Weird judge overturns a man’s last will and testament

 

 

BC court overturns man’s last will and testament  A BC Supreme Court judge overturned a man’s last will and testament Tuesday because he says a will must be based on “contemporary moral standards. Will that cut out daughters overturned. Court overturns will of man who left everything to his son

 

Contemporary moral values and who decides now what they are? The NDP, Conservatives, Liberal, BQ? a Judge or Parliament?

 

 You can read about many, many persons, daughters left out of the father’s will in the old testament even for thousands of years now too. 

 

 I too may sympathize with the daughters left out of the will but my sympathy does not make it a Law.

    

But now  what happen to the long accepted moral standard a man is the head of his castle.

 

A MAN’S HOME IS HIS CASTLE – “This saying is as old as the basic concepts of English common law.,”A proverbial expression that illustrates the principle of individual privacy, which is fundamental to the privacy, justice system as well. “You are the boss in your own house and nobody can tell you what to do there. No one can enter your home without your permission. The proverb has been traced back ‘Stage of Popish Toys’ . In 1644, English jurist Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) was quoted as saying: ‘For a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique tutissimum refugium’ (‘One’s home is the safest refuge for all’).

 

 The principle of a MAN’S  individual rights and privacy,   is fundamental to the North American system of governments where it also it prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.”  And what the judge did not know this too? Or did not care?

  

 It has been a legal precept in England, since at least the 17th century, that no one may enter a home, which would typically then have been in male ownership, unless by invitation. This was established as common law by the lawyer and politician Sir Edward Coke  in The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628:”For a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man’s home is his safest refuge].” In England, the word ‘Englishman’ often replaces man.”‘An Englishman’s home (or occasionally, house) is his castle’ is most often cited these days in articles in the right-wing press that bemoan the apparent undermining of the perceived principle that a man can do as he pleases in his own house, which they hold up as an ancient right.

 

The judge is guilty of theft, a false sesizure, privacy invasion!

Where did they even  get the weird feminist  judge?