Tuesday, December 22, 2009

BEVERLY McLACHLIN WHO?

I ‘m beginning to wonder. Is the McLachlin who has just today in writing for the Supreme Court in a landmark case involving freedom of the press said that:“Freewheeling matters of public interest is to be encouraged”, and that writers and bloggers who do a form of reporting should be protected by law, the same Madam Justice Beverly McLachlin I know intimately just from hearing her rulings on criminal contempt read adnauseam in court just before I’m sent to prison? Is this the same Madam Justice MCLachlin , ex-Chief Justice British Columbia ,who ruled that a public protest in defiance of a court order is a criminal matter simply because it is public? Yes, It is indeed one and the same.
I run smack up against this ruling by Madame Justice McLachlin every time I’m in court for trying to help protect the last scrap of some forest somewhere in British Columbia. This ruling defined by Madam Justice McLachlin is called “Open, Continuous, and Flagrant.” It means that because one talked publically to the press and other media about the environmental destruction one is, or was, protesting, this action has brought the court into disrepute. Then an accused’s civil charges get raised to criminal charges. Just for talking. To the press and other media. And for writing what one thinks about the environmental destruction under dispute (the last was Eagleridge Bluffs.) For all these sins one is tried as a criminal in BC, judged as a criminal, and sentenced to the place where other criminals are kept. For lengthy periods of time.
And yet this same justice who has risen to be Chief Justice of Canada now appears as a defender of freedom of expression in an unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not complaining. It’s long over due. But shouldn’t some of this reasonable understanding of the need for an unfettered press slop over onto the heads of citizens in environmental disputes? Of those who get charged with breaking a court order which initially merits civil contempt of court which is bad enough, but then in the attempt to explain the situation to the press and to the world the court and the Crown conspire (or seem to) to make one the accused criminals? This recent land mark ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada reminds me of an old hymn my mother used to sing: “Showers of blessing, showers of blessing we need, mercy drops round us are falling, but for the showers we plead”. I, personally, with all due respect, am pleading for a few Supreme Court of Canada showers instead of a few mercy drops. Can you hear me, Madam Chief Justice McLachlin?

Beverly McLachlin who?
I ‘m beginning to wonder. Is the Madam Chief Justice of Canada Beverly McLachlin who has just today in writing for the Supreme Court in a landmark case involving freedom of the press said that:“Freewheeling matters of public interest is to be encouraged”, and that writers and bloggers who do a form of reporting should be protected by law, the same Madam Justice Beverly McLachlin I know intimately just from hearing her rulings on criminal contempt read adnauseam in court just before I’m sent to prison? Is this the same Madam Justice MCLachlin , ex-Chief Justice British Columbia ,who ruled that a public protest in defiance of a court order is a criminal matter simply because it is public? Yes, It is indeed one and the same.
I run smack up against this ruling by Madame Justice McLachlin every time I’m in court for trying to help protect the last scrap of some forest somewhere in British Columbia. This ruling defined by Madam Justice McLachlin is called “Open, Continuous, and Flagrant.” It means that because one talked publically to the press and other media about the environmental destruction one is, or was, protesting, this action has brought the court into disrepute. Then an accused’s civil charges get raised to criminal charges. Just for talking. To the press and other media. And for writing what one thinks about the environmental destruction under dispute (the last was Eagleridge Bluffs.) For all these sins one is tried as a criminal in BC, judged as a criminal, and sentenced to the place where other criminals are kept. For lengthy periods of time.
And yet this same justice who has risen to be Chief Justice of Canada now appears as a defender of freedom of expression in an unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not complaining. It’s long over due. But shouldn’t some of this reasonable understanding of the need for an unfettered press slop over onto the heads of citizens in environmental disputes? Of those who get charged with breaking a court order which initially merits civil contempt of court which is bad enough, but then in the attempt to explain the situation to the press and to the world the court and the Crown conspire (or seem to) to make one the accused criminals? This recent land mark ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada reminds me of an old hymn my mother used to sing: “Showers of blessing, showers of blessing we need, mercy drops round us are falling, but for the showers we plead”. I, personally, with all due respect, am pleading for a few Supreme Court of Canada showers instead of a few mercy drops. Can you hear me, Madam Chief Justice McLachlin?

