Ron Gray delves into the possible (probable?) motives of why the Supreme Court of Canada went out of its way to defame Kari Simpson and deny her right to a re-trial after changing the law in their decision in order to rule against her. Presented in this episode is more archival proof of why the judicial system has felt threatened by Simpson's long and public opposition of judicial corruption.
by Thaddeus Baklinski, LifeSiteNews.com
Canada’s pro-life heroines have each written Christmas letters to their beloved pro-life supporters. The pair has asked that their letter be passed on to all who have encouraged them to continue their fight for the lives of preborn children.
Both Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner remain in jail at the Vanier Centre for Women, in Milton, Ontario. They were arrested on separate occasions while attempting to counsel women against abortion, in the process of which they violated “bubble zone” laws that protect abortion clinics.
Both women have spent a considerable amount of time in jail for repeatedly violating the bubble zone laws.
John Bulsza, a friend of Linda, sent LifeSiteNews Linda’s letter with the hope that everyone who reads it may be prompted to write a card or letter of encouragement to Linda in return.
Linda’s letter:
Dear Pro-Life Friends
Greetings in Christ our King. I’m praying this finds you and yours well and blessed this Christmas. It’s another Christmas in jail, another opportunity to thank you for your love, letters and faithful prayers (especially for those offered for my mom). Thanks so much ☺!
This session completes a decade behind jail walls courtesy of Corrections Canada and the courts. The system intends to change for the better those it holds. I do believe prison time has bettered me but not by its demand for obeisance to flawed injunctions but rather by the time it permits me to live among the women here. Such time has been a living lesson about what prison life is possible of becoming – a place where we can remain free to love and be loved in return. It reminds me of Richard Lovelace’s poem that begins “Stonewalls do not a prison make…”; indeed love is liberating.
A highlight of recent years is having the company of Mary Wagner alongside. Her walk of faith and testimony to life is a beacon of hope to tired hearts. Mary is much sought out by the other girls here and she’s ever attentive to their physical and spiritual needs.
This year both Mary and I received the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee medal for our pro-life work – medals that triggered the rancor of the liberal-left. Why so? Was it irrational for Stephen Woodworth to petition Parliament to look at who is in the womb and to enquire whether that someone requires a legal safe place to live? Evidently he believes we are created equal, not just born equal! Is it not rational to believe that human beings are living persons from conception and members of the species Homo sapiens? Medicine and science agree that the unborn are both living and members of the human family from the beginning. That being the case, the law should recognize that objective reality.
The Queen’s medals were not an untimely issue. They are a harbinger of a battle yet to be won and a pledge of the pro-life community to safeguard our unborn children until it can be said of their domain – freedom lives here.
Thank you again for your kind Christmas remembrance. May the joy of Christ’s coming fill your hearts and minds this holy season.
Christus regnat! Love in Our Christ King,
(Christ reigns!) Linda
Mary Wagner’s friend Leeda Crawford sent Mary’s letter from prison with a note from Mary’s mom. Jane Wagner said, “I thought that I would share the letter that Mary sent to us during this Christmas season. I found it uplifting and re-assuring to know that Mary is okay, even in jail, with the Love of God all around and about her.”
Mary’s letter:
Dec 28th, 2012
Feast of the Holy Innocents
Octave of Christmas
Dear ………loved ones……
Greetings to you during this season of the birth of the Holy Child, Our Saviour! What deep joy is ours when we take the time to contemplate the truth that God, Our Father in Heaven, Our Creator… “so loved the world that He sent His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him might not perish but receive everlasting life” (Jn 3,16)
In the quiet of my cell Christmas Eve, and in the early morning silence also, I was looking at an image- a beautiful representation of the Nativity Scene—just the Holy Family—and was filled with amazement as a fresh wave of wonder struck me at what God has done for us. We have grown up hearing about the gift of Jesus and many of the miracles He performed, teachings He gave, and divine wisdom He imparted; the suffering He bore for our sake, the rejection He experienced, the abandonment, Our God, not just a good man, the perfectly innocent One who called us into being out of His unfathomable Love, we have grown up on the receiving end of what has formed the civilization in which we live, and this celebration gives us the opportunity to reflect on the sheer gratuity of God and His goodness—if we are not too distracted by the busyness and commercial aspect.
By the time this reaches you, Christmas Day will be two or so weeks behind us, but the Church gives us an Octave of days for the Nativity, and a season that last well into January—(Our Lord’s Baptism), In fact, it used to be until Feb. 2nd!
