A national disgrace: CanadaTrudeau to reward a convicted killer and traitor

Brian Lilley's outstanding piece, explains, "by the numbers", exactly why the Trudeau Liberals' $10.5M payoff and apology to convicted terrorist, Omar Khadr, is a gross insult to loyal Canadian (and allied) veterans and taxpayers:



Update: Cheryl Gallant created a "Stop Payment" letter to Justin Trudeau.  My response:

Please put a stop-payment on any cheque going to Omar Khadr until the widow of the medic he murdered has her day in court.

Any payment (much less $10.5M) and/or apology by the government of Canada to convicted, treasonous killer Omar Khadr is highly inappropriate.  It is a gross insult to Canadian and allied veterans and to all patriotic Canadian taxpayers.  The only apology owed here is your apology to all Canadians for your government's having entertained a payment and apology to Omar Khadr in the first place.

Update:  Too late.  With Parliament in recess, the public beginning summer holidays and Trudeau safely out of the country at the G20 Summit (i.e. in the dead of night) the Liberal weasels paid off Khadr and issued a public apology.

Laws are for the little people

Mark Steyn:

... As I've said for years - on radio, TV and in print - for me the overriding issue in American politics is the corruption. In the Obama era, we have seen the remorseless merging of the party and the state - in the IRS, in the Justice Department and elsewhere. Whatever one feels about, say, Scandinavia, they at least come to their statism and socialism more or less honestly. Not so the United States. ...  

... The left is serious about power, and they don't waste time. The idea that the most personally corrupt candidate in modern American history will govern as some sort of benign moderate centrist placeholder until the wankers who thought Jeb Bush was a superstar shoo-in come up with their next inspiration is utterly preposterous.

The Media Party - a group-think tank of politically correct freaks

Ezra Levant: "Conservatives have rolled out an RCMP hot line ... the Media Party calls it an "Islamophobic" "racist" "snitch line."

An open letter to Robert Fife and all the other media jackals at the "Duffy" trial

John Pepall: Mike Duffy's trial by media:

Sub judice. It’s the idea that when a matter is before the courts we should follow the allegations, the evidence and the arguments but leave the courts to decide what to make of it all.

... sub judice is not just some quaint leftover from the days when lawyers were supposed to know some Latin. It has a point: that matters that are to be decided by the courts should be left to them to decide; that they should not be subject to popular pressure telling them what to do.

... The media, when it is not just partisan, which much of it is, is flopping between unctuousness and the cultivation of populist [resentment] against anyone comfortable on the taxpayer’s dime.

...  It’s juicy gossip. And like all gossip, it is fuelled by malice and ignorance. ...

 And while the column is about Duffy's trial, the most recent phase has really been the trial-by-media of Stephen Harper.  Pepall's column would make a good open letter directed to the likes of Robert Fife (CTV) and Andrew Coyne (Post Media) [explicitly excluding Christy Blatchford]. 

Sadistic feminist bullies use courts to criminally harass critic

Political activists Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly, with the cooperation of the "justice" system, are  putting Gregory Allan Elliott (and family) through legal, financial and emotional hell.

Christie Blatchford has been covering Elliott's trial.

The verdict is due on October 6, 2015 and has huge implications for Elliott's personal freedom and for free speech in general. Any "criminality" here is that of the complainants and the legal system for participating in prosecuting this clearly bogus case.

#IStandWithGregoryElliott

New Brunswick Law Society bigots vote 137/30 to ban Trinity graduates

Today at a Special General Meeting of the Law Society of New Brunswick:

"...members of the Law Society of New Brunswick passed a resolution by a vote of 137 to 30 directing Council not to approve Trinity Western University’s Law school as a faculty of law."

 [via]

Update (brought forward from the comments):

When the BC College of Teachers tried to pull a similar stunt the Supreme Court of Canada ruled (8/1) in favour of Trinity. See para 35 of the ruling where it is stated:  

"... there is nothing in the TWU Community Standards that indicates that graduates of TWU will not treat homosexuals fairly and respectfully. Indeed, the evidence to date is that graduates from the joint TWU-SFU teacher education program have become competent public school teachers, and there is no evidence before this Court of discriminatory conduct by any graduate. ..." 