Beverly McLachlin who?
I ‘m beginning to wonder. Is the Madam Chief Justice of Canada Beverly McLachlin who has just today in writing for the Supreme Court in a landmark case involving freedom of the press said that:“Freewheeling matters of public interest is to be encouraged”, and that writers and bloggers who do a form of reporting should be protected by law, the same Madam Justice Beverly McLachlin I know intimately just from hearing her rulings on criminal contempt read adnauseam in court just before I’m sent to prison? Is this the same Madam Justice MCLachlin , ex-Chief Justice British Columbia ,who ruled that a public protest in defiance of a court order is a criminal matter simply because it is public? Yes, It is indeed one and the same.
I run smack up against this ruling by Madame Justice McLachlin every time I’m in court for trying to help protect the last scrap of some forest somewhere in British Columbia. This ruling defined by Madam Justice McLachlin is called “Open, Continuous, and Flagrant.” It means that because one talked publically to the press and other media about the environmental destruction one is, or was, protesting, this action has brought the court into disrepute. Then an accused’s civil charges get raised to criminal charges. Just for talking. To the press and other media. And for writing what one thinks about the environmental destruction under dispute (the last was Eagleridge Bluffs.) For all these sins one is tried as a criminal in BC, judged as a criminal, and sentenced to the place where other criminals are kept. For lengthy periods of time.
And yet this same justice who has risen to be Chief Justice of Canada now appears as a defender of freedom of expression in an unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not complaining. It’s long over due. But shouldn’t some of this reasonable understanding of the need for an unfettered press slop over onto the heads of citizens in environmental disputes? Of those who get charged with breaking a court order which initially merits civil contempt of court which is bad enough, but then in the attempt to explain the situation to the press and to the world the court and the Crown conspire (or seem to) to make one the accused criminals? This recent land mark ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada reminds me of an old hymn my mother used to sing: “Showers of blessing, showers of blessing we need, mercy drops round us are falling, but for the showers we plead”. I, personally, with all due respect, am pleading for a few Supreme Court of Canada showers instead of a few mercy drops. Can you hear me, Madam Chief Justice McLachlin?

3 comments:

  1. Hello Betty

    Heather Clarry sent me your comments on Bev McLachlin.

    Karen Gibbs and I have named Bev McLachlin as a defendant in a judicial conspiracy lawsuit that it attracting international attention.

    Our web site is

    http://www.waterwarcrimes.com

    If Ms. McLachlin is like many other judges, she is owned by someone.

    Guys and gals don't get these jobs just because they can spell a few latin phrases.

    They get the jobs because somebody thinks they can be useful in that position. Very often, they have to do what they are told or face the consequences and the consequences can be serious.

    Some are beholden to organized crime, others to special interests, and others to political parties.

    I think you are doing right to blow the whistle but the next time you criticize Bev McLachlin you may want to keep in mind that she may be a puppet on someone elses string.

    Best regards to you

    John Carten

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for this blog post, Betty. . and, of course, for your undying stand for a future for our children. Do you have a reference for the decision that you're citing of Mme Justice McLaughlin.

    This is the same thing that happened to me---a civil injunction was raised to "criminal" because I made my clients aware of the fact that I had an injunction against me. My intention was to be completely forthright and honest with those whom I was advising about pregnancy and childbirth. The court ruled that I was in criminal contempt of court for publicizing my injunction and then (in the Judge's view) disobeying it.

    B.C. is a strange place to go before the courts. I would have liked to take the case to Ottawa but it's an unholy cost in money, time and focus.

    All we can hope is that our defeats in court cause some small ripple of thoughtfulness to infiltrate minds so that the future is easier for those who would not sell out to the
    path of destruction. Gloria Lemay, Vancouver

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:59 PM

    I self-represent and used to file my court papers quoting the Supreme Court and used to be taken aback when the judges and even masters (really senior clerks) pretty much just balked at, laughed at or totally ignore what was aid in those Supreme Court rulings I quoted. Then as time went on I see how disrespected the Supreme Court is in legal circles and that no one really takes anything coming from there seriously.

    Here is a group of us with good evidence and the ability to put a petition together to the new PM who touts "real change". I have long concluded that Judge Mclachlin should go and that not a single one of those judges sitting at the SCC is fit to be appointed CJ. We should ask for a one time recall and ask for the recall of Madam Justice Claire L'heureaux-Dube to be appointed CJ at the SCC for a specific time in order to get justice in this country on the right footing again. Judge McLachlin was propelled past everybody to be appointed CJ and she has very little judicial experience. She was propelled past Justice L'Hereux-Dube and it is high time we right that wrong. We are suffering the consequences for keeping quiet and allowing that injustice to happen. Let us shame this PM into action

    Let us get the petition going. I am a regular visitor to the water wars crimes website

    ReplyDelete