So let’s linger by the Nativity Scene…God could have left us with the Ten Commandments—He could have left us with the Law to guide us, and as long as we kept it, we’d know that we are on the right track, “doing our duty” as children who obey. But, Our Father’s love was not satisfied to give us just the Law. He wanted to show us *just how much* He cares about us, so He chose to offer His only Son—first by living with and for us, then by dying and rising again for us. Our Father wanted to attract us to Himself by showing us that He Is love and that “we love because He loved us first” (1Jn4). Our God stooped down to show us that Love is always seeking to go right to the end; “No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his friends” (Jn15)
It has been over four months since I was last arrested, and this makes it the longest I’ve been in jail at one time. For the most part, the milieu has been more peaceful than other times, though in December things became a little more tense on the range. A little calm descended Christmas day and it has lasted somewhat; but I have to learn to live with the tensions that one must expect in jail, and I must really seek God’s grace to live everything with God, and in trust that He gives the strength to guide us in everything that happens and in all the choices we are faced with.
Thankfully, the path is simple; I want to live for Christ who *is Life, so in every choice I’m faced with, I am called to make it in the knowledge that God, who is constantly loving me, is waiting for me to love Him in return. So when the answer does not seem clear, I ask Him to show me how to live Him and love Him in Truth. What is the pint of my life if I am not striving to love, and to go deepen in Love?
Thank God He is forgiving! Many times I fail to love, and He awaits my turning to Him and seeking His mercy, His forgiveness. Three is nothing Our good Lord will not forgive if we repent. “No sin is too big for God” as I’ve heard someone say, and I tell the women here, too, who need to hear it.
I pray that as this New Year unfolds, we would all grow more in the awareness of the profound gift we have received in the treasure of our Faith. If our Faith does not seem to be such a treasure, we can raise our hearts and minds in prayer, and ask the One who gave us life, to help to see the path that leads to the fullness of life, the path of Love that leads right to the end, to the good soil that accepts the grains of wheat that we are, where we die so that we can bear much fruit.
all my love and prayers,
Mary
Cards and letters may be sent to Linda and Mary at:
Vanier Center for Women
655 Martin Street, Box 1040,
Milton, Ontario
L9T 5E6, Canada
Here are some mailing guidelines because the prison mailing department reads everything sent to the inmates:
1. Don’t use stickers (address, return address, pro-life) on the envelope or card.
2. Don’t send any laminated cards, bookmarks, prayer cards, pro-life pamphlets. Non-laminated items will get to her.
3. Don’t ask direct questions about daily activity of the detention centre.
4. Put your address directly in the card or letter. (Sometimes the mail sorter keeps the envelope.)
5. If you would like to send a little monetary gift to Linda or Mary it must be a money order made out to “Linda Gibbons” or “Mary Wagner.” The detention centre will deposit the money directly to her account.
6. Many people add a variety of Christian reading material in their mailings, but a maximum of one or two pages of reading material or pamphlets may be sent. Pro-life material that shows the development of the baby, but not post-abortion photos, is permissible and often shared with other women in the prison. Books should not be sent as they will not be delivered.
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
Ron Gray opines on Canada's maverick courts, making up or changing laws beyond its power. Parliament – the legal maker of laws – answers to voters and creates laws to serve the public good. Power-mad judges take it upon themselves to modify the laws in their mental image. Why is Canada in so much trouble? Because the courts answer to nobody. Only Parliament has the power to stop the courts, but they lack the necessary guts.
December 2000 Warning
Health Canada recognizes the unborn as “babies”. Among the graphics that Health Canada requires to be displayed on cigarette packages in Canada, one depicts a pregnant woman holding a cigarette. One ad reads:
WARNING
CIGARETTES HURT BABIESTobacco use during pregnancy reduces the growth of babies during pregnancy. These smaller babies may not catch up in growth after birth and the risks of infant illness, disability and death are increased.
December 2000 Warning
2012 Warning
2012 Package Insert
Written by Reuters, 20 December 2012
Judges should decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether women can wear the niqab, a full-face veil, while testifying in court, but a blanket rule on the issue would be “untenable,” Canada’s top court ruled this morning.
“Two sets of Charter rights are potentially engaged — the witness’s freedom of religion and the accused’s fair trial rights, including the right to make full answer and defence. An extreme approach that would always require the witness to remove her niqab while testifying, or one that would never do so, is untenable,” wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin for the majority in R. v. N.S.
Dr. Salim Mansur, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario, compares Canada’s doctrine of compulsory multiculturalism to the intellectual disease described by University of Chicago Professor Alan Bloom’s seminal 1987 work, The Closing of the American Mind: “It’s an Insidious form of racism,” he tells Ron Gray.
