Friday, 28 June 2013
Monday, 17 June 2013
Saturday, 15 June 2013
Copy of the principles of judicial office: how many Ontario family court judges actually follow these principles?
Principles of Judicial Office
Respect for the Judiciary is acquired through the pursuit of excellence in administering justice.
A strong and independent judiciary is indispensable to the proper administration of justice in our society. Judges must be free to perform their judicial duties without fear of reprisal or influence from any person, group, institution or level of government. In turn, society has a right to expect those appointed as judges to be honourable and worthy of its trust and confidence.
The judges of the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) recognize their duty to establish, maintain, encourage and uphold high standards of personal conduct and professionalism so as to preserve the independence and integrity of their judicial office and to preserve the faith and trust that society places in the men and women who have agreed to accept the responsibilities of judicial office.
The following principles of judicial office are established by the judges of the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) and set out standards of excellence and integrity to which all judges subscribe. These principles are not exhaustive. They are designed to be advisory in nature and are not directly related to any specific disciplinary process. Intended to assist judges in addressing ethical and professional dilemmas, they may also serve in assisting the public to understand the reasonable expectations which the public may have of judges in the performance of judicial duties and in the conduct of judges’ personal lives.
1. The Judge in Court
1.1 Judges must be impartial and objective in the discharge of their judicial duties.
Judges should not be influenced by partisan interests, public pressure or fear of criticism. Judges should maintain their objectivity and shall not, by words or conduct, manifest favour,bias or prejudice towards any party or interest.
1.2. Judges have a duty to follow the law.
Judges have a duty to apply the relevant law to the facts and circumstances of the cases before the court and render justice within the framework of the law.
1.3. Judges will endeavour to maintain order and decorum in court.
Judges must strive to be patient, dignified and courteous in performing the duties of judicial office and shall carry out their role with integrity, appropriate firmness and honour.
2. The Judge and the Court
2.1. Judges should approach their judicial duties in a spirit of collegiality, cooperation and mutual assistance.
2.2. Judges should conduct court business with due diligence and dispose of all matters before them promptly and efficiently having regard, at all times, to the interests of justice and the rights of the parties before the court.
2.3. Reasons for judgment should be delivered in a timely manner.
2.4. Judges have a duty to maintain their professional competence in the law.
Judges should attend and participate in continuing legal and general education programs.
2.5. The primary responsibility of judges is the discharge of their judicial duties.
Subject to applicable legislation, judges may participate in law related activities such as teaching, participating in educational conferences, writing and working on committees for the advancement of judicial interests and concerns, provided such activities do not interfere with the judges’ primary duty to the court.
3. The Judge in the Community
3.1. Judges should maintain their personal conduct at a level which will ensure the public’s trust and confidence.
3.2. Judges must avoid any conflict of interest, or the appearance of any conflict of interest, in the performance of their judicial duties.
Judges must not participate in any partisan political activity. Judges must not contribute financially to any political party.
3.3. Judges must not abuse the power of their judicial office or use it inappropriately.
3.4. Judges are encouraged to be involved in community activities provided such involvement is not incompatible with their judicial office.
Friday, 14 June 2013
Chief Justice Warren Winkler at Family Law Summit
- The Family law system in Ontario needs reform now. He intended his September 2010 comments as a lightning rod for change to the whole system. He observes that much dialogue has resulted.
- Trend in Family Law: The well-to-do are opting out of the system and choosing private mediation/arbitration; Others going self-rep (up to 70% in Toronto)
- Asks if we are trending toward a two-tiered system? Notes Canadians don't like two-tiered systems.
- Family law system needs affordability, timing, efficiency.
- He proposes "presumptive judicial mediation" as cornerstone of new system..
- Justice Winkler's proposal: Triage Judge to handle cases that can't or shouldn't be mediated. The Triage judge will send an immediate message: It "won't be pleasant" for those acting badly
- Access to justice is a double-edged sword - it can also be used by one party to harass the other. The family justice system should not be permitted to be used to perpetrate wrongful conduct by either party. We must "take the system out of play"
- Under his proposed new system, every court attendance must be meaningful. Must eliminate wasteful court appearances.
