"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.
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!!!
Svend 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 following a deal cut with his
Special Prosecutor.
Svend's
Bill C250 added Homosexuals to the super class of groups in Canada's
retarded "Hate Law". who
can destroy in Criminal Court regular Canadians for exercising
Free Speech.
Even France has rejected Homo-marriage (preferring
France's homosexuals to emigrate to Canada?!). International societies
of Women Judges & Lawyers appear to have designated Canada as the
globe's Homosexual habitat of choice:
Meijers Latest news about globalizing Homo-Marriage & Homo-Parenting;
Coming up: 26-29 June 2005, Toronto, Canada, the conference of the
International Lesbian and Gay Law Association (ILGLaw),
Fabian Society, Communitarian
"Wolves in Sheep's' Clothing"
Globalizing National Socialism (Nazism) since 1884
In June 1989,
Gisele Marie Goudreault, 46 disobeyed a court order to hand her son
Orey over to his father, Rod Steinmann of Ponoka, who had been awarded
custody. She fled with the boy to Mexico and lived there for four months
before moving to California. ... Justice Peter Martin condemned
Goudreault's behaviour,
which prevented Orey and his father from being together during the
child's formative years. "They had the right to know and
love each other. "That possibility was totally and irrevocably
destroyed," Martin said. "What this woman did to this man and this
child is every parent's nightmare."2004-02-19
US teen 'discovers own kidnap', BBC
Darrel
should be able to sue Justice Southin PERSONALLY for DAMAGES, but will
that ever happen? All members of the Law Societies have sworn
their First Allegiance to their Society members.
Canadians are uninformed and deliberately
misinformed about the hate speech provisions of human rights
law, and are engaged in a debate that is "completely
unbalanced," according to Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of
the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
"We welcome this debate. We want it to be an informed debate in
the right forum, a place where people can have an informed
dialogue. [That place is] Parliament, and parliamentary
committees. This why we did a special report to Parliament [last
week]. That's the appropriate forum," she said in an interview.
She criticized Conservative MP Russ Hiebert for relying on "one
source that is full of misinformation," in his study of the CHRC
in a parliamentary subcommittee. But she placed most of the
blame on conservative author Ezra Levant and his blogging allies
for spreading "misinformation" about the CHRC's mandate and
practices.
"Please, please, look. We have experienced 16 months of
invective hurled at us, and at any time when anybody has tried
to speak up and correct misinformation, gross distortions,
caricaturizations, then the very next day there's been some
full-frontal assault through the blogs, through mainstream
media. I have a file. I'm sure I have 1,200, certainly several
hundred of these things," she said.
"There is an agenda out there, and I'ma public servant
responsible for giving effect to the principle that 'individuals
should have the right equal to others to make for themselves a
life they are able and wish to have,' and I'm going to do it.
I'm not going to sit by. Others are afraid to speak out because
they know they're going to be attacked. If you Google my name
today you'll see how I've been attacked."
Ms. Lynch's report to Parliament is an effort to respond to the
hate speech controversy by explaining the CHRC's statutory roles
and responsibility, and to lay out proposals for improvement,
such as the ability to award costs when a complainant has abused
the system, the removal of the ability to levy penalties up to
$10,000, and the discretion to dismiss complaints early if they
clearly do not meet the legal standards of hate.
She stressed that Canada should continue to take a dual approach
to hate speech, with both the punitive criminal code and the
remedial human rights act.
"The Criminal Code plays a very valid role. However, when
we look at the statistics, we find that there aren't a lot of
specialized [police] hate teams across the country," Ms. Lynch
said. "To cede, to remove our jurisdiction, would leave a gap
that might persist for years or a lifetime because it would
require numerous jurisdictions to step into a gap, and they may
or may not be willing to resource that, etcetera, etcetera. So
[the hate speech provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act] is
an important section. It does serve a purpose," she said.
