Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

After Prone to Violence had been published in 1982, shipped out for distribution and placed on the shelves in the book stores, the redfems so thoroughly pilfered the copies of the book that only 13 copies of the book remained in a few libraries in the whole world.
   As a result of that the publisher went into receivership.  That is an example of the power of feminist censorship in action.
   However, the book is now available on the Internet, and it has been put back into print.


Calling judges to account in Canada

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 called.

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 findings 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 LifeSteNews)

* That link no longer functions.  The Alberta Report (later called Report Newsmagazine) is no longer being published, and its website no longer exists.

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 even desirable.

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 all.

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 chaos.

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 our extinction.

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 feminist Utopia.


In the meantime:

Child Support and Alimony
Some [hair-raising] Case Law Examples
By Eeva Sodhi

See also:

whiterose.gif (6796 bytes)The White Rose
Thoughts are Free

Posted 2002 05 02
2002 05 19 (defined judicial corruption more precisely: moral corruption, impaired integrity and judicial partiality)
2003 04 20 (added entry for child-support and alimony case-law examples)
2003 05 02 (added reference to Family Law — Table of Contents)
2006 05 12 (added link to speech by SCC Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin)