Amazing Ontario Superior Court decision published this week. The direct questions Justice Pazaratz wrote may hit a nerve with some, but I appreciate that he shines a light on the troubling intolerance, distain and finger pointing that is now used so prevalently for CONTROL TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE.
I should also add:
— AND SEIZING CANADIAN'S BANK ACCOUNTS THAT WERE FOR DONATING TO FELLOW CANADIANS
before the words "for CONTROL TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE".
To me Freezing access to credit cards and bank accounts showed how far the abuse of power to CONTROL and curtail civil liberties has gone. It was a shock that the Party of Tommy Douglas went along with this last week.
The rampant judging by those so convinced they are right, towards others for how they process information and carry certain beliefs and values has become like a mutated and exploitative MCCARTHYISM...a COVID variant of the RED Scare era
The complete decision can be read here:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1198/2022onsc1198.html?autocompleteStr=2022%20ONSC1198&autocompletePos=1
and below I'm adding some more choice paragraphs:
20
b. Have we reached the stage where parental rights are going to be decided based on what political party you belong to?
c. Is being seen with Maxime Bernier – or anyone, for that matter – the kiss of death, as far as your court case is concerned?
d. Can you simply utter the words “conspiracy theorist” and do a mic drop?
e. If you allege that someone is “openly promoting very dangerous beliefs”, shouldn’t you provide a few details. A bit of proof, maybe?
f. And if you presume that a parent believes things they shouldn’t believe – can you go one step further and also presume that the parent must be poisoning their children’s minds with these horrible unspecified ideas?
22. But there’s a bigger problem here. An uglier problem.
23. We’re seeing more and more of this type of intolerance, vilification and dismissive character assassination in family court. Presumably we’re seeing it inside the courtroom because it’s rampant outside the courtroom. It now appears to be socially acceptable to denounce, punish and banish anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
24. A chilling example: I recently had a case where a mother tried to cut off an equal-time father’s contact with his children, primarily because he was “promoting anti government beliefs.” And in Communist China, that request would likely have been granted
25.But this is Canada and our judicial system has an obligation to keep it Canada.
26. I won’t belabor the point, because I still have to get to my real job: determining what’s in the best interests of these two children. But the word needs to get out that while the court system won’t punish intolerance, it certainly won’t reward it either.
I should also add:
— AND SEIZING CANADIAN'S BANK ACCOUNTS THAT WERE FOR DONATING TO FELLOW CANADIANS
before the words "for CONTROL TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE".
To me Freezing access to credit cards and bank accounts showed how far the abuse of power to CONTROL and curtail civil liberties has gone. It was a shock that the Party of Tommy Douglas went along with this last week.
The rampant judging by those so convinced they are right, towards others for how they process information and carry certain beliefs and values has become like a mutated and exploitative MCCARTHYISM...a COVID variant of the RED Scare era
The complete decision can be read here:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1198/2022onsc1198.html?autocompleteStr=2022%20ONSC1198&autocompletePos=1
and below I'm adding some more choice paragraphs:
20
b. Have we reached the stage where parental rights are going to be decided based on what political party you belong to?
c. Is being seen with Maxime Bernier – or anyone, for that matter – the kiss of death, as far as your court case is concerned?
d. Can you simply utter the words “conspiracy theorist” and do a mic drop?
e. If you allege that someone is “openly promoting very dangerous beliefs”, shouldn’t you provide a few details. A bit of proof, maybe?
f. And if you presume that a parent believes things they shouldn’t believe – can you go one step further and also presume that the parent must be poisoning their children’s minds with these horrible unspecified ideas?
22. But there’s a bigger problem here. An uglier problem.
23. We’re seeing more and more of this type of intolerance, vilification and dismissive character assassination in family court. Presumably we’re seeing it inside the courtroom because it’s rampant outside the courtroom. It now appears to be socially acceptable to denounce, punish and banish anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
24. A chilling example: I recently had a case where a mother tried to cut off an equal-time father’s contact with his children, primarily because he was “promoting anti government beliefs.” And in Communist China, that request would likely have been granted
25.But this is Canada and our judicial system has an obligation to keep it Canada.
26. I won’t belabor the point, because I still have to get to my real job: determining what’s in the best interests of these two children. But the word needs to get out that while the court system won’t punish intolerance, it certainly won’t reward it either.
