Archive | Justice System Abuses RSS feed for this section
March 8, 2015

Canada’s Retarded Justice System


One day Ashley Thomas Brinston is too dangerous to release, 30 days later the Crown Prosecutor can’t put him back on the streets fast enough.

What’s going on?

Our justice system is often very good, but there are days where it is a complete farce.

After making death threats to a woman, Ashley Thomas Brinston found himself in jail after police searched his home and found firearms, ammunition, some legal and some not.

At his bail hearing the Crown Prosecutor opposed his release, arguing that Ashley Brinston was far too dangerous to allow out in the community. Seems reasonable on its face, doesn’t it? If the guy is running around threatening people and is in possession of firearms then it’s probably a good idea not to have this guy on the streets.

But what about the plea bargain entered into court this week, a joint submission by both Crown prosecutors and defense counsel?

In that joint submission the Crown agreed that a 120-day conditional sentence and house arrest was sufficient. Judge Harold Porter was, as he should be, disgusted with this notion.

“A month ago the Crown position was that it was far too dangerous to release the accused on judicial interim release. Today, it is the Crown position that it would be appropriate to sentence the accused to serve a sentence of house arrest, as a conditional sentence. Since judicial interim release and conditional sentences both require the accused complying with a court order, it is a challenge to reconcile the two positions taken by the Crown. A month ago, it was unsafe to release him into the community under the supervision of a court order, but today it is safe to release him on a court order.”

Sadly, despite his disgust with the sentence the judge is bound by law to accept it.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 18, 2014

Donna Montague Speaks Out on Criminal Case Against Her Husband

Robert Bailey liked this post


My name is Donna Montague. I am married to former Ontario gunsmith Bruce Montague.

I have had Enough!

I am thoroughly disgusted!

It is bad enough that the news media reports inflammatory positions  about Bruce without verifying their data ….. but the “JUDICIARY” is  doing it too.

Now that the trial is over I can speak.

The search of our home:

  • First off, there was no search warrant for the September 11, 2004 raid  on my home. To this day I have not seen a search warrant for this raid.
  • The dynamite we had in the freezer was legal and all charges related  to it were dropped. The police reported the dynamite to prejudice the  public.
  • There were NO sawed off shotguns.
  • Next, 20,000 rounds is not a lot. Police officers testified that they  and target shooters shoot 5,000-10,000 rounds a year. One order from a  local police department is for 11,000 rounds for one event. A retailer  has to supply to their customers.
  • Next, the full auto firearms: Most don’t realize that they are legal  in Canada. Bruce’s license for these was burned in protest.
  • Serial Numbers: Bruce did remove serial numbers and was harshly  sentenced for it. Bruce served his sentence.

Bruce’s character:

The charge against Bruce of being a danger to society was found NOT  GUILTY by the jury.

Character witnesses, a crown contracted background check, and even OPP  officers who knew him, when cross-examined testified and stated that  Bruce is an upstanding citizen. Bruce worked on a lot of OPP and local  police firearms and serviced police departments as far away as New  Jersey. At the time of the raid he had a handgun form a Kenora Crown  Attorney and an OPP rifle. Yet Bruce is continually slandered.

I, his wife would not remain by his side for over 35 years, and  through all this, if Bruce was of the character the judiciary is  insinuating. Bruce is a help-your-neighbour kind of guy. I can’t  imagine anyone who knows him saying otherwise.

You know we ran a gunsmithing shop and retailed firearms. We didn’t  have as many firearms as most firearms stores do. Now the government  wish to take what was our small store’s inventory It was not an  arsenal! – it is our life’s savings!

Now, after the criminal portion of our case is over, the Crown wants  to seize our home – paid for with inherited money from my father and  built by our family. This is extreme, overboard and unreasonable!

This game of media defamation is disgusting. You jury members and  those who attended the trial, you know the whole story. You can share  what you learned in the trial. This is spinning out of control – It is  like politicians with their smear campaigns at election time.

Please! Stand Up! Speak! Don’t be silent and let this atrocity continue.

Donna Montague


P.S. I have had a lot of response to my letter in the newspaper. People are  asking me how they can help with letter writing. We would appreciate your letters to be cc’d to:

Court of Appeal for Ontario
130 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N5

The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay  (no postage necessary)
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8

Canadian Constitutional Foundation
1830 – 52 Street SE
Suite 240
Calgary, Alberta T2B 1N1

Some points to consider in these letters may be:

  • Taking someone’s life savings for a victimless paper crime when a  1 ½ year prison sentence already seams excessive, is a cruel and  excessively brutal punishment.
  • In light of the lenient sentences that real criminals get, the  courts appear to have an obvious bias against firearms owners.
  • Bruce Montague was a protester!  He was a conscientious objector to Canada firearms legislation. (see an excellent explanation of what this means at  He didn’t threaten or hurt anyone.  This  isn’t how we treat protesters!
  • The civil forfeiture legislation was presented as stopping drug  lords from getting rich. The we made no profit from our protest and our house is not an instrument or proceed of crime.  Bruce made nothing, but the government stands to make hundreds of thousands of  dollars.

The Canadian Constitutional Foundation is representing us. You can support their efforts by donating through the Canadian Constitution Foundation website


Donna Montague

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 10, 2014

Are you offended by something I said?

Ryan Steacy, Mike Ackermann liked this post

The problem with some folks is they can’t accept the fact an opinion exists of which they don’t approve. Freedom of speech is okay but only if you agree with their opinions.  The problem with politicians is they feel compelled to pander to the people who cannot accept another’s point of view.

Combine the two (incessant whiners and politicians) and you get nightmares like the Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 318 of the Criminal Code, both of which create special status for “special” people, leaving the rest of us mere citizens out in the cold.

Not only are we left out in the cold, we now have the full weight of government to contend with any time we say something one of the protected class of whiners doesn’t like.

Shockingly, one isn’t required to be a member of a protected class in order to file a complaint on their behalf. ‘I’m outraged for you’ appears to be the operational basis here, and a very profitable one for some.

Try saying anything outside of the mainstream politically-correct view about any of the following folks and you will quickly discover the error of believing you actually have a Right to Freedom of Speech:

“any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”

As in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, some pigs are truly more equal than others.

White heterosexual Christian males need not apply, however. You are NOT one of the “protected classes” of people despite having an actual religion, sexuality and race. Put another way, you’re not quite as equal as others.

Am I saying every member of these protected groups is a whiner? Of course not. I blame gutless politicians for pandering to special interest groups more than I do those lobbying on their behalf.

To live is to offend someone, somewhere along the way. Do we really need a group of bureaucratic thugs to beat us into submission simply because our view of the world is different than theirs?

Here in Canada the answer is a resounding YES!

Ask Marc Lemire, Connie Fournier or Arthur Topham. Each of these individuals suffered the crushing weight of bureaucratic excess, and often for sentiments they never even wrote.

Marc Lemire faces a lifetime free speech ban for an article posted on his website. He didn’t write the article. He didn’t even post the article himself, yet the screaming banshees at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal consider him more of a threat to the “Canadian way of life” than… well pretty much any violent criminal.

To date the Canadian people have wasted over a quarter million dollars prosecuting Marc Lemire… and for what? An article he didn’t even write that was read by perhaps 10 people worldwide?

Connie Fourier finally shuttered after being found guilty of defamation of serial human rights complainant Richard Warman. The final straw for Ms. Fournier was the condition she be held liable for any negative comments made by anyone, at any time in the future, about Richard Warman.

That ruling’s phrasing would even allow Richard Warman, for example, to log onto and post something negative about himself and still trigger the full weight of the law on Ms. Fournier. It’s utterly absurd for Connie Fournier to he beld accountable for the comments of another, yet that’s now the law of the land here in Canada.

Arthur Topham wrote something about someone or some group of someones that offended another someone who complained to both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the RCMP. Arthur Topham now faces charges under both the Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Nobody will tell Topham what he wrote that was so offensive. Instead they demand he defend everything he ever wrote from six months before his arrest until… well.. whenever he might finally get his day in court. That’s right. Every word Mr. Topham writes until his trial can and will be used by Crown prosecutors to show what a heinous threat he is to both the Canadian Way of Life and The World as We Know It.

Yeah, there’s justice for you!

While I would hope our Canadian skins are thick enough to tolerate offensiveness in others… apparently we can only tolerate our own offensiveness. That our attitudes may actually offend others is completely missed in the rush to fend off some perceived slight.

Like Stephen Fry so bluntly said, if you’re offended by what I say, “…so fucking what?”

Get over yourself already.

Dismantle every so-called “human rights” tribunal and commission across Canada. If they were ever needed (I doubt it) their “best before” date expired long ago and are now simply vehicles for punishing those with whom we disagree.

Abusing our fellow citizen is not a “Canadian value” simply because we disagree with what he or she says.

Or at least it shouldn’t be.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 30, 2014

Are Family Courts used to Strip Men of their Rights and Freedoms?


Guest Editorial by Brian Bedard

“In the past quarter century, we exposed biases against other races and called it racism, and we exposed biases against women and called it sexism. Biases against men we call humour.”

Dr. Warren Farrell, “Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say”

parent-alienation-equal-parenting720The subjugation of men in the Family Courts is prevalent across Canada. The Family Law Act in Ontario is supposed to encourage and strengthen the role of the family, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

This is a systemic problem that is not only creating financial hardship for families, but is costing our society the ultimate currency of lives.Men in Ontario are 3.2 times more likely to commit suicide than women. Ask anyone who has been through the system and you can be sure they will have a horror story that will scare you to death.

Bill C-560, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting),  is only the tip of the iceberg, addressing one problem only: equal parenting.

Bill C-560 Summary:

This enactment amends the Divorce Act to replace the concept of “custody orders” with that of “parenting orders”. It instructs judges, when making a parenting order, to apply the principle of equal parenting unless it is established that the best interests of the child would be substantially enhanced by allocating parental responsibility other than equally.

Presently there is no accountability in the system because we have been forced to subscribe to a no-fault divorce approach. To infer that no one is at fault in the breakdown of a marriage allows the courts to use a cookie cutter approach to resolve conflict, which is only a matter of convenience for the courts.

While the purpose behind the no-fault divorce was to facilitate a clean break resolution, the reality is that every case that makes its way to Family Court is unique and should be decided on its merits.

Mediation should be the primary means of conflict resolution and the courts should only be used to decide outstanding issues after exhausting other avenues.

Accusations are not facts.

It is common practice to inundate court documents with allegations of abuse. Terms like “passively aggressive” or “mental and verbal abuse” are tossed around freely without having to substantiate any of these claims. This approach deliberately puts the other party on the defensive right from the start.

Past practice has been to make false allegations and use them to award one parent custody. I suggest that if there is any allegation of abuse it is to be taken seriously and dealt with in the criminal courts where facts trump allegations.

Once dealt with in the criminal courts, then Family Court would be dealing only with facts and not allegations, which would help to ensure the protection of the children. If children are involved they have to be the priority no matter what.

Divorce has become an industry in itself, financially exploiting hard-working families, and filling the pockets of those who abuse the court system.

For example, another common practice is to use a 20-year marriage as a cash-for-life proposition (even though there is nothing in the Divorce Act which actually specifies lifetime payments be made on a marriage of 20 years or over). This is clearly discrimination, and it amounts to modern day slavery.

Spousal support is intended to relieve economic hardship arising from the breakdown of the marriage and promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time. Having to make lifetime payments is not reasonable.

I would suggest using the formula of 6 months per year of marriage. For example, if a couple were married for 20 years, spousal support would be terminated after 10 years of payments. This provides ample time for self sufficiency and also allows the payor to have some type of future.

The court should also ensure that the recipient spouse does not perpetuate this support by refusing to go to work or to retrain.

Spousal support is not a career choice.

Any person who works hard to provide for their family should be respected, not treated like a potential “deadbeat”. Opting in to Family Responsibility Office should be the standard in Ontario. No one should be forced to participate in a system that is flawed.

In my case, it took 67 days for Family Responsibility Office to provide me with a case number, and this automatically placed me in the “arrears” category, which gave them the power to garnishee my wages. I had to fight to have this error corrected.

When I requested information through the Freedom of Information Act from Family Responsibility Office, I met with not only roadblocks but threats.

I would suggest a comprehensive review of the Family Responsibility Office, and a means to hold them accountable for their actions.

This is but a short list of my concerns.

It is very clear that the Divorce Act needs to be modernized to reflect the families of today.
Ask anyone with experience in this area of law if they think Family Law provides justice and I venture to say that the overwhelming answer would be “No”.

Brian Bedard
Courtright, Ontario

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

January 4, 2013

Ian Thomson found NOT GUILTY of safe storage charges



January 3, 2012

Ian Thomson of Port Colbourne, Ontario, was found NOT GUILTY by Justice Colvin in a 45-minute decision that finally takes the weight off the man who had the audacity to defend his life from masked men trying to murder him in his home while he slept.

It’s a case that should never happened.

Police should have commended Thomson for his restraint in firing warning shots over the heads of the men who tried to murder him, not arrest him on bogus safe storage charges.

Crown Counsel should have declined to prosecute because it is not in the public interest to proceed with such an asinine case.  Then again, Crown Counsel should have charged the men who tried to kill Ian Thomson with attempted murder too… something they just couldn’t bring themselves to do.

Naturally, when the Crown Counsel’s head is stuffed this far into his own behind, he won’t accept the decision of the court.  Long before the decision came down today, January 3rd, Crown prosecutors made it very clear they would appeal the decision if it didn’t go their way.

I truly do not comprehend the mindset of police and lawyers who would rather see a man dead, burned alive, than defend his life against masked men trying to murderer him.

It makes no sense to me.

Unless, that is,  I accept the fact that police and crown prosecutors, at least in Ontario, do not believe we mere citizens of Canada should be “allowed” to defend our lives in the face of imminent and mortal danger.

It’s fine for them, of course… just not for the rest of us.

The sheer hypocrisy of this is, well, disgusting.

Let me leave you with a few thoughts I wrote almost a year ago in an article titled “Vigilantism vs Self-Defense: Why Bob Rae is a buffoon completely out of touch with reality

…in the early morning hours of August 22, 2010, Port Colborne, Ontario resident Ian Thomson used a legally-owned and registered handgun to fire warning shots over the heads of the three murderous cretins (no relation to our former prime minister) who were attempting to kill him by burning down Mr. Thomson’s home with him inside it.

The police and Crown prosecutors have decided that saving his own life is not acceptable behaviour.  Instead, Crown prosecutors seem to be content that Ian Thomson should have dialed 9-1-1 and then promptly died at the hands of his attackers, like a good little sheeple.

A police officer actually had the gall to say that Thomson was able to retrieve his firearms “too quickly”, therefore he was obviously guilty of the unsafe storage of firearms.

It’s an asinine comment and an even more asinine conclusion to draw.  Ian Thomson’s life was in immediate and imminent danger from three men caught on video cameras screaming death threats and tossing Molotov cocktails at his home.

It was only his ability to retrieve his firearms and fire a couple of warning shots to scare off his would-be murderers that allows Ian Thomson to be alive to suffer the abusive prosecution he is currently facing, not to mention the moronic comments of that policeman and now Bob Rae.

This is beyond absurd.  If an inmate inside a maximum security prison can use a concealed weapon to kill another inmate according the the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Kerr, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 371, 2004 SCC 44), then why can’t a man with no criminal record and a legally-owned firearms defend his life against three men actively trying to murder him?

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 3, 2012

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing



All that is required for evil to triumph is
for good men to do nothing.

This timeless maxim and its many variants are widely attributed to Edmund Burke, although according to many sources he never put his idea into this concise a statement. Others attribute the statement to John Stuart Mill’s inaugural address to the University of St. Andrews in 1867, and even to a translation of Leo Tolstoy’s classic “War and Peace”.

That said, who actually wrote it first is not important. What is important is the clear call to action contained within it.

Desmond Tutu essentially says the same thing in his quote,

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Every human being has the duty to confront evil wherever he or she finds it. Period.

That’s one of the reasons I wrote about Leah-Lynn Plante, Matt Duran and Katherine “Kteoo” Olejnik and their fight against the tyranny of the US Grand Jury system the other day. These three individuals made a conscious decision to stand up against state tyranny. They stood up for their Right to Remain Silent in a grand jury system that routinely strips people of their constitutional rights and freedoms, all in the name of the greatest evil of all: expediency.

I don’t have to share their political beliefs to comprehend that these three young people are on the right side of things. Their political beliefs (and mine too, for that matter) are irrelevant in the battle for our Rights and Freedoms.

Standing up to evil is what is important. Why we stand up to evil, not so much.

I will always support those courageous people who choose to battle evil where they find it. I will always shine the light of truth on cases where evil is triumphant simply because we mere citizens are too terrified to stand up to it.

Holiday gifts at up to 90% off!
This is, of course, a frightening or should I say terrifying thought for most people, and for good reason. Taking on the agents of the state is a terrifying prospect, but I cannot imagine a world where individuals have NOT stood up to tyranny.

Martin Luther changed the world by standing up to the Roman Catholic Church when nobody else would.

Rosa Parks changed the world when she refused to sit in the back of the bus.

Emily Murphy changed the world when she challenged the status quo that a woman could not serve as a police magistrate in Alberta.

Five Alberta women, Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby changed the world when they refused to accept the premise that women were not capable of serving in the Canadian Senate.

These are just a few cases where good people have stood up to injustice and often at great personal expense.

The United States of America would not even exist if it weren’t for the courageous men who took it upon themselves to stand up to British Tyranny and sign the Declaration of Independence.

We all know right from wrong. It’s written on our very hearts. Yet when faced with evil we so very often run and hide, or at the very least stand and watch in silent horror.

You need not be a believing Christian to know that standing up to evil is your duty as a citizen. If you are, then you will find great comfort what the Bible states in Deuteronomy 31: 6, 31:7, 31:23 and Joshua 1:18:

“Be strong and of a good courage. Do not fear nor be afraid of them.”

This sentiment is restated in similar fashion 14 times throughout the Old Testament.

It is our highest duty to stand up to evil wherever we find it. Yes, that will come at a cost, be it time, treasure or even our very liberty.

Will we be afraid? Yes, in all likelihood.

Should we stand silent while our brother is terrorized by an out-of-control state?

Absolutely not.

I urge you, the next time you find yourself confronted with evil, be it large or small, to make a stand for what is right.

It can be something as seemingly insignificant as telling the bully to stop being rude. It can be as big as breaking the law in order to shine the light of truth on injustice, or what we would call civil disobedience.

Rosa Parks did it, and she was just one woman. The important thing to remember about Rosa Parks is not that she was a woman, or even that she was black. No, the important thing to remember about Rosa Parks is that she stood up against evil where she found it… on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955.

I will leave you with this thought from Margaret Mead:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 26, 2012

Charges Dropped Against Moses Mahilal: Is this Crown Prosecutors discovering Common Sense, or merely protecting their conviction rates



When I heard the news earlier today that all charges against Moses Mahilal were dropped I was both shocked and elated at the same time. It’s incredibly uncommon for Ontario Crown Prosecutors to do the right thing… or to be more specific, to correct the injustice they have already perpetrated by laying charges against the victim of a crime in the first place.

As you may or may not remember, Moses Mahilal lives with his girlfriend Sarah Walsh and Sarah’s mother Kimberly Walsh in Etobicoke, Ontario. In July 31, 2011 the couple came home late to discover the door open and an unknown pair of shoes at the bottom of the stairs. Upon further investigation and after grabbing a kitchen knife to defend himself, Moses found the home invader hiding behind Sarah’s mother’s bedroom door.

A fight ensued and the home invader, one Kino Johnson, was stabbed a couple of times before running away. He was ultimately arrested by police, yet Crown prosecutors wasted no time taking the wounded home invader’s word as Gospel before charging Mahilal with a crime: aggravated assault.

If convicted Moses Mahilal could face up to 14 years in prison. That’s a serious penalty for the “crime” of defending yourself and your loved ones from a repeat offender like Kino Johnson.

Johnson had previously been convicted of break and enter five times before this. God only knows how many crimes like this he had committed but wasn’t convicted of.

Holiday gifts at up to 90% off!
As I wrote back on September 4th under the title “Ontario’s Crown prosecutors insist upon confusing self-defense with assault“,

Imagine you are out with your girlfriend for the evening. You have a lovely time together and come home in the wee hours of the morning, only to find your front door wide open. Your girlfriend’s mother lives with both of you so your concern for her safety immediately goes into overdrive.

This being Canada you’re not legally allowed to carry a firearm, so you run to the kitchen and arm yourself with a kitchen knife, the only defensive tool close at hand. While you hear nothing, your girlfriend’s mother’s bedroom is upstairs and as you round the corner you stare in horror at what’s sitting at the bottom of the stairs.

In a bizarre twist your home invader has had the courtesy to take his shoes off before ransacking your home.

Running upstairs you discover the intruder hiding behind your girlfriend’s mother’s bedroom door. He attacks you and you defend yourself with the knife you grabbed in the kitchen. The home invader is injured in the struggle, seriously, but your girlfriend’s mother is safe and that’s all that matters.

God only knows what could have happened had you not arrived home when you did.

You call the police who come and arrest the home invader… and then they arrest you for the “crime” of assaulting the man who invaded your home.

Exactly what country is this again???


Sure doesn’t sound like Canada, does it? At least not the Canada I want to live in.Matt Gurney had a great writeup in the National Post where he explains quite clearly that the process is the punishment.

On Thursday, the Crown suddenly dropped the charge against Mahilal, saying that it had reviewed the evidence and there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction.That’s great news for Mahilal. But it does raise the question why he was charged at all, and why the Crown needed so long to conclude that the entire legal proceeding — including last months’ pretrial hearings — was a waste of time.

In Ontario, it is police who lay charges if they determine there’s a reasonable prospect of a conviction. The Crown takes it from there. But it’s been more than a year. Was this the first moment the Crown could find to declare that they wouldn’t pursue the case? Think of the court resources wasted, not to mention the stress on Mahilal and the Walshes, during that period. And then there’s the money Mahilal spent defending himself against a hopeless prosecution.

But Mahilal wasn’t tried. He was partially tried, and then the Crown gave up. It can only be concluded that he never should have been tried, even in part, at all.

Gurney goes on to explain how this case is pretty much the textbook definition of self-defense.

Mahilal’s case is clear cut. He found an intruder in his home at night, and defended himself with force against that intruder. His actions are clearly covered by the Criminal Code’s Section 34, which allows people to use force in self-defence if they believe they have no choice and that they are under direct threat. Finding someone in your home at night certainly fits that definition. Indeed, short of being attacked by an axe-wielding madman straight out of a Hollywood thriller, it’s hard to imagine what could fit the definition better.

Now at first glance it would appear that Crown prosecutors in this case have re-discovered their long-lost common sense and dropped all charges against Moses Mahilal.

Yeah, maybe at first glance… but upon a closer examination here is what you will find:

Crown prosecutors “reviewed the evidence” and found there was “no reasonable prospect of a conviction.

In other words, they gave up, but not before penalizing Moses Mahilal both emotionally and financially.

The process is the punishment.

This isn’t common sense rearing its head at all, as Crown prosecutors in Ontario seem pathologically incapable of admitting they’ve made a mistake. This is merely the repulsive self-interest of Ontario’s Crown prosecutors rearing its ugly head.

They will not admit they were wrong in bringing charges against Moses Mahilal in the first place… Not a chance. This is merely a case of Crown prosecutors realizing their precious conviction rate was in jeopardy if they moved forward against Mahilal.

That being said, I’m delighted they dropped the charges against Moses Mahilal… regardless of their reasoning…

But wouldn’t it be nice if these boneheads could get the concept of self-defense through their thick skulls BEFORE dragging someone through the court system for no reason?

Oops… I forgot…

The process is the punishment.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

July 27, 2012

Justice for Orion Hutchinson and his family? Not a chance. Disgraced former RCMP Corporal Benjamin (Monty) Robinson plays the race card and wins

I was disgusted but not surprised that another piece of garbage in an RCMP uniform, Constable Geoff Mantler, walked free the other day, acquitted by Judge Takahashi.  I saw that one coming a mile off.

Reading the news, however, that arguably the most disgraceful person to ever wear an RCMP uniform, former RCMP Corporal Monty Robinson, will never set foot inside a prison cell for killing Orion Hutchinson and obstructing justice is, well, beyond disgusting.  It’s just a very bad joke on the Hutchinson family and our justice system as a whole.

The maximum sentence for obstruction of justice is 10 years in prison.  This is a very serious criminal offense.

Robinson’s sentence?

One whole month of house arrest, followed by 11 months on probation.  Oh, and he has to write a letter of apology to the Hutchinson family and pay a fine of $1,000 to Victim Services.

That’s not a sentence, that’s an utter abuse of justice!

That is the judicial system showing total contempt for the victims of crime and coddling a criminal who should spend a very long time in prison.

I don’t care that Monty Robinson is “aboriginal”.  He was an RCMP corporal who knew right from wrong and specifically chose to do everything in his power in order to NOT be held accountable for his heinous actions.

That B.C. Supreme Court Judge Janice Dillon had the gall to go looking for “mitigating factors” when sentencing this piece of human trash tells the world that Canada does not take criminal misconduct by career police officers seriously.

It tells us and the world that, compared to the lives of police officers, we mere citizens should just count our blessings that they let us live at all.

Robinson’s every decision from the time he started drinking  that fateful October 2008 night until the time he returned to the scene of where he killed Orion Hutchinson were deliberate acts.  Deliberate, criminal acts.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 24, 2012

And in British Columbia the Legalization of Killing Continues…

Pastor Jim Butler

With the recent decision of a B.C. Supreme Court judge, that province inched one step closer to creating a macabre open season on human beings.

In a strange twist of logic, Supreme Court Justice Lynn Smith ruled that the provisions of the Charter of Rights unjustifiably infringe on a disabled person’s life, liberty, and security.[1] If this logic were applied to liberty and security, the Justice would authorize freemen plunging themselves into slavery and secure men placing themselves in harm’s way. Why bother with a Charter of Rights at all?

This recent decision should come as no surprise: in light of legalized abortion (a feature of Canadian society since 1969), it was only a matter of time until other human beings were the lawful subjects of murder, whether self-inflicted or “physician” assisted.

