http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06071907.html Judge Who Gave Canada Homosexual "Marriage" Had Conflict of Interest Says Women's Rights Group
By Hilary White
TORONTO, July 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The women’s rights organization, REAL Women of Canada, has filed a formal complaint against Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry with the Canadian Judicial Council, alleging judicial misconduct. McMurtry was the judge who issued a ruling in 2003 on the Halpern case that effectively ended the traditional definition of marriage in Canada.
McMurtry’s son, James, revealed in a letter to the editor of a BC newspaper that his sister is a lesbian in a live-in relationship with another woman. This, says REAL Women, creates a serious concern that “McMurtry had a personal and familial interest” in the Halpern case, “which seriously impaired his objectivity and his ability to adjudicate the case.”
The Halpern decision essentially legalized same sex "marriage" in Canada, ruling that the traditional definition of marriage violates the constitutional equality rights of homosexuals. After this the federal government ceased to appeal the various decisions coming forward from provincial courts in favour of same-sex “marriage” across Canada.
REAL Women’s letter alleges that McMurtry’s personal interest biased the entire process and violated the “fundamental judicial obligations of office.” REAL Women says that in addition, Justice McMurtry deliberately chose and selected judges sympathetic to same-sex "marriage" to hear the case.
Gwen Landoldt, vice president of REAL Women of Canada, said the efforts of the McMurtry court to bring about such a vast change in Canadian society without input from Parliament constitutes “conduct that undermines the fundamental obligation of judges to remain objective, neutral and disinterested in the outcome of a case.”
Landoldt writes, “Under these circumstances, a fair and reasonable person would reach the conclusion that Chief Justice McMurtry failed to conduct himself ethically, objectively, neutrally and with disinterest in the case.”
REAL Women claims that bias among the Halpern case judges in favour of the homosexual rights agenda is not difficult to demonstrate. In 2003, REAL Women revealed that Justice McMurtry--along with a group of other prominent Ontario judges--had close ties to the homosexual activist movement and was on a special guest list of dignitaries at a celebration during the 2003 Gay Pride week. He, along with several other judges, were photographed at the party with Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell, the two principals in the Halpern case.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jul/06071907.html==================================================
Where to begin on this one? I'll start by pointing out that the "Women's Rights Group" mentioned is actually a hardcore RW fringe group which believes that the Woman's place is in the home. Virulantly homophobic and racist to boot. Second of all, the "Judge who gave Canada same sex marriage" was an Ontario judge, who voted with the majority in giving Ontario same sex marriage. Keep in mind, the vote was unanimous in granting equal marriage in Ontario, with not a single judge voting against it. Furthermore, same sex marriage on a federal level was granted by parliamentary vote. So this judge clearly did not "give canada homosexual marriage"
Also, don't you just love their "logic"? He knows gay people and hangs around with gay people, therefore there is a conflict of interest. Hell, I like their logic. That means that every judge who is straight and rules against same sex marriage must have their vote nullified, as there is clearly a conflict of interest.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
