Canada – Harper’s Historic Court Opportunity, as Key Ruling Looms!

Almost right away, after his sweeping election win, Stephen Harper is faced with a chance to reshape Canada’s Supreme Court, after two left-liberal justices retire in August.

The two pinkos being pensioned off the high court are Ian Binnie and  Louis Charron

Binnie’s record is arguably eccentric, reportedly using bad language in court rulings, but he is no friend to traditional values. According to he has dismissed religion as “an engine of intolerance.” Equally, Charron has been heavily involved in absurd arguments in favour of the so-called ‘gay’ agenda.

Whilst it would be hard to find more unacceptable (to conservatives, at least!) court candidates than those two, Canadians who value the supremacy of democratic representatives over unelected judges are hoping Harper will seize the day and appoint two new justices committed to keeping the court at arm’s length from the democratic system.

The Ottawa Citizen reported last year that “Harper has repeatedly made clear that he considers the Supreme Court too activist and liberal, and prefers judges with a restrained approach to enforcing the Constitution.”

Harper’s words then can hardly be refuted. Since the Charter was introduced by Turdeau back in the early 1980s, the Supreme Court has run wild, reading in rights that were specifically EXCLUDED by those who ratified the Charter itself. Have a look at an article written in 2003, for an account of how this abuse was deliberately fostered.

REPORT, 3/3, 2003, 
The [Canadian] Charter — a judicial coup d’etat

Here’s a useful extract, showing the Court’s contempt for parents’ rights and decent values.

MP Jason Kenney was astonished. “Every conservative lawyer I spoke to before the decision came down,” he commented at the time, “told me there was no way the court would overturn the board’s decision.”     Perhaps they have not been paving attention. The causes that win court challenges in Canada are those that get government grants, and gays top the list. The Surrey decision was but the latest in a string of court- and human-rights-commission rulings that have established homosexual rights, even though Parliament deliberately excluded any mention of them in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. In the Surrey case, the Supreme Court did not even have to invoke the Charter of Rights; it merely reinterpreted a clause in the School Act promoting secularism. In doing so, it overturned the decision of an elected school board that had overwhelming support from the parents it represented.

———————————————————————————————–Meanwhile, Harper has already appointed two judges to the Supreme Court, neither of them notably wedded to what we would deem conservative positions, but certainly not hyper-pink. But if the PM serves a full parliament, another THREE seats should fall vacant. If he starts now, he could have appointed a majority of the court by 2015.

With a major issue coming before the justices this summer, Harper’s nominees will likely be too late to have an impact on that, the Quebec schools case. Parents have demanded the right to remove their children from a class mandated by the secularist regime there, “Ethics and Religious Culture,” which seeks to indoctrinate all school students, from tiny tots to teens, with degenerate nonsense such as that homosexuality is an appropriate  choice for family life.

Naturally, thousands of caring parents have sought exemption for their young, to avoid such scandalous brainwashing, but the Quebec courts have backed the cutural marxist stance of the provincial bureaucracy.

Finally reaching the Supreme Court, one brave  Catholic family in Drummondville are arguing yet again that ERC’s mandatory status breaches their right to religous liberty, which is enshrined in both the Canadian and Quebec’s own Charters of Rights and Freedoms. It also violates the universal right that parents, not the state, should direct their children’s education.


Surveys have suggested the Drummondville family’s arguments are backed by a large majority of Quebeckers.

“This case will cut to the core of what freedom of religion and conscience and parental authority mean in Canada,” states Don Hutchinson of EFC. “Parents simply want the right to teach morality and religion from their perspective, or decide who will do so on their behalf. The right to pass on one’s religious and cultural heritage to their children is a fundamental aspect of religious freedom and parental authority in Canada.”