Child Killer Gets Transfer to “Healing Lodge” Because of her Race

(Interrogation of McClintic)

(Interrogation of Rafferty)

(News on McClintic’s Transfer To Healing Lodge)

As cited in a previous article, see here, all defendants/prisoners are not equal in the eyes of the law. This is a racially discriminating practice that Canada has been involved in doing since the late 1990s.

Here is section 718.2(e) of the Canadian Criminal Code:

all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

Yes, one racial group is allowed to get what amounts to a race based discount. The 1999 Gladue ruling essentially paved the way for this to be normalized across Canada, while the Ipeelee decision expanded the scope to include long term offenders.

Here are the links to the Court decisions of Gladue (1997, 1999) and Ipeelee (2012).

R. v. Gladue, 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA)
R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC)
R. v. Ipeelee, [2012] 1 SCR 433, 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII)

While Indigenous people getting a race-based discount is nothing new in Canada, the transfer of child killer Terry McClintic to a “healing lodge” has the Canadian public flared up.

In 2009, 8 year old Tori Stafford was murdered by Terri McClintic, who was an accomplice to Michael Rafferty. In 2010, both McClintic and Rafferty received life sentences, with a 25 year custodial minimum. In 2014, McClintic was transferred to a medium security prison. Now, in 2018, McClintic is being sent to this “healing lodge”.

Not only is McClintic a child killer, but she viciously assaulted another inmate in 2012, and bragged that she only regretted not causing worse injury. Definitely a candidate for transfer from maximum to medium security prison.

Unfortunately, the federal parties are playing politics with it, while avoiding the real issue. The Liberals, now in government, blame the Conservatives for the 2014 transfer to medium security prison (when Stephen Harper was PM). The Conservatives blame the Liberals for not stopping this transfer. Both blame the other, while saying that they were not able to do anything — that Corrections Canada makes the decisions.

But the real issue that both Liberals and Conservatives dodge is that the entire law giving special treatment to Aboriginal/Indigenous/First Nations peoples. No group should receive “any” special treatment. Raced-based discounts are immoral.

What “should” be done is have the Gladue/Ipeelee rulings overturned. Yes, the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed this nonsense, but it can be stopped permanently using Section 33, the Notwithstanding Clause of the Canadian Charte of Rights and Freedoms.

Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
Marginal note:
Exception
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
Marginal note:
Exception where express declaration
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Rafferty/McClintic have frequently been compared to Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka, another male/female child killing couple. Karla Homolka’s mere 12 year sentence outraged Canadians, as does the McClintic transfer now.

Rather than bickering about whose government dropped the ball, this soft bigotry of low expectations needs to end. Legislate this nonsense out of Canadian law.

Update on the Story: On October 3, the Liberals, NDP and Green Party voted against a Conservative motion that would have kept Terri-Lynn McClintic in prison. See this link.

Further Update on the Story
On November 8, the Liberals have announced they will make new rules to send McClintic back. However, it doesn’t address underlying racist nature of the law — different sentencing rules based on skin colour, or even on ”how someone identifies”.

Silencing Free Speech in the UK

(Mark Meechan, a.k.a. “Count Dankula”)

August 8, 2018 — Mark Meechan, who goes by the nickname “Count Dankula”, was arrested for posting content that was deemed to be “grossly offensive” and that violated the Communications Act of 2003. Here is an exerp:

127
Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)
sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)
causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)
sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)
causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)
persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)
Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42))

Dankula had been arrested for posting indecent content in April 2016, when, as a joke, he taught his girlfriend’s dog to do the Hitler salute in response to the words “Sieg Heil” and “Gas the Jews”. A self described “shit poster”, stated repeatedly that he is not a Nazi, and only posted the video to annoy his girlfriend. As he said, “she would never shut up about it.”

Dankula was convicted in March 2018 seehere, and sentenced, fined £800 in April. The Court didn’t care that Meechan had done it as a joke, and merely to annoy his girlfriend. Not only was Count Dankula fined, the Court said he was lucky to not have actually received a prison sentence for doing this.

