Magic Statistics

Who can forget the poignant pictures of birds, beaches, and sea life covered with oil in Prince William Sound following the Exxon Valdez oil spill?  (Photo of rescued cormorant at right.)  The tanker hit a reef on 24 March 1989 and discharged 11 million gallons of oil, causing one of the worst ecological disasters in history.

Captain Joseph Hazelwood had left his third mate at the wheel and was in his stateroom when the ship ran aground.

In 1994, an Anchorage jury assessed the former Exxon Corporation (now Exxon Mobil) $5 billion in punitive damages.  That award was reduced to $2.5 billion last year by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.  The company appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which this week agreed to hear the appeal.

The company has long argued that it invested significant amounts of time, money and effort to address what happened to the environment, wildlife and Alaska residents after the oil spill. Exxon doesn't believe that any further punishment is warranted, said spokesman Tony Cudmore.

For Exxon, "this case has never been about compensating people for actual damages," Cudmore said. "The company voluntarily compensated most plaintiffs within a year of the spill, and has spent over $3.5 billion, including compensatory payments, cleanup payments, settlements and fines."

Over 30,000 commercial fishermen and other Alaska residents are plaintiffs in the case. They are bitterly disappointed that final resolution will once again be delayed, along with their long-hoped-for payouts.

The outcome may turn on an 1818 precedent involving a vessel called Amiable Nancy.

The court will be addressing one of the most basic issues of maritime law: whether a ship owner can be punished for the actions of its agents at sea.

Current case law, dating back to an 1818 case, says that ship owners can't be punished for the actions of their crew unless they "directed," "countenanced" or "participated" in them.

Exxon officials say they will argue that ship-owners are not liable for the actions of a captain who contravened company policies and practices.

More on the Amiable Nancy case here.

I remember the Exxon Valdez disaster well, for it occurred a relatively short distance from Whitehorse less than six months after we moved here.  It received blanket coverage in the media for weeks on end.  Everyone here was sickened by the damage.

Lawrence O’Neil has been sworn in as a justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and leftists have hit the roof.  During his term as a Progressive Conservative MP (1984-88), Mr O’Neil made some controversial statements about abortion in the House of Commons.

On April 28, 1987, the legal aid lawyer told the House of Commons: "Unborn children across this country are being suctioned from the womb by women who want to put an end to their pregnancy. Those children are being dismembered."

The official Hansard transcripts of proceedings also quote O’Neil as saying on July 27, 1988: "It appears that there is widespread acceptance of the notion that a mother should have the right to control her body. There is no such right."

In 1985, O’Neil moved to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code to require that every unborn child be represented by legal counsel at therapeutic abortion committees across the country.

You’ll never guess what adjective pro-abortion activists apply to characterise Mr O’Neil’s views.

Liberal MP and justice critic Marlene Jennings was cited calling O'Neil's pending judgeship "scary," adding that: "Mr. O'Neil's appointment by the Conservatives frightens me as a woman, and I think it should frighten the overwhelming majority of women in Canada. It's an affront and an attack on our equality rights."

Lawrence O’Neil: bogeyman.

Halifax Daily News columnist Charles Moore points out that it is in fact Ms Jennings who is out of touch with Canadians.

The most recent major poll on the topic I found - of 2,024 respondents surveyed by Environics in late 2005 - found six Canadians in 10 affirming that human life should be protected before birth, fully 30 per cent saying from conception on, another 19 per cent after three months of pregnancy, and 11 per cent after six months - while only one-third of Canadians thought human life should receive legal protection only from the moment of birth.

Especially interesting was that support for protection from conception on was higher among women (34 per cent) than men (24 per cent).

Canada has an over-abundance of judges from the wacko left side of the political spectrum.  Why should the views of socially conservative Canadians be denied representation on the bench?

h/t: e-mail from the See of Pisiquid

Previous related posts:

• Ontario court: Child can have three legal parents
• Law professors admit agenda to frustrate will of Parliament
• Justice Minister wants police to help appoint judges; judges horrified
• Why bother having a written Constitution?

Twenty-five years ago today, on 30 October 1982, the beautiful young woman and the goofy-looking nerd in this photo got hitched were joined in holy matrimony at St John’s United Church, Vancouver.

The small wedding with family and a few friends followed a whirlwind romance. We married only a few months after first setting eyes on each other because we knew that God meant us to be husband and wife.  The whole story is posted here.

Thanks be to our wise, loving, and gracious heavenly Father for marriage, one of the greatest of his many gifts.