- Need system of "one family, one judge"
- Goals of new family law system - Must be cheap, simple, understandable and affordable
- We have "studied" Unified Family Court far too long. Need UFC's across the Province now.
- He is committed to getting this change done now, and asks family law bar to help make it happen.
Friday, 7 June 2013
Canadian Politicians need to start thinking about what they can do for Canada and not what Canada can do for them.
Canadian Children deserve better than growing up learning to assume that men are violent abusers and a danger to children, the extreme feminist agenda, a doctrine that controls most family court judges, police and that group called child protection workers.
There is no promotion of marriage, only a promotion of marriage destruction, a promotion of the removal of fathers that is destroying Canada with a resulting negative birth rate.
There needs to be a radical reform of family law, child protection law, and a brighter light on equality rights for men and children.
Children don't have legal rights to a mother and a father. Children have no legal right to know WHO their mother and father are.
The only solution, is for DNA testing at birth with parental confirmation by DNA testing. Every man in Canada should be able to have his DNA checked to see if he has become an unwitting father.
Canadian Justice is a sick joke that has more in common with that of 1939 Germany than a real rule of law.
The first start is a total reform of Family Law in Canada based on equality rights, an assumption of equal parenting, and tough penalties for false allegations that feminists encourage.
Then there is the area's of education and social work where men have been made outcasts. In many of those areas, the only men you find are those who are follow the promotion of hatred of men dictated by feminist doctrine.
You fight fire not by blowing the smoke away, but by fire prevention in the first place. In Canadian society children and men have next to no legal rights which requires recognition and radical change.
Across Canada, men have a reverse onus applied to them, an assumption that everything is wrong with them or anything they say because it conflicts with the dogma spouted forth by feminists that indoctrinates the judiciary, police and the most evil of all, the Child Protection Workers of Ontario who have next to no oversight.
Canadian men have similar rights to that of jews being placed in cattle carts on a non stop journey to the concentration camp.
Women are increasingly well educated as to the lack of men's legal rights and know that if he calls 911 because she assaults him, he will be arrested automatically, and a year later, if he is lucky, be found not guilty. In the intervening year, his children have a better probability of being alienated from him.
Men now are afraid of being fathers, they are afraid of women who hold all the power and can have one little finger dial 911 to unleash a war of police, family court, child protection, criminal prosecution, all to ensure his total destruction in the name of feminist doctrine that has more in common with that by the 3'rd Reich than to that mythical charter of rights and freedoms that the Supreme court seem to think needs to apply its gender lens.
awaMensCentr ... attachment
The upside of these events, aside from their informative and much needed content, is the public displays by the extreme left wing acolytes of wymen's (gender) studies programs. It shows the precariousness of their positions, very ridiculous behaviour, and more importantly the paranoia involved.
Those of us who have been dealing with these feminist, nutbar, zealots for many years could sometimes not get others to believe how nutty and fringe they really are. These forums bring them out of the woodwork and on display for all to see via youtube. And they are not all female.
Facebook | Twitter | Email | Instapaper
Wednesday, Jun. 5, 2013
On-campus support groups for men are being attacked for 'defending rape' by the usual feminist suspects. AP Photo/Michael D. McElwain
In alarmed response to emerging “men’s rights awareness” groups (MRA) on a number of Canadian campuses, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), a union body representing some 500,000 students, seeks to amend its “Sexual Assault and Violence Against Women on Campus” policy.
The CFS rejects any need of formal fellowship around specifically male issues, alleging MRA groups’ real purpose is to promote “misogynist, hateful views” and to “justify sexual assault.” Simon Fraser University’s recently inaugurated $30,000-funded men’s centre, for example, was demonized as a place to “celebrate hegemonic masculinity.”
What nonsense! The actual benign nature of MRA groups, where both sexes are welcome to discuss male-centred concerns, can be seen in a publicity campaign video of a relatively new organization, which has become a lightning rod for anti-male activism, the Canadian Association for Equality (C.A.F.E.).
