Apparently, Nathalie was brought before the Supreme Court and told why she was denied bail in August this year.
We do not know the reasons, because they are covered by a Publication Ban until the trial on November 20, but the questions remain:
If a Hockey Coach in Ontario, David Frost, who was charged with several counts of sexual abuse against children and teenagers, can be let out on bail, why was a pregnant mother and a mother who has just given birth, denied bail? Why is Nathalie Gettliffe and her infant son, Martin, being forced to endure prison? Her two older children, Josephine and Maximillien are court-ordered to remain in the custody of their father, Scott Grant, Nathalie won't be going anywhere. As long as her children are forced to remain in Canada, she will remain here. That appears to be common sense to the man in the street.
We can only conclude that she is being discriminated against and punished.
Is it because she is Catholic? French? A mother? A Woman?
Who can answer this question?
It is a valid question.
David Frost is an alleged pedophile. Why is he not being treated, or punished? Why is he allowed out on bail, perhaps to molest another child or teenager?
See the difference?
It smells really bad, does it not?
How come a priest with the Catholic Church can be convicted for assault, in 1992, of slapping and choking a child, NOT serve one day in prison, but be given the privilege of pretending to serve that day in prison, pay a fine of $2,500 and be let off 9 other charges, including one for sexual abuse.
How come this priest is being consulted as a psychologist in this case? Rumour has it that he will testify for Scott Grant in the trial.
How? With his background? Are they serious?
Excuse us if we're repetitive on this blog, but it appears that only by constant repetition will we get through to the people who are supposed to be paying attention...like Minister Toews, the Minister of Justice in Canada and our government in France.
Today, this priest, Lucien Larre, has been fully pardoned and his record has been expunged from the national criminal database.
Why? Why is he protected despite having physically assaulted a child, and a mother who truly believes that she removed her children from a harmful environment is punished?
Again, What is wrong with this picture?
You read the Constitution of Canada and you decide.
If the law applies to Nathalie Gettliffe, a mother who claims she acted to protect her children, why doesn't it apply to David Frost, Lucien Larre and others who have been proven to have harmed children?
We look forward to your comments....
Constitution Act of Canada, 1982
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Legal Rights
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Detention or imprisonment
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
Arrest or detention
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right;
and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and
to be released if the detention is not lawful.
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in
respect of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and
public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military
tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the
offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time
of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or
international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law
recognized by the community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if
finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or
punished for it again; and
(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been
varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the
benefit of the lesser punishment.
Department of Justice Canada
Habeas corpus:
A writ or order requiring that prisoners be brought before a court to determine if he or she is being held lawfully. The right of habeas corpus is intended to prevent imprisonment without charges. The right habeas corpus has been suspended several times in Canadian history, most notably when German, Ukrainian and other Slavic Canadians were interned in World War I, and when Japanese Canadians were interned during World War II. It was also suspended in Québec in 1970 during the October Crisis.
A Habeas Corpus Writ is not a solution to every defendant's problem. The Habeas Writ is purposed to get the accused before the court to state a defense or claim. The constitution states that the Habeas Writ shall not be suspended. . .
However, many state and local governments have replaced the Habeas Writ with Personal Restraint Petitions. One can only guess, but doing away with Habeas Writs, what personal restraint upon liberty and freedoms will be next?
EXCERPTS FROM OTHER SOURCES:
Habeas Corpus has been called the great writ of personal liberty. Habeas Corpus is a legal term, which, in the original Latin, means you are ordered to have the body.
If a person has been arrested or is held by police, a lawyer or friend can obtain a writ of Habeas corpus. This writ orders the police to produce the arrested person in court. When the prisoner is produced, the court decides whether the police have sufficient reason to hold him in prison.
The writ of Habeas corpus is one of the basic guarantees of personal freedom in English and American law. It prevents unjust or wrongful imprisonment or detention by legal authorities. It has been called: "The Great Writ of Personal Liberty." No person can be denied the writ except in times of "public danger or when "martial law" is in force.
Liberty and habeas corpus (I)
The writ of habeas corpus is an order from a national court to a local entity that has imprisoned a person to (1) produce that person at the national court, and (2) provide that court with a good reason for the imprisonment. Habeas corpus is is an extraordinary writ, and for that reason runs much farther than the normal jurisdiction of the national court. The local entity commanded by the writ can be any entity within the nation, or any within any territory of that nation (including military bases), or on any of the nation's ships at sea: any entity at all that claims the right to detain people. Habeas corpus is almost a millenium old, and in various forms it is probably much older. It has been and remains the main way by which legal rights against the arbitrary detention of a person by any kind of entity are enforced. Habeas corpus well deserves its other traditional name: the Great Writ.
No comments:
Post a Comment