NDP Family Values: Those Mad, Mad Martin Brothers

In a time-honoured ritual, NDP anger clown Pat Martin recovered from his latest froth-lipped fugue to yet again retract “some intemperate language that I regret. I would like to offer an unreserved apology to my fellow candidates and to anyone else who may have taken offense to the tone and content of these remarks.”

While ol’ Paddywhack wasn’t specific, his blanket grovel presumably applied to recent bon mots tossed at his rivals in Winnipeg Centre, in particular Green candidate Don Woodstock (“son of a bitch,” “fucking prick”) and Liberal Robert Falcon (“full of shit,” “political slut”).

Martin’s opponents join such past targets as Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu (“asshole”) and Vic Toews (“I would never judge someone who screwed their babysitter for years or knocked up their secretary, so don’t ask me to”).

Twitter just hasn’t been the same without Martin’s dispatches from the House of Commons: “This is a fucking disgrace … closure again. And on the Budget! There’s not a democracy in the world that would tolerate this jackboot shit.”

When a tweeter took the shortarsed parliamentarian to task for that gem, he replied, with classic Martin sangfroid, “Fuck you.”

Martin retired his salty oeuvre from Twitter in 2012, following after another splenetic diatribe against “the rat-faced whores in the CPC.”

Just good old workin’ man vernacular, and it was truly unfair of Darrell Rankin, Communist Party candidate for Winnipeg Centre, to single out the odd “slut” or “bitch” in Martin’s recent utterances as evidence the dyspeptic dwarf’s got a problem with women.

Stuff and nonsense!
For real women troubles, we must turn to Pat’s brother “Not the Real” Paul Martin. A Grade 7 teacher with the Durham Catholic District School Board, Paul was recently back in court battling his ex, Cathy Clayson, over access to their two kids.

The Ontario Court of Appeal judgment, released Sept. 4, gets right to the point:

“The wife appeals the trial judge’s order granting the wife sole custody of the children because it provides for their children to have generous access to the husband; she submits that access should have been terminated because the husband tried to kill her…”

Oh, that!

Jamaican police arrested Paul for attempted murder in a 2010 knife attack that left Cathy with a 10 cm slash across her throat, but he was ultimately acquitted on a reduced charge of wounding with intent.

The learned appeal justices revisited the he-said, she-said:

“After leaving the hotel in Jamaica to return to Canada on December 23, 2010, the husband drove the wife to a secluded road, known as Flamingo Beach Road, where, on the wife’s evidence, he slit her throat, forced her into the vehicle after she attempted to flee, strangled her, and then drove 17 kilometres before she was able to jump from the moving vehicle and escape. She was taken to hospital by a passerby.”

“In stark contrast to this account, the husband now says that it was the wife who was the aggressor on the secluded road in Jamaica. She attacked him with a knife. He assumes, although he didn’t see, that she sustained the wound on her neck by her own hand when he, in self-defence, pushed her hand bearing the knife away from him. This story differs from the one he told Jamaican police shortly after the incident occurred. At that time, he said his wife was injured by a Jamaican man who had attempted to rob the couple.”

Ah, yes, I remember it well! Paul claimed he made up the robbery story to protect Cathy from charges. The trial judge who ruled on the custody and access application last year, Justice Roger Timms, decided Paul’s testimony was far more credible than Cathy’s.

Not so the appeal judges:

“While the trial judge imposes a very exacting standard on the wife’s evidence – calling evidence that is in fact quite consistent ‘all over the map,’ the jarring inconsistencies in the husband’s version get a pass. The husband drove for 17 kilometers without stopping for help while his wife bled in the car beside him. He left her at the side of the road in that condition, to, as he says, get help, despite having a cell phone on him which he at no point used. And he lied to the police and then changed his story. These facts are all dismissed by the trial judge at para. 173: ‘Who can say what anyone in the circumstances of that time might or should do?’”

Reasonable apprehension of bias, hearsay, harrumph, fap! Cathy won her appeal and a new trial on custody and access.

Should be plenty to talk about when the fucking Martin clan sits down to fucking Thanksgiving dinner this year.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone
2 comments on “NDP Family Values: Those Mad, Mad Martin Brothers
  1. John MacLachlan Gray says:

    Clearly the two make an open-and-shut case for gun registration & control. And knives for that matter.

  2. Patrick60 says:

    Well, at least they’ll be turkeys at the table!

Leave a Reply