By Stephen Gray
Widow: “Woman who has lost her husband by death and not married again.”
(The Concise Oxford Dictionary)
Recent Headline: “Gay widows win pension case” (Canoe C-News, Nov. 26, 2004.)
Which raises the question how can men be “widows?”
Once again the judiciary are proving that in thought, word and deed they are without equal in gibberish. We have had hallucinating judges “read in” words not written in the Constitution. We have had a judge say, a pervert’s work has “artistic merit.” Now the latest judicial pronouncement says a man can be a “widow.” Are these guys in some sort of contest to see who can bring down the latest “landmark decision ” in nonsense?
The court had this to say on its “widows” decision.
“Denying millions of dollars worth of retroactive pension payments to widowed gays and lesbians is an irrational and unconstitutional violation of their rights and Ottawa's commitment to equality, Ontario's highest court ruled Friday.” (Canoe C-News Nov. 26, 2004.)
The court went on to say:
"Excluding many of those who were intended to be included is not rationally connected to the objective of the law, which is to end the discriminatory exclusion of same-sex partners from CPP benefits,…" (Canoe C-News, Nov. 26, 2004)
Which raises the question if one does not believe a man can be a “widow” does this make one “not rationally connected” in judicial parlance? And where in the Charter of Rights was this “intended” nonsense written or described? The truth is, it was never in the Charter, until hallucinating judges “read in” imaginary “rights.”
Something is haywire in our judicial system when the meaning of the word widow can be changed to define a man who has never been traditionally married. Not only does this make a farce of the law but fakers of the judiciary. Still, this is what happens when reason and logic is replaced by irrationality and illogical conclusions. Words have to be perverted and their meaning destroyed to justify “landmark decisions.” One is reminded of that old saying: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” From “reading in” to male “widows,” the deception and degradation of the law and the language continues. One wonders, what will be the next judicial juggling of our society by judges who used to be lawyers? Parliament has to reassert its authority over these judges who are perverting the language and the law. This type of judicial decision further erodes the credibility of the justice system and brings the system into disrepute by its corruption of the language. This decision should be appealed to the Supreme Court though I doubt it will make any difference.
“Absolute power, in Lord Acton’s aphorism, corrupts absolutely and the Supreme Court is now absolutely corrupt.”
(page 178, The Most Dangerous Branch, How the Supreme Court of Canada Has Undermined Our Law and Our Democracy by Robert Ivan Martin)
What we are seeing in this country is a corruption not only in the Supreme Court as mentioned in the quote above but also in some of the lower courts as well. They are handing down decisions by corrupting the language, “widows” being the latest twist in judicial word play. A man can now be a “widow” and this is the “law?”
The judges are making the law in this country instead of interpreting it. Parliament’s powers have been usurped by a non-elected, appointed judiciary.
Where are our MPs on this insanity that a man can be a “widow?” So far I have not heard any of them point out this absurdity, nor has our “justice minister” mentioned it either.
Where are the hot shot lawyers of the nation on this? Do they believe a man can be a “widow?” After all these are the guys who always insist on the correct wording in court as do our “esteemed judiciary.”
There is no doubt something crazy is happening to our system of law and justice in this country. The latest example is; judges saying a man can be a “widow.”
Stephen Gray
Nov. 30, 2004.
graysinfo@yahoo.ca website: http://www.oocities.org/graysinfo