What really happened to judge Boilard
It was reported that judge Boilard has resigned from presiding the case of 17 Hell's Angels. The reason: he learned from a reporter that he had been reprimanded by Canadian Judicial Council for saying something to a lawyer. The lawyer's name was never mentioned as well as what exactly he had said. (Anyone knows the lawyer's name and what was allegedly said to the lawyer?)
I had investigated the Judicial Council some time ago. They receive over 100 complaints against judges every year and they practically never issue a single reprimand. In the last 20 years they removed only one judge. The same thing happens in every professional organization: they are not there to discipline their members, they are there to cover-up for them.
Here is some statistics from College des medecins. There are about 17,000 doctors in Quebec. College Syndic received last year 1691 complaints. How many of 1691 complaints were actually transmitted to the Discipline Committee? Fifteen. And this does not mean that those 15 were all convicted. Do you believe that 1676 complaints were without merit?
Now, why was Boilard not just reprimanded, but also it, was done in the most offensive manner - through the media? Because he is the only Quebec judge, who has at least some respect for the law. Every other Quebec judge consider themselves above the law, some of them even were not ashamed to tell me so. Their exact words were: "In my courtroom, I am the law!"
Being so different, Quebec government and his superiors wanted Boilard out. In general, judges are one family (in Mafia sense), they call each other "brothers", and if you insult one judge, you will hear from all of them. This is why every lawyer is extremely reluctant to even contradict a judge, let alone complain. Clearly, the lawyer who dared to complain against Boilard was given security assurances from the top level. It is obviously deliberate that the reprimand was leaked to the media. The purpose was to insult and to provoke Boilard to resign. They succeeded.
Boilard did not seem to understand their game.
I told you so
Since September 2001, I have made a number of postings expressing doubts that our finest are any good. Finally, almost a year later, I hear about a report where someone finally dared to express some criticism of their performance. Does it really take a year to establish that their radio communications did not work and that there was lack of organization and discipline?
And of course, you can not let your heroes to fall, so we hear from spin doctors that there was hearing of a tape, recording organized for relatives of our finest. Prior to hearing the tape, they were asked to sign an obligation not to disclose the contents of the tape. Nevertheless, the media reported that on the tape we can hear just how heroic our finest were.
Excuse me, if this is all what is on the tape, why were the relatives forced
to sign the non-disclosure obligation? Should not we all be proud to hear the tape?
I have no personal interest in the subject: not only I am straight, but even after 10 years in jail a relationship between 2 men still looks to me as repugnant, as it was 10 or more years ago. Having said this, I have enough brain to understand, that for a homosexual men, a relationship with a woman must look repugnant, and for a lesbian, all men must look repugnant.
Recently, an Ontario court has ruled that homosexuals have the same right to call their union marriage as heterosexuals do, and this started a storm in a teapot. Federal Government is wasting taxpayer's money launching an appeal. Why should any heterosexual care, how other groups call their union? It does not take anything away from us.
I have heard so far 2 reasons. First, some people are concerned that their children, seeing nearby 2 kissing men, would decide to become homosexual themselves. This is nonsense: those who do are born homosexuals, and it is better they discover it early rather than late. My 10 years of jail observations prove that majority of prisoners, even after many years in jail, do not start homosexual relationships. Those who do are to certain degree bisexuals, and there are not that many of them.
Second reason: people are asking where do we stop: if 2 men are in marriage, then why not 3 or more? My answer is very simple: why should anyone stop? If 3 (or more) men decide to live together, why should I care and why should this be anyone's business? Nobody forces me or you in a relationship we do not want. We should learn to stop interfering in other people's lives.
Clearly, we shall have to legitimize polygamy. Polygamy is a crime, when one partner is unaware of existence of the additional one, and this crime should be called not polygamy, but rather a fraud. If several men decide to live with one woman or several women decide to live with one man, why should this be anyone's business? The same goes for any other combination. It is time for the government to get out of regulation of human relationships.
To those who start shouting that I am advocating immorality, I respond as follows:
look at the alternative. What is better, to have several men practicing
one-night stands with numerous partners or to have a stable marriage-like
relationships. The answer is clear. The same goes for other combinations.
Some more statistics
I have seen on TV statistics of most' dangerous professions which was defined
by the number of deaths per year per 100,000 of workers. Which profession do
you think is the most dangerous? Our finest or our bravest? Miners. Then
go agriculture workers, then construction.