Category: Courts

Wow, what are the odds? Who could have ever imagined that of all Canadians, it would be the French that would get grumpy about antismoking laws? As a lot of people (especially smokers in la Belle Province) already know, Quebec hopped on the anti-puffing hypocrisy hayride earlier this year and became the latest in the lineup of regions to ban a perfectly legal substance from just about everyplace in public.

It now seems that a motley crew of bar owners, employees and patrons have taken up the idea that the Quebec antismoking laws are… hmm… how should I put this?

Complètement plein du merde? Pardon my French.

Not being content to merely sit around puffing away in the rain and griping, about 150 owners and employees turned out for a bit of a noisy demonstration outside the provincial courthouse in Montreal. Meanwhile, inside the courthouse:

A Quebec Superior Court judge will be asked today to repeal the province’s anti-smoking law in time for the holidays.

Maintaining they have suffered irreparable financial damage since Quebec banned smoking in bars and restaurants May 31, Quebec bar owners are scheduled to appear in court to ask for an injunction that would temporarily overturn the tough new law.

The injunction is a stop-gap measure while bar owners wait for the Supreme Court of Canada to hear their case challenging the constitutionality of Quebec’s anti-smoking law.

Seriously, folks; just how long did anyone think it was going to take for this to happen?

First things first, let’s get my own bias out of the way. Yes, I smoke; yes, I know it’s a bad habit; and no, I don’t want my kids doing it. But I am also sick and God damned tired of all the hypocrisy from the second-hand-smoke finger wagging crowd. The same frigging idiots that tell me that I can’t sit down and enjoy a stogie in my favourite pub are the same nattering nannies that trumpet the virtues of letting junkies shoot up in comfort and now, giving potheads their own toking pit at work! No, I’m NOT making that up:

TORONTO (Reuters) – The use of medical marijuana has given two Toronto professors the right to something that many students could only dream of — access to specially ventilated rooms where they can indulge in peace.

So, let me get this straight: if I want a butt at the bar with my buddies, I’m either SOL or getting fined (or both), but if I wanna get stoned, I’m not only fine and dandy, I’m going to get a nice little space set aside for me at public expense.  I’m not the only one smelling the bullshit here, am I?

And don’t bother with any of that “second hand smoke” or “burden on the healthcare system” crap, either. The main toxin that you suck back every day is vehicle exhaust and, at over eight bucks a pack, I’m putting a lot more money into the health care system than a nonsmoker is, so don’t try to pretend we aren’t paying our own way.

Another thing that irks me is the “with smoking banned in bars, more nonsmokers will start coming out” nonsense. If there were a market for smoke-free pubs, the free market would have jumped on that bandwagon long ago. How many smoke-free pubs did you ever hear of before it was enforced by Big Nanny? None. But, just in London alone, dozens of small pubs have gone belly up since the Ministry Of Knowing What’s Best For You declared that their patrons had to take their habit out into the elements. That’s a bunch of lost jobs.

You can’t encourage junkies out of one side of your mouth while condemning us out the other. We aren’t doing anything illegal, we pay our own damn way and we are getting damned tired of being treated like second class citizens by holier-than-thou wannabe architects of the future.

As for me, I think I’m gonna go have me a smoke now…

Well, well; isn’t THIS just a big God damned frigging surprise? Need any more proof that the courts (and more particularly, the pussyass leftist, social engineering judges that preside over them) need to take a good one upside the head and get put in their place right quick? Okay, then, here it is.

First, he shoots four people in downtown London on Thanksgiving weekend. Then, some punkass judge lets him just stroll out of jail free as a bird. Now, Ahmed Moalin-Mohammed has just up and disappeared. That’s right: the son of a bitch hasn’t been seen in over two days. Let’s all take a moment to have another look at some of the highlights of this latest asshattery of our criminal-coddling injustice system, shall we? Here goes:

1. He shot FOUR damn people in the middle of a crowded parking lot, fer chrissakes.
2. He had himself NO FIXED ADDRESS. For those not familiar with that term, it means that he didn’t live anywhere.
3. Despite being charged with over a dozen offences, including aggravated assault and ATTEMPTED MURDER, dumbass Justice of the Peace Jack Carroll lets him bugger off, as happy as a lark (and no doubt giggling out his arsehole at the impotence of our justice system and the gullibility of the eunichs that preside over its courts), because he crossed his heart and promised to stay at his mommy’s house.
4. Just to put a nice little cherry on top of all of this, the prick somehow had security clearance at Toronto’s Pearson International airport.

Cue the usual suspects to come out of the woodwork and tell us that locking up criminals solves nothing. Has anyone else noticed how that crowd seems to be made up exclusively of people that have never been the victim of a crime themselves? Just wondering.

The fact of the matter is that the courts are out of control. The rights of the guilty mean everything and deterrence, denunciation, punishment, the rights of victims and the security of society as a whole mean less than nothing. Sure, if there’s a big enough public outcry, they might, maybe, unf#*% themselves and fly right for a while. But as soon as the ruckus dies down and John Q. Canadian goes back to sleep, it’ll be right back to business as usual, with the revolving door on the jailhouse running overtime to make up for the “backlog.”

Just what the hell is it going to take before judges in this country pull their heads out of their backsides and start treating crime like the serious issue that it is? The answer to that question is simple. It’s crass, cynical and more than a little vulgar but it’s still simple:

• Judges will get serious about theft when enough judges’ cars get stolen.
• Judges will get serious about violence when enough judges get beaten up.
• Judges will get serious about murder when enough judges’ brothers or sons get killed.
• Judges will get serious about rape when enough judges’ wives or daughters get raped.

