Oct. 3, 06: Bud Talkinghorn: What is ...

The Law Commission of Canada, anyway?

When I read that the Harper government had axed this commission I had no clue to what they actually did. I doubt if I am alone there. Now thanks to an opinion piece in The Globe and Mail (Sat. 30, F-2) by Bert Archer, the mystery has been solved. It is a think tank with a direct line to the highest legal powers in government. It sees its mandate as not only improving existing legislation, but helping to forge new laws. According to Archer, it went for the "big new ideas on the biggest issues...the commission sponsored prizes and contests designed to reward and kick-start original thinking on such subjects as aboriginal justice, the relationship between public and private security forces, and the developing mesh of domestic and international laws that is becoming more and more complex." Oh, and they were deeply engaged in examining the same-sex marriage and equity laws.

They come across as far-left lobbyists, who are joined at the hip with the Court Challenges crowd. They are the ones that brought us a weakened law ethos. Some force has allowed juveniles to feel almost no pain for their violent acts--15 year old arsonist in the East, in NB, burns down a Home Hardware store and tries to torch the Canadian Tire next door to it. In court the junior firebug showed no sign of contrition. The 35 employees laid off and the million dollar damage didn't bother him. This little psychopath was sentenced to house arrest for one year. Another kid out West clubs some immigrant to death with an eight ball in a sock. The man's offense was looking at his girlfriend. Sentence: One day. Than we have the reduced sentences for natives, because of the injustices they suffered a century ago. You go to jail; they go to the sweat lodge. The examples of mindless leniency for serious crimes are everywhere. I'm sure that the Law Commission of Canada had a hand in this "get-out-of-jail-free" legal mentality. One can't easily prove this because (like the Court Challenge program) information about who they are, and what ideology they are pushing, is a big state secret. [Read today to see what I was able to find out, Bud. FHTR] Investigators who have managed to crack this veil of silence have found that that most of the Court Challenge grants go to left-wing activists. They are able, then, to grind their axes on taxpayers' grindstones.

Taken as a given is that the Liberal government has appointed Liberal/NDP souls to fill the positions. However, it is the "mesh of domestic and international laws" part of their self-appointed mandate that is most chilling. My blog mate has written extensively on the dangers of allowing our sovereignty and laws to be influenced by U.N. pooh-bahs like Maurice Strong, with his "One World" schemes. There is a world-wide movement to legally regulate the world community--well, at least the Western nations. The thug nations would simply tell the U.N. where to stick it--think Sudan. The Americans refused to sign on to the International Court of Justice, because they saw who was driving this organization. We have enough trouble with our left-leaning, activist Supreme Court "writing-in" their own interpretations of laws. We do not need a Global super-nanny to correct our misguided legislation. The "Nobody is illegal" instigators would love such intervention in our immigration/refugee system.

When Canadians booted the Liberals out of power, part of it was the resentment we felt at a handful of "elites" deciding how we should live our lives. I fear, now that the NDP has swerved to the fringes of its leftist message, the Liberals will try to out-loony them in the next election. Promising to re-establish The Law Commission of Canada would be a good start.

If you want to investigate how many leftist pipelines the U.N. supports, check out my blog mate on "Frost hits the Rhubarb". Or in the same Globe and Mail newspaper (F-3) check out Doug Saunders' column entitled, "Mind your manners, eat your veggies: Nanny knows best" to see how the British Labour government is attempting to control everyday behaviour. My personal example is from an Englishman, who told me that his town council made him take down his Union Jack from the flagpole. His immigrant neighbours thought it was too neo-colonial a symbol. I swear that it is a true story. "Political correctness run amok" was his explanation for this edict. It could come to a neighbourhood near you, if you are not observant.

© Bud Talkinghorn