known that since the damn thing was passed. Some of the recommendations in retired judge Merlin Nunn’s 381-page report are [all emphasis mine]:

• make it easier for judges across Canada to detain teenagers before trial
• changes to the definition of “violent offence” in the Act to include conduct that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives and safety of others
• staff at the Windsor courthouse should be provided with “adequate and working telephone, facsimile, printing, computer equipment, and e-mail communication,” along with access to the province’s online justice information system
• allow judges to detain youths if they show “a pattern of offences”
• slash the time lag between when a youth is arrested and they first appear in court [average 175 days in NS] to “within one week of arrest“
• more Crown attorneys and a fully staffed attendance centre where youth who are released on bail will be forced to regularly meet with probation officers before their trial

In a prepared statement, the former judge said the title of his report – Spiralling Out of Control: Lessons Learned from a Boy in Trouble – was chosen to reflect the fact that Billard’s life was headed into a “remarkable crime spree.”

“None of our responses seemed to be effective in stopping him,” Nunn wrote. “They should have.”

Personally, I think we need a hell of a lot more than that but I suppose this is as good a start as any. Now look for the usual handwringing suspects to start popping out of the woodwork to bemoan that those advocating stronger measures “just don’t understand the real nature of the problem” and all the other usual pap.

And away we go. Strap yourselves in, boys and girls, because this ride is promising to be bumpier than a ride on Highway 32 at 120Kmph. Yes, the big, bad Tories are making good on yet another election promise by bringing the issue of same-sex “marriage” back to the House, this time for a free vote, and the usuals are wasting no time getting themselves worked up into a lather. Gee, what are the odds? 🙄

The Conservative government under HMPM Stephen Harper has announced that they are going to fulfill their election promise to review Bill C-38 in the Commons and submit the issue to a truly free vote.

Government sources say the Conservatives will table a motion asking MPs whether the debate on gay marriage should be re-opened, which could see debate start Wednesday and could be voted on late next week.

The HypoGrits and their social engineering henchmen would have you believe that this is all a done deal and that the Tories are whipping a dead horse because there “has already been a free vote” on the issue. But Bill C-38, you may recall, was undemocratically rammed through the House in June of last year after then-PM Martin ordered all cabinet ministers to vote in favour of the bill or else lose their jobs. Joe Comuzzi, the minister responsible for Northern Ontario, resigned his post in protest so that he could vote against the bill. The final count: 158-133.

Hardly an ideological victory, especially when one considers that the entire Liberal cabinet was voting under duress. The Grits at the time, tried to spin this issue as a question of the Charter:

The “vote is about the Charter of Rights,” said Martin. “We’re a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don’t cherry-pick rights.”

There’s just one little problem with that: the Charter — which was a poorly thought-out document to begin with — says absolutely nothing about gay marriage, or homosexuality, or marriage, or sexual inclination, or anything else having to do with this issue. You will find no reference whatsoever to sexual orientation anywhere in the Charter. It just plain isn’t there. The courts, however, have decided that they can “read in” things that aren’t in the Charter and that the Charter, therefore, says whatever they say it says.

Ever since then, the Charter has been wielded as a hatchet by a motley assortment of malevolent social engineering malcontents to impose upon the rest of us changes to our very way of life that could never have been passed in the House (where all who sit are periodically held accountable to those whose lives they are fiddling with). It has also been used in some truly disturbing ways, not the least of which is the erosion of religious rights, by federally funded special interest groups, under the pretense of “equality.”

As a result of all this Machiavellian manipulation and using the Charter as a sword rather than a shield, this issue has become less and less about whether or not Adam and Steve can get hitched and more and more about just who does and does not make the laws in this country: the government (chosen by, and accountable to, the people) or the courts (elected by, and accountable to, none)? When laws are made by those who owe no obedience whatsoever to the citizenry, there is a name for that kind of system; and it’s not democracy.

What kind of country do you want to live in?

I know that I’ve already flogged this horse before, but this time is a little different. It seems that the sordid story of trigger-happy Ahmed Moalin-Mohamed may have a silver lining to it, after all. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pointed to Mohamed’s little disappearing act as an example of just why we need reform to the “justice” system in this country and need it now. As the PM put it, describing how Mohamed got off scot free after shooting four people in downtown London:

“Four people,” Harper repeated for impact.

