Road Warrior of the Week

Heroes and Good Samaritans

A Free Society Should Tolerate a Christian-Based Law School

 No Responses »
Jan 232013
 

John Carpay, Vancouver Sun, January 21, 2013

William Flanagan argues that Trinity Western University (TWU) should not be allowed to set up its own law school because this Christian university is guilty of “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

As the dean of the faculty of law at Queen’s University, Flanagan should know that a free society tolerates a wide range of opinion on all topics, including sexual morality. No law compels anyone to agree with Flanagan’s opinions about sex and sexuality, nor is he compelled to agree with Christian teaching about sex and sexuality.

A free society allows adherents of all religious and non-religious faiths (including agnostics, atheists, and people who believe in God without adhering to any particular religion) to proclaim what they believe to be the truth. A free society also allows people of like mind to associate together and establish their own institutions, including charities, schools, hospitals, churches, universities, and even law schools. For Flanagan to suggest that all Canadian law schools must comply with one, single government-enforced ideology about sexual behaviour is the opposite of a free society. The imposition of one world view on all institutions is the hallmark of totalitarianism.

Further, Flanagan is wrong in accusing TWU of “discriminating” against gays. Consistent with over 2,000 years of Christian teaching, TWU’s “community covenant” imposes a range of penalties (including expulsion) on heterosexual students who engage in sex outside of marriage. This community covenant applies to all staff and all students, regardless of sexual orientation, prohibiting adultery, pornography, promiscuity, etc. Any student, whether gay or straight, who does not wish to abide by TWU’s code of conduct is free to attend another university. Nobody is required to abide by these rules, unless a person voluntarily submits to them. For Flanagan to characterize these rules as “anti-gay” is misleading.

In TWU v. College of Teachers, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed Flanagan’s concerns by ruling that “there is nothing in the TWU Community Standards, which are limited to prescribing conduct of members while at TWU, that indicates that graduates of TWU will not treat homosexuals fairly and respectfully.” The court also noted that religious public education rights are enshrined in Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Canada has indisputably the most monolithic body of law schools in the western world. They are all of the same model, promoting a politically correct world view which rarely if ever questions the progressive orthodoxies of radical feminism, socialist economics, aboriginal entitlements, and libertine sexual politics. Those who shout the loudest for “tolerance” and “diversity” are in fact the most intolerant of any real diversity in opinion, as can be seen by the Canadian Council of Law Deans opposing the creation of a law school which might be different from all the others.

Whatever Flanagan’s views about sex may be, he is free to persuade other people of their correctness. Apparently not content with this freedom, Flanagan seems to believe that every law school in Canada must comply with and teach his ideology. This hostility to authentic diversity runs counter to the fundamental freedoms of expression and association, both protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Canada’s fundamental freedom of religion and conscience is not limited to people who are religious as such. Every person holds metaphysical beliefs in respect of questions like: Why do we exist? What is right and wrong? How should we behave? Science can tell you how to end the life of a convicted murderer, but not whether it is right or wrong to do so, or why, or under what circumstances, if any. The Charter protects the rights of atheists, agnostics and theists alike to ponder these questions, arrive at their own conclusions, share those conclusions with their fellow citizens, and act upon their convictions.

A free society protects atheists and agnostics from government coercion as much as it protects theists. To insist that all law schools (or other institutions) must subscribe to a particular set of beliefs about sexual behaviour threatens the freedom of everyone — including Flanagan’s freedom.

Calgary lawyer John Carpay is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (www.jccf.ca).

John Carpay, B.A., LL.B.
President
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
#253, 7620 Elbow Drive SW
Calgary, Alberta, T2V 1K2
Phone: (403) 619-8014

www.jccf.ca

“Defending the constitutional freedoms of Canadians”

FreeDominion Wins Huge Motion Against Richard Warman

 1 Response »
Jan 062013
 

Expanded Defence filed and Jury Trial

Professional Crybaby Richard Warman

   

“There’s a tear in my Robert Simpson Beer…”

Mark and Connie Fournier of the FreeDominion website have been on the front line against Internet censorship and lawfare for years.  They really have stuck their necks out and fought an immense battle to keep the internet free.   At present, they face an intense barrage of lawsuits by people like Richard “Maximum Disruption” Warman, Warren Kinsella and John Baglow (aka: Dr. Dawg).

Today marks an important day for justice and freedom in Canada. 

Mark and Connie Fournier made a motion to the Ontario court, asking the court to allow them to file an updated comprehensive Statement of Defence and also for the right to have a jury trial.  This was a big risk for Mark and Connie Fournier to undertake, as it could have wound up costing them quite a bit in costs if they lost.  Thankfully Mark and Connie have an iron will, and pushed ahead with their motion – despite all the risks.

