"Natural
Parents have NO RIGHTS.... ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....
"Natural
Parents' Rights now gone with my Homosexual Marriage
bill"
16.10 Maximum Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to
conform
to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal
BREACH OF TRUST"
FYI,
the ideas that the State assigns
Rights &
Responsibilities to it's Citizen is straight from
pre-war Nazi Germany. Under the British system
rights are not State-given, but God Given.
Buying into the Court's position that what
rights remain are Children's Rights, is buying into the same
position that "<Natural> Parents have no rights", and
Canadian Children are at birth the property of the Courts.
In
"Women and the Process of Constitutional Reform"
McLellan warns that <Horrors!>
"Provincial
Legislatures may impose a presumption of Joint Custody...
and perpetuate the domination of men over women"
Ask a lawyer what "Common Law" is and
they will likely tell you it is
"Judge Made Law", and expand up this to say
"Common Law is whatever the Judges are commonly saying these
days".
This is completely FALSE. The Judges
are Agents of the Crown and they BY DEFINITION Judges are WITHOUT
CAPACITY to make any law whatsoever. Since
1649, only
PARLIAMENT has the Capacity to make Law.
British Common law was NOT created by Judges, it was
only observed and documented by individuals sent out by the
newly Norman Crown after the
Norman Conquest of 1066 to observe and codify the
laws and customs of the various peoples of Britain..
This was done with a view to aggregate existing customs
which may vary across the land, into a unified body of
Laws. The Authority quoted by the Commoners in their
administration of
Common Law were frequently direct quotations from the
Bible and
principles of
Danelaw
The process of documentation took only a
couple of hundred years, and the product was a STATIC body
of Law which was historical, popular, and has served in the
intervening centuries as a Benchmark against which
Statutory Law may be measured for "Fairness".
It does NOT change.
Instead their position to promote the
"rights" of a "Parent" in the widest sense of the
word, making NO distinction between
NATURAL PARENTS and
wannaabe
Legal Parents. They have bowed to
University of
Victoria's assertion that the SCC's
Trociuk
Decision
"endorses a Heterosexual View of the Family and must be
ignored", legitimizing the ongoing
Child
Trafficking by the State which views
Canadian
children as State Property and merchandise for sale in
the lucrative Child
Adoption Market They refuse to be hampered by prior
obligations to that pesky Natural Parent who thinks they can
Veto an Adoption.
It appears that many
"Fathers Rights" groups commonly fall in with the United
Nations and Liberal
Irwin Cotler's assertion that the
Child's Right is to be protected, but the Natural Parent
has "NO RIGHTS",
making the State, not the Natural
Parents the Protector of the Child..
Without Cause or
Consent, no Child shall be removed from a Natural Parent!!!
"In spite of credible revelations dating back to April 2002
about Bill Graham, a sex addicted bi-sexual sodomizing a 15
year old male prostitute named
Lawrence Metherel,
Paul Martin allowed Graham to remain
Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister - and eventually named
him to the portfolio of Minister of Defense.
"On Sept. 28/2005 a vote was held in Parliament to raise the
age of consent from 14 (one of the lowest age of consents in
the world) to 16 (an age which many still consider too low).
"Bill Graham, Paul Martin, and Anne McLellan, on Sept. 28th,
voted against raising the age of consent to 16
"The Family Courts
are <generally> a bunch of second rate hangers-on
... build each other's businesses through
referrals...Family Law is a <parasitic> self-sustaining
Industry"
Habeas
Corpus : "literally, "you
may have the body". A Habeas
Corpus is a legal writ that protects an individual against arbitrary
imprisonment by requiring that any person arrested be brought before
a court for formal charge. If the charge is considered to be valid,
the person must submit to trial; if not, the person goes free. When
the law is suspended, then individuals can be imprisoned
indefinitely and without charge."
.....
Skeletons in the Closet, a film drawn from the dramatized lives
of families living with a protected
Pedophile and the mental
illness it may create when a loving, faithful, Victim keeps the
Secret. This is shockingly
common. The Secret is their Power -
BREAK IT!
(You would be well advised to stay away from the Public Servant.)