So, extrapolating that ruling to the NB case (there's no basic difference), the NB Law Society's anti-Christian bigotry is illegal, a violation of Charter Rights and Freedoms. For more discussion read this article.

Clear as mud

William Watson:

Even people who may not like it ...  seem happy the claim is finally settled.

In Canadian justice, however, “settled” is a relative term....

... Last week’s decision may clarify the guidelines for establishing aboriginal title, and maybe effectively broadens such title, but it’s going to be a long time and legions of lawyers before all such title is clear. And even once it is, there will still be lawyers, just to adjudicate it all.

The "Court Party" and Canada's corrupt judicial appointments system

Ezra Levant:



J.J. McCullough's article on Canada's corrupt judicial appointments system.

Supreme absurdity

In ruling (six to one) that Stephen Harper's appointee to the Supreme Court is  not qualified, the Supreme Court has, once again, embarrassed itself.

Christie Blatchford nailed it last Friday:

"It is a disgraceful decision, the final howl of which is this: How dare the executive branch, the government, have gone and picked a judge and amended a law?" ...

So did Brian Lilley:



Today Andrew Coyne agreed that the Supremes' ruling is absurd:

... "this is just the sort of flaky decision the Court is capable of ..." [although Coyne wanders off into irrelevant territory and ridiculous and gratuitous insults to Judge Nadon.]

 As did  Constitutional Law Professor, Grant Huscroft:

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the Nadon Reference is as bad a decision as the Court has made in recent memory.

... The result is absurd, according to Justice Moldaver, because Judge Nadon would become eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court if he were to rejoin the Quebec bar for as little as a single day.

This supremely absurd decision is a result either of gross over-thinking of the problem or of a conspiracy by activist judges to disqualify someone they don't like. Both possibilities cast serious doubt on the "wisdom" of their previous rulings.

In any case, dissenting Justice Moldaver offered a simple remedy. Nadon should immediately rejoin the Quebec bar. All Stephen Harper has to do is reappoint him.

It's too easy for thin-skinned hypocrites to sue for "defamation"

Mark Steyn reviews the defamation lawsuits brought against him (by Michael Mann) and Ezra Levant (by a touchy Muslim lawyer):

... the urge to litigate disagreement is never far from the surface in contemporary discourse. So both Ezra Levant and I find ourselves back in court yet again. 

... In that sense, Dr. Mann is, indeed, a fraud. It is a fascinating legal question whether a man guilty of serial misrepresentation can, in fact, be defamed. But it’s not that fascinating, and certainly not worth the court’s time and seven-figure legal bills. 

...  it’s a pretty basic free speech case. Dr. Mann, whatever his other gifts, is an inveterate name-caller.  

... In court, our notably unimpressive judge Natalia Combs-Greene declared, even before we got anywhere near the trial, that she was with Dr. Mann: “The court agrees with the arguments advanced by Plaintiffs. To place Plaintiff’s name in the same sentence with Sandusky (a convicted pedophile) is clearly outrageous.” 

... Mann is entitled to insult me ... and anyone else who has the temerity not to prostrate themselves before him. It is remarkable that an American jurist is too obtuse to grasp this 

... Mr Awan said something that was not so and was exposed in court for so doing, and in a free society Ezra ought to be well within his rights to characterize such a person as he pleases. 

... What else? Awan complains that Levant called him an anti-Semite. Big deal. Awan called Levant a racist. He’s called me and my book racist, Islamophobic, virulent and hateful. Likewise: big deal. 

...  If you’re going to be a partisan warrior in the public arena you need, as the Toronto blogger Kathy Shaidle likes to put it, “insensitivity training.” Miss Shaidle also argues that the matter of honour was better handled before the libel laws replaced dueling. When a fake Nobel laureate and a frontman for a terrorism-sympathizer are suing for their “reputation,” I’m inclined to agree. If Dr. Mann’s up for it, how about hockey sticks at dawn?

