The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
A 'double repression'
Kevin Libin's story in the National Post this morning, about the University of Calgary's crushing of freedom of expression on campus, reports on a speech delivered by pro-life leader Leah Hallman. Libin writes that Hallman intended to cast her organization's dispute with the school's governors as "an historic battle for Canadian liberties."
Was she successful? I'll let you decide. You can read Hallman's speech by clicking here.
Who do these pro-life students think they are. Where do they get this idea that they have so many rights. Harumph. They get the rights we say they get and no more than that. They get the right to a pie in the face dag nab it. They get the right to bow before the altar of diversity and tolerance. They get the right to shut up and nod.
Posted by: Kent J | 2009-02-19 3:21:00 PM
i keep getting errors
Posted by: bbb | 2009-02-20 11:01:53 AM
Great Speach by Ms. Hallman.
Let's hope her lawyer knows some criminal code Statutes, such as Sect. 140 of Canada's Criminal Code, which entitles Ms. Hallman and friends to bring a counter-accusative case against their malicious and "deceitful" (not very) accusers.
Section 140 of the Criminal Code is described as "public mischief" and states that, quote
140. (1) Everyone commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace offer to enter on, or continue an investigation by
(a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;
(b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to direct suspicion from himself;
(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when IT HAS NOT BEEN COMMITTED; or
(d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.
140. (2) Every one who commits public mischief
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
An accusation to the effect that students, who have paid their tuition fees, are guilty of "trespassing" on their own university campus certainly matches section 140.(3) of that criminal code Statute. It's like accusing crown prosecutors of "trespassing" at the prosecution bar, when they bring ridiculous or even sane charges, or that judges are "trespassing" by sitting on the bench and rendering unfavourable verdicts, rather than favorable verdicts.
Then there are the Statutes which favor these students' decreed right to object to abortion by means of their described "Genocide Awareness Project", which is the actual unstated offence of their malicious prosecution.
Both Section 1 of The Canadian Bill of Rights and Section 2. of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms allegedly "guarantee" these students' right to verbally and graphically oppose abortion.
Disobeying any Act of Parliament, particularly those sections and subsections of two Acts of Parliament (Bill of Rights and so-called "Charter") is a Criminal Code Offence acknowledged by Section 126. of Canada's Criminal Code, described as "Disobeying a Statute" in my copy of Milligan's Correlated Criminal Code and Selected Federal Statutes (1995).
Section 126.(1) reads:- Every one who, without lawful excuse contravenes an Act of Parliament, by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
The young "kids'" lawyer ought to come to Court counter-accusing the university administration, or whoever "reported these youngsters for 'trespassing' on their own campus, of disobeying Sections 1.(a) through 1.(d) of The Canadian Bill of Rights and Sections 2. (a) through 2.(d) of the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, contrary to Sect. 126 C.C.C.
But my personal favorite is Sect. 137 of the Criminal Code, which these young persons' lawyer also has at his disposal, along with the students themselves, which reads, as of 1995.
137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a TERM NOT EXCEEDING 14 YEARS.
Thus Sect. 137. of the Criminal Code is considered a Type E indictable offence and IF "counter-accused" would certainly send the students' phoney accusers of "trespass" scurrying to consult their own lawyers on the relevance of such a perfectly relevant counter-accusation, because their alleged "trespassing" offence is exactly that --- An utter FABRICATION "deceitfully" designed to violate their so-called "Charter" freedoms and rights.
But these poor kids allegedly have a person named John Carpay representing them. I recall Mr. Carpay actually refusing to Swear one of my suppressed Affidavits in my own Provincial Court Docket matter, even though I offered to pay him to notorize the Affidavit which Provincial Court Clerks refused (quite illegally) to Swear.
But maybe he's learned a little more Law since then, although I doubt it.
Provincial Court Docket Matter 90610247-P1-0-1-0-1... "ad nauseum". A Provincial Court "Summary" matter which lasted for over 1 year (no more than 8 days adjournment, unless, on the consent of both parties to more than 8 days), when I didn't consent to any more than my 1st appearance, where my initial objections to the proceeding was suppressed by some Judged named Demong. After that it got even worse... for over a year. Let's hope the kids don't get THAT Judge!
Posted by: Kevin | 2009-02-22 5:22:23 AM
Freedom of expresson for conservatives in Canada seems to be under relentless attack. Pastors (Stephen Boisson), and writers (Mark Steyn)are being fined, forbidden to express their views publicly, and put on trial before the Spanish Inquisition (Human Rights Tribunal) for expressing views on controversial issues such as the gay lifestyle and Islam, simply because they are unpopular, not held by the majority, or cause hurt feelings. The Genocide Awareness Project is just another example of this being played out, again.
I agree wholeheartedly with Leah Hallman. I would add that the U of C is seeking so hard to repress these images because their consciences are pricked. But, if they want to supress their own consciences that is their choice. They are free to ignore, walk away, argue, disagree, or refuse to acknowledge the realities of abortion. But to seek to repress and silence the expression of these views and images, tramples everyone's freedom of speech and undermines our "free" country. Evidently, U of C does not fully grasp the meaning of freedom of expression/speech, which must allow for differing and opposing views - otherwise it is no freedom at all.
Posted by: Lisa | 2009-03-12 11:30:51 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.