The Proletariat Congress

The justice system in Canada is beginning to look more like a legal system for the many innocents who are caught up in its unrelenting claw-like grasp. It has a strangle hold on many innocent people; people who were simply used as scapegoats to expedite the process to try and convict a person in relation to the crime. The evidence used has been proven in recent years to be flimsy, heresy, and at best, anecdotal.

If you’re a Canadian, you’re probably familiar with the name David Milgaard, a man who in 1969 was wrongfully convicted in the rape and murder of Gail Miller. Only in 1997 was he finally cleared of any wrongdoing in the case. Finally, in 1999, 30 years after the murder and rape of Gail Miller was Larry Fisher, the man truly responsible for the crime, tried and convicted.

There are many others, including and not limited to Robert Baltovich, (a man originally charged in the death of Elizabeth Bain before Paul Bernardo was charged in conjunction with her death), William Johnson-Mullins (a man charged in the death of his 4-year old niece on evidence provided by the now disgraced Dr Charles Smith, whose findings are responsible for many other false convictions) and Louise Reynolds (a woman initially convicted in the death of her 7-year old daughter based on evidence provided by Dr Charles Smith, who was later to have been found mauled by a pitbull).

The latest of wrongfully convicted Canadians to surface is Steven Truscott, who at the age of 14 in 1959 was convicted in the rape and murder of his classmate Lynne Harper. He had become the youngest Canadian to ever be on death row before it was formally abolished. He narrowly missed being hung as his sentence had been commuted to a life sentence before he was released on parole in 1969, eventually coming to live under an assumed name.

The investigation lasted only two days and the trial fifteen days, all while the police overseeing the case failed to look into the possibility of other suspects, including an airman stationed at the RCAF base in Clinton, Ontario where the murder occurred. The airman, Sgt. Alexander Kalichuk, a convicted paedophile who had been known to pick up children in rural areas was one of the potential other suspects identified by The Fifth Estate. Kalichuk died in 1975.

His case has been in the national spotlight for many decades, including during the 1960s when the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed his case, unfortunately in an 8-1 decision, ruling against him, with a single justice standing alone in declaring that the original trial had been unfair. Only after more pressure from the public, with a report from the Fifth Estate, the Appeals board reviewed his case, eventually acquitting him of all charges as of August 28^th 2007.

The court unanimously holds that the conviction of Mr. Truscott was a miscarriage of justice and must be quashed. The court further holds that the appropriate remedy in this case is to enter an acquittal.

The court thus orders that Mr. Truscott should stand acquitted of the murder of Lynne Harper.

The current Attorney General, Michael Bryant apologised on behalf of the government, one that had fought the current appeals all the way; the same government that is fighting an ongoing court battle against parents of autistic children.

On behalf of the government, I am truly sorry. It is a decision that will not be appealed by the Crown — it is over.

Too little too late for those who have been wronged by a government that is elected to create laws that punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Those who have aided the wrongful convictions live a life free of their guilt while the innocent they’ve hurt live a life of hell, tormented by the loss of their lives because they are unable to live freely because of the stigma that their wrongful conviction carries.

What kind of system is it when the innocent aren’t protected from the guilty?

What kind of system lets the innocent be convicted of crimes they didn’t commit?

Not a democratic one.

Sources & Further reading:

injusticebusters 2005 >> Dr. Charles Smith
W-5: Expert Witness
CBC Indepth: Steven Truscott
Truscott acquittal weighed
Other leads on possible suspects ignored
Court acquirs Truscott, calling conviction ‘miscarriage of justice’

The term schadenfreude means ‘shameful joy’, often referring to when a person takes unnecessary and often sadistic pleasure in the suffering and misery of others. It’s negative and not something one likes to be associated with but there are times when it can be justifiable in certain circumstances. One such would be when a celebrity is treated like a common class citizen and is forced to wear their drab state-issued prison garments and forced to serve their full term.