Dr. Mansur elaborates on the theme of his new book Delectable Lie, in which he says compulsory, government-enforced equality for all cultures is “totalitarianism,” and diametrically opposed to the Lockean liberal concept of individual freedom.
RoadKill Radio News: It’s getting insane out there, folks. This week two separate stories involving Canada’s so-called “Human Rights” kangaroo courts hit the newspapers.
The National Post covered Saskatoon may face human rights complaint over ‘Merry Christmas’ messages on buses. It seems that if the slightest hint of a cultural and / or religious holiday “offends” a passerby – or merely makes a politically correct xenophobe cringe – they can run off to a Human Rights Commission to try to shut down the offending notion – and collect some money for their efforts, to boot! Would these same whiners be okay with losing all their religious-based paid holidays? No more days off for Christmas, Easter, or Thanksgiving? Should western culture ban Halloween, St. Patrick’s Day, and even St. Valentine’s Day because a handful of cultural extremists want to re-write history?
A Saskatoon man named Ashu Solo claims that his right to be free from religion extends to even glancing upon the greeting “Merry Christmas”! We hate to think of the overwhelming indignity he’d feel if he ever entered a Hallmark card store!
Then there’s the Vancouver Sun story Human Rights Tribunal to hear complaint against Earls’ Albino Rhino beer, in which we read of how offending the word “albino” is to some albinos. The offending notion here is the pale ale served at Earl’s called the Albino Rhino. It’s named after the white rhinoceros. Lighten up, folks!
Should tall people go running to the Human Rights Tribunal because they see a can of Green Giant Peas in the store? Should black coffee be banned in deference to African-Canadians? Should the gay community cry over homo milk?
Mr. Spock said it best in The Wrath of Khan: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” The overwhelming majority of common sense Canadians needs to be free from this sort of politically correct insanity that only placates the oversensitive few.
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.
Ron Gray reviews the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of WIC vs. Simpson. Included is the actual recording of Kari Simpson's rally speech that Rafe Mair likened to Hitler and the KKK. Also, to illustrate how Justice Ian Binnie and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin compounded Rafe Mair's defamation by repeating his lies as so-called facts, this episode has several historical video clips of how Kari Simpson actually stood up for the civil rights of gays, lesbians, and all Canadians.
RoadKill Radio News: Mr. Justice Ian Binnie, the former Supreme Court of Canada judge who wrote the controversial decision in the landmark defamation case of WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, is now facing the same charges of flawed reasoning, assumed facts, and lack of legal knowledge in a New Zealand case.
Last year, retired SCC Justice Binnie was paid nearly NZ$414,000 (about C$345,000) to review a demand for compensation by a New Zealand man whose conviction of murdering his parents and three siblings was overturned after 13 years.
In his review, Judge Binnie recommended compensation, reportedly as high as NZ$2 million (C$1.67 million), a review that New Zealand Justice Minister Judith Collins characterized as containing “… assumptions based on incorrect facts.” Collins said the review “… lacked a robustness of reasoning … to justify its conclusions.”
Kari Simpson, one of the litigants in the controversial case that went before the Supreme Court of Canada, wasn’t surprised by the public outing of now retired Justice Binnie by New Zealand Justice Minister Judith Collins. Simpson wrote earlier today to Minister Collins to inform her that Justice Binnie has previous engaged in similar judicial deficiencies that include writing a decision that is “fraught with unsupported findings of fact, lies treated as facts, manufactured evidence.
Simpson said, “… the New Zealand government has experienced exactly the same corruption of the rule of law as I’ve pointed out to our Prime Minister, the Justice Minister and the Canadian Judicial Council, and how this sort of misconduct brings the judicial system into disrepute. This scandal bolsters the merits of my complaint.”
Simpson continued, “Perhaps if the Prime Minister, Justice Minister and the Canadian Judicial Council had acted on the red flags I raised, New Zealand could have saved itself nearly half a million dollars.”
A formal complaint naming Justice Binnie et al by Kari Simpson to the Canadian Judicial Council is pending
-30-
(Photo of Retired SCC Justice Ian Binnie by Paul Mayne, Western News)
A former Supreme Court of Canada judge is in hot water in New Zealand over what the Justice Minister there calls “a flawed report”.
It’s the same judge who, while sitting on the Canadian Supreme Court bench, wrote the decision in Kari Simpson’s defamation lawsuit—the scandalous case that forms the basis of RoadKill Radio’s Drive for Justice Internet webcast series.