In August, he had his appeal denied by Sheriff Appeal Court, see here, and here. The Appeals Court found that:

This was a deeply unpleasant offence in which disgraceful and utterly offensive material was very widely distributed by the appellant. This was to the considerable distress of the [Jewish community] and — just as disturbingly — to the apparent approval of a large number of persons who appear to share the appellant’s racist views,

Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court rejected Meechan’s claim that the video was meant as a joke. Instead, they claim that it was meant to stir up anti-Semitism and suggested that Meechan shared those views.

Meechan, for his part, claims he will not pay the fine, and would have to be forced to prison for non-compliance. He seems to prefer taking a principled stand rather than “bending the knee”, as he refers to it. He has gone very public on the matter, and is now a free speech champion.

It offers some consolation to Meechan that there is widespread public support for his challenge. See: (a) here; (b) here; (c) here; (d) here; (e) here; (f) here, (g) see here, (h) see here and (i) see here. Comedians, politicians, and commentators inside and outside the UK condemn such a crackdown on free speech. As distasteful as this stunt was, it does not warrant an arrest, nor a trial, conviction and fine. The wider public sees this video was meant as a joke.

Meechan/Dankula may be sent to prison if he refuses to either: (a) pay the fine; or (b) appeal further. This matter is not over it seems.

Bigger than this case, the Sentencing Council seems to be pushing for harsher punishment for what it deems “offensive“.

Other Instances:

Like most of the commenters about this story, this is shocking, though not surprising abuse of power. Agreed, teaching the dog to do a Nazi salute is of very questionable taste. However, in seeing Meechan online, it is far more likely that it is immaturity/bad humour, not actual promotion of hate. Admittedly, I had a chuckle at how juvenile this 30 year old man is. This is not worthy of criminal charges at all.

(1) Unfortunately, the UK is moving towards censoring of ideas, words and jokes deemed “offensive”. In March 2018, three activists: Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone, and Martin Sellner, were refused entry into the UK for “hate speech”. Southern was actually detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act. The trio are now suing the UK, on the grounds that they were discriminated against primarily based on political beliefs.

(2) Also in March, Tommy Robinson, had been arrested for livestreaming outside a UK Court, regarding the “Grooming Gangs” trial. The 13 month sentence and conviction is under appeal. Interestingly, Brittany Pettibone had gone to the UK to do an interview of Robinson.

However, people should not be tricked into thinking the UK is an intolerant nation after all. Even if you fight for ISIS, you are still welcome back. But those with right-wing opinions, just stay away.

While it is depressing to see freedom being whittled away, I get some hope in seeing people fight back.

E.U. Punishes Memberstates for Daring to Exercise Soverignty

Hungarian Parliament Building

(September 12, 2018), The European Union has triggered Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Many reasons were given, but it is widely believed that the main one has to do with immigration. Hungary has blatantly refused to accept forced migration quotas, and has run on a “Hungary for Hungarians” platform. While Victor Orban’s policy is extremely popular, and helped his re-election in April, the E.U. is angered at the open defiance.

Nationalism is alive and well in Europe. Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are 4 central European nations known as the “Visegrad 4”. They are against open borders. Sebastian Kurz in Austria and Matteo Salvini in Italy recently won on populist platforms. Hungary is hardly alone.

While the E.U. professes outrage, Orban is actually running on the agenda he specifically set out to do. He sealed Hungary’s borders and stopped 99% of the illegal immigration. He has also stopped all funding for illegal migrants, and banned NGOs from aiding and abetting. While claiming these to be “human rights abuses”, it seems there is little the E.U. can do about it.

To give some perspective, there are many more legal hurdles to clear before anything actually happens. Poland, for example, had Article 7 triggered against it in December 2017, almost a year ago, see here, and also see here. Yet nothing has actually happened.

But ultimately, Hungary could lose its voting rights within the E.U. (as could Poland). Should this happen, they would be subjected to laws which they have no say in enacting or repealing.

Critics have loudly advised Hungary and Poland should just leave the European Union altogether. In 2016, the UK invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty in order to begin to leave the EU. Nigel Farage of the UK, and Marine Le Pen of France openly mock the E.U. as violating the will of sovereign European nations.

