Bumped. Scroll down for updates.
“It’s the season of The Thing That Wouldn’t Die.”
And this year, the Court Challenges Program is playing the part of Jason…
Last month, the Conservative government announced the end of the infamous Court Challenges Program, through which special interest groups, using our tax dollars, launched stunt lawsuits pushing their agendas. Gay “marriage” was the most notorious result. Knowing they could never get their way via the ballot box, activists used the Court Challenges Program to bypass democracy.
Unelected, unaccountable Supreme Court Justices and publicly funded radicals — not the most desirable combination…
|
It’s a blogburst! Robbing Peter, Robbing Paul DNR Go Gentle into that Good Night Do Not Resuscitate Court Of SHHHH!! Hey Activist – Get A Job. Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead! Today comes word that the grand-daddy of all self-interest groups, the Canadian Bar Association, is calling for the restoration of the program. Write your MP and tell them to keep this monster dead – or heads will roll! |
 |
And more …..
“Too Freekin Obvious”
Taxpayer funded advocacy – more background on the CCP
Unemployed Lawyers?
“It is a tale told by an idiot…”
A tax funded not-for-profit – nice gig!
Dawn of the Dead.
More from Steve Janke, including this;
Ottawa is spending millions to push gay rights and ”stringent” feminist views of equality by funding legal cases, says a political scientist who has studied the court challenges program.
The money is supposed to go towards ”important court cases that advance language and equality rights guaranteed under Canada’s Constitution.”
But Ian Brodie of the University of Western Ontario says the court challenges program has made up its mind which groups will get the cash.
”They’re heavily funding the one side,” he said Thursday. ”It happens to be the gay-rights side, the pro-pornography side, the feminist side and the abortion issue.”
Since 1999 the program has adopted a policy of absolute confidentiality, refusing to provide any information on the cases or groups it funds.
Brodie analysed the program prior to 1992 by obtaining records that were available under access to information laws. His study is being published in the June issue of the Canadian Journal of Political Science.
Janke rightly points out that the Harper government deserves kudos for “reject[ing] the temptation to use that tool for themselves.”
bryanr..excellent point at 455pm and as william also pointed out this was a well kept hidden agenda by certain special interest groups with Lib connections for quite awhile. Who knew? It certainly wasn’t common knowledge what the CCP was up to with our tax money.
Thanks to a special interest group (that is self-sustaining) I’ve known for awhile, and I am thankful for that group of REAL Women who have tirelessly worked to get this information out to us.
Glad to see so many well informed comments here.
Ted…Trudeaupian arguements are toast here, and so is CCP
hmmm, how about a publicly funded program to sue the asses off the Libranos for their many years of bilking us? like public funding of challenges programs now, Libranos?
But wouldn’t that be too demeaning to the poor dears? Wouldn’t that just give them another ready case for the CCP. “The government forced (me) to engage in …yecchhh… heterosexual activity.”
Or, as the typical CCP plaintiff would put it: “The heterosexist white male regime denied me control of my reproductive rights without subjugatiuon to the nexus of phallocentric hegemony!”
That the CCP allowed itself to become seriously politicized destroyed its credibility as an agency seeking justice. As far as I’m concerned, CCP is responsible for it’s own demise.
Kate: I think this is on-topic, referring to Ted’s argument about a good result from CCP:
Ted at October 17, 2006 03:52 PM
What about Thibodeau? CCP funds were used to challenge the tax laws that hurt both men and women. The SCC rejected the case, but Parliament then moved to fix the laws so that the payor avoided double tax on support payments and the payee didn’t see his/her support payments all go to the government.
=====================================
GOVERNMENT RIPPED OFF FAMILIES, MADE A KILLING
As I remember it (and based on some notes from 1996) before Thibodeau support payments were treated in the standard way with the payor deducting the payments and the payee including them in income. Because the father was usually the payor, hysterical, angry and evidently innumerate feminists argued that it was unfair for them to have to pay the income tax. The femi-pandering government turned a fundamental income tax principle on its head, making the payor, who is very often a higher income father, cover the income tax (taking away the deduction) and making the payment tax-free to the recipient custodial parent, who is often a lower-income mother.
This resulted in a supremely perverse effect yielding less disposable income in the aggregrate between fathers and mothers nation-wide, and – surprise! — more revenue to the treasury. The government even acknowledged this windfall and promised (chortle1) to pay it out to “the poor” (chortle2). If memory serves, they made a cool $100 million on the deal!