In a very interesting turn of events; Mark and Connie Fournier won the entire motion today, and everything they asked for was granted by Madam Justice Toscano-Roccamo of the Ontario court.  Here is a posting by Connie Fournier earlier this evening on what happened during the hearing:

So, we went into the court and we were before Madam Justice Toscano-Roccamo. On a side note, I must say that she was a very pleasant person. She greeted those of us who were sitting in the audience…actually addressed us twice. That has never happened before, in my experience.

Anyway, she was also very well acquainted with the case. The told us that she didn’t want to go through every amendment to our Statement of Claim that the other side disagreed with, and she said that, after reading all of our materials she already had several thoughts on the matter and asked the lawyers if they wanted to hear them.

Both sides said that they did. So, she basically said that she was going to accept our amended Statement of Defence as it was written. Then, on the issue of the jury notice, she said that the other side had not provided her with any evidence that they would be prejudiced if she allowed us to file a jury notice. Since there was nothing in their evidence that showed they would be prejudiced, it was clear she was going to allow our jury notice, too.

Then, she asked the lawyers if they wanted to take half an hour to talk and see if they could come to a resolution. Once we met, the other side immediately agreed to consent to the updated Statement of Defence and to us filing a jury notice. Costs will be awarded at the end of the trial. We agreed to allow them two more hours to cross-examine me since our Statement of Defence is now considerably longer and more detailed. We responded to that by asking for two more hours to cross-examine Richard Warman. They did not consent to that, and the judge didn’t think the law allowed for it, so we let it go. It’s not like he answers questions, anyway, so it’s not a big deal.

The big deal is that we got what we wanted in the motion. Exactly what we wanted. We now have a kick-ass Statement of Defence, and this trial is going to a jury!

Bring on September, baby! We’re ready to rock and roll!!

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=160952

Unless you have been involved in politicized litigation, it is really difficult to understand how hard it is to stand in the face of diminishing odds and biased judges and refuse to give in.  Mark and Connie Fournier have a lot to lose, yet they still push ahead for the greater good.  Thank god for freedom, liberty, and the iron will of Mark and Connie Fournier, who are not intimidated by dozens of questionable lawsuits, copyright harassment and what some refer to as a corrupt politicized judiciary. 

Sadly in today’s Canada; the court system is staffed by political animals who detest conservatives and anyone to the right of Joe Clark.  From Kari Simpson to Douglas Christie, the court system only seems to find “fair comment” if you’re commenting on a person who might be classified as “right-wing” or “conservative”.

If you want Justice — Stay as far away from Canada’s Justice System as you can!

-Marc Lemire

January 4, 2013

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://www.StopSection13.com

Is the CJC Aiding and Abetting Judicial Corruption in Canada?

 No Responses »
Dec 202012
 

LANGLEY, BC, December 20, 2012 — RoadKill Radio host and noted citizens’ rights advocate Kari Simpson has laid down the gauntlet before the Canadian Judicial Council, a publicly-financed body formed under the Judges Act, which is supposed to protect public confidence in Canada’s judiciary by monitoring the conduct of judges and investigating complaints about federally-appointed judges.

On August 24 of this year, Simpson wrote to the CJC in an attempt to clarify their previous, if any, involvement of matters related to complaints about Justice Marvyn Koenigsberg of the BC Supreme Court.  Justice Koenigsberg was Simpson’s controversial trial judge in a case that forms part of a pending complaint by Simpson to the CJC.  Simpson did not receive any response.

Simpson then wrote to Chief Justice McLachlin as CJC Chairperson on October 6, 2012, requesting answers to her simple query.  No response was forthcoming.

On November 26, 2012 she sent another correspondence to the CJC asking Norman Sabourin, Executive Director of the CJC, to answer the crucial questions related to the CJC’s possible bias.  Simpson sought to determine whether or not the CJC had previous involvement in investigating or reviewing information about Justice Koenigsberg.  Due to the serious nature of her pending complaint—as it not only captured Koenigsberg J but also members of the Supreme Court of Canada—Simpson also proposed a remedy to the bias problem if it existed: a joint request to the Justice Minister for a Parliamentary inquiry

The CJC finally replied to Simpson on November 26, 2012, but failed to answer the simple questions she had posed. Instead, Norman Sabourin, Executive Director for the CJC, made a bizarre finding that the letter of inquiry was an “abuse of the complaints process” and as such, stated that he was refusing to open a file.

The problem is that Simpson’s letter had specifically stated that the information contained therein was not to be considered as a complaint, and she did not request a file to be opened.

“The response I received from Mr. Sabourin confirms reports that the CJC fears public scrutiny and the public criticisms are justified,” says Simpson. “They’re not accountable to anyone.  The legal scheme by which they operate works more like a scam.”

Sabourin refers to Simpson’s claims that Koenigsberg J and Chief Justice McLachlin et al are liars and judicial cheats as “having no foundation,” despite being provided with the facts. Simpson, undeterred, responded today.  She pointedly confronts the CJC with challenges that have serious legal implications for the Chief Justice and other named judges, if true.

Simpson ups-the-ante and directs Sabourin to personally advise the judges of her very “public” statements.