In the Canadian trial, Mr. Justice Ian Binnie accepted as “fact” statements that were provably false, and for which no evidence was presented to the court. Further, the high court decision repeated those lies as though they were true, thus further slandering Mrs. Simpson.
Last year, retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ian Binnie was paid nearly NZ$414,000 (about C$345,000) to review a demand for compensation by a New Zealand man who had served 13 years in jail after being convicted of murdering five members of his own family—his parents and three siblings. His conviction was later overturned.
In his review, Judge Binnie recommended compensation. State broadcaster TVNZ reported that David Bain could be in line for a payout of up to NZ$2 million (C$1.67 million).
But the New Zealand Justice Minister, Judith Collins, sent the Binnie Report to a New Zealand QC for “peer review”; that review found that Judge Binnie had “exceeded his mandate”, and that:
• “…the principles to be applied to an inquiry of this kind… have been misunderstood in the Binnie Report; and … in consequence it would be unsafe to act upon the Binnie Report.”
• “Those errors have been compounded by the publicity given to … matters which ought to have been for Cabinet alone… “
• “Binnie J made fundamental errors of principle.”
• “The correct principles should now be applied to the evidence afresh.”
• “Binnie J criticised named individuals without giving them adequate opportunity to respond…” and
• the Binnie Report is vulnerable to judicial review.”
“…the report appeared to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts,” Collins said in a Dec. 11 press release, “It lacked a robustness of reasoning … to justify its conclusions.”
In a statement e-mailed to the magazine Canadian Lawyer, Judge Binnie, who is currently in Switzerland, called Collins’ news release a “political document.”
But Collins says she had raised concerns about Binnie’s report when she met with the former judge in September, and told him it would be peer reviewed.
“I also advised Justice Binnie the report must remain confidential, and it would be premature to release it until after Cabinet had made a decision on Mr. Bain’s claim,” she wrote in her statement.
“Since then, I have received from Justice Binnie, unsolicited, two further versions of his report.”
Interviewed at her office in Langley, BC, Kari Simpson said, “I’m happy to learn that the New Zealand government has experienced exactly the same corruption of the rule of law as I’ve pointed out to our Prime Minister, the Justice Minister and the Canadian Judicial Council, and how this sort of misconduct brings the judicial system into disrepute. This scandal bolsters the merits of my complaint.”
“This goes far beyond either David Bains’ case or mine,” she continued. “This reveals how the legal fraternity covers for its own, and yet another example of why the so-called ‘justice system’ in Canada urgently needs a public inquiry.
“Perhaps if the Prime Minister, Justice Minister and the CJC had acted on the red flags I raised, New Zealand could have saved itself nearly half a million dollars.”
Simpson has sent a letter to NZ Justice Minister Judith Collins, pointing out that “while on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Binnie wrote a decision that is fraught with unsupported findings of fact, lies treated as ‘facts’, manufactured evidence and… contextual chicanery.”
Click here to read Kari Simpson’s full correspondence to the NZ Justice Minister.
(Photo of Retired SCC Justice Ian Binnie by Paul Mayne, Western News)
Dear Madame Minister:
I have recently been apprised of a legal conundrum involving Mr. Justice Ian Binnie. I understand that Justice Binnie was paid a reported $400k by the New Zealand government to investigate a matter related to a claim for compensation for an alleged wrongful conviction and incarceration of a man named David Cullen Bain.
You should be advised that retired Justice Binnie is also at the centre of a somewhat parallel legal scandal here in Canada, for reasons of similar to the concern you expressed your news release about Mr. Justice Binnie’s recommendations. Specifically:
“My concerns are broadly that the report appeared to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts, and showed a misunderstanding of New Zealand law. It lacked a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions.”
In a precedent-setting defamation case here in Canada (WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40), while on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Binnie wrote a decision that is fraught with unsupported findings of fact, lies treated as “facts”, manufactured evidence and contextual chicanery.
Justice Binnie didn’t stop there. He also exceeded his lawful jurisdiction, attempting to justify irrational reasoning by adopting a new “modified” test for defamation, previously unknown to the litigants, and based on a “Binnie enhanced” minority dissent in another, and dissimilar, case. In Canada, as I am sure is also true in New Zealand, litigants have the right to know the legal test they must meet. Therefore, by changing the test for defamation without informing the parties involved, Mr. Justice Binnie acted without legal authority—i.e., unlawfully.
