January 15, 2014 – USA Supreme Court to Decide Bubble Zone Case
This important “bubble zone” case, if properly decided in defense of free speech, could not only reverse Hill vs Colorado, but could provide the legal reasoning to overturn bubble zones in Canada under which many have been jailed. Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner, having spent years as political prisoners (in a once free Canada with equal justice for all) are prime examples of how politicized courts can render the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a meaningless sham for the politically incorrect, especially Pro-Life activists uphold long held “principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” (preamble to the Charter) which our morally bankrupt government and courts violate 300 times per day as innocent children die. They have not only abrogated their responsibility under God to protect the innocent and weak from evil and punish evil doers, they have become evil doers in this crime against humanity and criminalized the nation in the eyes of God!
The Access to Abortion Services Act in British Columbia has been referred to as the most draconian legislation in North America, which means it exceeds the restrictions of Hill vs Colorado. In my own (Donald Spratt vs Regina) 17 year-long battle through the BC courts to see the BC bubble zone law struck down as an unconstitutional attack on our Section 2 Charter rights freedom of expression and religion, the Supreme Court of Canada refused my Application for Leave to Appeal. In short, the right to abortion and the right to be let alone in seeking an abortion trumps our supposedly “guaranteed” Charter rights.
As Justice Scalia said in his dissenting opinion in Hill vs Colorado at the time:
Does the deck seem stacked? You bet. As I have suggested throughout this opinion, today’s decision is not an isolated distortion of our traditional constitutional principles, but is one of many aggressively proabortion novelties announced by the Court in recent years. See, e.g., Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U. S. 753 (1994); Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N. Y., 519 U. S. 357 (1997); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U. S. 747 (1986). Today’s distortions, however, are particularly blatant. Restrictive views of the First Amendment that have been in dissent since the 1930’s suddenly find themselves in the majority. “Uninhibited, robust, and wide open” debate is replaced by the power of the state to protect an unheard-of “right to be let alone” on the public streets. I dissent.
Our whole politicized judicial system in Canada has been stacked with judges who will defend the evil of abortion at all costs, and it is costing us not only 100,000 citizens per year, but our Charter rights and freedoms. The only question is whether Canadaians will wake up out of their complacency in time to save the nation from this growing tyranny?