Simpson also informs Sabourin of her intent to file a Judicial Review of any determination that results in dismissal by the CJC of her impending complaint. Alternatively, in the circumstance of admitted or perceived bias of the CJC, she advises:

I would be agreeable to pursuing an alternative forum for an independent, objective investigation into my complaint that is agreed upon by all affected parties, such as my previously suggested Parliamentary inquiry.

The CJC has been the target of growing criticism for acting more like a judicial goon—a protectionist gatekeeper—than its touted claims of ensuring judicial accountability.

“Clearly I am not the first to raise the alarm about what is transpiring in the courts,” says Simpson. “The court is broken, injustice abounds and the public’s trust and confidence in our judiciary is compromised. This is not an acceptable situation for our civil democracy.  The administration of justice needs to be fixed.”

- 30 -

For more information contact

Kari Simpson
Tel:  (604) 514-1614
E-mail: driveforjustice@gmail.com

Full text of Simpson’s Dec. 20, 2012 letter to Norman Sabourin;

Full text of Sabourin’s Nov. 26, 2012 letter to Simpson;

Full text of Simpson’s Oct. 6, 2012 letter to Chief Justice McLachlin here;

Latest Drive For Justice episode #26, Our Ermine Clad Masters Decide;

Summary Brief of events.

 

Family Freedom Fighters: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism

 No Responses »
Nov 302012
 

Ron Gray interviews a self-described un-hyphenated Canadian—Dr. Salim Mansur—about his book "Delectable Lie", which draws on his origins in East Bengal to assess the disadvantages of multiculturalism, how “political correctness” corrodes liberal democracy, and why he questions the PC dogma that “all cultures are equal”.
Professor Mansur’s conclusion? They cannot possibly be!

Family Freedom Fighters: Jack Layton’s Problematic Legacy

 1 Response »
Oct 202012
 

Ron Gray delivers his own brief eulogy to Jack Layton, refreshingly honest and insightful. While Canada displayed unusual – and unwarranted – hero status to the late minority leader and frequent also-ran, questions still remain about Mr. Layton's actual effectiveness in improving Canada's culture, economic stability, and endurance. How does a man whose politics so closely resembled those of former failed world leaders deserve the accolades that are still now heaped upon Jack Layton?

This Week On RoadKillRadio.com! (October 15 – October 21, 2012)

 No Responses »
Oct 152012
 


The Judge and Her Paramour, Salim Mansur and the Delectable Lie, Furlong vs. Robinson… Breaking News, or Broken News?, and Jack Layton’s Problematic Legacy


Daily at 7:30 pm Eastern

Monday, October 15, 2012
Drive For Justice 18: The Players, Pt. 5 – The Judge and Her Paramour

Ron Gray focuses in on the trial judge who first heard Kari Simpson’s defamation suit against Rafe Mair. Hear why Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg was NOT in good standing and therefore not only should have disqualified herself from the case, but should also have been removed from the bench! This is yet another blatant example of judges and lawyers protecting each others sins.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012
RoadKill Radio News: Salim Mansur and the Delectable Lie

Ron Gray interviews Dr. Salim Mansur of Sun News Media about Canadian immigration, and about the catastrophic failure of multiculturalism. Because of Canada’s well-meaning but ill-advised pandering to outside cultures, Dr. Mansur sees many of today’s immigrants as more visitors and commuters than new Canadians, effectively diluting Canada’s identity until – when? – until Canada has no identity at all?

Thursday, October 18, 2012
The Mark Hasiuk Show: Furlong vs. Robinson… Breaking News, or Broken News?

Mark Hasiuk speaks with Laura Robinson, writer and journalist, who alleges in a Georgia Straight article that former Vancouver Olympic Committee CEO John Furlong physically abused students as a high school basketball coach more than 40 years ago. Mr. Furlong strongly denies the allegations and has threatened a lawsuit, but Ms. Robinson sticks to her story and threatens to counter-sue. Hear some very interesting revelations about Ms. Robinson’s development of her story.

Saturday, October 20, 2012
Family Freedom Fighters: Jack Layton’s Problematic Legacy

Ron Gray delivers his own brief eulogy to Jack Layton, refreshingly honest and insightful. While Canada displayed unusual – and unwarranted – hero status to the late minority leader and frequent also-ran, questions still remain about Mr. Layton’s actual effectiveness in improving Canada’s culture, economic stability, and endurance. How does a man whose politics so closely resembled those of former failed world leaders deserve the accolades that are still now heaped upon Jack Layton?

Culture Guard: #1 on Your Child’s Back-to-School Checklist: YOU!

 1 Response »
Aug 312012
 

Hi Everyone – I’m Kari Simpson.

Having survived the raising of my 4 children during some of the most societal challenging of times I get asked often for parenting tips. One of the questions that is frequently asked involves “word crimes”, otherwise known as swearing or cussing.

