‘Your God’s wrong’: Judge erupts in angry tirade, sends pro-life activist back to jail

TORONTO, Ontario, March 22, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Ontario Court of Justice judge erupted in a lengthy, angry tirade against pro-life activist Mary Wagner – and ejected a spectator from the public gallery – in a downtown Toronto courtroom Wednesday. The judge then sent Wagner to jail for an additional 92 days, added to 88 days already served prior to trial, after finding her guilty of mischief and two counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

The charges related to Wagner’s November 8 arrest at the site of the Bloor West Village “Women’s Clinic.” Wagner has been arrested on several occasions for peacefully entering abortion facilities in Toronto, where she presents women in the waiting room with a rose and offers them pro-life counseling.

The remarkable scene played itself out after Crown attorney Derek Ishak and defense counsel Russell Browne made a joint submission to Mr. Justice S. Ford Clements for time served plus a three-year probationary term. But Clements emphatically rejected the submission.

“She can sit in jail, if that’s the only way to protect people,” he fulminated, calling Wagner “cowardly” for “abusing other human beings” and not having the courage to make her views known through other channels. “This is an extraordinary waste of resources. Get a grip!”

“You don’t get it, do you? What’s the rule of law? You’re required to abide by it … You’ve lost the right as a citizen to be anywhere near an abortion clinic or to speak to an employee,” he said.

“You’re wrong and your God’s wrong,” he continued. “You have complete contempt … There is a right to (abortion) in this country … You don’t have a right to cause (abortion-seeking women) extra pain and grief the way you do.”

“[Abortion] is legal,” he continued, “that’s all you have to understand … You start causing people emotional pain and harm, you think that’s okay?”

He then asked Wagner whether she would stay away from abortion sites for three years as required by the proposed terms of probation.

Earlier, one of Wagner’s supporters in the public gallery spoke up and was addressed by Clements. “These (life issues) are deeply held beliefs. We respect the rule of law. There are ways to change the law. The rule of law is absolutely fundamental. We see what happens in the streets when the rule of law is ignored,” he said. “You wouldn’t like someone in your vestibule every night. People who can’t deal with that, we lock them up.”

After a noon recess, Clements observed that joint submissions by the Crown and defense were not binding on a judge. He said in his view, the submission as it was would be contrary to the public interest and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Asked whether she had anything to say prior to sentencing, Wagner said she saw the rule of law as a guidepost, not an absolute. “The letter of the law does not always maintain justice … abortion is a short-term solution but causes long-term pain,” she said.

She added she never acts out of a lack of sensitivity, but rather attempts to love the women to whom she speaks. She also pointed to examples from history where people who were initially regarded as criminals were later found to be in the right.

Clements was unmoved. “You have, in some measure, displayed utter contempt for the courts and the rights of others,” he said. “You appear to be governed by a higher moral order than the laws of our country.”

“Your determination to break the law is a potential threat to the well-being of society and plants the seeds of lawlessness, perhaps even anarchy … You are unable to accord some civility and respect to others. Your view in law is wrong.”

In concluding, Clements accepted the testimony of abortion site co-owner Patricia Hasen, who filed a victim impact statement that claimed financial hardship caused by Wagner’s actions, including the necessity to hire a “counselor” from another abortion site. Hasen also said she was “scared a bit” when Wagner allegedly held a door open, adding she “doesn’t trust this woman’s peaceful demeanour” and worries about potential aggression. “These people do not work alone.”

Crown attorney Ishak, in his submissions, charged that pro-life activists “prey upon the emotional vulnerability” of abortion patients as “they evidently pursue martyrdom.” The “flouting” of laws, he charged, harken back to “the Dark Ages” and blurs the line between might and right. He suggested Wagner’s actions mark an increase in “the aggressive nature” of pro-life demonstrations, creating emotional distress.

There was no immediate word on whether Wagner planned to appeal either the verdicts or what amounted to a six-month jail sentence. There is also an option to file a complaint with the Ontario Judicial Council over Clements’s statements and conduct in the courtroom. According to the OJC website, “If you have a complaint of misconduct about a provincial judge or a justice of the peace, you must state your complaint in a signed letter. The letter of complaint should include the date, time and place of the court hearing and as much detail as possible about why you feel there was misconduct.”

