Better Than Britney

Is it just me or is anyone else ready to upchuck if they see one more story about Ms Spoiled-Brat Spears? It is so unendingly sad to think that for some girls, this ditsy dork with no hold on reality is actually their role model.
For those with families that do little to nothing to counteract the deleterious effects that such role models have on young girls, seeking to emulate someone like Spears creates the potential for a hugely regretful waste of their mental capacity. For girls with families putting active effort into guiding their daughters to higher plateaus, however, there are other options. One that I just found is the book, "Canadian Women Invent". Available here, the softcover 80-page book profiles more than 80 female inventors and their inventions. Recommended as appropriate to girls ages 10 and up, the book is an absolutely wonderful alternative to some of the drivel-filled, "celeb" magazines being pushed at girls. Who knows? It might inspire your budding genius to a whole new direction in her life.

Happy 78th, People!

It was only 78 years ago today that the Judicial Committee of England's Privy Council, the highest court of appeal in Canada, at the time, made a momentous decision. On October 18, 1929, the five Lords of the Judicial Committee thought long and hard and came to the unanimous conclusion that the word "persons" in Section 24 of the British North America Act included both the male and the female members of Canada's population.
The decision was taken because of the appeal made by the rabble-rousing "Famous Five": Emily Murphy, Henriette Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby and Nellie McClung. The women had already been long-standing militants for social reforms in Canada when the "Persons Case" was brought to pass.
I wonder how many times the story of this case is presented to students in Canadian schools? Actually, I already know the answer is damn near never! It's a story that should be trumpeted loud and long. If it hadn't taken place, I wonder where the women of Canada might be today. Since women are usually the oppressed of the oppressed, I wonder, too, where all the disadvantaged of our country might stand today without the efforts made by these wonderful women?

Declare The Man Innocent

"(I)t is regrettable that as a result of flawed evidence, you were wrongly convicted and you spent a long period in custody." Those were Associate Chief Justice Dennis O'Connor's words to Mullins-Johnson yesterday. He indicated that they were spoken, as well, on behalf of Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg and Mr. Justice Robert Sharpe. The statement came after the 35-year-old Mullins-Johnson of Sault Ste. Marie stepped out of a Toronto courtroom, following his acquittal of the charges laid against him in the 1993 death of his niece. He stepped into a life of freedom from the bars he has languished behind for the last 12 years.
If three of Ontario's top judges are speaking such words of apology, why isn't the man being declared innocent? The Crown is conceding that the evidence used to convict Mullins-Johnson of the murder of his niece was "worthless". It was, after all, based on the work of Charles Smith, the now disgraced pathologist, who hasn't been allowed to conduct autopsies for the chief coroner's office since December 2003. Smith was made the subject of an Ontario government probe in 2005 after it was proven that his methods were anything but reliable. Closing the barn door after the cow has already sauntered out is what it amounts to, since Smith's testimony has resulted in more than one wrongful conviction.
In 1997, Brenda Waudby was charged with second-degree murder in the beating death of her 21-month-old. Smith's work was part of the charges laid against the innocent woman. Those charges were later withdrawn when it was proven that the little one was in the care of a babysitter at the time. The traumatic experience for this mother, however, wasn't quite over yet. It was found that Smith kept a hair found on the toddler's body on his desk for five years before it was finally sent for DNA testing. In the case of Mullins-Johnson, Smith "misplaced" evidence that lawyers say could exonerate the wrongfully convicted man, keeping samples on his desk from 1994 until they were "found" in May 2005. Louise Reynolds served three years, convicted on Smith's evidence of having stabbed her seven-year-old daughter to death with scissors. The wounds were later proven to be dog bites. A panel of the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons has issued a statement saying it is "extremely disturbed by the deficiencies of (Smith's) approach."
Smith performed thousands of autopsies on children and gave testimony at trials that resulted in convictions for murder and assault. Maybe every single one of those cases should now be brought up for review, given the slipshod nature of the work performed by this third rate pathologist. You have to wonder how many lives this charlatan destroyed. Certainly, he was responsible for the living nightmare forced on Mullins-Johnson.
Prosecutor Michal Fairburn admits "this miscarriage of justice has exacted a terrible toll on Mr. Mullins-Johnson, his mother and his entire family." Mullins-Johnson himself, talking about the ordeal, says, "My life got sucked right out of me ... I thought I was going to a federal penitentiary to die. To be honest, I expected to get my throat cut."
Now, the victimized man wants the court to do more than just acquit him of the charges, as they did yesterday. He wants to be declared innocent. While Prosecutor Fairburn has no problem declaring, "there was no evidence of homicide." she is cavilling on the declaration of innocence, saying it would be a mistake to create a new verdict that would "debase" any not-guilty finding and relegate it to second-place status. Say what, Ms Fairburn?
Why the hell is the court continuing to play games with this man's life? Why isn't he being declared innocent of the horrendous crime of which he was wrongfully accused; the crime that the court is now saying never even took place? Where is the justification for the continued victimization of this innocent man? I guess "it is regrettable you spent a long period in custody" is the best Mullins-Johnson can hope for from a system that has yet to lock up the malpractising miscreant, Charles Smith.