Well, you see, this coin eating machine is sometimes prominently displayed in our home. You can imagine that having a busy household of family, friends business associates and acquaintances that there might be the rare occasion where an individual or two might be inclined to use words that are illegal in our household. Now note I didn’t say forbidden. You see, swearing and cussing was never a big problem with my kids growing up. I am not that often inclined to swear and they weren’t. Sure, they tried to it on when they were younger. It didn’t fit. It wasn’t until recent years with the expanding family of relatives and their relatives and friends (mostly adults) that I found a need to have a tool of cussing dissuasion at my disposal. Thus I embraced the powerful tool of assigning financial penalty to those who committed word crimes. It has worked brilliantly.

It goes like this, there are certain people in my life and that of our 7 grandchildren, that I love to bits but are inclined to occasionally use terms of expression that are deemed to be unacceptable. Most of the time the use is not intentional but nevertheless it happens. On these occasions when such words are spoken, and witnessed by the young impressionable minds and ears that are often about – well there has to be a consequence. Now don’t get me wrong. I am sure the public record demonstrates my complicity in this regard, and for that I have contributed a fair share of financial penance for the word crimes I have committed. Be assured though, that my usage is usually contextually acceptable. How can that be, you ask? Well sometimes you just have to damn well tell it like it is even if it is captured by my own house rules. Yes I committed a word crime!

As for all those who visit and contribute to my grandchildren’s post secondary education, we thank you!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’m Kari Simpson and this week’s show is on Culture Guarding your kids – A bit of a back to school pep talk.

Well, it’s that time of year. Most parents are eager for September to roll around. The back to school shopping signals the hope of routine, and for some the possibility of enjoying a quiet house for a few hours of the day.

As a mom to four – now healthy happy well-adjusted adults – the weeks leading up to the launching of a new school year, though years ago, are still emblazoned in my brain. The long lists of who needed what – and the whats changed every year depending on the grade.

Yep, back to school check lists were typically long and expensive and kept evolving. Today’s checklist reflects the technological changes and can now demand laptops, memory sticks and other wired toys and tools that go along with those lead free pencils and environmentally considered paper products. Special clothing, lunch boxes and earthquake survival kits are a must for some school checklists.

But the most important educational tool that every successful student will require and must be included in everyone’s checklist is you, the parent, and I mean acting like a parent and not just a name on a birth certificate.

If you love your children – and take your parenting responsibilities seriously – then you have a duty to be involved and informed. The public education system is fraught with ideological dangers that will adversely affect your children and family if they are left vulnerable. You are their protection. You are their shield.

Here’s the deal, and yes I am going to dump on the public education system and rightly so. Sure, there are a lot of good teachers in the system; they know who they are and they will applaud this message. There are also a lot of well-intentioned teachers who are easily manipulated. Then there’s those okay teachers who know the system is facilitating the propagation of junk science, outright lies about human sexuality, and anti-family cultural Marxist ideals, but place their jobs ahead of your child’s best interest and engage in rationalizing their silence and acquiescence by falsely believing that your child’s brief interaction with them will counteract all the bull shit that is being delivered into the classrooms of Canada.

They are wrong in that belief. Then there are the clearly bad teachers, so-called professionals that purposefully abuse their roll as a teacher to indoctrinate your child – your son or daughter – with a political agenda, misinformation and societal views that are contrary to the beliefs and ideals of most civil hard-working Canadians and the realities around us.

As a parent you are your child’s protector. Act like it. Parents, do not be regulated to a status of irrelevancy. You are your child’s most important educator. Yes, a good teacher can facilitate a portion of your son’s or daughter’s education but their roll is NOT a partnership. You as a parent delegate your authority for only a small portion of your child’s learning and as “delegator” you should oversee the job of the individual and judge if they are doing a good job or not.

Shame on you if you have organized your life in a fashion that makes your schedule too busy to be involved in the education of your child. I got news for you: that’s not organization! Double shame if you don’t want to offend the teacher by requiring them to be accountable.

The good news here is that more and more parents are becoming informed and involved. I see from the recent released stats from the BC Ministry of Education that enrolment in the public schools is down by a significant 68,000 students from 2001. Yep, more and more parents are opting out of the public indoctrination system. Most parents I speak to would enrol their children in a private school in a heartbeat if they had the money to do so. So for those whose children are forced to brave the “system”, here are a few more items to add to that back to school checklist:

1. Make yourself known to your children’s teachers and administration. You know, the “Hi, I want to introduce myself. I’m Katherine’s mom…”

2. Call the principal or send them an email. Make contact!

3. Let the teaching and administration staff know that if there is ever a problem involving your child – good or bad – that you welcome their call.

4. Make you presence and your values known in the school.

5. Ask questions. Does this school respect parental rights and invite parental involvement?

6. Ask the teacher how he or she will inform you about guests speaking to the kids. Programs like “Roots of Empathy” bring social workers into the schools and ask prying questions about your families.

