The greatest divorce in Canadian history
OTTAWA – “In a ruling by the Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada, Law has formally separated from Justice in the former democratic State called Canada.”
It is not reasonable, according to this Senior Judge, to have a full hearing on whether six million citizens of Canada had their Charter of Rights and Freedoms violated by a travel restriction that was introduced by the Government of Canada, denying these citizens the right to travel across their own country or leave the country unless they had received an experimental, never before used gene-related vaccine that this Judge knows or ought to have known causes death and serious injury and for which the pharmaceutical makers bear no liability?
The Charter Section 6
6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Marginal note: Rights to move and gain livelihood (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
That this Judge cancels a court proceeding already under way based on the ‘reasoning ‘ that while the alleged travel constitutional violation was live when it happened and when the court actions were begun, it is not ‘live’ now and so what happened is of no consequence to take up the time of the Court; that Canadians were unable to care for their sick or dying love ones, –that Canadians were unable to travel from Province to Province for their livelihood by air or train – unless injected with an untested experimental gene-related vaccine never before used?
That this Judge has the gall to refer to a lower court in a Province that refers to Section 1 as justification for being able to override the rights of Canadians when what the wording of that section 1 actually says is different than that quoted by the Judge.
Its ironic in the extreme to contemplate that legal officers so precise on wording when they want to justify their position is so loose when wanting to argue against a citizen’s rights under the Charter.
The Judge ‘s words:
‘In Syndicat des métallos, Justice Mark Phillips of the Quebec Superior Court recently found that the IOs/MO did not breach the plaintiffs section 7 Charter rights and that if they did, the violation would be saved by section 1 of the Charter for being one that is justified in a democratic society. ‘
No, your honour, you would do well to quote the Section in question, not rewrite the words.
Section 1 says:
‘1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.’
It is ‘demonstrably justify’ and ‘in a free and democratic society.’ – Not ‘justify in a democratic society’
Sorry your honour, the authors wanted to emphasize the justification and the democracy aspects and you, lawyers, professors, and others in your position are trying to ignore this fact. As one who was involved I can vouch that these words ‘demonstrably’ and ‘free’ are not there by accident
Where is the cost-benefit analysis and where is the Parliament in all of this to satisfy ‘demonstrably justify’ and ‘free and democratic society?’ There should be full explanation and evidence by the court on these two phrases in order to make the court’s position at least plausible.
The medieval attitude toward independent science and reason is astounding and the antithesis to modern thought, as is the new description of information and disinformation and free speech.
And, Your Honour, I shall go, where few, if any, lawyers, professors and judges wish to go– and by such refusal cause many of these judicial decisions concerning the Charter to be unfinished, incomplete decisions.
TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT ARE THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHARTER, THAT INTRODUCE THE CHARTER, THAT ARE THE FIRST WORDS OF THE CHARTER.
‘Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:’
Any court decision involving the Charter, therefore, would have to first deal with the first principles that introduce and are foundational to any interpretation of the Charter.
This is not what has happened, the court decisions that ignored this consideration, I submit, are invalid, incomplete.
Courts have not the power to ignore certain parts of the Charter as if they were not there in rendering decisions involving the Charter.
God is not popular, is that it? It’s too difficult to consider? The country is now secular? These are not decisions for the courts.
Courts err – that’s why there are Appeal Courts. The Superior Court of a Province is a lower court and should not influence a full hearing by the Federal Court in whose jurisdiction the alleged constitutional breech occurred!
A full hearing of the travel restrictions case should be heard – I mean our jurisprudence goes back to The Magna Carta of 1215!
Citizens should have the right to a hearing, redress without legal contrivance after the fact. The mootness argument almost seems like we have resurrected King John himself.
The Federal Judge says in her judgement:
‘There is no important public interest or inconsistency in the law that would justify allocating significant judicial resources to hear these moot applications.’
Don’t let the cozy conditions of the Court be disrupted by the rights and freedoms of citizens! Six millions citizens’ rights and freedoms curtailed for nine months in this past year or so and this is not in the public interest?
U.S. Federal Appeal Court Judge Terry Doughty has said recently in a ruling:
‘The public interest is served by maintaining the constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals who do not want to take the COVID-19 vaccine. ‘
Even Supreme Courts of a country make mistakes. Consider the Roe vs Wade decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It stood as the law from 1973. But was overturned in 2022.
Our Charter became law in 1982.
Peter Hogg, Canadian constitutional authority often quoted by the courts and even the Supreme Court of Canada, says in his book on Constitutional Law in Canada on page 99 that when the Privy Council was the final appeal court for Canada it occasionally overruled earlier precedents although it never admitted that it did so.
So, Courts, you must make ‘law and Justice kiss and make up’ and admit you were wrong, restore our Charter and Constitution to its rightful place by reading the words of the Charter as written and refrain from selectively omitting certain concepts central to its meaning and interpretation.
Changing the Constitutional wording is the job of the people through their elected representatives, not the judiciary! Otherwise, where is democracy?
To refuse to do this will betray our Constitutional principles and render our country to the tyranny of unelected Judges and eliminate the principles of parliamentary democracy with the certain decline therefore in the concept of, as the Charter says “a free and democratic society.”
What then befalls us may not be pretty.
Honourable A. Brian Peckford, Privy Councillor
Last Surviving First Minister That helped Craft The Constitution Act