Same-sex marriage harms free speech, new Ontario judge wrote in 2012


The Globe and Mail


A law professor named an Ontario judge this week wrote two years ago for a conservative, U.S.-based institute that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has harmed religious freedom and free speech, and led to the “indoctrination” of children in public schools.

Bradley Miller, a constitutional specialist at Western University in London, Ont., said the “new orthodoxy” about gay marriage in Canada means that those who object to it are treated as bigots and denied their rights as parents, workers, pamphleteers or religious believers. He also said parents who do not want their children hearing discussions on the subject would have to pull them out of public schools.


Prof. Miller will become one of about 550 judges appointed by the Conservative government since it came to power in 2006, out of 840 full-time jurists on federally appointed courts, including superior and appeal courts of provinces. Justice Minister Peter MacKay announced his appointment on Monday, effective Jan. 16, at a time when Ottawa is under fire for cancelling parliamentary involvement in Supreme Court appointments.

Public hearings are not held for new judges on other federally appointed courts. The appointments this week of Prof. Miller and Grant Huscroft, both conservative constitutional specialists from Western University, are raising questions in the legal community over the government’s choices.

“The new curricula are permeated by positive references to same-sex marriage, not just in one discipline but in all. Faced with this strategy of diffusion, the only parental defense is to remove one’s children from the public school system entirely,” Prof. Miller wrote in Public Discourse, an online publication of the Witherspoon Institute, a U.S. research centre that says it seeks “to enhance the public understanding of the moral foundations of free societies.”

He said that while the goal of promoting tolerance of all people is laudable, “the means chosen to achieve it is a gross violation of the family. It is nothing less than the deliberate indoctrination of children (over the objections of their parents) into a conception of marriage that is fundamentally hostile to what the parents understand to be in their children’s best interests.”

Prof. Miller did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday. A spokeswoman for Mr. MacKay’s office said the government is “committed to ensuring that the legal excellence and merit Canadians expect continues to be the priority consideration in the selection of judges.”

Prof. Miller argued against same-sex marriage on behalf of an interfaith coalition in an Ontario case in 2003, and in the same-sex reference case before the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004. (Mr. MacKay also promoted another lawyer who represented a group opposing gay marriage in that case, Justice David Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, to the Ontario Court of Appeal this week.)

Legal scholars said in interviews that Prof. Miller’s comments do not mean he is unfit for the bench, as long as he is willing to put aside his views and keep an open mind.

“It’s perfectly normal for a Conservative government to appoint judges an NDP government wouldn’t appoint,” said Robert Leckey, a McGill University law professor. Pointing to Ottawa’s decision not to have a public hearing for its new appointee to the Supreme Court last month, Montreal lawyer Suzanne Côté, he said that it is a good thing that there is transparency about Prof. Miller’s views.

Dennis Baker, a political scientist at the University of Guelph, said the impact of same-sex marriage on religious freedom “is a reasonable subject for a Canadian law professor to address.” He called Prof. Miller a “thoughtful, rigorous and serious scholar.”

University of Toronto political science professor emeritus Peter Russell, citing a century-old dictum of U.S. Supreme Court justice Benjamin Cardozo, said judges are obliged to put aside their prejudices and interpret the law in a way that works for all of society. But courts need a range of viewpoints, he said.

“The important thing is that there be a balance of outlook [in judicial appointments] that matches reasonably well the balance of argument and outlook in the country.”

Bruce Ryder, a law professor at Osgoode Hall who cheered Mr. MacKay’s appointments of academics, questioned the balance of the Conservative government’s choices.

He called Prof. Miller’s views “troubling, as they express an exaggerated concern about the impact of same-sex marriage on civil liberties while disregarding the importance of protecting the equality rights of gays and lesbians,” and said that his appointment “is a further example of the tendency of the Harper government to appoint judges whose political views align with its own, rather than on the basis of merit and diversity concerns.”



Most federally appointed judges reflect the Government's abuse of the Judicial Appointments by stacking the "Selection Committee" with government appointed people who are guaranteed to stack the Judiciary generally with obvious exceptions, with the those personalities who are least suitable to being given absolute power.

In Ontario, the Liberal government has stacked the Superior Court of Ontario with lawyers from the Children's Aid Society who once installed, behave as "Rubber Stamps" for the CAS and the extreme feminists not to mention the Gay and Lesbian Lobby Groups who are incredibly influential.

Several Gay and or Lesbian Judges have in one court adopted children while their fellow judges in the next door court room was the judge who made the children crown wards.

While Canadians may support same sex marriage, the idea of same sex relationships being called marriages is offensive to those who don't believe those relationships should be called "marriages".

They could have been called Same Sex Unions, Legal Joint Relationships. In fact there is no reason why Marriage Certificates could not be replaced with "Joint Relationship certificates" that include all legal adult partnerships and reserve "marriage" as a type of adult relationship that describes a relationship between one man and one woman.

Then of course there are the Plural Relationships where 2 or more people of the same sex live together or where 2 or more people of different sex reside together.

While almost everyone supports same sex relationships there is an underlying failure by society to recognize the economic and social time bomb that is effectively reducing the national birth rate by the sheer fact that Societies prejudice against fathers is deterring men from being fathers.

That is triggering women into becoming rapists to become impregnated by failing to obtain consent for sex when they plan on becoming pregnant without the consent of the male.

That's reaching epidemic proportions with about one in four births not having a father named or a false name placed for the father to prevent the child and the father ever having a relationship.

The legislation currently fails children's rights and eradicates any legal rights for fathers.

Ottawa Mens Centre


If anyone applies for any kind of job requiring trust and responsibility, there is generally a psychological screening done.

The primary problem with Canadian Judiciary is that there is NO psychological or personality screening prior to appointment.

Society is such that those who rise to the pinnacles of power are frequently psychopaths, borderline personalities who are the least suitable to be entrusted with absolute power.

Absolute Power corrupts absolutely and it has resulted in a fundamentally corrupt Judicial system that rewards those who are corrupt and especially those who engage in white collar crime.

The Police are the corner stone of the Justice System however across Canada Police turn their noses up at the law in theory and in practice have absolute contempt for the requirements of the Justice system such as and not limited to "Disclosure".

In Ottawa, the Ottawa Police habitually fail to provide disclosure to cover up their own criminal offences and or malicious prosecutions.

In particular, the Ottawa Police like most police forces in Ontario, lay charges based on Ontario's Gender Superiority program that treats men and women completely differently.

It's now normal for police to lay charges against Male victims of domestic violence.
Police officers like Detective Peter Van Der Zander of the Ottawa Police actually
Fabricates Evidence against women to NOT charge them for assault and or attempted murder. Van der Zander even Fabricates Evidence that women did not engage in strangulation of their husbands simply so he can avoid charging a woman with an offence of violence.

What's really offensive is the Police delusions of grandeur that they can make "custody decisions" regarding children by removing children from fathers and placing them with violent female offenders who repeatedly assault children and who have preoccupations with strangulation of children and partners.

Canadians can brace them selves for increasing murders of children and fathers by women who are effectively encouraged to abuse and or murder their children and partners by a Government Program of Gender Superiority that Promotes Domestic Violence and murder of fathers.

The Supreme Court recently made a decision to promote murder of fathers by effectively suggesting that hiring a hit man to murder your husband is fine, as long as the female doing the hiring of the hit man claims, to be a victim.

Welcome to Canadian Male Sharia Law.

Ottawa Mens Centre