“‘The prohibition on physician-assisted dying
infringes on the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner
that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, the
ruling states.’”
“The Criminal Code in
Canada
currently says nobody can consent to being killed and anyone who assists
someone else to end their life is committing an indictable offence. This
decision will mean it is no longer illegal for a doctor who aids a competent
adult suffering from a grievous illness to end their life.” Mia Rabson, Feb.,
6, 2015.
The unanimous decision handed down by The Supreme Court of
Canada that the government bring in a law “legalizing” assisted killing must
surely make sensible people ask the question: Have these unelected judicial
dictators gone quite mad? Sadly, this kind of lunacy seems to have affected the
minds of much of the media, some of whom praised this obscene decision. Other
scrum-bums sitting on a weekly panel on TV where they spread their weekly
“wisdom,” thought it was a compassionate and fitting decision. And hey, “the
polls” were in favour of it. Some others in the media even declared it a win
for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One wonders where in the Charter is
“the right to kill” declared “a right?”
Still, one must not question the “wisdom” of the media, or the “finest
legal minds” on the court. After all, they have already reportedly said on a previous
“supreme” decision regarding truth:
“Truthful statements
can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and
not all truthful statements must be free from restriction” [1]
The words above could be straight out of “Alice in Wonderland” One wonders are the
judges fans of fairy tales? Does nine Humpty Dumptys now sit on the Bench?
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
I believe we have reached a state in this country where the
language and words are imagined and twisted by those on the highest court in
the land to achieve and support their decisions.
Their track records are available for all to see,
hallucinating and “reading in” words not in the Charter. Calling the Charter, “a
living tree” now the people are forced to eat of its rotten fruit. Orgies are
okay as long as no “harm” is done. These are just some examples of the
abominations imposed by judges and accepted by politicians as “normal” for the
country. The harm being done to this country by charter-happy non-elected
judges is a disgrace. But, what is even worse is that politicians of all
political stripes have allowed this descent into degradation to become
“legitimized.” None of these so-called
“representatives” of the people have the courage or moral principles to use the
not-withstanding clause of the charter to restore decency and sanity. They
are political sheep, and like sheep they have allowed these judicial shepherds
to herd them into the charter stable, and so they wallow in the muck of the
courts. [2]
One wonders, why do we bother electing politicians if
unelected judges can dictate and impose their will? What does a civilized
society do, when democracy no longer exists?[3]
“The court has given
federal and provincial governments 12 months to craft legislation to respond to
the ruling; the ban on doctor-assisted suicide stands until then. If the
government doesn't write a new law, the court's exemption for physicians will
stand.”
Laura Payton, CBC News, Feb. 6, 2015.
Killing is going to be made “legal.” The consequences of
this abominable decision could mean nobody is safe. Death’s door has been
opened and the executioners will be state sanctioned. Those “unworthy of living,”
the “unfit,” and societies “useless eaters” can now possibly, be put down. After
all:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it.”
George Santayana
George Santayana
Stephen J. Gray
February 9, 2015.
Endnotes:
Articles of Interest at links below:
Euthanasia in Nazi Germany - The T4 Programme
...
In his "Medical Science under Dictatorship",
published in the New England Journal of Medicine, July, 1949, Dr Alexander
observed:
"Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them, that they started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitudes of physicians.
"It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic to the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick.
"Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them, that they started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitudes of physicians.
"It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic to the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick.
"Gradually the
sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass
the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted,
and finally all non-Germans."... (emphasis added)
[read more at link
below]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
