Wednesday, January 03, 2007

"Naked Judicial Activism"

Joseph C. Ben-Ami of the Institute for Canadian Values is NOT a happy camper today.


* * * *

Update: David Frum's Diary via Jack's Newswatch - "Skipping Down the Slippery Slope"

Now here's something that I want to remember. David says:

I'm reminded of something Evelyn Waugh once wrote to his friend Nancy Mitford: He said that because she had no understanding of the implications of her (left-wing) politics, that for her the future was always full of lovely surprises. Whereas he had to live through every catastrophe twice, once in anticipation, and then again in reality ....

That is the story of my life.

* * * *

David Quist from Institute of Marriage and Family Canada -

"What we do know from social science research right now is that children raised by their married biological mom and dad do best, but we also know that's not a fact of life for a lot of kids out there," he said. "Let's put in (some policy) that supports the outcomes for the children the best we can, rather than going the other direction."

Further Update: Unchartered Waters by Mindelle Jacobs (Edmonton Sun).

18 comments:

Cherniak_WTF said...

So J, why don't you tell us what YOU& think?
Or do you prefer to let nutbars speak for you?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Or do you prefer to let nutbars speak for you?

You're doing a great job.

Cherniak_WTF said...

No Joanne, I have not spoken for you.

The "Institute For Canadian Values" is a rather funny nutbar association.
It's founding stems from Bill C-38 and has a clear anti-canadian bias.

Are you saying that these Theo-cons speak for you?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

It's founding stems from Bill C-38 and has a clear anti-canadian bias.

Please expand on the latter part of that sentence. Thanks.

Soccermom said...

Joanne, silly, don't you know that Liberal values are Canadian values? *Puke*

The rest of us don't count.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol! Soccermom, I figured that was what I'd be hearing. Just wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth. ;)

Anonymous said...

Naked Judicial Activism - No clothes worn under the judicial robes??

Noteworthy First Comment - So J, why don't you tell us what YOU& think?
Or do you prefer to let nutbars speak for you?

Perfect Retort - You're doing a great job.

Result - Socialist eyeballs spinning in sockets!

Priceless!
Fortunately I wasn't drinking coffee at the time!
;)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Fortunately I wasn't drinking coffee at the time!

Ah, that's good, PGP. I was afraid you'd start sending me your cleaning bills!

Cherniak_WTF said...

Odd that when you don't agree with a decision it becomes "naked Judicial activism".

I've already expanded on this in another post on your blog...

The Institute For Canadian Values is a so-called think-tank that has a conservative agenda (both socially and economically). This is a rather narrow focus (30% at best) - hardly a Canadian Values one...
It's openly religious (what's the % of Canadians that are Christian at this moment?)

It acts like a PR firm for a select few.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Sweater guy, I do find it mildly amusing to be called a socialist - given that I'm far right of that.

It's amusing to see those that want to control society with cries of "values" and decry what they see as socialist or Liberals values, trying to be the most controlling ones... Theo-fascists anyone?

No wonder the RR has a bad name always trying to dictate the behaviour of other whilst being perfect little hypocrites....

vicki said...

Some don't recognize the slippery slope 'cuz they like the dirt at the bottom.

Cherniak_WTF said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I guess now the few remaining vestiges of widely respected public morality are being legislated out of existance by pontificating, ivory tower, legal dream world inhabiting nut cases on the bench.

I suppose now we are at the point of every man (& woman) for themselves.

Hey, that suits me just fine. If those are now the rules I will be happy to play by them.

While little Johnny grows up to be a neurotic, waste of skin, loser because of the self indulgence of his 5 pervert parents my daughter (now 2) will grow up stable and sucessful with her 2 old fashioned parents who care about her very much.

I hope you don't mind WORKING FOR my daughter little Johnny, until she fires your ass that is.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Anon - I hear your frustration, but I don't think it's appropriate to label the parents as "perverts".

I am concerned about the implications of this ruling though.

Red Tory said...

Joanne -- I am concerned about the implications of this ruling though.

Perhaps you could elaborate on this. (Aside from your facetious speculations made the other day...)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Perhaps you could elaborate on this.

Do we as a society care how many names are registered under the category of "parent" on a child's birth certificate? If not; what's the point of it then?

Cherniak_WTF said...

I can answer the question Joanne, I don't care!

You see, it's what in the best interest of the children that I care, not some semantic definition (SSM anyone)...
By then, Cons seem to care more about the appearance of things than the truth or what's right...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thank you CWTF. And can you please demonstrate how it is in the best interest of the child to have any number of names on a birth certificate?