The video, titled “Support the Men’s Centre Campus Campaign”, was posted to YouTube on C.A.F.E. channel, EqualityCanadaTV. In it, various young actors, male and female, calmly address the viewer, explaining “their” reasons for appreciating campus men’s centres: genetics-inspired fears of early prostate cancer; help for gays dealing with bullying; worry over disproportionate male unemployment; troubling high school dropout rates amongst boys; the impact of fatherlessness following unfair custody decisions.
If passed, the CFS amendment would endorse official opposition to events “whose purpose is to frighten, intimidate, and/or target women students on campus:” as interpreted by CFS, that means any event addressing any male concerns.
Now it’s personal!
Beginning in January 2012, C.A.F.E. has organized several events at the University of Toronto, featuring diverse speakers, such as York University sociology prof and online journal New Male Studies editor Rob Kenedy, famous sociologue Lionel Tiger, prostate cancer survivor Aaron Bacher — and me!
The first few events took place without incident. True, my Feb., 2012, talk on family court bias against dads was attended by antipathetic feminists tweeting furiously throughout (#feministbashingparty), and the Q&A was, shall we say, animated. But it did not descend into the ugliness that accompanied the three following events, when the adversarial River Bile overflowed its (left) bank.
Angry protesters tried to shut down the event by barricading entrances and exits in contravention of safety codes
Warren Farrell, a Financial Times Top Thought Leader and former Board member of the National Organization for Women, gave a talk at the University of Toronto last November, his innocuous topic the declining success of boys. Yet he was greeted with an inflamed mob representing the whole leftist spectrum: the Socialist Worker Canada with support from CUPE, the University of Toronto Students Unions and the Ryerson School of Social Work.
You can get the flavour of the virulence in a Nov., 2012, YouTube video titled “university of toronto feminist protest 4/4/2013″, where a woman protester, apparently not the least bit “frightened” or “intimidated,” berates those attending the event. It’s known as the “Shut the f–k up” video. You’ll see why.
Angry protesters tried to shut down the event by barricading entrances and exits in contravention of safety codes. Video footage has a spokeswoman asserting event organizers “defend rape, they defend incest, they defend violence against children,” obscene canards all.
C.A.F.E. has been scrupulous in presenting objective, non-inflammatory polemicists of impeccable civility
Setting themselves up as arbiters of acceptable discourse, protesters lied to incoming people, insisting the event had been cancelled. Attendees, men and women alike, who told protesters they merely sought fodder for an informed opinion, were harassed with equal venom.
The evening was a disgrace to the principle of free speech all reasonable Canadians uphold. Since then, two more C.A.F.E. events have required police intervention to handle similar shenanigans, including the ringing of fire alarms and shouting over speakers of the utmost respectability. One was Janice Fiamengo, a thoughtful, soft-spoken English Literature professor at the University of Ottawa, the others were McGill University academics and writing partners, Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson.
Fiamengo spoke from an evidence-based perspective about the inherent man-blaming premises of Women’s Studies, a domain she knows intimately. Young and Nathanson gave a dignified, highbrow talk, “From Misogyny and Misandry to Intersexual Dialogue.” (Their exhaustively researched series of books — Spreading Misandry, Legalizing Misandry and the upcoming Transcending Misandry, invaluable sources for me — are nonpareils of responsible scholarship and lucidity.)
In other words, C.A.F.E. has been scrupulous in presenting objective, non-inflammatory polemicists of impeccable civility (even I behaved myself), all unequivocally committed to gender equality. None hold radical or more than mildly controversial views. By contrast, those protesting their appearance have been immature yahoos, displaying truculence, duplicity, ignorance and boorishness.
If they’d listened instead of protesting, those angry activists might have come to appreciate men’s viable concerns. But acknowledging men’s humanity is ideologically untenable for extremists. It’s sleazier, but easier to keep screaming, “Shut the f–k up!”