More insight to the European Union and their laws will be given on a future article.

    Author’s Views

: From my perspective as a Canadian tourist, an integrated Europe and common currency does make travel, movement, and purchasing easier. However, it is disappointing to see how much sovereignty is eroded in the name of “unity”. A nation should be able to control its own borders, currency, language, culture, economy and way of life. While this union may have at one time been useful, it is undermining the autonomy and independence of the host countries.

Bake my Damn Cake — Or Else — You Should Sue the State?

Jack Philips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood Colorado is the owner of the infamous “Gay Cake” refusal.

Quite simply, he refused to create a wedding cake for 2 men, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, about to marry.  He reasoned that he would have to act against his religious beliefs.

Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (similar to Privincial human rights commissions, in Canada).  It ruled against Philips, claiming religion was just an excuse to justify bigotry.

So, Philips took his case to the Colorado Court of Appeals.  The C.C.A. ruled that no religion had to be endorsed, but that service couldn’t be refused on protected grounds, such sexual orientation.

Finally, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which eventually ruled in the baker’s favour.  However, critics complain that the ruling was on overly narrow grounds and did not actually make much of a precident.  It wouldn’t address questions for florists, photographers, caterers, or others with a similar dilemma.  The Supreme Court did however find the Civil Rights Commission was overly hostile to Philips.

Some media background can be found here,
here, here, and here.

The ruling sparked mixed opinions.  Philips claims he has since had people calling to make ridiculous cakes, such as Satan cakes and cakes in the form of sex objects.

But now, Jack Philips is back in the news, and for basically the same reason: refusing to bake a cake for a transgender person named Autumn Scardina, celebrating the 7th anniversary of a gender change.

However, there is more than just a whiff of a conflict of interest here.  Scardina is a lawyer whose firm does cases of employment disputes.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has ruled that in principle this appears to be a discrimination case.  So it would seem that matters will be heading down the same road as before.

However, Philips has decided to take a new approach here: suing governor Jerry Hickenlooper and other government officials, claiming religious persecution seen .

here.

It will be interesting to see how things play out.

Author’s Views:  To disclose outright, I believe that the baker should be able to refuse or accept any deal they want, and to accept or reject any business they want.  It would be different if it were a government agency, or a monopoly.  Several questions I must ask.

(1) As for the gay couple, why not simply find another baker?  While it may be annoying to you, why not take your money and business to someone else?

(2) If you wanted others to know about this baker, why would it be necessary to sue him or go to the Civil Rights Commission?  Was the purpose to harm his business?

(3) Part of the backlash against letting gay couples marry in 2015 was the claim (derided as paranoia) that it would lead to religious freedom being stepped on.  Does this not prove that claim right?

(4) Regarding Autumn Scardina and the transgender cake: why go to this “specific” baker, when you knew about the case?

(5) Was it an attempt to get money from him and/or to further harm his business?  Or to use your law firm to make a political point?

(6) As for both the gay cake and the trans cake: do you really want the cake for your “big day” to be made by somebody you filed a civil rights claim against?  It’s not like he cares about keeping your business.

Call Yourself a Woman, get Cheaper Auto Insurance

Car insurance rates in Canada can be very expensive, especially for men.  Provinces such as Alberta and Ontario charge men much higher rates than women, especially at a younger age.  The rationale is that statistically speaking, men get into more serious car accidents than women.

But one person (can I call her a man, or him a woman?) has come up with an interesting way to get around that.  This is the story: Here and here.

The person, known as ”David”, got his Alberta birth certificate changed from ”M” to ”F”, then got insurance as a ”woman”.  It cost about $1100 less a year doing this.

Alberta had made it easier to change the gender on documents in an effort to make the process easier for transgender individuals.  Clearly, this was not the intent of these legal reforms.

However, the LGBTQ Community has objected, claiming that this is making a mockery of the laws meant to protect them.   Some in the government have claimed that this is in fact perjury and fraud.