7. Ask what kind of sex abuse prevention programs the teacher is going to be relying upon. I raise this as an important lesson. The schools sometime adopt programs of convenience to meet requirements, and severe damage has resulted to some families as a result.

8. Engage your children in conversations. Ask them about what is happening in
their classroom.

9. Government-proof your kids – Teach your children about what is acceptable information to talk with outsiders and the difference between private family matters and general information.

10. Give your children the tools to not speak to social workers. “I don’t have to talk to you. Talk to my mom or dad.”

11. Teach your children about what is an appropriate discussion topic in the classroom vs. what isn’t. Give your children praise when they identify discussions that are anti-family or contrary to your family’s values.

12. Tell your children that not all teachers will respect their rights, that some teachers can be bullies and that you as your child’s parent will deal with them if they have a problem.

13. Equip your kids with wisdom. They will be confronted with having to make decisions about a lot of things in their schools – including being recruited to participate in vaccination programs for sexually transmitted diseases. They will be told they don’t need your permission. Give them the tools to say NO and to let you know when this takes place.

14. Don’t let issues at the school slide by. Take a proactive stance. Find out if in your school your son or daughter will be exposed to pro-homosexual and other sex activist propaganda. Advise the school administration that you won’t allow a political agenda to be used in the school. If a teacher is sporting the political rainbow flag or colours, say no. Same thing for the “day of Silence”.

15. Be resourceful. There are a number of excellent parenting groups and resources available to you on the Internet or by phone, including us here at Culture Guard.

16) I will end this by saying the most import item on this checklist is the knowledge that as parents You are the most important and influential people in your child’s life and the ones who are ultimately responsible for your child’s well being. Become informed and stay aware, but most importantly love your kids enough to show them that you are a savvy and courageous parent that loves them enough to be involved in their lives and to do battle on their behalf if necessary.

Enjoy the day… see you next time.

BC Social activist targets judges, lawyers and media in her demand for a parliamentary inquiry into judicial corruption

 No Responses »
Jul 062012
 

ROADKILL RADIO NEWS RELEASE
July 6, 2012
For immediate release

Letter sent to PM Harper today

BC Social activist targets judges, lawyers and media in her

demand for a parliamentary inquiry into judicial corruption

 

LANGLEY, BC, July 6, 2012 (RoadKillRadio.com)—BC social activist Kari Simpson has asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper for a parliamentary inquiry into judicial corruption in Canada’s courts.

Charging malfeasance by judges and lawyers in her own defamation lawsuit against broadcaster Rafe Mair, Simpson outlines in a letter to the Prime Minister details about judges who should not have been on the bench, other judges who covered for them, lawyers who failed to follow the rules in drafting her case, and how the Supreme Court changed the rules and then denied Simpson the right to have her case heard in light of the new legal test.

The record of corruption by both judges and lawyers illustrates why the public has lost faith in Canada’s justice system, Simpson says. “When the very people who are supposed to protect the Rule of Law bring the law into disrepute, it’s time for Parliament to act,” she says.

In her letter to the Prime Minister and the accompanying summary brief, Simpson draws attention to Section 101 of the Constitution Act, which gives Parliament the authority to set up a superior court of appeals whenever the justice system falls into disrepute. The 15 pointed questions she asks the Prime Minister to answer bring to light disturbing facts, and reveal a troubled and broken court system.

Simpson states: “I write to apprise you of a serious matter that requires your attention. The information contained herein details a level of corruption and contempt for the Rule of Law within our courts that can no longer be ignored. The egregious conduct blatantly and arrogantly displayed by those who are sworn members of the judiciary warrant, at the very least, a parliamentary inquiry.”

The troubling events detailed in Simpson’s letter and brief to the Prime Minister flow from a lawsuit she initiated in 1999 against former radio talk show host Rafe Mair and his radio station, CKNW.

Beginning in 1997, Mair had launched a two-year campaign of hate and lies about Simpson. He published more than 40 hate-filled editorials on air, in print, and on-line that maligned her, fabricating events that falsely represented her and her motives in her social advocacy work defending parents’ rights within the public school system.

The case eventually went to the Supreme Court of Canada. In its decision the SCC “modified” (i.e., changed) the legal test for a defence of “honest belief”—but failed to order a new trial so the facts of the case could be heard and considered according to the new test. Ironically, the case of WIC v. SIMPSON had been cited in a subsequent trial as a precedent that showed why a new trial should be ordered. But instead, the high court found in favour of Mair and restored the original trial judge’s decision.  However, the original trial judge was not qualified to preside over the case, because at the time she was herself embroiled in scandal that involved two similar defamation suits against her spouse, and her own culpability in the fraudulent conveyance of property in an unlawful attempt to protect the assets from legal claim.

The SCC also repeated from the bench demonstrably false accusations made by Mair against Simpson, thus compounding and bolstering the harm to her reputation.

