Magic Statistics

Here's a news report of a criminal recently sentenced for a crime committed in Windsor, Ontario.  As you read it, try to guess what sentence the perpetrator received.  Two hints:

1. At the time of the offence, he was under 18 and therefore fell under the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
2. He had a previous conviction in 2002 for "possessing an incendiary device".

Ready? Here goes.

Norma and James Chantler were heading home with their six-year-old granddaughter when they came across a young man assaulting a young woman in the parking lot of Windsor Regional Hospital's Metropolitan campus.

When the Chantlers stopped to intervene, the young man shouted obscenities at them, then ran at their car, kicking the door where their granddaughter sat terrified in the backseat.

James, 68, had just had knee surgery and hobbled out of the car to assess the damage. The teen punched him in the face, knocking him to his knees. The man's glasses fell off and the teen pushed them out of reach with his foot, then began kicking his victim in the abdomen, breaking his ribs.

When Norma, 67, came to her husband's aid, the teen punched her in the face, breaking her nose in two places. She grabbed her assailant's T-shirt as she fell backward and struck the back of her head on the pavement.

As the teen left the couple laying helpless on the ground, he took James's hat, saying he was keeping it as a "souvenir."

You don’t need me to tell you that this is a particularly heinous—indeed, barbaric—crime.  So, judge Guy DeMarco “spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished, And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance,” sentenced the teen to 40 days in custody at a group home, followed by 20 days of house arrest and 22 months probation.

That sentence is a complete and utter joke.  It’s worse than the crime, I think.  What really floors me is that the judge thinks he’s being tough on the little miscreant.

"If you were an adult, your sentence would be measured in months, not days," Ontario court Justice Guy DeMarco told the teen.

DeMarco repeatedly referred to the community's "disgust" over the crime and began his address to the teen by saying, "Shame on you."

If I were the judge, that punk’s sentence would be measured in decades.  Norma Chantler had to have reconstructive surgery on her nose and her eyesight has sustained permanent damage.  James Chantler now needs a cane for walking and suffers from panic attacks.

By the way, about that previous conviction for possessing an incendiary device.  He was sentenced to community service, but did not fulfill the sentence.  So, he was convicted of failing to comply with a court order and sentenced to—you guessed it—more community service.

When are the people running our justice system going to get a clue?

Read the whole disgusting thing.

via Let It Bleed.

One of the most egregious decisions ever made by a Canadian human rights commission has just been reversed by a higher court.

The highest court in the province of Saskatchewan has reversed a 2002 decision by the Court of Queen's Bench which ruled that a man who placed references to Bible verses on homosexuality into a newspaper ad was guilty of inciting hatred.

The December 11, 2002 decision was in response to an appeal of a 2001 Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (HRC) ruling which ordered both the Saskatoon StarPhoenix newspaper and Hugh Owens of Regina to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the Saskatoon newspaper quoting bible verses regarding homosexuality.
. . .
The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan released its 37 page decision in Hugh Owens v. Saskatchewan today.

The ruling stressed that s. 14(1)(b) had to be read and interpreted in a way which respected the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  As a result, citing Supreme Court authority, the Court said s. 14(1)(b) must be read as applying only in cases where the message in question involved extreme emotions and strong feelings of detestation, calumny and vilification.  The Court also stressed that any message impugned under s. 14(1)(b) must be carefully examined with regard to its full context in order to determine whether the section has been offended.

Because the text of the contested ad consisted solely of biblical references, there was widespread concern that the Saskatchewan HRC judgment effectively ruled that the Bible was hate literature and therefore potentially subject to censorship.

Mr Owens's advertisement consisted of a list of four Bible passages, followed by an equal sign and a drawing of two stickmen holding hands, the latter superimposed by a circle with a diagonal line (the "not permitted" symbol).  The four passages were: Romans 1; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.  The court's ruling quotes the text of those verses (Romans 1:26-32 for the first; full text for the others) and discusses their significance from various perspectives, including that of biblical interpretation.

This brings up an extremely interesting (to me, anyway) finding.  The court recounts that Mr Owens understands these verses to be a divine revelation that God opposes gay sexual activity.  Other people, however, hold different interpretations.

Others might contest the very meaning of the passages and suggest they refer to pederasty (a relationship between an older male partner and a youth) rather than same-sex relationships as understood in contemporary terms. Still others might acknowledge that the Bible opposes same-sex relationships but would see its dictates as so dated in time and rooted in ancient culture, or as so foreign to their own beliefs, as to be irrelevant. See: R. Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983) at pp. 7-16.

[81] The fact that the passages referred to in the advertisement can be seen in such a variety of ways makes them significantly different than the hypothetical present day message referred to above, i.e. a message that “Homosexuals should be killed”. Unlike the Bible text in issue, that sort of statement admits of only one meaning. This characteristic of the Bible passages also cuts against seeing them as coming within the scope of s. 14(1)(b). [from pages 33-34 of the court ruling]

This seems to imply that, if modern pro-homosexual biblical interpretations had not been written and garnered substantial support among Bible scholars and within the contemporary church, homosexual readers of the advertisement would have no alternative but to understand it as an anti-homosexual statement and, therewith, a threat to their personal security.  But ambiguity has been introduced by the favourable reception that pro-homosexual readings of the biblical passages has received: alternative non-threatening interpretations are readily available, thereby mitigating any perceived intimidation of homosexuals.  That is to say, the success of modern, pro-homosexual biblical interpretations blunts the force of Mr Owens' intended message in running the ad and, at the same time, obviates any legal action homosexual advocates bring against Mr Owens.

The irony is exquisite.  Popular success of pro-homosexual biblical interpretation has undercut a human rights complaint against an individual who uses an older understanding of biblical teaching to oppose homosexuality.

In any case, this is a major victory for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech—not to mention common sense—in Canada.  Hallelujah!

For the record, although I am glad the HRC decision was reversed, I think Mr Owens was misguided in running the ad in the first place.  I thought it ill-advised, ham-handed, and extremely unlikely to persuade a homosexual to re-think his or her way of life.

For more details, and to see the ad, visit this page at LifeSite News.

The full text of the ruling is available here (pdf document).