My E-mail
jamesbredin@hotmail.com

IS THE UNITED NATIONS GETTING TOO BIG?
The Organization of African Unity (OAU) commissioned a report on the genocide in Rwanda. A panel of seven so-called international experts then blamed the UN, the US, Britain, France, Belgium, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and the Rwandan Government for the 1994 genocide. This is the biggest guilt trip since the beginning of the UN. Their report appears to be the first step in an attempt to extract from the named parties. They asked Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General to establish a commission to name the countries that owe Rwanda money. They also demanded a cancellation of Rwanda’s international debts.

Canada was not named as one of the at-fault parties. But then Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy wanted Canada to share responsibility for what happened in Rwanda. He felt left out because Canada was not named as an at-fault party. We were dealing with a situation that in the normal world didn’t make sense and then we had to listen to UN politicians who wanted to push their international socialism.

One tribe in the middle of Africa killed approximately 800,000 people of another tribe. Then this group of left-wingers at the UN appointed themselves as judge and jury, blamed outside countries and religions and then decided that they should extract money from these countries by pulling a guilt trip on them – not because these countries did something but because they didn’t do something.

The Hutus killed the Tutsis. If wholesale crimes can be committed and then retribution can be expected in the form of through the UN, could this retribution trigger even more genocide? And if genocide should reoccur, will it then up the ante from these same guilty western countries?

What happened in Rwanda is bad enough but spreading the blame and responsibility tends to muddy the waters. The Rwanda Hutu-led government should pay compensation to the Tutsi victims? But that makes too much sense. The lawyers at the UN can recognize weak socialist politicians and they can smell money.

Has anyone anywhere ever questioned the righteous socialists at the UN? There is no opposition at the UN. The UN itself is mentioned as one of the at-fault parties. Therefore the UN itself should do some self-examination and less pointing the finger. If the UN is expected to right all wrongs, correct all disputes, stop all crimes in the world by bringing criminals to the International Criminal Court, then maybe the expectations of the UN are too high. If the UN is willing to extort from some countries and religions to be passed on to unknown entities in Africa, then it appears that the UN has set itself up as judge and jury and party to extortion.

The Americans did not join this International Criminal Court system but President Clinton has already apologized for what happened in Rwanda. Should the Americans now have to pay because they were not involved in the Rwanda genocide or because their president apologized? Does any of this make sense?

Online Contact Info
http://communities.msn.com/CanadianAlliance/homepage
Website

http://communities.msn.com/CanadianAlliance/homepage
Canadian Stuff

LEAF

If you are a Canadian male and unfortunate enough to be involved in a sex offence court case, a divorce, a child custody case or have a legal problem with a female employee, you may be in double jeopardy when you arrive in court. A feminist organization known as LEAF http://www.leaf.ca/ may want to intervene in your case. They are not interested in your evidence or justice; they are interested in pushing their feminist philosophy.

They present arguments or intervene in cases where they consider women's rights are at risk in Canadian courts. Think about this if you are a male in front of a feminist judge while this group is intervening in your case and then put your affairs in order because you are likely to loose your case or be sent to jail.

LEAF claims Section 15 of The Canadian Charter of Rights as a basis to advance their feminist causes in court. Therefore their biased feminist philosophies could have a profound influence on your case. This type of interference could deny even the semblance of justice in your case.

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html

15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

The LEAF feminist activists used Section 15 to convince their friends on the bench that they should have a constitutional right to be present in the courts in order to influence court decisions. There is no relationship between this organization and justice. It is a graphic illustration of how many leftist organizations and philosophies have come to influence and interfere with our justice system. If Canadians do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain Canadians.

The presence of LEAF feminists intervening in a Supreme Court case in front of one or more feminist judges would tend to stack the deck against you as a male. This interference in the justice system nullifies section 15 of the Charter (above). It states every individual, not every feminist organization. Where is the equal protection or the justice if a feminist judge, a feminist prosecutor and a feminist organization are combined to decide your fate in a Canadian Court?
"Whenever our affairs go obviously wrong, the good sense of the people will interpose and set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:322

Do not bet on it in Canada. Not while the feminists and their friends are on the bench and their friends in Ottawa rule the roost. Not while Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and never asked about their hidden prejudices. It appears that Canadian males and the justice system are helpless before this intrusive politically correct group.
If you have a pending court case involving a female and one of these groups will be present in court, your lawyer should find a way to have them excluded from the court so that you can get justice... maybe.