Simpson names names in her briefing document. She accuses BC Supreme Court Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg, Rafe Mair and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada of publishing defamatory lies and violating the law. Simpson’s brief is meticulous in referencing dates and events, including a comparative timeline that demonstrates the illegal activities, bias and conflicts of the trial judge.

Simpson’s letter to the Prime Minister is only the kick-off in her Drive for Justice campaign, which she asserts is “a campaign that will not stop until justice is not only done, but seen to be done.” Simpson’s closing remarks to Harper clearly define the problem. She says, “The events detailed herein depict a constitutional calamity of epic proportions, and should deservedly shake the judicial establishment to its core.”

See a PDF of Kari Simpson’s letter and brief here, and they can also be found at driveforjustice.com

For more information contact Kari Simpson

Tel: 604 514-1614

Email: driveforjustice@gmail.com

 

Drive For Justice 04: Letter to Prime Minister Harper

 No Responses »
Jun 252012
 

Prominent British Columbia social activist Kari Simpson—a spokesperson for you, if you believe, like most civil-minded Canadians, that conventional morality creates and protects social harmony—has written to Prime Minister Harper, asking him to provide the leadership his office demands, in protecting all Canadians’ freedom of expression, and their right to a fair and impartial hearing in our courts. In her letter, she draws to the Prime Minister’s attention, in what RoadKillRadio is calling Drive for Justice, some egregious violations of those rights.

In a defamation lawsuit that worked its way through the BC Supreme Court, the BC Court of Appeals, and finally to the Supreme Court of Canada, those rights were repeatedly violated… with the knowledge and complicity of other judges and lawyers.

Her questions include:

A judge of the BC Supreme Court—who has admitted financially supporting her “spouse” while he was using the Internet for (among other things) promoting hatred and contempt for Jews generally; and vilifying, defaming and libeling several prominent Jewish businessmen—at the same time, this same judge, presided over a defamation suit that involves a high-profile former lawyer—you know: a member of the legal “brethren”—a former MLA and provincial Cabinet Minister, and a member of the media who has publicly stated that he does not want influential Judeo-Christians (as the plaintiff is) to hold public office.

If that judge also transfers property title from her “spouse” to herself, so he escapes payment of a court-awarded judgement after he was found to have defamed the Jewish businessmen, isn’t that called “fraudulent conveyance”? And doesn’t that vitiate the protection afforded judges, which they have only as long as they are “of good behaviour”, according to the Constitution Act?

Question 1 – Don’t the ethical standards of the Canadian Judicial Council require that a judge, when personally embroiled in such conflicts, must disqualify herself from a case that is similar in fact—i.e., defamation involving religious bigotry?

Question 2 – Should the Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court, also a member of the Canadian Judicial Council, preside over a legal matter involving one of his own judges?

Question 3 – Doesn’t a party to a legal proceeding have the right to know what legal test they have to meet in court? If the Supreme Court of Canada changes the legal test in mid-trial, as Chief Justice McLachlin did in this case, isn’t there a obligation to allow the parties to the trial to re-state their case, incorporating the new standard?

Question 4 – What gives justices of the high court the right to repeat lies that defame an individual, and to embellish them, as happened in this case?

Question 5 – How can the Canadian Judicial Council be trusted to investigate its own activities? How can the legal “brethren” be trusted to sit in judgement of their own activities?

But the most important question of all in Mrs. Simpson’s letter to the Prime Minister is this:

Will you call for a parliamentary enquiry into this evidence of judicial corruption and mocking of the Rule of Law?

When judicial independence is abused to protect those who violate judicial probity, there must be a venue of appeal and accountability beyond the courts themselves; that is the essence of our Drive for Justice. There is a famous precedent in Canadian law: in 1929, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women were not “persons” in law. Five spunky women from Alberta appealed that ruling to the Privy Council at Westminster, which at that time had authority to review Supreme Court decisions; Canadians lost that right of appeal in 1947, and it has never been replaced. The loss of that right—to appeal to a body that is accountable to the Constitution—was a deficiency in Prime Minister Trudeau’s 1982 Constitution Act. That deficiency still needs to be corrected today.

Will the Prime Minister act to protect the integrity of the judicial system and the confidence of the Canadian people in the administration of law?

Stay tuned.

Between Heaven and Hell

 No Responses »
Apr 202012
 

One of my favourite authors is Peter Kreeft. Perhaps his most famous book is Between Heaven and Hell, in which he noted an amazing coincidence—if, indeed, it was a coincidence: on the same day—Nov. 22, 1963—three very famous men, advocates of three vastly different philosophies, died. They were John F. Kennedy, a Humanist; Aldous Huxley, an Eastern Mystic; and Clive Staples Lewis, a Christian. Professor Kreeft cleverly constructed a trialogue from things the three men had actually said or written. The subject of the imaginary discussion is “Where are we? What’s this all about? And was I perhaps mistaken about some very important realities?”