There is nothing more insulting to the justice system than witnessing a spoiled little brat with the intelligence factor of a one-track mind gnat thinking she is an “inspiration” to people and brings joy to their “mundane lives” as a justification for not serving a short jail term for breaking the terms of her probation after being slapped with a DUI.

The rules of life are simple honey, you drive three sheets to the wind, your already dense vacuous waste of a mind inebriated by a plethora of alcoholic substances and you’re already driving on a suspended license, you’re going to get your ass thrown behind bars. If you were an average no-name girl, no one would give a flying rat’s ass about your little pathetic life being disrupted by having to give up the high life of being a socialite to serve one’s time for flouting the laws of the road.

Bawl, cry, bemoan, sob, lament… you can act as childish and as infantile as you want and it’ll only prove the the judge the need for you to do some real time behind bars. The judge has heard it all and crying only makes the judge irritated. He has a long day and the last thing he wants is for some mentally deficient blond wasting his time about why “undisclosed medical condition” is grounds to let her “serve” her sentence in the comfort an luxury of her Hollywood home wearing a monitoring device.

Grieve, deplore, regret… about how it’s “It’s not right!” but it won’t change that your actions are inexcusable and a legitimate danger to those who use the roads. What isn’t right is the rich and famous buying their way out of jail while the rest of us are forced to do hard time. You’re no better than the rest of us and you’re no role model. You’re the worse example of what a woman can be and do; you’re an example of what’s wrong with society.

Judge orders Paris Hilton back to jail
‘Hysterial’ Paris back in jail

What is right with this society is judges like Superior Court Judge Michael Sauer.

“I at no time condoned the actions of the sheriff and at no time told him I approved the actions. At no time did I approve the defendant being released from custody to her home.”

The judge has a good head on his shoulders and knows what the public wants. The public doesn’t want someone freed simply because they’re a celebrity. The public wants to see people punished equally before the eyes of the law; they want their streets to be free from drunk drivers. They want to know that the justice system treats all criminals equally and is a true deterrent to prevent crimes from happening.

Judge Sauer passed down what was a fair sentence give that Hilton was caught on two separate occasions driving with a suspended license after being slapped with a standard DUI.

“The defendant is remanded to county jail to serve the remainder of her 45-day sentence. This order is forthwith.”

The judge’s role in the system is to interpret the law using his/her legal expertise and weighing the evidence as presented by the Crown Prosecution versus the Defence. Take into account the mitigating versus the aggravating factors as well any surrounding circumstances to make a judgement that best suits the nature of the crime. And Judge Sauer has done just that. He studied the evidence, heard the two sides and ruled in favour of the Crown Prosecution.

A DUI and breaking probation, thus endangering others is more than enough justifiable grounds on which to send a person to prison and if the person was your average Joe-blo Nobody, he’d have been given the full term, but with a condition that he be released early pending good behaviour.

The sheriff’s job is not to interpret the law; it’s to watch over society’s degenerates that at shipped in by the dozen.

His job is to keep the peace, keep the criminals at bay and treat them like the rejects they are. They broke the law, they’re to be treated like the immature children they are.

The sheriff does not have the jurisdiction to determine if someone should or shouldn’t fulfil their sentence.

Most are decent people but some individuals, like the morally bankrupt and corrupt Sheriff Lee Baca overstep their position and abuse their power, utilising their position to cater to those who can ‘pay’ and play favourites with those who are of influence. These kind of actions erode confience in the justice system and others have taken notice.

With people like this in the position of authority, is it any wonder why the system can’t be a deterrent if the guard can be bought off by a rich and famous two-bit socialite whose only real accomplishment in life is starring in a badly lit p0rn flick?

Justice has been served. Your name will not get you out.

Across Europe people rejoiced, for the menace that had terrorised Europe had surrendered and just days earlier Adolf Hitler committed suicide as the Allied and Soviet forces marched on Berlin. This day became known as VE Day. This day was seen as the official day of German surrender despite that the Allied forces had taken parts of Germany earlier in May before making the push for Berlin.