However you cut it, being sued in a real court is far better than being persecuted by a kangaroo "human rights" tribunal.  But either way it's expensive and, with clueless and/or ideological judges and juries, risky for defendants. The bar seems to be set way too low for getting these anti-free-speech and hurt-feelings lawsuits into court in the first place.

Ezra Levant needs help in the fight for freedom

Ezra is being sued by a Muslim waging legal jihad:

... Today in a Toronto court, Khurrum Awan is suing me for critical comments I wrote at the Maclean’s hearing in 2008. I said nothing that hadn’t been said by many critics across the political spectrum, who universally condemned the nuisance suit. But the rest of the media soon dropped the free speech cause. I turned it into an ongoing campaign.  

... Maclean’s spent [huge sum$]. And every other media company was sent the message: Don’t you dare talk about radical Islam, or you’ll face a nuisance suit, too. 

... Khurrum Awan ... later boasted: “We attained our strategic objective — to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.” 

... So time to apply the “strategic objective” to me. 

So, it's also time once again to Stand with Ezra.

Ezra Levant forces "trial" judge to recuse herself

Suzuki mock trial judge withdraws after questions of bias:

Ontario Superior Justice Harriet Sachs announced that she would no longer be participating in a mock trial of environmentalist David Suzuki.

... [Suzuki] was barraged with questions by Sun News host Ezra Levant, including queries on Judge Sachs and her possible bias.

... A Superior Court judge since 1998, Judge Sachs is the wife of Clayton Ruby, a prominent Toronto lawyer known for championing liberal [including radical environmental] causes.

No doubt, without Ezra shining a bright light on her, judge Sachs, having been dumb enough to accept a role in this eco-propaganda stunt in the first place, would have blithely gone ahead with it.  But now that she has let us know who she is, Sachs has compromised any claim she might have had to objectivity in environmental cases that might come before her.  So she might as well permanently recuse herself from hearing any such case. 

Ezra is the man!

Legal jihad - Ezra in court next week

Remember Mark Steyn's wanna-be censor, Khurrum Awan?

The case goes to court on October 15th.

Go get 'em Ezra!

Useless "enforcers" of the law

Lorne Gunter describes a bizarre case in which a Calgary woman's property has been taken over by a "Freeman-on-the land":

If the facts of the case are as reported, Andreas Pirelli is surely as guilty of stealing Rebekah Caverhill’s property (one half of a duplex) as he would be had he been able to stuff it in a duffle bag and run off with it.

... In return for three months’ free rent, Pirelli agreed to do some reno work on the unit. Instead, according to Caverhill, Pirelli declared himself a Freeman-on-the-Land, essentially a sovereign citizen to whom Canadian laws and taxes do not apply.

Pirelli allegedly gutted much of Caverhill’s duplex, painted his bedroom black (all of it: walls, floors and ceiling) and then declared it an embassy for his sovereign state of ... well, his sovereign state of himself.... 

... What is especially frustrating is police are timid about helping Caverhill regain her property. They have told her her complaint is a civil matter, not a criminal one, so they cannot help. ...

They sometimes say that "the law is an ass". In this case, if it is as the crown and police claim, they "cannot help", the law is a complete MORON. But I don't really believe that. The so-called "Freeman" is a fraudster and vandal who, by his own admission, has effectively stolen Ms Caverhill's property - illegally removed it from her possession and control.

In another less "complicated" day in the not so distant past, this vandal, fraudster and thief would have simply been removed, charged, jailed and tried in court. Today, the "authorities" overthink the situation and decide to do nothing. This is more evidence that our well-paid so-called "enforcers" of the law are becoming useless, politically correct idiots.