While rebutting what she calls outright lies, the report makes
barely any reference to the more sober criticisms of her hate
speech mandate from mainstream critics, such as the Canadian
Civil Liberites Association and Jewish advocacy groups, and also
almost every newspaper editorial board in Canada. These include
the lack of a legal defense of truth or scholarly or
journalistic intent; the practice of accepting identical
complaints simultaneously in different jurisdictions;
controversial online investigative procedures such as joining
white supremacist discussion groups to investigate targets; and
the potential for human rights tribunals to be hijacked as
political platforms.
Richard Moon, a University of Windsor law professor whose report
to the CHRC last year recommended they leave hate speech to the
police, agrees that critics are engaged in a "disinformation
campaign" of exaggerating failures and making personal smears,
rather than addressing the CHRC's real problems. But he also
thinks those problems are not only real, but "grave" and
fundamental.
"This is my larger concern," he said. "That they [the CHRC]
continue to call for what they describe as a dual approach to
the regulation of hate speech, that is to say the criminal code
and the human rights act. And of course, in order to kind of
justify that, they have to define a distinct sphere, and a
distinct role for the human rights act and the commission and
the tribunal. It's unclear what that is. The only thing that
really gets emphasized is that the criminal code prohibitions
are about wrongful behaviour and intent is a necessary element,
whereas the human rights act is not about whether there was
wrongful intent or motive, it's simply about the effects or the
impact of this expression on members of the community."
The problem is that, as a matter of actual practice, intent
already is a requirement. The hate speech cases that have
actually been pursued are "all so extreme in character that it
is impossible to imagine that there is not wrongful or hateful
intent," Prof. Moon said.
"I think that's actually what's going on in most of these cases
anyway. We're not really looking at effects. We're looking at
the nature of the speech, and how extreme it is. My concern is
if you're not explicit about what you're doing, then who knows
how it might be applied in any particular case? I still have
grave reservations about the failure to include an intention
requirement."
This is an emerging irony of Canada's messy hate speech debate.
As Prof. Moon describes it, the more the CHRC emphasizes the
seriousness of the hate speech it fights, "the more it looks
like that should already be dealt with by criminal law, and not
through the kind of process that's designed to deal with human
rights complaints."
Jennifer Lynch, Lawyer, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Chief
"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.
Sexual psychopath. His
'data' mostly came from sexual psychopaths, sex offenders,
criminals, pedophiles, male prostitutes, and promiscuous
homosexuals. Two of his "co-investigators" were serial
rapists:
Rex King, convicted of 800 counts of child rape involving
both sexes, and
Fritz von Balluseck, an ex-Nazi convicted of the rape-murder
of a ten-year-old girl in Berlin
Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad,
to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for
his alleged data on normal "child sexuality."
Svend 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 following a deal cut with his
Special Prosecutor.
Svend's
Bill C250 added Homosexuals to the super class of groups in
Canada's retarded "Hate
Law". who can destroy in Criminal Court regular Canadians
for exercising Free
Speech.
"Trociuk is .. a
disheartening endorsement of biological concepts of parenthood
... flawed .... it legitimizes a heterosexual view of the family. ..
It must be ignored."
"Mary Woo Sims, the former chief commissioner of the
BC Human Rights Commission,
is a hero to some in the gay and lesbian community for her record as
a defender and promoter of human rights.
Sims, a motorcycle-riding lesbian, lost a bid last year to
get elected to Coquitlam city council",
Georgia Straight
Ignatius of Loyola, Spanish General & Counter-Reformer,
founder of the Jesuits' Society
BIH 1491 - 1556
"The compiler of the Spiritual Exercises
and a gifted spiritual director, Ignatius has been described by
Pope Benedict XVI as being "above all a man of God, who gave the
first place of his life to God...a man of profound prayer." He
is the founder and patron saint of the Society of Jesus."
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.
Canadian
children as State Property and merchandise for sale in the
lucrative 