We may allow ourselves a brief period of rejoicing; but let us not forget for a moment the toil and efforts that lie ahead. Japan with all her treachery and greed, remains unsubdued.

“We must now devote all our strength and resources to the completion of our task, both at home and abroad. Advance Britannia.” ~ Winston Churchill

World War II brought out both the worst and best in humanity as it pushed forth technology and allowed for the introduction of computers that would unite the world, but it also saw the creation of atomic technology, which remains the biggest threat to humanity today. It gave women more freedom but millions of lives were lost. It shaped the future of the world for better and for worse.

To compare the sacrifices of WWII to that of Iraq and Afghanistan is unfair to memory of those who fought against a true threat to the future of humanity.

In Great Britain a battle was wage on the front of the rights of a woman to use her eggs that were fertilised by her ex-boyfriend versus his rights to not sire a child by her. The outcome was grim. The courts, after many years ruled in favour of her ex-boyfriend, and that the frozen embryos couldn’t be used.

The woman, Natalie Evans, who had been left infertile because of ovarian cancer was denied the right to use one of her six frozen embryos to have a child. She began the battle in 2001, and now at the age of 35 has lost. The courts ruled that the consent of both partners is required.

Hold on, let’s think about this for a moment…

If consent by both partners is required, then what about women involved in sexual relations that end badly and she is pregnant and wants to keep the kid but the man wants her to get rid of it, does this mean she is now forced to abort it simply because he says so?

All pro-life people will say that no, she can’t abort it because it’s a human life, even in the zygote stage. which is the stage that precedes embryonic, which is followed by foetal. Even pro-choice people are on the woman’s side, and not to protect the foetus but to protect her right, her right to choose.

So, she would be allowed to keep the child simply because it’s already inside of her.

What makes this different than with Ms Evans? Other than the fact that the embryos were frozen to be used later, nothing. Yes, the tissue wasn’t implanted in her uterus, but the embryo contains her genetic material.

Now, let’s pretend for a minute that the man’s opinion actually matters when it comes to the unborn foetus that the woman carries in her womb. And that this particular man wanted her to abort the foetus and the law requires, as does current British law regarding fertility treatment, that both parties agree to the conception and birth of this being. This would mean that her rights are being violated, thus sparking controversy amongst the pro-choice lobby because woman should be the one to make the choice. It would also cause a uproar in the pro-life front because the man would be forcing the woman to end a life that deserves a chance.

As politicians are weak before their constituents, they will rule in favour of the woman and the unborn foetus, making it so the man has no say despite that it is his genetic material that helped make the child.

In this, a double standard has been created.

Let’s also examine the concept of sperm donors. They do do anonymously and have no control over which women have access to their genetic material. They have zero say and they cna’t determine who should and shouldn’t receive the sperm. The clinic gives it on a first come, first serve basis.

“The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when and if I start a family,” Johnston told reporters after last year’s lower chamber ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

Ok, so he wants to be able to decide? What about the men who sleep with a woman, break up with her then find out she’s carrying their child? Should they have the same ‘luxury’? By that logic, they should, but they don’t.

What Johnston seems to be forgetting is that unlike men, women are born with a pre-determined number of eggs in their ovaries, which are released from the commencement of puberty and the last one triggers menopause. They can’t just start a family when they want; they are limited to their fertile years and older women are more prone to give birth to a child with defects if she’s older. Yes, there are repoted cases of woman giving birth in later years, but those aren’t the norm.

By ruling in favour of such narrow thinking, the courts have opened a can of worms. By allowing Johnston have his victory, there will be repercussions because other men who have ‘knocked up’ other women will start demanding the same thing; to be able to decide if they want her to give birth. Even if the lobbies push against this for their own reasons, they case could be pushed forward because there is precedent.

All a case needs is precedent to garner a similar ruling.

British woman loses battle for embryos