|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:33 PM August 31st, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This looks bad. See
http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2000_May_Jun /article_1.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a glimpse of the horror that is Abella.
"In short, Madame Justice Abella advocates that the non-custodial parent is not only responsible for his child(ren) but for his ex-partner’s new partner, and his/her dependants also. here
How about "'The two nominees are known hard-line feminists who will apply not law and reason but their own ideologies.' Charron acted as the associate director of the National Judicial Institute for two years, a body of feminist legal theorists formed to promote feminist theory in law, Landolt explained. The Institute produced a "gender sensitivity program" written by feminists, to be used to train Canadian judges" a quote from Gwen Landolt, head of REAL Women of Canada in RADICAL FEMINIST LIBERALS NOMINATED TO CANADA SUPREME COURT on the Ottawa Mens Centre site.
Also from the "Real Women" site. (You really should check out the whole page here.)
"Judge Abella's Backgound
With little legal experience behind her (she was called to the Ontario Bar in 1972), Ms. Abella was appointed to the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 1975 followed by an appointment to the Ontario Family Court and the Ontario Labour Relations Tribunal in 1976. These appointments appeared to be based on her two strongest assets - her female gender and her minority religious faith. On this basis, she could do no wrong. As a result, she was repeatedly pushed upwards in her career, with one government appointment after another.
In 1983, she was appointed to form a one-woman Royal Commission on Equity in Employment. Her report led to the ill-advised and discriminatory employment equity legislation in Ontario (subsequently disbanded) and the now largely discredited federal Employment Equity Act in 1994. According to Professor Martin Loney in his book, The Pursuit of Division: Race, Gender and Preferential Hiring in Canada, Ms. Abella's recommendations in her Equity Commission report were made "without any factual data to support it." (See Reality, March/April 1999, Book Review, p. 13.)
A lack of factual data, however, has never prevented Ms. Abella from receiving star billing or from making nonsensical recommendations and judgments. She became the recipient of her own employment equity program when she was appointed Chairperson of the Ontario Law Reform Commission in 1989. Finally, in 1992, after her strenuous lobbying of Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, Ms. Abella landed her final and most prestigious appointment on the Ontario Court of Appeal. She has used this appointment to its fullest, to impose her feminist fantasies on Canadians.
Abella's Controversial Decisions
Since her appointment, Ms. Abella has handed down several highly questionable decisions. For example, in April 1995, she decreed it was in a child's "best interests" for the custodial mother to remove the child to another continent (Australia), away from the father, who was resident in Canada, even though the father had faithfully made his support payments. This decision effectively denied the father access to his child. (This decision was mercifully overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada.)
Just one month later, in May 1995, Ms. Abella ruled that since anal sex is "a basic form of sexual expression for gay men," … that the provision in the Criminal Code that required the age of consent for such sexual activity be set at 18 years was discriminatory. She stated: (See Reality, July /August 1995, "Title of Article," p. 7): "Court Lowers Age for Homosexual Sex."
… the provision perpetuates rather than narrows the gap for a historically disadvantaged group - gay men-it does so arbitrarily and stereotypically, and is, therefore, a discriminatory provision which infringes the guarantee of equality.
...
Judge Abella is now our leading songbird in this new chorus protecting judges in their often misguided interpretations of the Charter of Rights.
The truth is judges have no special or secret knowledge with which to interpret the general and ill-defined words in the Charter of Rights. Instead, they come to the bench with their own political and ideological axes to grind and make their decisions based on these philosophical assumptions.
As a result, it is arrogance to assume, as does Judge Abella, that judges know what is best for us. This assumption also ignores the reality that the very basis of a judge's appointment is political. Judges are not above the political passions of the day, but, in fact, are an integral part of them."
Here's a bit from an article on the Fathers for Life site (the whole thing is here).
"Today, a giant and lucrative industry of lawyers, consultants, bureaucrats and activists feed off such organizations as the Human Rights Commission and the tribunal. In the politics of gender and race identity, Mr. Loney writes, "Canadians have financed an increasingly destructive agenda whose outcome is not unity, equality or fairness, but division."
The parade of characters, politicians, feminists, dupes and con artists — from Judy Rebick to Pat Carney to Rosalie Abella to Lloyd Axworthy — is thick and colourful. But as Mr. Loney shows time and again through his book, there is no evidence that women are underpaid or systematically and deliberately excluded from jobs or positions or promotions or raises. Whether in the civil service or elsewhere, the only way gender politics can be translated into statistical material is by hauling in socialists and statisticians to manipulate numbers and jobs to fabricate and invent proof."
(In the colourful slang of a large military establishment: BOHICA -- Bend over here it comes again.)
Ragtime
The Uppity Wallet
The opinions expressed above are my own,
but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you would like a good overview of her career and her judicial decisions go to: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/index_en.html
and enter her last name in the search engine under the Ontario section.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