Curiously enough, many Canadians have been left with a sour taste given all of the SJW policies, including what is seen as excessive trans accomodation and the blurring of actual biological differences between the sexes.

Author’s Views: I have no issue with people living as the people they wish to be or feel that they are.   As long as it doesn’t infringe on myself or others, people are free to be who they are.  However, the fake outrage that is so often on the news is very offputting.

My own leanings are somewhat conservative/libertarian, and my beliefs are that people should be treated equally and fairly.  No prejudice, no special treatment.   And different rates for men and women is discrimination.

I do think it is an amusing way to combat the prejudicial practice of charging men higher rates for insurance.  A sense of 2 wrongs making a right.

 

Canada’s Bill C-16: Adding Gender Identity to Human Rights Code and Criminal Code

(Jordan Peterson before the Canadian Senate on Bill C-16)

June 19, 2017, Bill C-16 received royal assent, becoming law. In a nutshell, amended both the Canadian Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Code to include “gender identity or expression” to the books.

For the Criminal Code, it added “gender identity or expression” to the list of protected groups which violence against would be viewed as a hate crime (if that were the motivation for the offence.

For the Human Rights Code, “gender identity or expression” would be added to the list of protected grounds which discrimination against would be illegal.

In the above video, Professor Jordan Peterson (University of Toronto), claims that this bill will lead to “compelled speech”, and that the wording leaves the possibility that it will be abused. There are obvious flaws with the bill (more on that later). But here are the quotes from the HRC and CC, both before and after.

***********************************************************

ORIGINAL

2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 2; 1996, c. 14, s. 1; 1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E); 2017, c. 3, ss. 9, 11, c. 13, s. 1.

REPLACEMENT
Canadian Human Rights Act

1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)

1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:

Purpose

2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)

***********************************************************

ORIGINAL

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

REPLACEMENT

2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

R.‍S.‍, c. C-46

***********************************************************
Criminal Code

ORIGINAL

(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1; 2014, c. 31, s. 12.

REPLACEMENT

3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

Definition of identifiable group

(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

1995, c. 22, s. 6

***********************************************************

ORIGINAL

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,

REPLACEMENT

4 Subparagraph 718.‍2(a)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,

***********************************************************

Now for the problems:

First, what exactly is “gender identity”? On the surface, it seems to imply transgendered/transsexual people, who are actually “transitioning” from one sex to another. However, the bill fails to define or clarify this. Is it a transitioning person? Do they have to have completed it? Is there a certain standard?

Second, what exactly is “expression”, in the context it is being used? Would drag kings/queens or performers fall into this category? Is it someone who just dresses or acts in a less than usual manner? For this to be included into human rights and criminal code legislation, the wording needs to far more clear?

Third, if a person chooses to identify as anything other than male or female, are others obligated to address them as such?

Fourth, in terms of “having their needs accommodated” (with respect to the human rights code), what does this mean? Again, without specifying whether a person is actually transgender or just doing this temporarily, how would any employer or school be expected to be able to comply? Likewise, when looking at the wording “… without being hindered in or prevented from”, this is impossible to comply with, without more information.

Fifth, and regarding the Criminal Code, this seems incredibly dangerous to add. Hate crime laws are often not a good idea (as identity seems to be more important than the actual offence). But here, adding the vague wording “gender identity or expression” as a means of increasing a sentence does not seem wise.

Sixth, will these laws stifle legitimate concern and debate on the issue of transgenderism? The health and societal considerations — not to mention high suicide rates — are of a public concern to discuss. The science of “gender dysphoria“, the underlying medical condition, is still far from settled. If open discussion and debate can be viewed as “hate speech” or as “discrimination”, will this have a chilling effect on free speech?

Seventh, and referring to the above Peterson video, is gender supposed to be viewed from a biological or sociological perspective? (See the video).

Again, if this were specifically meant to protect individuals transitioning, and/or those with gender dysphoria, it would be a lot easier to support. However, the wording seems vague, and open to misinterpretation.

The public at large seems apprehensive about these changes, and with good reason.

%d bloggers like this: