|The name of the individual who stated the following cannot be revealed.
It is a well-known public figure with the best possible reputation, even internationally.
I've been watching a Toronto judicial hearing in which an attempt was made to call a
judge to account. I really don't think it can be done.
The Ontario Judicial Council couldn't avoid a public hearing because it was being demanded
by Toronto lawyers. So they held it - without notice in an obscure hotel. No witnesses
The OJC office doesn't seem to have staff. It's a locked door in a high-rise and, I guess,
an answering machine. Somebody eventually called back. The question left [had been] why
there was no notice of the hearing coming up. The answer was that there was a note
Scotch-taped to the door.
I repeat. It's an industry that serves its insiders. The rest of us are just raw material.
Okay, if you want, don't take the individual's word for it that there is a problem with
the Ontario judiciary. However, the problem is endemic not only in Ontario but in all of
Canada, moreover, in all of the developed nations. I did not to any great extent follow
that particular aspect of the legal industry. After all, what's the use of flogging a dead
horse. A fact is a fact, and the fact is that we can do nothing about it, or can we?
How about the recent ruling by a tribunal of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship
Commission, against the Report Newsmagazine?
In Kane v. Alberta Report, the tribunal determines which parts of a news story are
newsworthy and which are not; it "strongly suggests" that the magazine's staff
submit to human rights training by the commission; and it warns that henceforth
of discrimination will be based on the injured feelings of "vulnerable groups,"
not on the intent of a publisher nor on the facts of a story. The tribunal has ordered the
magazine to give the complainant what amounts to about four times more space for his
response than the material he complained about. (Full Text*
There you can
find links to related stories and to the full decision of the tribunal.
The website of the Report Newsmagazine is no longer operational, but to
see another opinion on the circumstances and consequences of the human
rights tribunals' ruling see
* That link no longer functions. The Alberta Report (later called
Report Newsmagazine) is no longer being published, and its website no
Let's hope that The Report will find the right font size to fit the
complainant's material into the allotted space. Let's hope that they'll install the
material as a series in a sufficient number of issues to keep it in front of our eyes, so
that we are forced to contemplate our fate as the remainder of what once was a good
society falls to pieces.
What about "the injured feelings of" the "vulnerable group" of The
Report and its readership? They are not in a position of power and thus extremely
vulnerable as decisions by extremist Maoist courts are being rammed down their throats. In
an equitable system of justice they would have the very same privileges extended to them
as were extended to the complainant, but that's not how things work. They are not
politically correct. They are members of the "extremist, religious Right,"
representatives of the dreaded "patriarchy" that Marx and Engels pilloried in
their writings, and that they urged had to be destroyed by eradicating its foundation, the
traditional nuclear family.
Does anyone ever wonder what is at the other extreme end of the political spectrum? For
one thing, at the other end are the liberal judicial activists that are deconstructing our
society, activists such as those of the "human rights" commissions. They have
absolute power. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
(Lord Acton) Anyone with total
power will under no circumstances consider themselves morally corrupt or extremist.
After all, they have the "public opinion" in the liberal media
that they control to prove that they are on a level where, because moral corruption,
impaired integrity and judicial partiality are the norm there, it is no longer possible to
be considered either corrupt or extremist.
That is the advantage of relativism. Once absolute, objective moral standards are
abolished, subjective standards permit one to rationalize that the absurd is normal and
At the Calgary Workshop on Family Conflict (Peter Lougheed
Centre, 1998 09 26, at which, amongst others, presentations were made by Senator Anne C.
Cools, Erin Pizzey (founder of the first modern women's refuge, author of Prone to
Violence) and Theresa Petkau), Wayne Lenhardt, L.L.B., founder of the Independent Lawyers
Society, reported on judicial accountability, in a presentation named "Something funny
happened to justice on the way to family court."
Wayne Lenhardt described a system out of control, in which there is not even a pretense of
adhering to the rules of evidence, in which judges base capricious decisions on
"opinions that they pick off the wall," a system whose judges frequently have
total disregard for factors introduced in filed affidavits that they obviously not read at
He recounted a number of instances that would have boggled the mind of Franz Kafka. He
told of the absurdity of having child support guidelines to govern fair and equitable
calculations of child support amounts, only to have those guidelines circumvented when
judges routinely "impute" the
incomes of the fathers who are ordered to pay extraordinary amounts of money that bear
no relation to their ability to pay. (According to Webster's, impute: to lay the
responsibility or blame for, often falsely and unjustly)
In one case, he said, the father had an income of $40,000/year, but
the judge "imputed" his
income to be $60,000/year. Wayne Lenhardt asked where these people come from to apply
imputation as a principle of justice.
In our current system of patronage appointment of judges, he said, it isn't likely that
we'll be blessed with judges whom we can expect to possess fairness and objectivity.
Holding up the Sept. 21, 1998 issue of the Alberta Report featuring Chief Justice Antonio
'The Fixer' Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada, he referred to a comment by Ted Byfield
in one of his frequent columns on judiciary activism, in which Ted Byfield had suggested
that the constitution should perhaps be discarded because it didn't provide a valid
framework for guiding and regulating our lives. Wayne Lenhardt said, however, that Ted
Byfield should have considered that perhaps there is very little that is wrong with our
Constitution, and that an obviously better alternative would be to hold judges responsible
and accountable for upholding the Law, and, instead of getting rid of the Constitution, to
get rid of the judges who circumvent the Law.
Wayne Lenhardt explained that and why it isn't possible to hold judges accountable for
anything these days, because the legislators refrain from doing their job of telling the
judges what their responsibilities are, and that the judges are left to play their games
with absolute power and total lack of control by anyone but themselves. To complain to
anyone about the misconduct of the judiciary is useless, he said, because such complaints
ultimately arrive at the very same judges who make a mockery of our Constitution. With
nobody holding them accountable and with them only being accountable to themselves, he
asked in whose favour they'll rule when they hear such complaints.
Capriciousness is now a principle of Canadian "Law." Perhaps not all judges are
capricious, but the legal industry as a whole is. These judicial ideologues no longer
merely administer the laws issued by our legislators. They make up, on-the-fly, capricious
changes to- and interpretations of the law that contain only one common logical agenda: to
destroy anything and everything our society once treasured and held sacred.
(See also the
text of a Dec. 2005 speech by S.C.C. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin)
How much longer will we put up with that? For as long as not enough of us become consumed
with burning anger on account of the deliberate destruction of our democracy by
family-hostile, anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-social and anti-life judicial activists
who assume more and more power that rightfully does not belong to them and that the people
never agreed they should have. In the absence of any meaningful or effective control
mechanism, any and every system will deteriorate gradually and often catastrophically. The
end result of doing nothing is the collapse of the system, its ultimate death and utter
Oh what the heck, turn on the idiot box, open another can of beer and pop a few peanuts,
and watch from the comfort of your home as the world goes to Hell around you. But don't
worry, within another three to four generations western culture will no longer exist and
neither will any descendents of those who created it. That is the good scenario; it
requires that we'll be left in peace as we perform our vanishing act.
However, we and our children and grandchildren are no more likely to be left in peace than
the Israelis are now. We all will have to face our very own "Palestinian" wars,
and there's no way that enough of us or our descendents will be around to make any
difference. After all, we stopped propagating ourselves in sufficient numbers to prevent
Hail the riders of the modern version of the Apocalypse: "gender" rights,
multi-culturalism, environmentalism and "overpopulation."
Welcome to the totalitarian global socialist Gynarchia, the
In the meantime:
Child Support and Alimony
Some [hair-raising] Case
By Eeva Sodhi
The White Rose
Thoughts are Free