Nova Scotia's awful cyber abuse law

The Nova Scotia law defines cyberbullying:

3(1)(b) "cyberbullying" means any electronic communication through the use of technology including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, computers, other electronic devices, social networks, text messaging, instant messaging, websites and electronic mail, typically repeated or with continuing effect, that is intended or ought reasonably be expected to cause fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other damage or harm to another person's health, emotional well-being, self-esteem or reputation, and includes assisting or encouraging such communication in any way;

Jesse Brown summarizes the law and his objections:

... Ultimately, bullying is in the eye of the bullied. For many, cyberbullying is equal to a negative thing said about them on the Internet. I’ve met restaurant owners who feel they’re being cyberbullied by Chowhound critics. 

... [Referring to the above definition] If this is the standard, I don’t know a person who isn’t a cyberbully. 

[...] 

Nova Scotia’s Cyber Safety Act is in clear conflict with our Charter rights to free expression, and I can’t imagine it withstanding a legal challenge on those grounds. But that will take time. 

Until then, watch what you say in Nova Scotia, and be very careful not to hurt anyone’s feelings. [And no doubt coming soon in your province.]

It looks like Human Rights Commission/Tribunal kangaroo justice Mark II.

Jerry Agar with Anthony Furey:

Men are over-represented in our prisons, so ....

... shouldn't they get special consideration and lighter sentences? Jerry Agar discusses institutional racism in our "justice" system:



Naturally, according to the "experts", we need an explicitly racist justice system to overcome a racist justice system ( "... [aboriginals] are the victims of a discriminatory justice system.") Huh?  This is another case of social "justice" taking precedence over real justice.

‘Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago,’ Barack Obama says

Let's finish that quote for him: "... I too would have beat the crap out of that creepy-ass cracker."

And here are a few more facts not covered by the NYT and other spinners: 


[via]

The Race-Baiter-in-Chief wades in deeper

Obama, in a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room, treated the world to his latest thoughts on the Zimmerman/Martin case:



Part 2.

Reaction:

... [David] Webb called Obama’s speech “disingenuous” and hit him for “placating his base and the people he needs to play to.” He criticized Obama for putting forth “the idea that the black community is one monolithic block, that most of us, black people, have been profiled. ...”

...“What the president has done is taken us backwards, not forwards,” Webb continued.

The trial is over - the media keeps on pushing its disgraceful bias

This morning's Vancouver Sun:

"... Martin was walking to his father’s house carrying a can of iced tea and a box of Skittles when he was gunned down by Zimmerman ..."

And on it goes! This column is a continuation of the media's disgracefully biased coverage of the Zimmerman / Martin story.

The left/lib establishment (including, or especially, the media) had it's collective mind made up from square one, before any evidence was presented - a white man, George Zimmerman, was guilty of "gunning down" an innocent black teenager "carrying ... a box of Skittles".  They immediately and eagerly stoked the racial angle.  NBC news doctored the tape of a 911 call to make Zimmerman sound like a racist (while he's anything but).  Even the boneheaded President Obama weighed in with his "if I had a son he'd look like Travon" idiocy.

And whose opinion is quoted in this piece (besides the race-baiting Obama)?  The raving race baiter, Al Sharpton, and the disgraced (for, inter alia, soliciting hookers on the public dime) former NY Governor, Eliot Spitzer.

The trial is over, the jury has spoken.  But there's not a word in the Sun article of what was presented at trial and why the jury found Mr. Zimmerman not guilty. 

If this episode has stoked racial tension and racial division, the press and the left/lib establishment it represents need only look in the mirror to see who is largely to blame.

George Zimmerman found not guilty

Not guilty of murder, not guilty of manslaughter.

... The jury ... deliberated 16 hours and 20 minutes over two days. The six female jurors entered the quiet, tense courtroom, several looking exhausted, their faces drawn and grim. After the verdict was read, each assented, one by one, and quietly, their agreement with the verdict.  

... Saturday night when the verdict was read, Mr. Zimmerman, 29, smiled slightly. His wife, Shellie, and several of his friends wept, and his parents kissed and embraced. ...

Update (via sda): Robert Zimmerman with CNN nitwit, Piers Morgan