Thursday, April 16, 2015

Protecting Canada from Dictatorship

April 16,2015

    Alex Schadenberg of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition wants a Royal Commission on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.  He also wants the Notwithstanding Clause invoked to defend the Criminal Code defining Euthanasia as Homicide as it still does. When he went to the Supreme Court in the Carter Case he said that Parliament not The Supreme Court should decide such issues.

     There is the compelling issue. The Supreme Court must be forced back into the limited authority it held prior to 1982 and Parliament must be the supreme legislative body. A handful of socialists knowing that the electorate would never accept their agenda  gave the Supreme Court the power to turn the Dominion of Canada into a dictatorship of eleven appointed for life lawyers cum judges. To date the judges have ruled without legal tradition, against basic logic and against the Canadian Bill of Rights, the written words of the Charter of Rights and four hundred years of Christian culture.

    The Court’s decision to attempt to impose Assisted Suicide on Canadian people is their worst act to date  and the most blatant example of why they must be stopped.

Their direction was set with the imaginary and false right to same sex unions to be called “marriage”. It was quickly followed by the decision that a person does not have a right to repudiate his former lifestyle and does not have a right to photocopy and distribute what a group has published, even when that group is advertising for illegal activity, in this case statutory rape.

    One recent decision that has been ignored is the decision that Canadian soldiers coming back from duty must have a right to marijuana for battle fatigue. Like most Canadians I know nothing about the lifestyles, habits or expertise of the judges but maybe it is time that thorough research on them should be  done. We do know that the head judge was living common- law when when she ruled that shack -ups should be treated like marriage. It is likely that not one judge making that decision is a medical expert on the psychological and physical damage of marijuana use. The public was not aware of the pending decision . No anti- marijuana experts with money, lawyers and a public organisation had any input into the decision.  Marijuana users themselves are the most deluded group about this deceptive drug. It is a legitimate question to ask if these people were or are pot users? There are many other similar legitimate questions that point to conflict- of- interest issues.

    Recently the Supreme Court ruled against a Saskatchewan labour bill. Maybe some like that ruling. The provincial government that was elected by the majority of people in that province, does  not . So what was wrong with battling out issues the old way: a government is elected, if it makes unpopular decisions people can vote them out and new laws can be made. It’s called democracy. The Supreme Court as Supreme Rulers are absurd and are going in the direction of dictatorial thugs. We can and must restore Canada for the protection of us all. Gay