But equally impressive is Professor Kreeft’s series of books featuring a character he calls The Unaborted Socrates, starting with a book of that same title in which the ancient Athenian philosopher finds himself standing in 20th century Athens, on the sidewalk in front of an abortion mill.

“What goes on in there?” he asks; and someone tells him.
“Oh. Murder,” he says.
“Oh, no!” says his informant. Socrates then unleashes his famous method of reasoning by putting questions to his interlocutor:
“Well, let’s consider the classic definition of ‘murder’—the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Is what is being done in there accidental?”
“No.”
“Then it’s deliberate. Is what’s being killed alive? It must be, or they wouldn’t have to kill it to get rid of it.”
“Yes.”
“Is it human?”
“Well, some say yes; some say no.”
“Is it a carrot or a rabbit?
“Neither.”
“Are its parents human?”
“Yes.”
“Then it’s human, too. So it’s a living human being. Has it committed any crime?”
“No.”
“Then it’s innocent. So we’ve established that they’re deliberately killing an innocent human being. By definition, that’s murder. So this is a place where murders are committed, day after day. And if you approve, you’re complicit in the crime.”

That’s what I’ve always loved about Socrates: he dealt in facts. Facts can be very stubborn things—but they point us to the truth.

That’s the way I see it.

November 10, 2011: SwissAir Flight 111 – Crash, Burn, Silence!

 2 Responses »
Nov 102011
 


THE MARK HASIUK SHOW!
TONIGHT



SwissAir Flight 111, Crash, Burn, Silence!



Too many questions; No answers.
Nov 10, 2011– 7:30 pm



RoadKill Radio.com

SwissAir Flight 111 was one of four airplanes in four years to crash into the ocean after departing JFK airport. Without any investigation, the crash was announced as an accident – a label that has stuck despite subsequent evidence to the contrary. Tonight, Mark Hasiuk interviews best-selling author Paul Palango about the evidence, the possible explanations of the crash, and the monetary and regulatory motives to avoid reopening the investigation.

The Mark Hasiuk Show ~ Where Truth Prevails
Thursdays at 7:30pm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHERE: Listen – http://www.roadkillradio.com

EMAIL THE SHOW: Roadkillradio@live.ca

Your Thoughts, Your Opinions, Your Outrage are welcome!

ALL SHOWS ARE ARCHIVED, LISTEN FOR FREE!!!

What’s the meaning of Dr. Death’s ‘peaceful’, pain-free death?

 No Responses »
Jun 082011
 

By Terry O’Neill

Following the death of Jack Kevorkian last week, at least two news stories gave prominence to the fact that his lawyer issued a statement describing his client’s passing as “peaceful. “ Lawyer Mayer Morganroth was further quoted as saying his client, “didn’t feel a thing,” and added that no artificial attempts were made to keep Kevorkian alive.

Mr. Morganroth’s statement is significant in light of the monomaniacal focus of Kevorkian’s controversial life: to overturn laws that do not allow people to obtain assistance in killing themselves. Most often, his campaign was associated with terminally ill people who were seeking to avoid a painful or “undignified” death.

One suspects that the lawyer disclosed details surrounding the way in which Kevorkian died because, in part, he anticipated questions which would quite understandably be asked about this crucial event. Just as it’s entirely natural for us to wonder whether the tough-guy gangster holds true to his reputation when he’s being strapped into the electric chair, or whether he turns into a blubbering baby, it is also important for us to know whether Kevorkian, the arch-advocate for pain-free passing, had ended up enduring an uncomfortable or even painful death.

One has the feeling that Mr. Morganroth’s statement was also designed to inform the public that Kevorkian had not been the victim of some sort of cosmic Karma intent on teaching him a last-minute lesson about the untidy nature of death.

Or, perhaps, the good lawyer wanted to assure Kevorkian’s many supporters that the convicted killer had not become a traitor to the “right to die” cause and had willingly endured a painful death.

Left unsaid was whether Kevorkian had received pain-killing drugs to ease his passage. Perhaps this information was intentionally omitted because it could have been seen as a testament to the growing ability of doctors to control the pain that so many terminal patients endure. Ironically, evidence of this expanding expertise is often used by opponents of assisted suicide to bolster their case that there is no need to legalize the “right to die.”

Also notable is lawyer Morganroth’s declaration that no artificial means were used to extend Kevorkian’s life. One wonders what this little tidbit is supposed to signal. Given the arc of Kevorkian’s career, one might conclude that he had issued a standing “do not resuscitate” order that reflected his desire to avoid any painful or depressing complications that might have followed some sort of heroic intervention.

The final thoughts that come to mind are related to the fundamental way in which the lawyer wanted us to view his client’s death. Specifically, one wonders whether Mr. Morganroth was attempting to shape our understanding of what constitutes a “good death.”

Specifically, did he mean for us to conclude that, by not dying in pain and by eschewing “artificial” means to extend his life, Kevorkian died a “good death”? Maybe so.