The late John Murray said, “Nothing shows the moral bankruptcy of a people or of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of life.”[2] A society that justifies murdering the most helpless members of that society is certainly proclaiming its moral bankruptcy. It is an unfortunate and grim reality: “Beautiful B.C.” is a place where those deserving increased protection are marginalized and disposable.

This disregard for human life is a further indication of how far society has devolved from an objective moral standard, namely, the revealed truth of God. I suspect some will question the validity of such a position, but follow along for a moment.

The Bible reveals that God made man in His own image and wrote His law upon man’s heart. Man defected from God shortly after his entrance into the world, but he can never fully shake the law of God. He is conscious of certain truths, even though he tries very hard to suppress those truths when they conflict with his wishes.

One of those truths is the commandment, “You shall not murder.” If a society excludes this particular commandment, there will be inevitable consequences: physician assisted suicide, abortion on demand, and any number of horrific crimes may potentially become accepted realities. The society in question is left without an objective defense against the encroaching tyranny of lawless men.

After all, why shouldn’t the government declare open season on any or all groups within that society? Why shouldn’t the government commit any number of atrocities if there is no absolute standard of right and wrong? A society that authorizes the murder of the preborn and the disabled is a society that has created a culture of death; death becomes the solution for any who do not meet the societal standard of being wanted or having a certain agreed upon quality of life.

The law of God is the standard of right and wrong that will protect man from the always arbitrary and oftentimes murderous tendencies of governments.  Science effectively tells man what is, but science can never tell a man what ought to be.

Francis Schaeffer wrote,

In the flood loss of humanness in our age – including the flow from abortion-on-demand to infanticide and on to euthanasia – the only thing that can stem this tide is the certainty of the absolute uniqueness and value of people.  And the only thing which gives us that is the knowledge that people are made in the image of God.  We have no other final protection.  And the only way we know that people are made in the image of God is through the Bible and in the incarnation of Christ, which we know from the Bible.[3]

The Bible reveals that man is created in the image of God, and therefore to murder man is to assault the divine majesty.[4] The fact that man is created in the image of God is not true only of healthy adults, but it is true of man in every phase of his life. Man is the image of God before the fall into sin (Gen 1:26-28), after the fall into sin (Jas 3:9), in the womb (Ex 21:21-25, as a child (Lev 18:21; Eph 6:4), as one physically handicapped (Lev 19:14; Mk 10:46-52), as an elderly person (Lev 19:32; Prov 16:31; 1 Tim 5:1), and as having dominion over the animals (Gen 1:28; Ps 8:6-8).

Instead of authorizing murder for the vulnerable ones in society, the Supreme Court ought to uphold the Charter of Rights for every person, for a failure to uphold the Charter is wrong in at least two ways.

In the first place, it is wrong to permit the unlawful killing of another human being.  It is unfortunate that reasons have to be added to this most fundamental principle, but such is the hardness of man’s heart. And secondly, if the rights of one group are violated, it will not be long until the rights of all groups are violated. That potential open season on human beings may be extended in the next Supreme Court ruling and another group’s right to life, liberty, and security may be at risk.

Jim Butler was born and raised in Long Beach, California. After serving four years in the US Air Force, he was saved by the grace of God in Palmdale, California.  He joined the Palmdale Reformed Baptist Church and received training for the gospel ministry.

In 1997 he was sent out as a church-planter to Chilliwack, B.C. and has since served as the pastor of the Free Grace Baptist Church.  His formal theological education is through Whitefield Theological Seminary where he earned the Master of Divinity and the Master of Theology degrees.

He is happily married to Rebecca, has five children, and three grandchildren.

[2] John Murray, Principles of Conduct (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans Publishing, [1957] 1984), 122.

[3] John Piper, A Hunger for God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1997), 158.

[4] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology:  Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans Publishing, re. 1991), 54.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 3, 2012

Texas Judge Lanny Moriarty: Arbiter of Justice or Pathetic Little Tyrant?


Common sense.  It’s such a simple thing but it’s in such short supply in our world, isn’t it?

The latest case of gross human stupidity to show up on my radar is that of  Texas Judge Lanny Moriarty, who felt the petty and pathetic need to make an example of grade 11 Texas honour student Diane Tran.

If you haven’t heard of her before, prepare yourself to be horrified.

Diane Tran is, as I said, a 17-year-old honours student at Willis High School, which is just outside of Houston, Texas.  After her parents separated and her mother moved away Diane took two jobs: one full-time at a dry-cleaning business and the other job is working part-time for a wedding planner.  She supports her brother and sister financially and only sees her father infrequently since he works in Houston all week.

It’s hard not to see why Diane would have missed some school.  Working two jobs to support yourself and your 2 siblings means something has to give, and that something in Diane’s case is NOT her grades but merely the amount of time her behind is in a chair in a classroom.

It is abundantly clear to me that Judge Lanny Moriarty has his head firmly planted up his own behind.  Were he able to pull it out of that suffocating and odious environment for just a minute he would be able to discern what is actually important in school.  The frighteningly moronic judge believes it is the amount of time your behind is planted in a chair in a classroom that is of greatest importance, not the grades one is getting. (more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 14, 2012

Castle Doctrine Rebounds in Indiana after stupid Indiana State Supreme Court ruling


The Indiana State Supreme Court made a ridiculous ruling last year in Barnes v. State (May 12, 2011).  That decision said that Indiana state residents had no right to obstruct illegal police invasions of their homes.

Folks who actually comprehend the Rights and Freedoms declared in the Magna Carta were up in arms (pun intended) over the ruling that essentially overturned centuries of common law legal precedent.  It was absurd to declare that agents of the state can invade someone’s home for any reason or even no reason at all, and a citizen has no right to defend against it.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” Justice Steven David said.

“We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

That is called a Police State, and unfortunately the Indiana Supreme Court saw absolutely nothing wrong with declaring that Indiana was indeed a Police State.

If the police don’t want to face “unnecessary resistance” when invading someone’s home, there is a very simple solution: Don’t do it.  Don’t invade someone’s home illegally.  Then you won’t have to worry about unnecessary resistance.

Home invasions deserve, indeed demand that they be repelled by all available force.  It matters not if the home invader has a badge to go along with his gun when his actions are illegal.

To quote William Grigg,

“When a cop invades a home without legal authority, he is acting as a criminal, rather than a peace officer.”


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

February 24, 2012

Bill C-30’s invasions of privacy and warrantless searches are outrageous, but all the other Acts are just fine?


Bruce Cockburn wrote a famous song that contained the line “The trouble with normal is it only gets worse.”

The same can be said for governments.  They always get worse, too.  The current so-called Conservative government is a perfect example of this, and Vic Toews unwittingly tried using this to his advantage.  He quickly discovered, much to his dismay, that Canadians weren’t quite as dumb as he had hoped.

Speaking to Ezra Levant on the Sun TV show “The Source” Vic Toews said with a straight face,

“Well, right now regulatory authorities have the power to do warrantless searches. That is very standard practice.”

Vic Toews is absolutely correct.  It is standard practice in numerous laws on the books:

  • The Firearms Act,
    the Fisheries Act,
    the Wheat Board Act and I’m sure many others.

Vic Toews clearly believes that it SHOULD be standard practice to have Canadians subjected to warrantless searches whenever it suits him, despite the so-called “conservative” nature of his government.

Unfortunately we do not actually have a conservative government in Canada right now.  We haven’t had one for a very, very long time.  The last truly conservative Canadian government probably predates the existence of anyone alive today.

You see, a truly conservative government would place the sanctity of our Rights and Freedoms ahead of any momentary and passing “need” of government.

A truly conservative government would repeal the laws that place the burden of proof on Canadians to “prove a negative”, something Ian Thomson is being forced to do right now in an Ontario courtroom.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

January 20, 2012

When the whims of murderers are more important than honouring their victims


The Canadian justice system leaves a lot to be desired, even on its best days.  On its worst days, it is a repulsive indictment of our apparent love for a violent serial rapist and murderer and our blatant abhorrence for honouring the memory of a precious young woman, brutally raped and stabbed dozens and dozens of times.

A1 Manning HRTara Manning was a beautiful young 15-year-old the night she was brutally raped and murdered in her own home in 1994.

The Haitian-born man who committed this brutal crime decided to game the system, and applied for an Aboriginal Parole Hearing.  As bizarre as that sounds, the bureaucrats in charge of making the decision on whether or not to allow this travesty didn’t bat an eye before stamping “APPROVED” on his application.

Now, I must admit that I am very offended, indeed outraged that this sort of stupidity can go on in the Canadian justice system.

But my outrage must be the pathetic mewling of a colicky baby compared to the outrage and sense of betrayal that Tara Manning’s father feels, and rightfully so.

“It’s like sticking another knife into our family — he stabbed Tara 51 times, what kind of crap is this?” Michael Manning asked Tuesday in an interview from his Montreal-area home.


Can you imagine the absolute horror of walking in to your daughter’s room to turn off her alarm and wake her up, only to discover her brutally murdered body, stabbed 51 times by the psychopath who raped her in her own bed?

I can’t.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player