Friday, February 17, 2012

more stupid judge tricks

In another disappointing decision by our activist high court. So the government can impose whatever propaganda they want and once again the rights of parents.Apparently our high court is aiding the socialist atheist that made this course. We need to appoint better judges , until then home schooling and charter schools seem to be the way to go. Catholic parents in Quebec cannot keep their kids out of a school course that teaches them about other religions, the country's top court has ruled. The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday rendered its decision in a controversial case that was cast by some observers as a matter of religious freedom versus a bid by the province to increase tolerance. Allowing children to opt out of the course would be "a rejection of the multicultural reality of Canadian society and ignores the Quebec government's obligations with regard to public education," the court ruled. The case pit a set of Catholic parents against the school board and the province of Quebec. Quebec's Ethics and Religious Culture program became mandatory for schools in May 2008. In the course, students learn about the Catholic and Protestant Christian traditions in Quebec culture. The program is meant to expose students— who are also taught about the contributions of Judaism, aboriginal spirituality and other religious traditions— to a variety of religions. The couple from Drummondville, Que., at the centre of the case, who can't be identified, wrote to their children's schools asking that they be exempt from the course.

10 comments:

Blue canuck said...

What did you expect?

http://www.canadiantimes.ca/CMS/index.php/icv/commentary/729-besieged-democracy-under-attack

MissMarprelate said...

Except that they are trying to impose the course on homeschoolers and private schools.

Anonymous said...

I am an atheist and I don't agree with this course which my son was forced to take. A straight history of religions would be good, but this course seems to be half 'history' of religions and the other situational ethics. Also there is never presented the idea that ethics and religion can be separated as they have been in the long history of philosophy.

Anonymous said...

Term limits for judges. Use closure and the Not With Stand clause to ram it through.

Unknown said...

Three of those judges were appointed by conservatives, including the Chief Justice.

If you actually read the case, the parents failed because they couldn't prove any way that the class as it was proposed would in any way infringe upon their religion.

Not being able to give any evidence that you're right is kind of a big deal. No judge should decide one way IN SPITE OF the evidence.

Also, note that two of the more left-leaning Liberal-appointed judges (LeBel and Fish) actually said that once the program is implemented, it COULD infringe upon someone's freedom of religion, depending on how it's taught.

Read the actual judgment once and a while before getting all huffy about the Court.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Doctor, listen to your betters.

How dare you even THINK of whispering of word of critcism against our omniscient philosopher gods of the bench? They are all wise super beings who are incapable of bias, personal agenda or any of the petty faults of mere commoners.

(They just *APPEAR* to be blustering pompous assed elitists.)

Term limits - NOW!

Unknown said...

When I find a sensible or legitimate criticism, I'm happy to embrace it.

Getting pissed off at the judiciary because they ruled one way or another isn't the way to do it, and sure as hell isn't convincing to me.

I'm also at a bit of a loss as to how term limits are supposed to serve anything. I suppose you think that if judges were on term limits, they'd... what? Be more considerate of public opinion or something? They're not politicians (thank god).

The other thing is, if we have a large number of judicial placements, then the PM will be far less focused on appointing qualified candidates and more willing to spread it around to flakes like law professors, because there's not as much risk.)

I'm not sure whether you think there should be term limits only for the Supreme Court, or for all positions on the judiciary, but if it's the latter it demonstrates a deep and fundamental ignorance about how and why the judicial system works the way it does.

But hey, let's assume that term limits are helpful in any way - a third of the current Supreme Court have been appointed in the last four years. So even if we take a very short term limit, those same judges who made the ruling you don't like are STILL THERE.

I'm all for cogent critiques of the justice system, but getting mad at the judges because the side you prefer fucked it up isn't convincing. Learn your shit.

Anonymous said...

---"Learn your shit?" Fuck you dick head. What? Did my my lack of hero worship for scummy lawyers on the government payroll offend someone?

Term limits would be good because thn we don't have some elitist ass (which so many lawyers and judges - and law students) ARE, sitting in judgement of us dirty uneducated commoners for life.

When ivory tower pompous asses like canadian judges get a job for life they tend to think they are infallible and get pretty arrogant. This leads to poor decisions. Better to be able to yank them out the door every few years and replace them.

----"So even if we take a very short term limit, those same judges who made the ruling you don't like are STILL THERE"

OMG you're right! I stand corrected! I guess WE should keep and asshole with an agenda in a powerful office for life then!

Are you on crack?

"They're not politicians (thank god)."

Nooooo, lawyers with agendas who aspire to be judges would NEVER go around kissing ass and gladhanding trying to lobby themselves into a political appointment. Oh NEVER! Lawyers are far too ethical for that!

I see your reasoning. Having some party hack shit appointed by his college buddy because he made some secret donations to a political candidate or organization is somehow BETTER than we, the dirty ueducated common rabble electing them? Yeah, THAT makes sense.

---"When I find a sensible or legitimate criticism, I'm happy to embrace it."

Suuuuurrre you are. - Prove it.

---"sure as hell isn't convincing to me"

Umm.... So?

Anonymous said...

I'd like to add that your anger at anyone who DAAARRREES to even commit the slightest thoughtcrime of disrespect for our "betters" on the bench says a lot.

My guess is you are quite happy with the way the majority of decisions are laid down now. You know, with a left leaning, socially liberal, progressivist slant. THIS is why you want to protect those (and keep them in office) who are making such decisions.

Well, sweetums heres a bit of unfortunate news for you. The internet and social media have proven to be quite distressing for the judges. I recent years quite a number of judges have issued public statements indicating that they are extremely upset with what one retired SCOC justice termed "judge bashing" (hee hee). Recently SCOC chief "justice" (using the term loosely) Bev. M. made a surprisingly whiny public statement against people discussing SCOC decisions on twitter and internet discussion boards.

Aaaahhhh pooooor Bevvy. I guess the discontent with elitist dicks behind the bench is becoming so loud she can hear it all the way up there in her ivory tower.


I expect the outrage with these left leaning socially progressive elitists will grow leading to their greater discomfort. Aaaaahh isn't it wonderful. Those who were, for so long comfortably unaccountable to anyone are now starting to hear the distant rumblings of public anger and .... demand for accountability?

And I am going to delight in seeing their discomfort increase.

Free lunch is almost over assholes.

Anonymous said...

"Unknown" lawyer boy (more than likely not a lawyer just some sneering college idiot) loves the judiciary so much.

The best solution to canada's hopelessly out of touch judiciary is to take decisions out of their hands whenever possible.

If a department of education mandated course (1 dad 2 dad red dad blue dad) is against your beliefs then homeschool. When the dictatorial powers that be try to force you to teach the course. then ... "do so" >;P.

Junior gets an "A" in the course without ever opening the textbook. And no pontificating blowhard judge living in her little legal dreamworld can force you.

I Support Lord Black