But the public should not be misled into believing that a pain-free ending, in which one gives oneself up without a struggle, is the only road to a “good death.” Many other ways to die can be at least equally “good.” For example, we regularly talk about how cancer victims “fight” their disease with “courage,” using every means possible to beat back the deadly scourge. Are their subsequent deaths not “good deaths” too? I would think they are.

We’ll give the great poet Dylan Thomas the last word:

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rage at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Nuke Evolution op-ed

 No Responses »
Apr 082011
 

By Terry O’Neill

One doubts whether the millions of Japanese directly affected by the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant will give a hoot about the prophecies of a Canadian academic named Thomas Homer-Dixon, but it’s still worth noting the professor believes that issues associated with events at that northern Japanese power station could lead humanity to a pivotal point in its history.

In fact, the professor goes so far as to assert in a recent Globe and Mail op-ed that the manner in which the world solves the energy-production problem, that has been brought into sharp focus by Fukushima, not only “should mark a turning point in human history,” but also “will be a defining challenge in the evolution of our species.”

Evolution of our species, eh? Given the widespread concern about the adverse effects of radiation, one’s first reaction upon reading this phrase might be to assume that the learned professor was attempting to pump some life into the hoary old science-fiction theme of radiation’s tendency to mutate living organisms into monstrosities. Some classic films from the 1950s come to mind, including Them! (giant, angry ants), The Amazing Colossal Man (think Yao Ming, but much, much bigger) and Attack of the Crab Monsters (which pretty much speaks for itself).

Fun stuff. But, alas, Homer-Dixon, who is identified as “the CIGI Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo, Ont.,” is not predicting a plague of gigantism but, rather, the potential for the development of some sort of fundamental change in our species’ consciousness associated with the recognition that our supply of carbon-based fuels is finite and that nuclear energy is too dangerous. Either we evolve, he says, or “it’s game over for anything resembling modern civilization.”

But not only is this evolution idea far more mundane than all that monster stuff, but it’s also almost impossible to understand. In fact, Homer-Dixon never actually gets around to explaining how the adoption of new energy sources such as “ultra-deep geothermal power” (his personal favourite) would represent an “evolution” of our species instead of, say, yet another example of the sort of intellectual and technological advance for which we humans have become justly famous throughout the galaxy.

Rather, he leaves the impression this undefined evolution would represent some sort of fundamental transformation. Remember the apes who encountered the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey? Fast forward to the present, and Homer-Dixon would have us believe that we’re the apes once again, but that this time the black slab has been replaced by an overheated nuclear reactor.

Or something like that. It’s difficult to know exactly what he’s getting at. It kind of makes me miss the old Homer-Dixon, who gained some notoriety over the past decade, first, for his neo-Marxist theorizing that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were manifestations of social and economic disparities and, second, for his apocalyptic views about how environmental problems, ranging from global warming to declining fish stocks, might spark violent conflicts among the peoples of the world. In fact, he was often quoted as saying that the world was on the cusp of a “planetary emergency.”

Interesting, isn’t it, that Homer-Dixon’s world has now gone from the eve of destruction to the dawn of a new age? It’s nice to know that, unlike old dogs, tenured academics can learn new tricks.

Then again, for those of us party-poopers who think that Homer-Dixon has always been noted more for the quantity of the overheated atmosphere he produces than for its quality, this “evolution of the species” stuff is simply more of the same.

Moreover, it puts him into the same premier division of esoteric snake charmers as the likes of Oprah’s favourite guru, Deepak Chopra, who talks about human evolution as being linked to some sort of harnessing of creativity. Perhaps this is what the hippies meant when they dreamed of the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.

In fact, while the U.S. public school system may be smoldering over evolution-related questions about where humans came from, it seems that the whole New Age, transcendental, Taro-card-reading, astrologically-inclined, Mayan-calendar-predicting, Gaia-worshipping subculture is burning with questions involving the direction in which humans are now evolving towards.

Personally speaking, I’m quite content with the idea that the evolution of the branch of the species with which I am most familiar was completed when my ancestors, Francis and Julia O’Neill, left Ireland at the beginning of the potato famine and settled in the Ottawa Valley. Nevertheless, I understand how others may believe the species must still deal with unfinished developmental business.

Even then, I’m more inclined to view this, not as some sort of hypothetical evolutionary leap, but simply as something with which I am in full agreement: the advance of civilization.

Terry O’Neill: Gas prices! Collusion? Check this out!

 No Responses »
Mar 052011
 

FACE TO FACE: Gas prices go up and down in lockstep – is collusion the reason?

It’s easy to imagine inflexible class warriors such as my debating partner using crayons to do their economic ’rithmetic. Got a difficult business problem to work out? Forget the calculator! They think they can figure out the toughest questions with the crudest tools possible, in no small part because they already know the answer: Big Business is always to blame.

And so it is that my colleague ignores the facts, ignores countless studies and ignores common sense when he predictably claims gasoline companies are gouging consumers. click here for the full debate in the Tri-City News.