“The judge, acting under the current law, ordered him to stay home with his mother,” Harper said at a Toronto press conference. “He promptly vanished.

“That means somewhere in Canada, maybe in London, maybe in this city, a man facing multiple violent firearm charges is freely roaming the streets,” Harper said. “And it’s hardly an isolated case.”

It feels kind of odd to say this, but if this little nugget of judicial idiocy actually results in changes to the way things are done in our courts, then maybe it will be somehow worth it. According to this article, cops in TO say that 945 crimes involving guns or restricted weapons have been racked up so far this year, with 37% done by some prick already out on bail, parole, temporary absence, probation or some other hug-a-thug bullshit. Not enough for ya? Try this:

Jeremiah Valentine, 24, charged with second-degree murder in the Yonge St. Boxing Day 2005 shootout that left Toronto teen Jane Creba dead was under three gun bans following convictions at the time of the incident.

Screw the “rights of the accused.” I’d rather put up with the odd rare case (and yes, they are rare) of an innnocent man having to cool his heels until his trial comes up than put up with this bullshit any longer.

Fasten your seatbelts! Check the instruments, flaps and rudders, and hang on tight there, boys and girls, ’cause ol’ Porky’s on the runway and getting ready to take off. Yes, folks, the RCBARF is buzzing the courthouse in London, Ontario.

Some of you from the area might remember a story from a while back about how local dolt Marcello Ianni got himself liquored up one night and tried to sexually assault a female attendant working the night shift at a gas station at Huron & Highbury. Poor Marcello, looking to get his rocks off, got his block knocked off instead. The victim managed to phone both the cops AND her very protective boyfriend (whose name has not been released, in order to protect the victim’s identity).

Guess who showed up at the scene first? 😆

The short version of the story is that little Marcello got the livin’ horny stomped right out of him. A longer version can be found in today’s Freeps:

Ianni, who has pleaded guilty to sexual assault, had been at a hockey party. He was so drunk he had little memory of what happened.

The situation quickly took a turn for the worse when Ianni made sexual suggestions and tried to grab the clerk.

He unzipped his pants and repeated he wanted to have sex with her.

The woman was able to call 911, then called her boyfriend, who jumped in the car and arrived before police.

Through the window, he could see his girlfriend was bent over the counter with her arm pinned behind her and Ianni with his arms around her.

The man went into the kiosk with a metal baton. Ianni backed into a corner before he was hit on the head and shoulder, punched and kicked.

Within a few seconds, the woman was out of the kiosk with her boyfriend right behind her.

Police arrived to find Ianni in a pool of blood. He required nine stitches.

So far, so good, right? Get caught trying to rape a girl, get fed a can o’ Wupass®. Sounds jolly to me. But then things, as they all too often do, took a turn for the stoopid:

The man owned up to what he did, but was later charged when police believed he had used excessive force.

London Police Chief Murray Faulkner said police laid the charge because they believed, under their guidelines, there was reasonable grounds to believe there was an offence.

Well, a jury of 12 of his fellow citizens didn’t think so. It took them less than an hour to give Boyfriend Bob a pat on the back and send him out the door. Seems like saving a woman from being raped isn’t a crime, after all.

What I would like to know is this: why the hell was this guy ever charged with ANYTHING in the first place??? And don’t even think about giving me any of that “EEK! Vigilantes!” bullcrap. What this guy did wasn’t just the right thing to do, it was the perfectly natural thing to do.

A lot of women in general, feminazis in particular, can’t stand to admit to the fact that the vast majority of mentally well-balanced men, by their very nature, have our primal “fight-or-flight” response on something of a hair trigger where our loved ones are concerned. We are also (again, because nature has hardwired us that way) one hell of a lot more likely to respond aggressively to dangers arising from the aggression of others. No matter how hard some might try to socialize or legislate that away, it is there, always has been and always will be. Get over it.

Interestingly enough, a lot of the same people like to bitch and complain about how “nobody wants to get involved” anymore. Well, what the hell do you expect, when this is what they get for their troubles? The simple fact of the matter is that this guy didn’t do a damn thing wrong.

Did he do what any normal, healthy male in the same situation would do? You’re damned right he did.

Was what he did a crime? Hell, NO.