“Judicial activism” used to create damaging precedents

“(But) instead of sending Reid to jail for six to 12 months – the sentence sought by the Crown for three counts of trafficking in crack cocaine and one count of possession of the proceeds of crime – (Judge Ed) Morgan recently handed down what’s known as a conditional sentence, more commonly known as house arrest… Morgan explains that he considered both Reid’s personal circumstances and societal forces – including anti-black racism and the over-incarceration of people from the black community.” (Emphasis added).

The above quote is taken from the Toronto Star article “Judge cites anti-black discrimination as reason for non-jail sentence” (1) dated June 10th. It is an example of what I consider to be a form of mental illness, in which the “presumption of equality” requires “equality of outcomes”, violated in this case by the presumed “over-representation” of Blacks in our courts and in our jails.

Admitting that Blacks are clogging up the justice system because, as an identifiable group, they commit far more crimes on average than do White people, would be to abandon the myth of “equality”. Thus, obvious in-your-face facts must be banished, and replaced with self-serving assumptions – of “anti-Black racism” and “over-incarceration” in this case – in order to maintain a facade of ideological consistency in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

And when judges start doing this, and then proceed to accord such ideologically-based beliefs and assumptions the power of legal precedent, we are just a short distance away from the destruction of White society by criminally-minded predators who will have little to fear in terms of negative consequences.

According to Judge Morgan’s University of Toronto Faculty of Law page (2), “He was the Ontario Chair from 2001 to 2006 and National President from 2004 to 2007 of the Canadian Jewish Congress and an advisory board member of the Canadian Human Rights Museum from 2004 to 2005.”

Interestingly, this information was considered sufficiently relevant to be included in the Dept. of Justice press release announcing his appointment (3); an indication, perhaps, of the extent to which political attributes are taken into account in the selection of our judges.

I have written several times in the past about the Law Union of Ontario (4), whose “About” section starts off as follows: “The Law Union of Ontario, founded in 1974, is a coalition of over 200 progressive lawyers, law students and legal workers. The Law Union provides for an alternative bar in Ontario which seeks to counter the traditional protections afforded by the legal system to social, political and economic privilege.”

I do not know whether or not Judge Morgan is a member of the Law Union of Ontario, but his activist credentials seem to be well-established, and thus there is nothing about this ruling to eliminate that possibility.

And disturbing as the Law Union may be, and regardless of Judge Morgan possibly being a member of it, this is just the tip of the iceberg as international treaties and human rights conventions result in courts throughout the West “re-interpreting” and even re-writing laws to ensure they comply with the dictates of international bodies such as the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights (5). This has particular application to the flooding of White countries with vast numbers of unassimilable third-world parasites…

Sovereignty is lost as courts actively work to undermine law and order, and concerns for our personal safety and quality of life go by the board in the interests of unnatural and civilization-destroying “equality” and “political correctness”.

And if we don’t fight back at the causes of all of these manifestations, at whatever level they may show themselves, then we will sink slowly and surely into a hideous, ideologically-inspired world of violence and crime, and the assured genocide of the White race.

As I have said before (6): “There are termites gnawing away at the fabric of freedom where one would least expect to find them, hiding behind trusted and respected office in the corridors of power and influence… Virtually unknown, the Law Union of Ontario is an association of political activists employed in the legal field, the members of which seek to change society by favouring selected social and political policies. To quote from the Law Union News issue of January 1978, ‘The Law Union, as a forum for political discussion and debate, provides us with a potential vehicle to break out of our role as intellect workers, and to develop our intellectual powers in Baran’s sense of developing an historical analysis which can lead to basic social change and the overthrow of Capitalism.’ The membership of the Law Union of Ontario includes judges, lawyers, clerks, secretaries, and quite possibly Crown Attorneys.”

And, I have also commented that “Issues as important as the subversion of the law for the advancement of revolutionary political goals are far too important to be ignored. In Britain, judges have to disclose membership in organizations, such as the Freemasons. Is it too much to ask that judges here in Canada declare any political agenda to which they have committed themselves, and which may affect the quality and impartiality of the rulings that they make?” (Emphasis added).

The writing is on the wall…

Jeff Goodall.

(1) – Read “Judge cites anti-black discrimination as reason for non-jail sentence” here.

(2) – See Judge Morgan’s University of Toronto Faculty of Law page here.

(3) – Read the Dept. of Justice press release here.

(4) – Visit the Law Union of Ontario’s web-site here.

(5) – See “Judicial activism and the role of courts in providing ‘remedies’ with Kent Roach” (Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation) here.

(6) – See my Canada Free Press column “Judicial Subversion?”  (August, 2003) here.

Comments are closed.