I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, a radical Feminist or suffering from early onset Alzheimers?

Real Women of Canada sent out the following release over some of the less cogent and potentially misandrous comments of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.  To say she is a sexist feminist is fair, based on her single gender only opinions. I pity men who are appealing sexist court decisions based on Family Law having to deal with her.









Media Release
Ottawa, Ontario
December 7, 2010

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin – was she confused or just presumptuous?


Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin may have confused her role as a judge in her recent speech to the feminist oriented North-South Institute when she made a proposal to include women’s impact assessment in future international trade agreements. Previously this was solely the role of legislative policy workers and elected MP’s.

Modestly admitting that she was not a “trade policy person” she nonetheless believed herself qualified to provide the advice to government officials on trade.
Alternatively, if Chief Justice McLachlin wasn’t confused, she then must believe that her appointment as a judge provides her with rare insight and understanding that transcends that of the experts in the field, who would benefit from her guidance. If such is the case, her comments were only an extension of the remarks she made in another speech, in December 2005, that judges may base their opinion on unwritten norms “even in the face of enacted laws or hostile public opinion.” She reached this bizarre conclusion on the belief that judges have a “judicial conscience [which] is founded on the judges’ sworn commitment to uphold the rule of law.”

There is also a third possibility for the comments of the Chief Justice – namely, that she threw all caution to the wind in her speech in pursuit of her feminist concerns promoting the cause of women. If this were not the case, why then was she not equally concerned about the rights of men, children, the aged and the poor in trade agreements?

Regardless of the reasons for her agitation on behalf of women in her speech, Chief Justice McLachlin has displayed a remarkable lack of judgment and common sense. This discredits her personally as well as the judiciary.

For Further Information Please Contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt                                        
National Vice President                                        
(905) 731-5425, (905) 889-1993
Diane Watts
(613) 236-4001
Researcher

No comments: