The Social Experiment Continues - Child with Three Legal Parents
January 3, 2007 · By H. Cameron
The Ontario Court of Appeal follows in the dangerous tradition of making laws rather than ruling over them.
Ontario’s highest court has ruled that a child can have three parents in a landmark case that experts say rewrites the definition of a family.
Calling it an “important and novel case,” the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned an earlier judgment that denied a woman status as the legal guardian of a boy she has been raising with her female partner.
Disturbing and dangerous are the words I would have used.
Yesterday the appeal court unanimously agreed that it can fill a “legislative gap” in the Children’s Law Reform Act, which protects the rights of children born out of wedlock.
Fill a legislative gap? I’ve got a question for you - is it not the role of the elected legislatures to fill the gaps in legislation, rather than a bunch of unaccountable, unelected judges?
Polygamy… meet slippery slope - have fun…
Oh noes!!! Next it will be dogs getting married into human harems!!! Why won’t everyone just have the kind of family I WANT them to have?!?
Way to go polygamists, you’ve ruined Christmas.
…and just wait until a large number of these unelected judges are Muslim.
I’m sure these lesibian’s (as well as the enlightened ‘anon’) will enjoy their beekeepers outfit.
http://www.fca-caf.gc.ca/bulle.....ry_e.shtml
“Fill a legislative gap? I’ve got a question for you - is it not the role of the elected legislatures to fill the gaps in legislation, rather than a bunch of unaccountable, unelected judges?”
I strongly suggest that your readers understand the importance of an independent judiciary for democracy in Canada.
them and the children, under whatever circumstances they may be. Maybe I’m missing the inherent value in the traditional family, however, in any case, I think it’s not up to us to decide. UPDATE: Via the Alberta Spectator, we find that the folks at The Politic are none too pleased… UPDATER: And via Canadian Cynic, we find that there are quite a few conservatives who are unsurprisingly less than pleased with the court ruling. Technorati tags: Womens equality
“Ontario’s highest court has ruled that a child can have three parents…”
Or five or six or seven!
Winston Blackmore is going to totally be partying tonight.
Who decides what interferes with the judiciary’s independence? Why the judiciary of course.
Who decides HOW INDEPEDENT the judiciary should be? Why, the judiciary of course.
The judges are accountable to no one and they are determined to increase that lack of accountability.
John: Do you have a suggestion on how this can be improved while still maintaining the rule of law in Canadian democracy? Or, are you just upset that the rule of law and the decision of the judiciary in Canada do not fit with your ideological world view? Either way, you still fail to say HOW an independent judiciary is actually a problem.
John - two things:
1) Go read the Constitution - it sets out the basic rules of the judiciary quite clearly.
2) Read the judgment itself: here.
What you are claiming is “judicial activism” is in fact the exercise of a very old judicial perogative Parens Patriae. It specifically exists to cover situations where the law is incomplete in regards to the legal interests of people who are not considered “competent adults” such as children. (Quoting from Wikipedia article: The parens patriae doctine has since evolved from one granting absolute rights to the sovereign to one more associated with rights and obligations of the state and courts towards children and incapacitated adults.)
There is nothing stopping legislators from making new legislation to fill in the gap that has been identified by this case.
As for the suggestion that this has anything to do with enabling polygamous relationships, I think the particulars of the ruling are fairly clear that this is not the case.
In fact, it actually opens up a very interesting, and potentially important scenario where divorce and remarriage are concerned - enabling a new spouse to potentially gain legal parental rights (with the consent of the biological parents) if they are a significant caregiver for the children of a previous marriage. Not entirely a bad thing.
[...] - PURE MONKEY-COATED INSANITY: “As the judicial activism of our courts continues, the Ontario Court of Appeal follows in the dangerous tradition of making laws rather than ruling over them”.. yes, count ‘em, three legal parents.. genetic tampering opens up whole new worlds of possible evil for social experimenters; Ontario court: Child can have three legal parents. Canadian court some liberal-appointee whacknut judge [Superior Court Justice David Aston] redefines ‘family’ … (thepolitic, Bearblog) [...]
Did I say judicial independence was a problem? No I don’t think I did. What *IS* a problem is when judges themselves are the ones who define what is or is not in conflict with their own independence.
At this time these people are quite literally a law onto themselves with no checks or balances to their power other than the never-used N.W.S. clause.
A bit of an aside here since you seem so determined to defend ANY action on the part of your beloved philosopher kings. Why did we not hear any out cry by the legal community when it was discovered that several lawyers who provided free legal services to the Liberal party got appointed as judges in Quebec? The silence was telling.
One would think that such actions might be an infringement on judicial independence — Guess not.
John, again, I challenge you to come up with an alternative solution.
John,
You assert that “At this time these people are quite literally a law onto themselves with no checks or balances to their power other than the never-used N.W.S. clause.“.
I challenge you to read the decision in this matter, and then demonstrate how the judges have “stepped beyond” the bounds - based on the decision itself.
The fact that you assert that the judges are “out of bounds” does not make it necessarily the case.
As additional points of reference please see: This Wikipedia Article,
Department of Justice overview of Judicial Independence,
and
This Wikipedia article which nicely summarizes the interpretation of section 96-100 of the Canadian Constitution.
Anonymous, part of an alternative I could come up with would be elected judges. If we could not bring that about then a **MUCH MORE** open and investigative vetting process for the appointment of judges, AS WELL AS TERM LIMITS FOR *ALL* JUDGES.
Publically intiated referendums with the use of the NWS clause would be another desireable point.
This may provide some cause for hesitation to these holier-than-thou social engineers.
Grog, you typed “stepped beyond” and “out of bounds” in quotations as though I said them. I didn’t. You also told me to go read the cunt-stition. May I suggest *YOU* learn to read before you ORDER me to? In what part of my postings did you read those phrases you put in quotes, hmm?
You also completely ignored my stated concerns about judicial independence. You are trying to put words in my mouth and you are trying to change my arguement sto ones you feel you can counter better.
Since you’re BOTH so big on challenges then maybe you will answer my previous comment regarding judicial independence and the judicial appointment of lawyers who served the Liberal party. My guess is that two judicial community bootlickers such as yourselves won’t say much.
Didn’t Jesus have three parents?
Just wondering.
Since you’re BOTH so big on challenges then maybe you will answer my previous comment regarding judicial independence and the judicial appointment of lawyers who served the Liberal party.
Since I’m not personally familiar with the situation you are snarking about, I’m not saying anything. Post some particulars, and I’ll look at it.
Grog, you typed “stepped beyond” and “out of bounds” in quotations as though I said them. I didn’t. You also told me to go read the cunt-stition. May I suggest *YOU* learn to read before you ORDER me to? In what part of my postings did you read those phrases you put in quotes, hmm?
No, I wasn’t quoting you. You were busy complaining about how this was another example of “activist judging”, and I’m basically asserting that what you are calling “judicial activism” is based on some serious misconceptions on your part about the ruling itself as well as the roles and responsibilities of our judiciary.
I was providing linkage to a number of key pieces of legislation and documentation that I felt were germane and relevant to the discussion. I’m sorry if you found that offensive.