Disgusting, you say? Of course it is; but try and prove me wrong.

Go ahead; try it. I dare you.

Here we have it, yet more judicial asshattery. And here we have yet another frazzled cop sounding off what everyone with two brain cells to rub together has known for years: courts coddle criminals. As some of you might remember, I wrote a while ago about a scumbag named Ahmed Moalin-Mohamed who was caught after shooting four (count ’em: FOUR) people in downtown London less than three weeks ago. And guess what? Even though he faces 13 charges, including attempted murder, Moalin-Mohamed (of NO FIXED ADDRESS, no less. No, I’m not making that up.) strolled out of court, free as a bird, on bail.

London police Chief Murray Faulkner, however, summed it up by saying what was pretty much on everybody’s minds:

Faulkner said he wasn’t surprised Ahmed Moalin-Mohamed was released Tuesday to live with his mother in Toronto. “I see this time and time again,” he said.

The justice system too often releases people on bail awaiting trial despite long records or alleged participation in a violent crime, he said.

Click here for the full article in the Freeps.

Okay, I’m a little behind the herd here, but still, what is this? I repeat: WHAT… THE HELL… IS THIS!?!? How the HELL is it that some Yank sleazoid sex offender gets dumped in our backyard? Yeah, you read that right. An American teacher gets convicted of having sex with one of his students in New York and, instead of tossing his worthless ass behind bars south of the border (where he God damned well belongs), he gets banished to Canada so he can walk the streets a free man up here. Consider my whatthefuckometer redlined.

The baffling case involves Malcolm Watson, a 35-year-old U.S. citizen who lives in Fort Erie, Ont., with his Canadian wife and three children, but who had been commuting to teach at the Buffalo Seminary, a private all-girls school in the Buffalo area.

Buffalo immigration lawyer Robert Kolken found the sentence, by Cheektowaga Justice Thomas Kolbert, “quite creative.”

When the hell did we become the willing repository for the rest of the world’s perverts? And just how the hell can a convicted sex offender (and American citizen, no less) even be allowed into this country in the first damn place?? I can’t be the only one who’s 37 kinds of pissed off about this. No way, no how.

And have we heard anything from Vic Toews about this? Not a God damned peep. I don’t know about anybody else, but I didn’t vote Conservative to let this kind of bullshit slide.

On the face of it, this might appear to just be yet another in the long and tiresome line of idiotic nuggets that the high and mighty roos in the SCC have left on the national rug but when you look at it just a little, it seems that they may have gotten it right this time. The Grand Roos declared today that judges do not have the authority to order convicts to submit bodily fluid samples on demand.

Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? Maybe not, this time. The SCC isn’t trying to bugger about and rewrite or make up the law this time; their logic was clear and simple (for once):

“A sentencing judge has a broad jurisdiction in determining appropriate conditions of probation,” said the decision, written by Justice Louise Charron. “However, there is no authority under the Criminal Code to authorize a search and seizure of bodily substances as part of a probation order.

“It is Parliament’s role to determine appropriate standards and safeguards governing the collection of bodily samples for enforcement purposes.”

Oh, my gawd! Actually letting those idiots in Parliament (elected by the even more idiotic and ignorant unwashed masses) decide what is and isn’t the law in this country?? Her Beverlyness must have blown a synapse at the very thought of it.

As strange as this is going to sound, I actually think that this might not be a bad thing. For once, the SCC isn’t lounging on their lofty lipizzaners and declaring that the law is what they say it is, flying in the face of what has been democratically enacted by our elected representatives. The fact is that there is nothing in the CCOC to allow the collection of such samples, some other judge made it up. While he may have been well-intentioned and taking such samples seems only common sense, it is up to Parliament (chosen by the prople) to make laws in this country, NOT the courts (who are not elected). This is essentially what the SCC said in their decision.

Which makes me wonder: why is the SCC taking such a hands-off attitude to buggering about with the law all of a sudden? Could it be because we have a PM who has no qualms about (and, indeed, may even be eager to begin) putting this country’s courts back in their place? Just a thought.

As if the traditional family wasn’t under attack enough already, some hag from Ontario is now trying to get herself legally declared by the courts to be a child’s third parent. Yes, that’s right: third parent. Nobody in this country, however, has any damned business acting surprised by this news. In their orgiastic savagery of all things traditional, the malevolent would-be social engineers of the far left have been “redefining” the definition of anything and everything that didn’t let them get their own way. They’ve redefined homicide to target the unborn, they’ve redifined judicial authority to target our democracy and they’ve redefined marriage as the first salvo in their war against the family and traditional faith.

Because loyalty to God and family often conflicts with the kind of loyalty to the herd which is vital to these socialist leeches, the family has got to go, and the churches with them. Read Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four sometime. And just in case anyone is harbouring the delusion that this is a new thing:

The original application made three years ago, which seeks a declaration of parenthood, would give the mother’s same-sex partner the same rights as if she were a biological parent.

That application failed because the family court ruled it did not have the authority to make a judgment on the case.

The applicant appealed, arguing she was in a special situation because same-sex couples require assisted human reproduction.

She contended that if the law does not make room for three legal parents, it is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of equality.

Gee, whiz, a Charter challenge. There’s a big surprise. The preferred weapon of those who wish to impose their will on the majority without ever having to worry about being held accountable by the very people whose way of life they are trying to destroy.

How long is it going to be before we finally see a leader with the guts to stand up and speak the unspeakable: the Charter is a deeply flawed document that is more useful in the trampling of rights (just ask Scott Brockie) than it is in protecting them. It needs to be scrapped and we need to redo another Canadian Bill of Rights from scratch, one that actually protects instead of persecutes.