Example (with max.tax differntial for illustrative purposes):
Let’s follow $5,000 of the father’s pre-tax salary being allocated to the mother assuming he has has a 50% marginal tax rate, she only 25%.
Old “unfair” system:
He pays $0 tax; she receives $5,000, pays $1,250 tax, nets $3,750 for the children.
New “fair” system:
He pays $2,500 tax, she receives $2,500 pays $0 tax, nets $2,500 for the children.
Oops, big shortfall! She needs $3,750 like before.
Now follow the money again. He needs to earn $7,500 in salary so that after paying income tax of $3,750 she can receive $3,750 net for the children.
So in this extreme tax differential example we can see that the father needs to earn 50% more salary to yield the same net to his children. To prevent this, the government needed only to have treated the parents as adults and allowed them to determine who would pay the income tax and allow them to adjust the payments for the optimum result between them.
Kate’s on a roll. Good to see you back and giving us the kind of stuff that has made you famous
I’ll say the same thing here that I said at Steve Janke’s AiTGWN. It applies and has immense merit:
I’m male: I have a VERY valid equality problem. I could NOT, I could not get access to the CCP. The reason is straight forward, my equality concern which is a fatality concern to me(1) would inconvenience some females if addressed.
THAT, that is the CCP as it was. The “equality” concerns of the CCP only had merit if they involved females or racial minorities.
——————
1: I went through a near fatal female offender sex assault back in 1981. There was also a fair bit of female offender damage due to the fight to get lone fathers basic human rights. Current law says that I, being male, have no right to protection from female police officers and prison guards. This means, given my extreme sensitivity to being controlled by females, that any female in Canada may murder me –legally– by simply making a good enough false charge. The law was never meant to be used as a murder weapon, but that is THE LAW in Canada, for the few men in positions similar to my own.
Reply to e-mail:
“Thank you for your e-mail and support.
It is our intention not to re-fund this program [CCP].
Gord” [Brown, MP, Conservative]
or heads will roll!
the great thing about conservatives is that they can’t help being conservatives. harper is pushing his agenda and canadians are pushing back. there’s no broad-based support for harper’s social policies and canadians are realizing that his fiscal and foreign policies are simplistic and visionless.
keep your crazy talk up over here, it helps the rest of us more than you know.
I was just forward an email last night from United Mothers. They, in partnership with 1clicklobbyist are working to end the CCP. If you type the above in you search it will come up. Then you pick the issue and it will take you throught the approriate steps. Also there is a spot to register Vote Yes to raise age of consent. I think that this is a good way to get massive responses to support the government.
It is the most important thing the CPC has done in their brief tenure to get rid of the CCP.
If they cave, I’ll be somewhere else on voting day. I doubt they’ll cave. This program was a travesty of justice.
A politically motivated public program that was not accountable. It shouldn’t just be shut down, it should never have been legal to begin with.
There should be no funding to any lobby groups, special interest groups, or advocate groups. I strongly object to my money being stolen from me by the government and used to fund the agendas of people I disagree with – regardless of the subject.
Ted,
Think of it this way, if public money was being used to fund REAL Women and a bunch of right-wing Christian groups, you would have a fit. It’s hypocritical to then suggest that your political allies should be publicly funded but those you disagree with should not be. Any funding by the public for ANY reason should be politically neutral. That includes cultural programs and the likes of the CBC (although my own preference would be to eliminate all funding and sell it off.)
I think the best part of this whole CCP thing is that the PM, before he became PM, used to work for a lobby group. One that raised it’s own funds and had no support from the Goverment.
Nothing like a PM that walks the talk.
Remember how the CCP leapt to the defence of Bruce and Donna Montague and millions of other Canadians to valiantly fight C-68?
Right alongside the Canadian Civil Liberties Union.
Yeah, right…
Good riddance.
Oh, and why is the BAR association involving itself? Probably because the CCP is so lucrative. I mean, if it was because the cause was so noble, then the BAR would offer up its services Pro Bono, no?
