Oh Canada, Chapter 5 - Lawyers Lead Deconstruction
This may seem like Chinese water torture to some of you, but like the little pink energizer bunny, I intend to continue to march forward with some facts and opinions that regrettably you won’t be reading or hearing about in our mainstream media outlets.
A significant impetus for me in persisting in my opposition to the movement to change the definition of marriage is the role which the legal system – academic and judicial- has played in the deconstruction of marriage. I have personal knowledge of the workings of our legal system having practiced law for 33 years. I know personally some of the judges whose reasons have led us to the brink or the threshold depending on your perspective of a new social paradigm in Canada – same sex marriage. I am utterly convinced they have no special insights into what our society wants or needs by way of a new definition of marriage. I am also convinced based on my reading of legal literature, court decisions and conversations with members of the profession that the legal academy is overwhelmingly liberal in its orientation.
The Charter of Rights has been in force since 1982. In 1999 the Parliament of Canada voted 216-55 to reaffirm the historic definition of marriage. In 2001 the Supreme Court of B.C. rejected a petition to approve a same-sex marriage, arguing that the common-law definition of marriage could not be changed without an amendment to the country’s Constitution. Yet in July 2002, the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the existing legal framework of marriage in Canada was discriminatory since it failed to provide fair recognition of gay and lesbian unions. BC and Quebec appellate courts soon followed suit and here we are.
What happened? Did Canadian society really change so dramatically in less than 5 years? Did we suddenly discover how wrong we had been in retaining a historical definition of marriage as an institution reserved for a man and woman?
Rather what has occurred is a militant and extremely well funded lobby group advocating the “rights” of gays and lesbians began to reap the rewards of years of propaganda in our universities and amongst our media and politicians. They are well funded because all the legal expenses of the law suits challenging the restrictiveness of marriage are financed by tax payer dollars. It is so Canadian to use our own tax dollars to finance the efforts of interest groups to tear down the fabric of our culture. In a country where a political party, whose only purpose is to destroy Confederation, can wear the mantle of Official Opposition what more should we expect.
The lobbyists also benefited from the fecklessness of a tired and corrupt Liberal government under Jean Chretien. Eager to deflect attention from the brewing scandals onto a topic where polling showed it could gain traction in urban Canada, the Chretien Liberals rolled over like a cowering mongrel and refused to appeal the provincial court decisions and disbanded the parliamentary committee that was systematically gathering information from a broad spectrum of Canadian society on this issue. Instead it turned the keys of the highjacked car back to the joyriders.
These well funded legal academics had succeeded in convincing the Ontario Appellate Court to accept the findings of the Law Commission of Canada in its 2001 report: Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Adult Relationships. It was from this fever swamp of academic deconstructionism that emerged the concept of marriage being no more than a form of close personal relationship. More on this later.
Ordinary Canadians must stop to consider that the majority of appeal court and certainly Supreme Court of Canada judges enter the judiciary from the ranks of academia and politics. Lawyers are hardly representative of the broad cross section of society, and judges are an even thinner slice of the universe of lawyers.
So people whose adult professional lives have primarily been spent thinking about the law rather than practicing and applying it to real life circumstances; or who have leveraged their political positions or connections into the sinecure of a judicial appointment (Roy McMurtry and Rosie Abella two prominent examples on the Ontario Court of Appeal) are now vested with the ultimate power of deciding the constitutionality of the laws of our country. It is no exaggeration to liken this to the inmates running the prison.
I will stop here to let you ponder how comfortable you feel about such folks determining matters of culture, morality and the welfare of our children; and doing so without any accountability to the citizens of Canada.
A significant impetus for me in persisting in my opposition to the movement to change the definition of marriage is the role which the legal system – academic and judicial- has played in the deconstruction of marriage. I have personal knowledge of the workings of our legal system having practiced law for 33 years. I know personally some of the judges whose reasons have led us to the brink or the threshold depending on your perspective of a new social paradigm in Canada – same sex marriage. I am utterly convinced they have no special insights into what our society wants or needs by way of a new definition of marriage. I am also convinced based on my reading of legal literature, court decisions and conversations with members of the profession that the legal academy is overwhelmingly liberal in its orientation.
The Charter of Rights has been in force since 1982. In 1999 the Parliament of Canada voted 216-55 to reaffirm the historic definition of marriage. In 2001 the Supreme Court of B.C. rejected a petition to approve a same-sex marriage, arguing that the common-law definition of marriage could not be changed without an amendment to the country’s Constitution. Yet in July 2002, the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the existing legal framework of marriage in Canada was discriminatory since it failed to provide fair recognition of gay and lesbian unions. BC and Quebec appellate courts soon followed suit and here we are.
What happened? Did Canadian society really change so dramatically in less than 5 years? Did we suddenly discover how wrong we had been in retaining a historical definition of marriage as an institution reserved for a man and woman?
Rather what has occurred is a militant and extremely well funded lobby group advocating the “rights” of gays and lesbians began to reap the rewards of years of propaganda in our universities and amongst our media and politicians. They are well funded because all the legal expenses of the law suits challenging the restrictiveness of marriage are financed by tax payer dollars. It is so Canadian to use our own tax dollars to finance the efforts of interest groups to tear down the fabric of our culture. In a country where a political party, whose only purpose is to destroy Confederation, can wear the mantle of Official Opposition what more should we expect.
The lobbyists also benefited from the fecklessness of a tired and corrupt Liberal government under Jean Chretien. Eager to deflect attention from the brewing scandals onto a topic where polling showed it could gain traction in urban Canada, the Chretien Liberals rolled over like a cowering mongrel and refused to appeal the provincial court decisions and disbanded the parliamentary committee that was systematically gathering information from a broad spectrum of Canadian society on this issue. Instead it turned the keys of the highjacked car back to the joyriders.
These well funded legal academics had succeeded in convincing the Ontario Appellate Court to accept the findings of the Law Commission of Canada in its 2001 report: Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Adult Relationships. It was from this fever swamp of academic deconstructionism that emerged the concept of marriage being no more than a form of close personal relationship. More on this later.
Ordinary Canadians must stop to consider that the majority of appeal court and certainly Supreme Court of Canada judges enter the judiciary from the ranks of academia and politics. Lawyers are hardly representative of the broad cross section of society, and judges are an even thinner slice of the universe of lawyers.
So people whose adult professional lives have primarily been spent thinking about the law rather than practicing and applying it to real life circumstances; or who have leveraged their political positions or connections into the sinecure of a judicial appointment (Roy McMurtry and Rosie Abella two prominent examples on the Ontario Court of Appeal) are now vested with the ultimate power of deciding the constitutionality of the laws of our country. It is no exaggeration to liken this to the inmates running the prison.
I will stop here to let you ponder how comfortable you feel about such folks determining matters of culture, morality and the welfare of our children; and doing so without any accountability to the citizens of Canada.
posted by Ben Buan | 1:14 a.m.
<< Home