Anglican Samizdat

More here.

This is obviously, in a literal sense, a diabolical mess – one which the judge has made worse. As Blaise Pascal said in his Pensees:

Our magistrates have known well this mystery. Their red robes, the ermine in which they wrap themselves like furry cats, the courts in which they administer justice, the fleurs-de-lis, and all such august apparel were necessary; if the physicians had not their cassocks and their mules, if the doctors had not their square caps and their robes four times too wide, they would never have duped the world, which cannot resist so original an appearance. If magistrates had true justice, and if physicians had the true art of healing, they would have no occasion for square caps; the majesty of these sciences would of itself be venerable enough. But having only imaginary knowledge, they must employ those silly tools that strike the imagination with which they have to deal; and thereby in fact they inspire respect. Soldiers alone are not disguised in this manner, because indeed their part is the most essential; they establish themselves by force, the others by show.

To put it in today’s parlance: judges are frequently blithering idiots.

From here:

Laws that prohibit street prostitution and operating a brothel have been declared unconstitutional by an Ontario Superior Court judge.

“I have found that the law as it stands, is currently contributing to the danger faced by prostitutes,” wrote Justice Susan Himel in a 131-page-ruling released Tuesday.

The judge struck down three sections of the Criminal Code that make it illegal to operate a “common bawdy house,” to profit from prostitution-related activities or “communicates” on the street for the purpose of prostitution. The provisions “force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of the person,” said the judge, in finding that the laws breached the Charter of Rights.

And we in ANiC are looking to the secular courts for an ethical ruling on ACoC vs ANiC building ownership. Oh dear.

Bishops Ingham and Bird, chief madams for the ACoC, must be rubbing their hands in glee.

From the Calgary Herald:

CALGARY – The Calgary mother who killed her teenage daughter by strangling her with a scarf more than three years ago will not have to spend a day in jail, a judge ruled on Thursday.

But, in suspending the sentence of Aset Magomadova and placing her on probation for three years, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio said the penalty can still meet the ends of justice.

“At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get out of jail free card. It is not,” emphasized the judge.

Let’s be clear: even though the teenager in question was a “disgrace” to her Muslim family, this was not an honour killing. Perish the thought. The murderer – sorry, disciplinarian – in question was sponsored by an Anglican church who praised the “compassion” of the judge:

Marilyn Millions, one of Magomadova’s sponsors with St. James Anglican Church, said outside court she was relieved “at the compassion and mercy that has been shown” by the court.

In case there are any doubts, the CBC emphasises that this was definitely not an honour killing, merely a spot of parental frustration:

While Aset told a health worker that Aminat was a disgrace to their Muslim family, the Crown does not say this was an honour killing — something intended to restore the family’s reputation.

“I see this just as any other parent very frustrated with a very troubled teenager except it went too far,” said Vomberg.

In 1998 Joe Cleary from Ontario spent 2 days in jail for spanking his 5 year-old; presumably he could have avoided the 2 days in the clink if he had strangled his son instead:

DURHAM, ON, Nov 17 (LSN) Joe Cleary a father in Durham Ontario was jailed for two days and his family put through a gruelling court ordeal which lasted months and cost thousands of dollars all because he used spanking to discipline his five year old child. Last month Sun Media columnist Michael Coren reported that Cleary punished his son for having repeatedly kicked the family cat after being told not to.

A friend who volunteers for Ottawa Inner City Ministries emailed me about a recovering alcoholic who has been caught in the Kafkaesque machinery of the justice system:

Tom is a recovering alcoholic that will be celebrating seven years of sobriety in two weeks.  He works his 12 step program and is determined to stay clean.  He came to visit us, then volunteered, and then entered our work skills program.  He comes to the office four days a week to help: no job too big, no job too small, he does them all – with a cheerful heart.  He has a record but his probation ends in two short months – and he works hard at keeping clean.  He won’t even cross the street  without a walk signal.

Clean. Squeaky clean.  Pleasant, kind, hard-working, and a delight to be around. We have high hopes for Tom.

So one day, he doesn’t show up. A day, then two and more and then a week and we wonder where he is.  No way to contact him.  Finally we find him – in jail.

He is in jail right now, been there just over two weeks for “parole violation”.   For “panhandling”.  Reported to his Parole Officer (P.O.) by an “anonymous” person who called it in.  Over fourteen days in jail (and counting) with no help.  No lawyer.  No hearing.  No explanation.  Just “there”.

There are further instalments here.

Many churches spend their time petitioning government to help the poor while doing little themselves; this organisation is helping the poor in spite of a government that seems to be determined to undo its good work.

Where the Letter from Michael Bird went: it has gone into the digital dustbin, I’m afraid. As to the reason, Basil Fawlty says it best: