From Dr. John Shea re R. v. Labaye.

(C.I., May 2006, p. 9, p.11)

MP Maurice Vellacott's remarks that Supreme Court Justice Beverly McLachlin has arrogated to herself God-like prerogatives (May 11, 2006) is to the point. Not being from God, some of her rulings are prone to evil.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Labaye, that legalized swingers' clubs, gave the public access to orgies and sexual partner swapping. Such clubs are a dire threat to public health because they facilitate sexual promiscuity that is the main cause of the spread of sexually transmitted infections. These infections have already become of epidemic proportion throughout the world and it is the height of irresponsibility to ignore that fact.

The members of the Court who voted that decision showed their arrogance by flouting God's moral law and also by assuming that they are competent and entitled to contradict or ignore the known facts of medical science. They cannot plead ignorance. This outrageous behaviour is not, however, without precedent. In Roe v. Wade the U.S. Supremes had paved the way. They had declared that the moment when human life begins had not been decided, despite the fact that it had been proven to begin at conception more than a century ago by Wilhelm His, the father of human embryology.

Unfortunately, such scientific falsehoods have been propagated and amplified by the failure of influential members of the scientific community and the medical profession, who either have had a conflict of interest to protect, or lacked the moral courage to defend those scientific truths whose expression was not regarded as politically correct.

The philosopher Immanual Kant held that "the will itself is the author of the law." Latter day pragmatists, realising that Kant's opinion would lead to chaos, have substituted "consensus" for "will." This consensus is, in fact, irrelevant to the derivation of moral principles. It is also a fiction. In reality, Canada is now in thrall to the spirit of Trudeau's 1982 Charter of Rights.

As a result of that Charter, the solution of difficult moral problems is handed over to Supreme Court judges, appointed by the Government without an adequate credentialing process, who, knowing no more than the laws of Canada, nonetheless feel and act as if they were free to decide all manner of problems presented to them, whether those problems involve matters of scientific fact, moral principles, or spiritual questions. Their decisions, though obviously those of persons incompetent in all fields but that of the law, become, by virtue of the convention known as stare decesis, mistaken for, and obeyed as if, they were the absolute scientific, moral, and spiritual truth. The behaviour of these judges is a monstrous injustice. By their fruit, we now know them. Their powers must be pruned.

Toronto, ON