I understand your trespass issue, and you are right to pose the question, I think - but I believe the answer is implied by this question: Does an attempt to stop the willful killing of innocent, defenseless life trump the laws of trespass?

If we agree that we are dealing with the willful killing of defenseless, innocent life, then we can move to an apt analogy of the situation. If not, then I guess you would need to make the case that abortion is NOT the willful killing of defenseless, innocent life..

The analogy:
You watch a mother, with a knife to her young daughter's throat, go into a doctor's office. The doctor has told you previously that you are not welcome in his office. The young girl is in imminent danger, so you rush into the office to help save the young girl.

Later, after rescuing the girl, you take her to your church to get her some counseling and start the process of getting her to a good home...and her mother comes into the church foyer, with the knife, looking for her daughter.

Obviously, we are morally obliged to protect the daughter in both cases, and such obligation supersedes our moral obligation to respect the wishes of the doctor (even if he is OK with, or intends to help, the mother killing her daughter in his office). An abortionist is SEEKING innocent babies to kill when he/she promotes his/her services.

As someone else has pointed out, the pro-lifer in abortion clinic/atheist in church is really not a analogy - but the pro-lifer in abortion clinic/abortionist in church is. That is why I have the mother coming into the church looking for her daughter. (As also stated, the atheist would likely be invited into a discussion of his/her beliefs.)

So, on the face of it, none of us have the right to go onto private property where we are not welcome - UNLESS a greater moral imperative demands we do so. It is easier to see this when the law is morally correct, as it is in the case of the mother ready to kill her young daughter. Any accusation of trespass by the doctor would be laughed out of court. It is more difficult to see when the law allows, even supports, an immoral act, as the law does abortion.

Also - think of this: At a certain point in our history, men “owned” slaves. The law said it was illegal to assist a slave (the “property” of another man) to escape. It was also illegal to “help” another man's horse “escape” the barn. Would one have been a hypocrite in those days to assist a slave in his escape and demand prosecution of a horsethief?

slumber1:

There is no moral equivalency between objective good and objective evil. Planned Barrenhood is an organization dedicated to the killing of innocent pre-born human beings. The pro-lifers are individually and collectively dedicated to the preservation and protection of innocent pre-born human beings. That IS the point here.

The government of Canada, acting through its lawless secular humanist judges such as the dishonorable S. Ford Clements, is the muscle enforcing the murder of innocent pre-born human beings. That Clements engages in such despicable behavior "under color of law" (read: using what he THINKS is the law as his flimsy excuse for being morally complicit in such murders) does not insulate him from being called to moral account for that complicity.

That Mary Wagner and others like her are quite obviously his moral superiors by an infinite margin is not changed by the fact that he is clothed with apparent "authority" to exercise his muscle with total disregard for the truth of his eager participation in Canada's and modern society's shameful holocaust of the pre-born innocents is manifestly beyond rational argument. The judgments rendered by the Allies at Nuremberg after World War II against the Nazi war criminals (including Nazi abortionists for perpetrating abortions) make clear that a nation's laws coupled with "I was only following orders" do not exonerate those who killed or facilitated the killing of the innocent (born or pre-born) obviously ought to have known or did know better. Nuremberg established an unassailable natural law basis for bringing such criminals as Nazis and abortionists to justice when rule by the grown-ups is restored (the sooner the better).

No innocent, much less defenseless pre-born innocents, is threatened with death by peaceful worshiping congregations. Nor, frankly, is any innocent directly threatened by a Planned Barrenhood apologist for the holocaust of the innocent pre-born (largely for the personal convenience of the born patient and the profit of the perpetrator) entering a Church to distribute literature. After an initial response from the congregation and its pastor praising God for delivering to the congregation and its pastor a very serious Planned Barrenhood murder-enabling sinner to be loved and persuaded and converted once the Mass or church service is concluded (God did not lay the foundation for churches just to gather the holy or the forgiven or the non-sinners, assuming there are any non-sinners), the trespasser might be held in a time-out room since the congregation and its pastor (engaged in moral activity) are entitled to priority in the use of their real estate in good behavior.

Ahhh, but trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, should the pro-lifer not be held to the same standard when entering the killing facilities of Planned Barrenhood and therefore be subject to a citizen's imprisonment? Well, obviously not, as you shall see.

If one is my neighbor and owns his/her own house and land and, for whatever reason, despises me (maybe I make pro-life arguments in the neighbor's pro-abortion presence), and orders me never, under any circumstance, to enter that house or land or both, generally speaking a part of that bundle of rights that are collectively the right to own real property whether an abortion mill or a church or a home or a factory or whatever is the right to exclude from that real property any person(s) one may choose to exclude.

Now suppose that the neighbor really hates religion and a Jehovah Witness or a Mormon or a Catholic or an Evangelical has come to the neighbor's door to share the good news of his/her faith with the neighbor. Suppose further that, instead of a polite: "Thanks, but no thanks" or a steamy and emphatic: "Get off my property and never come back," the neighbor grabs the visitor and drags him/her into the house and, taking out a firearm, berates the visitor and threatens to imminently kill the visitor who has, in no way, initiate the use of force against the neighbor. I am morally entitled and legally entitled to enter the neighbor's premises and, using whatever force is reasonably necessary, to prevent injury or death of that visitor. The legal doctrine is called "vicarious self-defense" or "defense of another." If a threat by the neighbor was unwarranted and the visitor who was threatened, if able, was justified in exercising self-defense, then another person is legally entitled to engage in defense of the visitor as forcibly as necessary to thwart the threat. Vicarious self-defense applies.

My intervention is also justified by the legal defense of "necessity." The imminent threat of harm to that visitor is deemed by law to be a more serious evil than any occasioned by my technical trespass on the property (as surely you would agree if you were an innocent and unsuspecting visitor to my neighbor's property having religious conversion of my neighbor in mind). The neighbor (in good behavior) is entitled to send you away in protection of his property rights but is not entitled to threaten your life or safety imminently.

Another application: My wife is eight month's pregnant and appears unexpectedly) to have gone into labor a month early and her contractions are strong and frequent. There is no time to call an ambulance. Delivery is imminent. We get in our car and I speed (carefully) when driving her to the hospital and I disregard the police officer trying to pull me over. I peacefully submit to the officer when we reach the hospital and my wife is being received by the medical personnel. The speeding was necessary (within reason) to prevent a worse damage (to the health and welfare of my wife and child) than the damage that the speed limit statute was designed to prevent. Necessity applies.

If anyone gets their panties in a bunch over my references to Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and cites the idiotic "Godwin's Law" that the first person to mention the Nazis loses the argument being made, my response is: Get over it. Nazism was not a unique evil in all of human history. We just (understandably) act as though it was. Abortion is not only a direct analogy to aspects of the Nazi Holocaust, but as the published research of a history professor (John Hunt) at St. Joseph's College at West Hartford, CT, has shown, several defendants at Nuremberg were prosecuted and convicted solely for perpetrating abortions.

Thanks to liberal communists the right to kill the unborn even by mutilation superseeds the protection provided by the First Amendment for religion

Funny huh?

There shall be no prohibition of exercising your religion.....unless you're a Christian. Muslim jihadist? Step right through this TSA checkpoint with explosives in your shoes....we need to molest this caucasian three year-old in the wheelchair.

Peaceful assembly...Conservative? Ok, you can assemble...with a permit. Shall not be infringed = equals infringed by as many creative ways possible.

Secure within your papers and effects, unless it's a no-knock warrant. Or you're a vet and believed you called a veteran's help hotline, only to find out it is the National Suicide Hotline and police are dispatched to secure the guns in the house [you're not in] ~~without~~ AGAINST your consent because they "don't have time for this constitutional b#lls4#t."

Those are off the top of my head things that ARE rights listed in the Constitution and the manner in which they are trampled........welfare, food stamps, healthcare, abortion, affirmative action, fag "marriage"........none of those are listed; however, they are regaled on an altar high above all else.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.