One of the crimes that the Nazis committed against European Jews in the 1930s and ’40s was to legalize, or at least facilitate, the theft of Jewish property, merely because it was owned by people whom the Nazis despised for their religious beliefs.
Now, a Canadian court is being asked to adopt Nazi-like tactics: namely, to authorize the theft of property merely because it is slated to be delivered to an owner who is despised on the basis of ideology.
My first question is where the state can claim ANY paramountcy in intervening in the dispensation of a common-law will. This case has far larger implications than this simple PC snotty arrogance – this is about obstruction of the normal course of commonlaw – the state butting in to deeply private affairs of personal estate. Wills MUST be respected or the rule of law lies burning in the gutter and we may as well just adopt statist anarchy.
Well now, isn’t that nice. Maybe Karen Selik should think about this a little bit the next time she votes. One party is (agonizingly slowly) moving away from this kind of victim-politics crap while the other two are doubling down. Three guesses which is which.
Hilarious to watch a HuffPoo author making a Conservative argument though. Love it!
The “Gluehuffing Post” should spend more time with the classics they would benefit mightily…
The benefit of law
By Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
popcorn time:-)))
I remember a few years back a BC judge quashed the will of some guy who died because (I’m paraphrasing), “He was a jerk.”
As I recall, the deceased didn’t get along with his daughters in life – for whatever reason – and left everything to his only son.
Anyhoo, a judge decided that the old dead guy wasn’t very nice to his daughters and, therefore, his will had to be nullified and things split more equitably.
So this story isn’t so surprising. Funny how folks wax poetic about our free society.
Its already happened. Think two words: Cecil Rhodes. When Rhodes died his will specified that his trust setting up Rhodes Scholarships pay out only to white Christian males. Well that didn’t stand the test of time, did it? The trust was pierced because of unrelenting pressure from US “progressives” so now Rhodes’ money is shoveled out to all comers. But he was an odious man, you say? Who gained his fortune by “racist”, colonial rape of a nation. Well, he “stole it fair and square” under the laws of the time–which is why the American Constitution forbids ex post facto laws–supposedly. But that little fact didn’t stop them from steamrollering the Rhodes trust. I would contend that the Rhodes example means that when push comes to shove NO ONE’s will or trust is sacred and inviolate from the power of the state to change it at will. The Obama Admin (and Clinton before him) is already toying with the idea of seizing and federalizing all pvt pensions. Do you suppose the greed of a bankrupt state will quail at the thought of seizing large bequests by private individuals upon their death no matter what their wills or trusts say? All for the “greater good of society?”
Yes, egregious.
What really shocked me though was this article adjacent to the KS article http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/graham-templeton/the-fall-of-rex-murphy_b_3663120.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular . According to the annointed even Rex can’t be a conservative without being a crackpot!
Sad.
Let’s not forget the Albertan Alison Redford Regime confiscating legal personal firearms from law abiding Canadian citizens during Alberta Martial Law 2013.
Hans @ 1:39: Hear! Hear! Cheers;
Or confiscating taxpayer funds so people can re-build in the same place. Or, even, in another place. What made it my fault they got flooded?
Oh well, they won’t be replacing granite countertops, or anything ‘high end’… I guess it wasn’t my fault if those were ruined. heh
Governments – mostly those of the progressive variety – are very much enamored of the ’eminent domain” doctrine.
Whatever they do is for the public good, after all. Whether it be seizure of private property or confiscation of wealth (via taxes).
stradivarious >
“Oh well, they won’t be replacing granite countertops, or anything ‘high end’.”
Wow jealous much?
Yea, it’s a good thing Police broke into homes and illegally confiscated guns.
Go back to sleep now.
“Hilarious to watch a HuffPoo author making a Conservative argument though.”
Your assumption that Karen Selick (or any ‘HuffPoo’ writer) is not a Conservative is incorrect.
Karen works at the Canadian Constitution Foundation. http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/
She has probably done more to advance the cause of freedom in a week than you will do in multiple lifetimes.
Now that’s hilarious.
Well now, if I’ve misjudged Karen Selik just because of where her article is posted, then my apologies to Ms. Selik for unfairly tarring her with the same brush as the odious HuffPoo. In my defense, be it fair or not, one is known by the company one keeps.
However you, EarlW, can kiss my butt.
“They also serve who only stand and wait.”
Water won’t hurt granite countertops. That’s why they make granite countertops. Same reason your brain doesn’t melt when you take a shower.
“Same reason your brain doesn’t melt when you take a shower.”
We should tell the hippies this. Then maybe they’d finally shower.
“…Once you grant the state the moral authority — and the power — to stamp out particular ideologies or beliefs, nobody is safe and nobody is free..”
A concept that is far, far too difficult and uncomfortable for most of our whipped and beholding Canadian Public to grasp.
Karen Sellick is a consistently principled LIBERTARIAN not a conservative.
That is a distinction with a difference.
Yea, it’s a good thing Police broke into homes and illegally confiscated guns.
Confiscation is confiscation. Illegal, or otherwise. I do find it hypocritical that people who complain about confiscated guns are okay with raiding confiscated taxpayer money.
Parasites don’t have a right to complain about their host.
The testator died 9 years ago. Why wasn’t this handled 8 1/2 years ago? The beauty of it is if you do things quickly, no-one has time to find out what is going on.
You should all be interested in the Bruce Montague story in Dryden ON.. If you challenge the firearms act, they arrest you, then take your house, your guns, your money, your car, etc.. Those evil Red Neck gun owners Don’t-cha-know..
stradivarious >
“Parasites don’t have a right to complain about their host.”
Heh, I’d be mighty surprised, even impressed, if you paid more in tax’s than me.
All my homes are high and dry, and I still have all my guns, no one crying here.
Heh, I’d be mighty surprised, even impressed, if you paid more in tax’s than me.
A child’s reply. My dick is longer than your dick.
stradivarious >
“A child’s reply”
Indeed, something like whining about flood victims getting a handout when the topic is about government controlled Stasi confiscations of victim’s property.
You sound like a street beggar crying about some other beggar getting your ratty old shoes, while master kicks you both in the nuts.
…whining about flood victims getting a handout when the topic is about government controlled Stasi confiscations of victim’s property.
Duh, confiscating money from people for the purpose of giving it to who they (government) decide is worthy, is precisely the topic.
I was just pointing out that people who benefit thusly shouldn’t be complaining about confiscated property.
It’s Okay.
Harper promised us property rights back in 2006.
We’ll get them any day now.
“In my defense, be it fair or not, one is known by the company one keeps.”
It’s no defense. You are saying that you are not concerned with truth or what someone has written. You would rather paint anyone that has submitted an article to the Huffington Post with the same knee-jerk, narrow-minded brush.
Kate brings to our attention a great article by a respected lawyer and all you can do is try to ridicule the author. Not because you disagree with anything that was written, but solely because it was published on the Huffington Post.
Lookup ‘bigot’. Perhaps you will learn something today.
PS: Another great Huffington Post writer: Marni Soupcoff.
Nice one Hans. You have my vote for best comment. It is reminiscent of the confusion surrounding the Geo Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. Everyone whining about “Justice”. I repeatedly pointed out that courts are about law, not about “justice”. Laws are (supposedly) absolute while Justice is frequently subjective. Same deal as the deceased’s will in my view. Here’s one of my favorite quotes on that:
“This is a court of law young man, not a court of justice.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice from 1902 to 1932
Karen Selick rocks and has rocked for a long time; she belongs in the Rex Murphy / Chris Hadfield – tier of Great Canadians.
Selick should receive the attention and adulation that Suzuki does instead of Suzuki.
Donate money to the National Alliance. It will make these people very mad.
One party is (agonizingly slowly) moving away from this kind of victim-politics crap while the other two are doubling down.
Woops! You derped all over yourself again. Nope, no party is moving us away from this. The Contards have done all the good they’re going to do.
Pretty scary stuff, and indeed a slippery slope….government just seems to be getting bigger and more intrusive by the day.
From the article: “The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs announced via an op-ed by their lawyer Richard Marceau in the National Post that they would seek intervener status and try to stop the gift, claiming that to allow money to flow into the coffers of the National Alliance would be ‘contrary to the principles of public policy.'”
Exactly where in the Constitution or the legislation can we find “public policy”?
From what I was able to find out about this estate and the coin collection in question, problems arose in probate court because Robert McCorkell owed approx. $90,000 in liabilities that included Revenue Canada. Trust me when I tell you (from experience) that no probate court releases the proceeds of an estate until the Feds are 100% satisfied. Thus RC may have used the NAZI excuse to hold the goods in their control. Do also keep in mind that the estate is being willed to foreign heirs, thus I would assume that even if the court would have released it, the lawyers would have consumed most of it before it ever made it across the 49th.
EarlW said: “You are saying that you are not concerned with truth or what someone has written.”
No, I’m saying “One is known by the company one keeps” is a cliche because its true. Wrong in this case, yet still often right.
I’m also saying you’re a jack@ss, one that has poor reading comprehension apparently.
Sadly, not the only jack@ss, since LASsie said: “Nope, no party is moving us away from this.”
LASsie, you only think this because you don’t pay attention. Since you don’t pay attention you don’t know anything about the slow-but-steady defunding of the many Sparks Street Liberal policy mills. Lots of Liberal connected “associations” and “think tanks” used to be funded by annual grants… and now they aren’t. Also the end of the mandatory “long form” census questionnaire was a huge blow to Liberal policy makers. It deprived them of their main data source, making it very difficult for them to justify such things as tranny bathrooms in public schools, or spending a billion dollars a year on gun control.
Then there’s the end of the long gun registry, the end of Section 13, -slightly- lower GST, etc. My complaint with the CPC is not the direction they move in, its the speed. An arthritic snail moves faster.
Also you seem to hate them, so that’s another plus for me. Anything LASsie hates can’t be all bad.
And New Brunswick is governed by a Progressive Conservative government with a rock-solid majority in its legislature. Still the Attorney General muses about acting in the “public interest” which, in the context of this article, has to be taken as some kind of quiet statement like, “I’m trying to figure out some fig-leaf-legal way to stop this thing but haven’t come up with anything yet.”
Just goes to show you cannot trust Progressives of any stripe whatsoever.
I love it when folks get all feisty and rude to each other because they are fighting over who is the better master…