JIM BREDIN
CANADIAN SUPREME COURT

athab2b.jpg

Supreme Court of Canada dressed in red.

Canadians have no option but to accept the infallibility of Supreme Court justices (appointed until they die or turn 75 years) when these justices privately interpret the Charter of Rights according to their own prejudiced views and make legal decisions accordingly. They have changed 58 federal and provincial laws laws made in parliament with these legal decisions. They have usurped parliament and democracy. They appear to be untouchable in their red gowns.
No Canadian Supreme Court justice has ever had to publicly answer a question about his or her special interests.
Special interest groups such as the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund ("LEAF"), Disabled Women's Network Canada ("DAWN Canada") and Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton are allowed and listed as interveners in Supreme Court cases.

ˇ Could these special interest groups influence the outcome of a Supreme Court case?

ˇ If the special interests of the interveners and the hidden prejudices of the Supreme Court justices are the same, what would that mean for a defendant?

ˇ Could special interest groups such as the Hell's Angels or police associations be allowed as interveners in Supreme Court cases or is this category only confined to feminist groups?

No prime minister of Canada has ever used the notwithstanding clause despite the many off-the-wall legal decisions -- homosexual marriages, kiddie porn, Indians fishing out of season while other Canadians look on. Prime Minister Chretien introduced the notwithstanding clause in parliament himself and called it a safety valve at that time and now the Indians and Fisheries Department officials sometimes shoot at each other in New Brunswick. But never mind. The Liberals will cover that little problem with more $millions of taxpayers money.

The following changes are needed quickly if Canada is to avoid becoming a legal basket case:

ˇ The Charter should be rewritten, corrected or abandoned.

ˇ Supreme Court justices should be questioned about their special interests.

Indians should be recognized as Canadians and equal to other Canadians.

Otherwise Canadians will be running around in legal circles for a long time.

Information on Supreme Court

athab2b.jpg

Bev McLachlin, head of the Supreme Court and the best looking female in the history of the Supreme Court. That's a nice hair style.

THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING TO CANADA NOW

Canada has not been hijacked by organized crime but it often appears that organized special-interest groups have hijacked Canada. These small highly organized groups proclaim that they are only interested in equality. They constantly emphasize the words "equality" and "systemic discrimination."
They are not interested in equality for the majority of Canadians or even equality for individual Canadians; they are interested in special status for their own politically correct groups. They are not interested in democracy or majority opinion; this too would interfere with their narrow focus of interest. They are not interested in the parliamentary process to push their interests in the normal democratic way because they know that this process has been eliminated by party discipline. They know that Ottawa only responds to the needs of the Liberals therefore these special-interest groups have taken their hidden agendas to the Supreme Court of Canada and financed them through the "court challenge program" -- taxpayers money. Your money.

Canadian laws passed in parliament have been frequently cancelled or changed by the appointed-for-life Supreme Court of Canada. In 16 years they struck down 58 statutes 31 federal and 27 provincial. And instead of using the notwithstanding clause to control the Supreme Court the federal government adapted and compromised along the way. These changes allowed homosexual marriages, kiddie porn, a new definition of spouse and Indians to fish out of season etc. The many changes benefited special-interest groups -- feminists, homosexuals, civil libertarians, aboriginals, multiculturalists, environmentalists, immigration advocates, prisoners rights groups, and visible minority groups. These changes blocked individual equality, stopped democracy, interfered with the majority and turned Canada into a judicial dictatorship.

HOME

CANADIAN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
FEMINISTS
INDIANS
WESTERN ALIENATION
The U.S.A.
THE FRANCOPHONIE GAMES
IMMIGRATION
CANADIAN DEMOCRACY
WELFARE
UNITED NATIONS
HRDC AND CIDA
Canadian Government Ethics
CANADIAN SUPREME COURT
TRUDEAU'S CHARTER OF RIGHTS
THE ISSUE OF FREEDOM
THE OTTAWA LIBERALS
CANADIAN PESO
FEDERAL PRISONS
REFERENDUM-RECALL ACT

MORE ON THE SUPREME COURT

The Canadian Supreme Court held a 3-day international symposium in Ottawa from September 27 to 29th, 2000. I'm sure these good folk in their red gowns had a great time and congratulated themselves on their many legal decisions. I'm sure they did not talk about the following:

ˇ The justification for spending $millions of taxpayers dollars on an international symposium.

ˇ The pompous attitude of appointed-for-life Supreme Court justices who turn a country into a judicial dictatorship and then have an international symposium to discuss their success.

ˇ Why Canadians tolerate appointment-for-life Justices of the Supreme Court who are not questioned by any elected body about their vested interests before they take up office for life. Could these hidden vested interests be a deciding factor in their legal decisions?

ˇ The possibility that one of these appointees might have the following special interests: prisoners rights, multiculturalism, feminism, gun control, homosexuality, aboriginals, Quebec separation from Canada and this could interfere with his/her judgments.