Somebody left the door open and “jeff” slithered in. The looney pinko (who likely receives his income from some government agency somewhere) says “the great thing about conservatives is that they can’t help being conservatives. harper is pushing his agenda and canadians are pushing back. there’s no broad-based support for harper’s social policies and canadians are realizing that his fiscal and foreign policies are simplistic and visionless.” Well jeff the great thing about conservatives is that they have a backbone (look that up jeff….you probably would like to know what that is). As for “canadians” pushing back, what jeff really means when he says “canadians” (the standard Liberal mantra) is, quite simply, people who have their noses deep in the government trough and see the gravy train coming up against the wall. The great thing about pinkos is that they are so transparent and predictable. You can go back to sleep now, jeff.
or heads will roll
“canadians are pushing back”
Is that another this is what Canadian’s want & believe statement?
Canadians are pushing back as evident right here, Canadians are tired of seeing there hard earned money that they send to Ottawa being wasted on Useless Feel Good Programs, They are tired of seeing the Pigs at the Trough.
The only ones that are pushing back are the ones that know it is Last Call at the Trough.
The next adgenda i hope will be the Senate, as reported on the wastefull travel expenses $30,000 to have a meeting amongst 4 Senators in a hotel in Dubai? & thats just the Hotel!
$95,000 in Unaccounted travel expenses when the Senator lives in right Ottawa? Thats one hell of a Taxi fare!
“So Yes Heads Are Going To Roll”
“So yes Canadians Are Pushing Back”
And Yes we have the Right Man for the Job.
Chris, good point. Let’s see the Bar Association do a little good will work if they believe in the cause so much.
Slashed funding to the SOW, dumping the CCP, Three stikes your out to clean up (finally) the hardcore crooks…NICE going Mr. Harper, you and your team are RIGHT ON!! Now, how wonderful the world would be without the Senate, CBC, CUPE….keep the dream alive!
Or, as the typical CCP plaintiff would put it: “The heterosexist white male regime denied me control of my reproductive rights without subjugatiuon to the nexus of phallocentric hegemony!”
Posted by: Dudley Morris at October 17, 2006 11:16 PM
Dudley,
You’re absolutely right about the language. I don’t know whether to admire or show sympathy to your ability to get into the headset of a CCP plaintiff that well.
Librano$ shovelled out billions of tax dollars to their clients. Mind-boggling list of clients here.
Librano$ spiel/bribe/quid pro quo is: Give us your vote(s); we, the Librano$, will send youse the $$$$$$$$$$.
Their clients said: Yes, oui. Thanx, Jean/Paul. X
…
Who We Are
[Oct 5, 2006 03:55 PM]
The Coalition to Save Court Challenges is a broad coalition of concerned organizations and individuals committed to ensuring the continuation of funding for the Court Challenges Program of Canada. New organizations and individuals are signing onto our campaign every day. We include the following organizations:
* Action Canada for Population and Development
* Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes (AOcVF)
* African Canadian Legal Clinic
* Alberta Association for Community Living
* Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians / L’Alliance pour l’ÉgalitÉ des Personnes Aveugles du Canada (AEBC).
more $$$$$$$$$$ and more groups, org’s, lawyers, etc. (scroll down)
3w.savecourtchallenges.ca/www/t2a/whoweare
Re the support payments. One thing that was never brought out in this case is that the mother who received payments also got the tax deduction for the child, which in most cases was about double what she received in payments. One more than offset the other. Fathers also got a deductions for amount paid, and was glad for the deduction. Usually single mothers had a taxable income that resulted in little or no tax, and did get the payments on a regulare basis. This act was a very unfair burden on fathers, (and in some cases mother) and why any divorced man, paying support, would vote liberal is beyond me. I would rather see a system where a fund was set up for the children and was audited to make sure this money was spent on the child, instead of beer and popcorn for the bed partner of the week of the woman involved. During this case I sent numerous letters to MPs asking them if they had ever prepared their own tax return, or were even aware of what is on it for deductions etc. No answers, but with over 30 yrs experience doing returns, I can say men got a bad deal. I also have no use for those who think women don’t lie in custody cases, and make false charges of abuse or assault. Children can also be made to distort the truth, without realizing the results. FYI, I have been married to the same man for 52 years, so I don’t have an axe to grind. During several discussions with Monte Solberg, (who would have been finance minister, if JF had not been elected) he also saw the unfairness of this act. Don’t be surprised if changing this act is not part of Harpers hidden agenda. First you have to get rid of all the opposition, eg SOWs and CCP.
Since this act a mother does not claim about 5000./yr (more than one kid) but gets a deduction in excess of 6000., giving her over 11,000 in tax free income.
