Wednesday, March 23, 2011

status beyond the Law

March 23,2011
       Mr. Tom Schuck, lawyer for Bill Whatcott sent a very interesting fundraising letter. Here is a paragraph that is very much of public interest.
     “After a defeat in the Court of Queen’s Bench, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has reversed the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ruling. As a result, Bill Whatcott is not required to pay $17,500 to some homosexual activists for not hurting their feelings. To recap, Bill Whatcott had distributed a photocopy of a page from the classified ad section of Saskatchewan largest gay and lesbian magazine in which there were ads of individuals seeking “boys” and specifically stating “ age not relevant”. This was an extremely important victory, because a Court has ruled that there is a significant difference between a sexual orientation and the behavior of some homosexual people. Up until now, some believed that the behavior of homosexual people had protected under the Charter.” Tom Schuck March 15,2011
    The letter was not about me and was to raise funds for the Supreme Court Challenge which is tentatively Oct.12, 2011. However every win is a victory for other people who uphold Christian morality.
     Note: Bill Whatcott over an issue of 2001 has not had to pay one cent to his
 persecutors in the ten years of this case. Note: He was to pay $17,500 . I am expected to pay $58,000 and mounting interest over a court decision which was made with no representation from me  because I was not able to attend the court 600km from home. I have been arrested, have been forced to go to court when I was sick and am expected to go to a court of chaos  in Southend April 28. I had gone to the Appeals Court. I asked for a court of three days. I got about one hour. There was no indication that anyone had read my factum and were willing to discuss the constitutional issues that I raised. I said that I was appealing this to the Supreme Court.
    Now Tom Schuck says only 8% of cases are accepted by the Supreme Court. I do think that the Supreme Court would be interested to know that their decision of Dec.22, 2009 is being used to suppress free speech rather than the opposite which was the stated intention of the ruling . They would be interested to know that judges in Saskatchewan are ruling that if you make “ serious allegations” against a crown prosecutor you can’t have a trial.   Of course this would be embarrassing for some Saskatchewan judges but I am sure that within Saskatchewan this nonsense can be cleared up so none of us have to go outside the province.     Note it has been already ruled in Saskatchewan that there is a difference between criticising someone ‘s behaviour and their purported private life style. That seems rather obvious. In practice what has happened if one criticises someone for decisions that hurt others  one is open to vicious and sustained persecution if the person who is being criticised happens to be allegedly a homosexual.
    It is this treatment that discriminates. Most of us don’t care, don’t know and don’t want to know who is or is not practising sodomy. Yet the homosexual flag is raised and all other people’s inalienable and constitutional rights are rendered null and void.
 Did  Judge Bekolay use boys ( boys, not young men) from northern Saskatchewan for sex orgies run by a criminal?   The issue is suppressed. He receives pay for no work. Now what if Judge Bekolay was using girls from southern Saskatchewan for sex orgies. His immoral, exploitative and blatantly evil behaviour would have put him in the penn, maximum security for his protection needed.  Give to Schuck . We can’t at the moment. Gay