Posted on 03/22/2012 12:56:37 PM PDT by Morgana
TORONTO, Ontario, March 22, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Ontario Court of Justice judge erupted in a lengthy, angry tirade against pro-life activist Mary Wagner – and ejected a spectator from the public gallery – in a downtown Toronto courtroom Wednesday. The judge then sent Wagner to jail for an additional 92 days, added to 88 days already served prior to trial, after finding her guilty of mischief and two counts of failing to comply with probation orders.
The charges related to Wagner’s November 8 arrest at the site of the Bloor West Village “Women’s Clinic.” Wagner has been arrested on several occasions for peacefully entering abortion facilities in Toronto, where she presents women in the waiting room with a rose and offers them pro-life counseling.
The remarkable scene played itself out after Crown attorney Derek Ishak and defense counsel Russell Browne made a joint submission to Mr. Justice S. Ford Clements for time served plus a three-year probationary term. But Clements emphatically rejected the submission.
“She can sit in jail, if that’s the only way to protect people,” he fulminated, calling Wagner “cowardly” for “abusing other human beings” and not having the courage to make her views known through other channels. “This is an extraordinary waste of resources. Get a grip!”
“You don’t get it, do you? What’s the rule of law? You’re required to abide by it … You’ve lost the right as a citizen to be anywhere near an abortion clinic or to speak to an employee,” he said.
“You’re wrong and your God’s wrong,” he continued. “You have complete contempt … There is a right to (abortion) in this country … You don’t have a right to cause (abortion-seeking women) extra pain and grief the way you do.”
“[Abortion] is legal,” he continued, “that’s all you have to understand … You start causing people emotional pain and harm, you think that’s okay?”
He then asked Wagner whether she would stay away from abortion sites for three years as required by the proposed terms of probation.
“I will not,” Wagner replied firmly.
“Then you’re going to jail,” said Clements.
Earlier, one of Wagner’s supporters in the public gallery spoke up and was addressed by Clements. “These (life issues) are deeply held beliefs. We respect the rule of law. There are ways to change the law. The rule of law is absolutely fundamental. We see what happens in the streets when the rule of law is ignored,” he said. “You wouldn’t like someone in your vestibule every night. People who can’t deal with that, we lock them up.”
When the man attempted to reply, he was ejected from the courtroom by Clements.
After a noon recess, Clements observed that joint submissions by the Crown and defense were not binding on a judge. He said in his view, the submission as it was would be contrary to the public interest and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Asked whether she had anything to say prior to sentencing, Wagner said she saw the rule of law as a guidepost, not an absolute. “The letter of the law does not always maintain justice … abortion is a short-term solution but causes long-term pain,” she said.
She added she never acts out of a lack of sensitivity, but rather attempts to love the women to whom she speaks. She also pointed to examples from history where people who were initially regarded as criminals were later found to be in the right.
Clements was unmoved. “You have, in some measure, displayed utter contempt for the courts and the rights of others,” he said. “You appear to be governed by a higher moral order than the laws of our country.”
“Your determination to break the law is a potential threat to the well-being of society and plants the seeds of lawlessness, perhaps even anarchy … You are unable to accord some civility and respect to others. Your view in law is wrong.”
In concluding, Clements accepted the testimony of abortion site co-owner Patricia Hasen, who filed a victim impact statement that claimed financial hardship caused by Wagner’s actions, including the necessity to hire a “counselor” from another abortion site. Hasen also said she was “scared a bit” when Wagner allegedly held a door open, adding she “doesn’t trust this woman’s peaceful demeanour” and worries about potential aggression. “These people do not work alone.”
Crown attorney Ishak, in his submissions, charged that pro-life activists “prey upon the emotional vulnerability” of abortion patients as “they evidently pursue martyrdom.” The “flouting” of laws, he charged, harken back to “the Dark Ages” and blurs the line between might and right. He suggested Wagner’s actions mark an increase in “the aggressive nature” of pro-life demonstrations, creating emotional distress.
There was no immediate word on whether Wagner planned to appeal either the verdicts or what amounted to a six-month jail sentence. There is also an option to file a complaint with the Ontario Judicial Council over Clements’s statements and conduct in the courtroom. According to the OJC website, “If you have a complaint of misconduct about a provincial judge or a justice of the peace, you must state your complaint in a signed letter. The letter of complaint should include the date, time and place of the court hearing and as much detail as possible about why you feel there was misconduct.”
To write to Wagner in prison:
Mary Wagner Vanier Centre for Women 655 Martin St., Box 1040 Milton, ON L9T 5E6
The part that jumped out at me was the Judge saying, she had no right to cause these Women Extra Pain and Grief. That must mean He thinks they are suffering so why would He be so for it. Oh FYI , just a side note, got a new VA handbook the other day, was glancing through it and The VA does not pay for abortions, I wonder if The Boy in the Oval knows that.lol
get ready. soon we may all have to decide whether to deny Jesus or to go to jail.
Decide now and avoid the rush!
she was wrong to tresspass.
the judge is wrong on a fundamental right issue by bringing religion into the ruling.
you violated probation, the end. done.
it is kanada so who knows what they will do.
As long as he doesn’t interrupt the service or Sunday school, he’s fine.
If you were passing by and witnessed a victim of a drive-by shooting and that victim happened to fall back onto private property and you also happened to notice a do not trespass sign on that property would you morally compelled to trespass and help the victim even though your odds of saving him are small or is it a higher moral duty to stay off the property and allow the victim to die?
That “judge” is going to get an eye-opener when he sees the real Judge of the Universe.
Judge should have left religion out of it, but if she’s breaking the law, and admits she’ll continue to do so if released, then she should remain in prison. Maybe her path is to minister to her fellow prisoners?
Mary Wagner’s Arrest November 8th 2011 Bloor St West Women’s Clinic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIZNx-IhONs
You are talking about someone soliciting what should be capital murder. Thank you for playing.
Well, an atheist is welcome in my church. If he wants to pass out atheist literature I’ll be happy to read it and talk with him about it afterward. Your analogy doesn’t seem to work very well.
This judge sure is anxious to make sure women have access to an abortion. hmmm...I wonder why?
Not quite on the Luther mention.
He said this during his defense of the theses and his subsequent writings at the Diet of Worms (Diet = Congress) in front of the Holy Roman Emperor.
He was asked to recant all his writings. Luther’s response was fascinating. He divided his books into three parts.
Books on simple evangelical truths that even his enemies agreed with: These he could not recant.
Books against the corruption of the papacy: These he could not retract without cloaking wickedness and tyranny.
Books against his popish opponents: These he admitted were too vitriolic; however, he could not retract those either, lest his enemies triumph and make things worse.
He said, “Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments (since I believe neither the Pope nor the Councils alone; it being evident that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound in the word of God: I can not and will not recant any thing, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do any thing against the conscience. Here I stand! I cannot do otherwise. God help me! Amen.”
Actually, it does. You don’t mind atheists in your church. It’s your church and that’s fine. The abortion clinic does NOT want this gal there. It’s their property and that is also fine.
Thy royal black robed Pharisee and Saducee hath spoken.Jesus didn’t have nice things to say about those judicial phoneys in His time either. Heck they crucified the Son of God thinking that they were doing the Almighty a favor.
Instant Karma’s gonna get you
Gonna knock you right on the head
You better get yourself together
Pretty soon you’re gonna be dead
What in the world you thinking of
Laughing in the face of love
What on earth you tryin’ to do
It’s up to you, yeah you
Sorry. Twas off the top of my head and I should have remembered that it was in the Diet
Thanks for the correction. My brain does not always recall correctly. Interesting though that you only commented to correct me not to decry this pompous ass of a judge
I f you know someone is murdering babies one minute after birth,is it morally higher to obey property rights than intervene?
How about if the baby is being murdered one second after birth?
Or one minute before birth?
Or one month before birth?
Comparing a church service as equivalent in any way to un-natural abortion is ridiculous unless you consider abortion the sacrement of evil and the clinic the house of worship of evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.