Even the so called deduction martin put in for last year was a scam. Reduce the rate payable by 1% and then at the bottom of the page, reduce the amount of the non refundable tax credit by 1% thereby increasing the amount you really paid by 1%. Yet, many still think Harper has raised your taxes by taking that cut away.
Now, now. Easy on Jeff. If you go to his low traffic website – Where’d That Bug Go? – you’ll see that he’s a “a photographer living in a forest in toronto with babies and a beautiful wife.”
A photographer living in a forest wondering where that bug went? Creepily metrosexual!
To close to the heart budd?
Budd,
Funny how the right must be controlled while the left is free to disparage, vilify, lie, attack. Are you posting on the lefty sites and asking for moderation there?
And while you ask for this censorship you attack our host, “your kind of people”.
Kate does this site without state funding and as far as I can tell for free too. Let her police her site and you can get back to policing the lefty sites.
enough
Hey Budd,
Go to Rabble.ca and troll their board for a while then come back and tell me how many “hateful” comments you find.
Hint: It’s a whole lot more than here.
Now be gone.
Speaking of deep wells of unacountable monies, I hope PMSH and the gang get into that other scam the Lieberals had going with the Trusts or whatever, that were exempt from audit.
You have to love the way they work though, take your money, give it to some group that doesn’t have to explain where the money went and then have you believe that the government was looking after you. Lieberals could sell fridges to eskimoes, as the old saying goes but then who would want to sell appliances in Edmonton? Gee, see how I got out of being politically incorrect?
harper is pushing his agenda and canadians are pushing back. there’s no broad-based support for harper’s social policies and canadians are realizing that his fiscal and foreign policies are simplistic and visionless.
So, Jeff, what you’re saying is that the CCP isn’t needed, because the Liberals are so successful in democratically effecting social change? Or perhaps, they used the CCP to push through/make unpopular policies less unpalatable? I find the latter explanation rings more true.
more critics from the rabble at CBCpravda , who else would favour the status quo of the justice system instead of the reverse onus. do pravda ever welcome anything – tax cuts, more justice, arresting liberals??
from the story.
Two problems
“The problem is not a deficiency in the law. It’s a deficiency in the application of the law,” Alan Young, a criminal law professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School, told CBC.ca.
“And I think the problem may be it is not being utilized as much as the public would like it to be.”
Young identifies two problems with the reverse onus system. The first, he says, is that it has the danger of capturing the wrong people. The second, and more dangerous one, is that putting the onus on criminals would make it too easy for the court system to find dangerous offenders.
“It’s almost imposing an impossibility, because you’re saying to someone: ‘Prove you’re not dangerous,’ ” Young said, adding that the court system should make the sentencing “more of an obstacle course rather than an assembly line.”
He believes that the law, if passed, would be open for constitutional challenges, but it wouldn’t be a “slam-dunk” win for lawyers.
There have been a few cases of reverse onus used in Canada’s courtrooms, Doob notes.
For example, reverse onus was used in the old Young Offenders Act, allowing young people aged 16 and 17 to be transferred to adult court for certain crimes.
“It didn’t lead to more transfers than before,” Doob said.
Jeff, you really should try & get out past Spedina Avenue, broad-based doesn’t end there!Although vacuous & brainwashed might.
Kate,
Here’s my humble contribution.
http://prairiewrangler.blogspot.com/2006/10/we-need-court-challenges-program-prove.html
Can’t the leftists understand this law. 3 strikes your out. That means an offender would already have been convicted and served time at least twice. The 3rd time he is caught the law comes into effect. Yes, I know that most first offenders are only there because that is the time they got caught, not the first time the offended.
What’s not to like about this.
Now another high profile wife is charging abuse in a divorse action. At least she won’t be funded by the ccp. Watching her in Canada, and on Larry King live, do you believe anything she says. Guess who. Guess who has the biggest wallet, guess who will win. What a price to pay for women finding an old rich guy to scam.
Go to Rabble.ca and troll their board for a while then come back and tell me how many “hateful” comments you find.
Man, i can’t believe I just took a look around there, you know, just to see.
After spending 15 minutes there I’ve never needed a shower so bad in my life. What a horrid blog.
we need to revise what constitutes a felony.
shoplifting a 20 dollar watch is a felony, it shouldnt be.
raping and murdering a single mother and leaving her kids parentless is a felony, it should be.
we need some drastic revision of what constitutes a ‘felony’ and THEN lower the hammer with 3 strikes.