Ann Coulter: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly
"Anti-hate," hate crimes legislation now before Congress is
touted as a sincere attempt to end violent crimes of prejudice.
Yet nearly identical laws in Canada and some European countries
have led to a virtual ban of public discussion on certain
"taboo" topics. Also, public criticism of some "identifiable
groups" can be a crime, subject to large fines and years of
imprisonment. In this unprecedented expose, author and filmmaker
Ted Pike rips the cover off this little-known conspiracy against
freedom by the B'Nai B'Rith and its "Anti-Defamation League."
Now is the time to protest to your elected representatives in
Congress - before it is too late.
<Coulter> says she intends to file a complaint with the
Canadian Human Rights Commission over the way she was
treated by the University of Ottawa.
Provost Francois Houle sent Coulter a note before her speech
on Tuesday, urging her to educate herself about Canada's hate
laws, saying that promoting hatred against an identifiable group
could lead to criminal charges.
The inflammatory commentator pulled out of that appearance after
1,500 people tried to get into the venue that was already filled
to capacity with pre-registered guests. Another few hundred
loudly protested her speech outside the building.
In a column posted on the American conservative website
Townhall.com , Coulter said
she hopes the "august" human rights commission will find out
whether the university has warned any other speakers to watch
their words or if it's a caution reserved for female
conservatives.
"If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having
a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the
speech — which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that
Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered
cancellation of the speech — is not hate speech, then there is
no such thing as hate speech," she wrote.
Canadian conservative Ezra Levant, who helped bring Coulter
north of the border, confirmed he had been retained by the fiery
pundit, but said he had been too busy with the tour to research
what legal actions she could potentially take.
The school's president, former Liberal cabinet minister Allan
Rock, issued a statement underlining that the institution would
remain "a safe and democratic environment for the expression of
views."
Ann Coulter on UK BBC Newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman
"Hate Crime" Thought Police, Tyranny of Human Rights Tribunals
The "Hate Law" did grievous harm to the Canadian Justice System
by creating a tool to crush Dissenters in Criminal Court for a
"Speech Crime", and by changing the criterion of a "Crime" from
creating an tangible harm or loss to creating a subjective "Hurt
Feelings" of the Complainant.
"...
our domestic laws, both provincial and
federal, delineate freedom of expression (or
"free
speech") in a manner that is somewhat
different than the approach taken in the
United States.
...
...
could in fact lead to criminal charges.
Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian
defamation laws also limit freedom of
expression
Send Robinson (right) cries while being supported by his partner Max
Riveron. Robinson claimed "stress" caused him to steal the
jewelry he intended to give his boyfriend. Robinson
continues to practice law in BC.
Presently, the burden of proof is on the Accused to prove
themselves innocent (unless you are in a Criminal Court), Rare is the Judge who enforces Perjury laws against a
woman.
Possession or distribution of literature must not be made a
crime, or excuse full time surveillance by a "Thought Police".
Lawmakers and Judges both have perverted
Commonwealth
principles of Free
Speech and Freedom of Assembly rather than call Child
Pornography what it really is,
Physical Evidence of a crime against a child.
Our position is that the "Hate Crimes" legislation must be
abolished, and that Pedophiles must not remain the protected
class they have obviously become.
The crime of a Pedophile must be limited in what they do with a
child, however, and not what they do with their imagination.
When the Pedophile is found with printed and photographic
materials that evidences sexual abuse of a child, it is the
relationship of the possessor to the Perpetrator that is in
question, not the choice of reading materials The printed
and photographic materials found with the Pedophile must be
traced back to it's source to protect the child and the family
the child was taken from.
"It’s a funny thing about free speech:
It can’t be just for your political friends. If freedom means
anything, it is the one valuable gift you have to give to your
worst enemies, in order to keep it for yourself."
Lawyers consistently estimate the homosexual fraction of
the Law Societies & Judiciaries as "forty-something" percent.
That is, a randomly selected Judge or Lawyer is about thirty
times more likely to be homosexual than the population at large
Disclaimer: EqualParenting-BC.Ca encourages exercising democratic
rights such as the freedom of expression, but does not by association or
reference to other materials condone or sanction violence or hatred.
