Friday, January 26, 2007

Roy Spanks Gwen: Justice McMurtry Beats REAL Women Complaint

The fact that Justice Roy McMurtry's daughter is gay and that he has been photographed with known homosexuals does not mean:

...that a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would have a reasoned suspicion of conflict of interest between [the] judge's personal interest (or that of [the] judge's immediate family or close friends or associates) and [the] judge's duty.

And therefore Justice McMurtry was correct in declining to recuse himself during the 2003 Halpern case, which effectively established same sex marriage in Canada. Or so argues the Canadian Judicial Council.

And who were the "reasonable, fair-minded" people who felt that being seen with gays rendered you a pawn in the homosexual agenda? Who were the people who "suspected" a conflict-of-interest on McMurtry's part.

Why, they were Gwen Landolt and REAL Women!

Gwen is one of my favorite Canadian crazies, if for no other reason than she's been at it since the 1970s. (I suspect that one day Kate at SDA will grow up to be Gwen Landolt). I have written about Ms. Landolt a couple of times, including here where I discuss a speech she made to The Witness, a Toronto Catholic group. In it, she claims that homosexuals are promoting abortion rights so as to establish a U.N. One World government made up of Secular Humanists.

No, I'm not making that up.

So: "reasonable, fair-minded and informed"? Or not?

I say not very.

(PS: Why the suggestive language in the title? I am noticing that all my long-term most popular posts appear to have sexual content, even when they don't. For example, "Harper Dodges a Squirting", which is about an attempted prank on the PM, still gets tons of hits, and I appear to have made the blogroll on a couple of extreme fetish websites as a result. Who cares? If I can turn one of 'em Liberal, they can pee on one another to their heart's content, for all I care)

(PPS: h/t to Saskboy, who got me started thinking about this stuff. Your blog has been eating my comments all morning. I get a weird error message. I guess Wordpress isn't so wonderful after all, hmmm?)

3 comments:

skdadl said...

Thanks for catching this, BCL, although I would give almost anything not to link to Lifesite. Why isn't anyone else reporting this?

Och, weel: anything to report news of a reversal for REAL Women.

Fetish? Me? Only about REAL Women. Well, and McMurtry is kinda cute.

Deno said...

"The fact that Justice Roy McMurtry's daughter is gay and that he has been photographed with known homosexuals does not mean:

...that a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would have a reasoned suspicion of conflict of interest between [the] judge's personal interest (or that of [the] judge's immediate family or close friends or associates) and [the] judge's duty."


Would you still agree with this opinion if a known fundamental Christian judge had just ruled against gay marriage?

If you believe a judges can be totally objective to the point that they will make a ruling against their own personal beliefs and morality why was the left in Canada complaining about Harper’s resent judge appointment?

http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/2006/09/new-ontario-judge/

skdadl said...

Small problem, Deno. Some people's "beliefs" happen to constitute a "belief" in the basic principles and structures of democracy. Some people's don't. That is why we want to be picking our judges from the first category, yes?