The matter to which I refer is now the subject of a growing controversy, as Justice Binnie and other judges find themselves at the centre of a scandal that has put a spotlight on how the “justice” system in Canada monitors or polices our judges—or fails to do so.
The current justice system in Canada is broken. Judicial Independence—that is, the theory that judges can monitor themselves—has clearly failed. Political and civilian oversight is an essential remedy to the problems within the Canadian judicial arena.
I have also been informed about Justice Binnie’s public retort to your response to his report. I am certain that his reference to your “political document” has no more merit as his findings. It is well-known here that the hierarchy of Canada’s judiciary clearly fears political (i.e., public) scrutiny, and attempts to thwart accountability by incorporating the word “political” when attempting to deflect well-warranted criticism. The “P-word”, in certain Canadian legal cabals, is used as a slur; but for civil citizens, it brings hope that elected officials—like you—will exercise the authority and mandate with which we have entrusted them.
For your information, I am including a letter I wrote to Canada’s Prime Minister, The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, summarizing the facts of the case to which I refer—a case in which I am a party; and a Summary Brief follows my letter to the PM. The problems related therein will give you some insight into the corruption that exists within our Canadian courts, and the scandalous games that are being played there. Games in which Justice Ian Binnie likes to engage, as you now know full well.
If you are in need of more information please feel free to contact me.
Kari D. Simpson
Telephone: 604-514-1614
Email: KariSimpson@telus.net
Website: DriveforJustice.com
Host: RoadKill Radio.com
To:
The Hon. Judith Collins, Justice Minister
The Vogel Centre
19 Aiken Street
Wellington, New Zealand
SX 10088
Via Post & Email
Dr. Salim Mansur, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario, shows how the doctrine of official multiculturalism has produced hypocrisy in Canada’s Supreme Court and Criminal Code, and at the UN.
“Liberalism”, he tells Ron Gray, no longer means what philosophers like John Locke wrote of: the goal of liberty for individuals; it has been corrupted by multiculturalism into group equality—and some groups are wildly illiberal.
RoadKill Radio News, December 13, 2012
Mary Wagner sits in an Ontario prison, charged with “mischief” and “breach of probation”. For what? For talking to women, while giving them flowers and pamphlets in the reception area of an abortion mill.
Why did she do it? In the hope of giving an informed choice and practical support to mothers—and their babies.
In a ‘notice of constitutional question’, filed for her Nov. 22 by Brantford lawyer Dr. Charles Lugosi under the Courts of Justice Act, Mary Wagner asks the courts to acknowledge that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the nation’s unwritten constitution, both bestow dignity, equality, life, liberty and security of the person to every living human being in Canada—whether born or not yet born.
Her defense requires an interpretation of Section 37(1) of the Criminal Code by the courts, recognizing that living pre-born children are under the protection of the Charter; and that the words “any one” in Section 37 of the Criminal Code include all living human beings, at any age, whether born or not—regardless of their present legal status.
Mary also demands the right to exercise her constitutional freedoms of conscience, religion, expression, thought, belief, opinion, peaceful assembly and association—which would allow her to use conversational speech, pamphlets and flowers in a peaceful, non-violent manner to persuade pregnant mothers of unborn children not to choose abortion.
To win, she needs to have the courts do what Parliament has failed to do—declare Section 223(1) of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional. Section 223(1) defines ‘human being’ as follows: “A child becomes a human being… When it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother…”
This definition, says Dr. Lugosi, Wagner’s lawyer, is “out of touch with biological reality; for human beings all commence life from the time of conception.”
The Criminal Code needs a definition of “human being” that conforms to modern biological science, practical reality and common sense, he says. The current exclusion of living, unborn human beings from the human family is a matter of politics, he asserts, and obstructs use of Section 37 of the Criminal Code in the defense of a living unborn human being who is about to be killed.
“It is also inconsistent with hundreds of years of Common Law, that gives legal rights to living unborn human beings, in matters such as inheritance.”
Mary Wagner says it is only right that living pre-born human beings, who are currently not recognized as persons in law, be accorded equality with born human beings, who are recognized as legal persons.
If Mary’s arguments are accepted by the Court, there is an irreconcilable collision between a woman’s right to choose death for her living pre-born child, and that child’s constitutional right to life; for if the pre-born child is recognized to be a human being, with the right to life, liberty and security of the person, the pregnant mother’s liberty must yield to the pre-born person’s right to continued life and security of the person. The liberty to inflict an assault ends where it conflicts with another human being’s right to be left alone; there, the security of the person from assault, and protection of life begin.
No date has yet been set for hearing Mary’s constitutional question.