ˇ The infallibility of Supreme Court justices when they interpret the Charter of Rights according to their own prejudiced views.

ˇ The reasons why Canadian prime ministers are afraid to use the notwithstanding clause despite many off-the-wall legal decisions homosexual marriages, kiddie porn, Indians fishing out of season while other Canadians look on and Quebec separation.

ˇ The possibility of an international criminal with a warrant on his head from the International Criminal Court appealing to the Supreme Court.

ˇ Which has precedence: the International Criminal Court warrant or the Charter of Rights?

ˇ Should the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund ("LEAF"), Disabled Women's Network Canada ("DAWN Canada") and Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton be allowed as interveners in Supreme Court cases? Should any group or organization be allowed to be interveners in Supreme Court cases and would not this tend to sway the court decisions in that direction?

ˇ Should potential appointees to the Supreme Court be required to undergo public review because their views and values could influence the lives of all Canadians?

Click here for more informaltion on the Supreme Court

Supreme Court decisions are all based on the Canadian Charter of Rights a socialist document written for everyone in the world and not specifically for Canadians. It was written by Trudeau and Chretien in 1982 and foisted on Canadians without a referendum. Our present prime minister, when he was justice minister in 1982, introduced the Notwithstanding Clause Sec 33 of the Charter to override Supreme Court mentally-ill decisions. But since then, our federal government has never used the notwithstanding clause.
Special interest groups (publicly funded non-profit lobby groups) are often listed as interveners in Supreme Court cases. Their recognized presence in court displays a bias towards them. Defendants in Supreme Court cases then find themselves battling not only the prosecutor but special-interest groups. In the Ewanchuk case the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund ("LEAF"), Disabled Women's Network Canada ("DAWN Canada") and Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton were listed as interveners. Did these special interest groups influence decisions in court?
In 1991 the Supreme Court Askov decision released tens of thousands of criminals who were facing every charge in the Criminal Code including homicide.

The Marshall decision: This has led to race riots, assaults and arson on the East Coast while Indians fish for lobsters out of season and other Canadians look on from the shore. If you are a lobster fisherman on the East Coast and this decision threatens your livelihood, dont worry. Be happy. Obey like a normal subservient Canadian because no federal government has used the notwithstanding clause to stop these off the wall decisions. They are all based on the Charter of Rights, which the prime minister wrote in 1982. Therefore you better obey or its jail.

This is the same Supreme Court that allowed homosexual marriages, a change in the definition of spouse, Indians to fish out of season while fellow Canadians look on, and kiddie porn.

Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw of the BC Supreme Court struck down a part of the 1993 child pornography law -- the part which prohibits the possession of such material.
On February 2, 1999, the Reform party brought a motion to invoke S.33, (the notwithstanding clause) but it was defeated 143 129. The disciplined Party of Liberals, the trained seals, the nodding heads and defendent pornographers won again.

A woman mountain biking; Actual size=180 pixels wide

Member of the Supreme Court Claire L'Heureux-Dubé

The Supreme Court often reverses laws passed in the Canadian Parliament. These appointed-for-life judges remake and cancel more laws than our elected MPs can pass in parliament. This system of judicial dictatorship might be tolerable if the prime minister used the safety valve the notwithstanding clause to ensure democracy in Canada but no federal government has invoked the notwithstanding clause. They love this form of dictatorship because dictatorship is always easier than democracy and Canadians are so complacent. Canadians never protest. They just take it.
Peter Lougheed of Alberta, Allan Blakeney of Saskatchewan and Sterling Lyon of Manitoba were instrumental in putting the notwithstanding clause (Sec. 33) into the Charter of Rights in 1982 because they felt there was a danger to democracy in judge-made laws. Jean Chretien, the present prime minister introduced it to Parliament. Canada has long since turned into a judicial dictatorship but Chretien has refused to use the notwithstanding clause. Acquiescent Canadians, who have no input to the changes, are obliged to obey these judge-made laws or go to jail.
Chretien continues to appoint these Supreme Court justices for life (until 75 or die). No one can question Chretien about it. No one can question his appointees about hidden or vested interests feminism, homosexuality, prisoners rights, devil worship, aboriginal rights, Quebec favoritism, multicultural groups or the Liberals themselves? No Canadians can question the eventual dramatic changes, nor do they have input to the changes in Canadian law.
Jefferson, one of the early American Patriots, put it this way: "The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance."

athab2b.jpg

Louise Arbour, member of the Supreme Court

athab2b.jpg

Billy Binnie, member of the Supreme Court

athab2b.jpg

Frank Iacobucci, member of the Supreme Court

NOW GO TO THE LEFT COLUMN AT THE CENTER OF THE PAGE AND CLICK ON ANOTHER PAGE or click on ....

TRUDEAU'S CHARTER OF RIGHTS

... or check some Supreme Court decisions concerning Indians V Canadians.

INDIANS