Victoria, BC: Proof Positive of the Downfall of Canadian Society

If Victoria, British Columbia is an example of where Canada is headed then we are all in deep trouble. Madam Justice Carol Ross, in her infinite [lack of] wisdom, threw out a city bylaw that restricted camping in public places. Now roving gangs of young "homeless" kids, many "homeless" by choice, apparently have the right to pitch tents wherever and whenever they want. You can read more about this Kafka-like decision here. One thing in the story that is not correct is that there are enough shelter beds in Victoria. These folks just don't want to sleep there.

---

This issue was being discussed on Roy Green's show on the Corus network. I sent the host this note:

Roy, As someone who lived in Victoria for 4 years [1997 - 2001] I have a pretty good handle on what is occurring there. Victoria, with its relatively warm weather, is a magnet for young people from across Canada to move out to. After arriving they generally have two lifestyle options:

1. Get a low paying job or two in tourism and live in shared accommodations with other kindred souls.
2. Live the drug-laden hippie lifestyle on the streets, camping out all day on Douglas Street, begging for money from tourists.

Many opt for #2. Are they really homeless? In a technical sense, yes, but it's more a matter of a lifestyle choice than any unavoidable poverty. In the process they have pretty much wrecked the downtown core. Tourists are afraid to venture too far away from the main tourist strip of Government Street and so the businesses beyond this narrow strip are hard pressed to stay alive. I absolutely object to the recent decision by the female judge because she has placed all the power in the hands of those who make zero contribution to society and instead just leech off of it, day after day after day. Is this the example that we really want to set for future generations of young Canadians? If so, then God help us!

Child Pornography: Inside the Liberal Mind

In a 7 - 2 decision, the Supreme Court of the U.S. has just upheld a federal law that punishes people who peddle or seek child pornography. The case, entitled The United States vs. Williams, focused in on a case involving one Michael Williams who signed into a public Internet chat room in 2004 and offered up photographs of men molesting his 4-year old daughter.

He provided a hyperlink that led to seven photos of actual children, aged approx. 5 to 15, engaging in sexually explicit conduct and displaying their genitals. When Williams' home was eventually searched (with a valid search warrant), two hard drives were found containing at least 22 images of real children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, some of it sadomasochistic.

People like Williams are absolutely sick and repugnant and offer absolutely nothing positive to society. All they do is cause harm and to the most helpless in our society no less.

Thank goodness the U.S. Supreme Court decided as it did. But I got to wondering who on earth would possibly dissent against this verdict. No big surprise to find out that the "2" were Justices Souter and Ginsburg, the most liberal judges on that court. The opening paragraph of their argument begins as follows: "Dealing in obscenity is penalized without violating the First Amendment, but as a general matter pornography lacks the harm to justify prohibiting it."

I tried reading the rest of it but for the most part it's just a bunch of moral equivalency gobbledygook. Beyond the realization that "child porn hurts children", what more does one need to know?! But to the liberal mind, everyone is a victim and so the child pornographer is on the same level of victimhood as the children whose lives will be scarred forever. What a sick joke. What audacity liberals have to now try to rebrand themselves as "progressives".

If Barack Obama gets elected president, look for more judges like Souter and Ginsburg to be appointed. Don't take my word for it. Obama said it himself here.

The 2007 Stella Awards

Update: Please read the comments attached to this, especially from my favourite lawyer in the Emerald City!!


I received this from a friend:

It's time again for the annual Stella Awards! For those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck, who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's in NM where she purchased the coffee. You remember, she took the lid off the coffee and put it between her knees while she was driving. Who would ever think one could get burned doing that, right?

That's right! These are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S. You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head. So keep your head scratcher handy. Here are the Stella's for 2007:

7TH PLACE:

Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by
the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son.

6TH PLACE:

Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles, California, won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he
was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

5TH PLACE:

Terrence Dickson, of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to
open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. He was forced to sit for eight days with only a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food and
he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental Anguish. Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all have this kind of anguish.

4TH PLACE:

Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place in the Stella's when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. Williams did not get as much as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun.

3RD PLACE:

A jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. Whatever happened to people being responsible for their own actions?

2ND PLACE

Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, sued the owner of a nightclub in a nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies' room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the nightclub had to pay her $12,000, oh, yeah, plus dental expenses.

1ST PLACE:

This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, who purchased a new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her - wait for it - $1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs.
Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.