Andrew Coyne:
... where has the Court been the last twenty years?
Supreme Court twists the Charter of Rights in its haste to limit free speech
George Jonas: Debating free speech
Ezra Levant:
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I love how the country's lawyers are quite silent on this one.
Nine pontificating old fux who's brains are probably shot to sh%% by Alzhiemer's drool out a puddle of predictable politically correct, incoherent nonsense and not a single lawyer in this country dares to publically question it.
Yep, real courageous, ethical bunch.these lawyers.
Hey! Maybe they were JUST TOO BUSY! You know people to sue, pedophiles to free, busy busy busy. C'mom slime bags, get to work! Those ambulances aren't gonna chase themselves you know!
Yup, lawyers seem to be largely in favour of legal restrictions on speech.
Michael Coren interviewed one who had intervened on behalf of Christian groups. Not too impressive. With guys like that supposedly working on your side of the argument 'who needs enemies?'
The SCOC (burned out lawyer) make these kind of BS judgements to create work and job security for the parasite lawyers that follow
Rob C
The real question is how are *we* going to change this, since not only lawyers but politicians are silent on the destruction fo our free speech rights.
agree or disagree, the court follows the law and unlike the US constitution which is absolute and thus such ruling would never happen, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not. Section 1 of the Charter unequovically states rights can be limited if reasonable for a free and democratic society. Generally an oakes test is applied whereby proportionality is applied so if the harm by exercising one's rights exceeds the harm caused by restricting it, then it can be restricted. In this case it is obviously somewhat subjective, but it is important that our Charter is not absolute. Canada has always been based on the idea that the common good trumps individual rights and that government restrictions within reason are desirable unlike the US which sees freedom as an absolute. One can disagree with the Canadian system and wish to have one more along the American lines, but that involves legal changes by parliament not asking courts to strike down laws you don't like.
"agree or disagree, the court follows the law and unlike the US constitution"
Oh here we go! How did I know THIS tired, old, lame dodge was coming!?
Whenever some judicial ass kissing apologist wants to excuse some inexcusable crap that the SCOC farts out they drag out the always reliable but ever insipid "Well-at-least-we-aren't-like-those-mean-awful-uncaring-Americans" distraction.
Yep, the typical Canadian weasel maneuver, if you get cornered use the americans as a boogeyman.
Yes, we aren't like those terrible americans. We ram these political hacks and activists through without any public scrtuiny whatsoever. Unless you count that minor fluff meetings with MPS where they ask such tuffies as "what's your favorite color?" "What time is it?".
--- "agree or disagree, the court follows the law"
Agree or disagree? Does it LOOK LIKE anyone here AGREES?
--- "Follows the law" - No, actually they MAKE THE LAW. They have been using Canadian law as their own little social engineering lab for several years now. And our great defenders of common man (snicker) the lawyers never seem to have a problem with it no matter how many times the SCOC pulls this crap.
Bottom line: The The SCOC had a choice to make. Does a person have FREEDOM? You know - FREEDOM?
--- OR ---- Must a person ask a lawyer's permission every time they want to say anything.
During the Vietnam war when many American students were bad mouthing & protesting the American government there was a joke within the old Soviet Union.
A Soviet official is asked if Soviet students had the same freedom. He answered "Oh yes our students are completely free to badmouth the American governmnet".
The point here is the court has said "You are free to speak. As long as you are speaking from our approved list of things you can say."
In other words lawyers get to vett you before you speak.
Yep, nice way to INCREASE the power of the legal industtry.
Damn, lawyers are scumbag low lifes.
Anon March 4, 2013 at 3:34:00 PM PST gives us an indicator that he is a lawyer (cough - scumbag - cough) with this litlle gem.
"Generally an oakes test is applied whereby proportionality"
I don't remember anyone walking around on the street talking about "oakes tests".
Needless to say he doesn't come out and SAY he's a lawyer. But he's ok with anything that increases the power of lawyers to interfere with or lives.
The SCOC had to choose. Which part of the Charter was more important freedom or the state's ability to restrict it. They chose restriction.
I am not a lawyer, but I have read the Charter and I have read section 1 which clearly states that it has reasonable limits. One may disagree on what is a reasonable limit, but the Charter is not absolute and never has been even if you wish it were. Too many people think the Charter is like the US constitution; it is not. The Charter focuses a lot more on minority rights and group rights than individual rights as the US constitution does. Also the framers of the Charter were clear in that they did not want the courts to have the power to just strike down any law that parliament passed thats why they insisted on both section 1 and section 33. This was to ensure parliamentary supremacy was maintained. And for those arguing this is judicial activism, wrong, as they are upholding an existing law passed by parliament. There is absolutely nothing that says parliament cannot repeal hate speech laws. They can, its just that most Canadians don't want them repealed. Poll after poll shows Canadians generally believe the common good trumps individual rights whereas most Americans believe individual rights trump collective.
"framers of the Charter were clear in that they did not want the courts to have the power to just strike down any law that parliament passed"
Oh yes, of course. the courts are famous for being respectful of the supremacy of parliament. (eye roll)
Do you actually BELIEVE the horsesh** you write? And please you you tell me how is it possible for you to type with your lips stuck so firmly to a judge's ass?
This ! WAS ! judicial activism - period.
You denying it doesn't make it less so.
The SCOC had a choice to make between two different aspects of the same document. Which was more important the government's ability to censure our speech or people's freedom?
The SCOC (of course) chose to have people watching over their shoulders and clearing every thing through a lawyer before they express themnselves.
Well, you know unless they are a Muslim, gay feminist, or some other pre-approved group.
You are just another busybody who is determined to silence anyone who doesn't agree with him and the courts are a convenient way of doing that.
People need to start leaving asshole judges out of the loop. Whatcott's crime was not in passing out flyers with an anti-gay message. His crime was GETTING CAUGHT. Next time Bill, DON'T GET CAUGHT!
It has become completely and painfully clear in recent years the SCOC does not serve the people of Canada but rather serves to strengthen the power base of a narrow but powerful clique of governmnet/media/legal community and academic elitists.
People will increasingly find themselves required to ignore and subvert the law if they want to make free choices.
Trudeau, graduate of the Fabian LSE (Oh, dear) and notorious for refusing to
join the men of his generation to fight the AXIS in the Second World War ('so
there's a war on, tough (Memoirs, 1993'), was worshipped by his followers
as a man with the gift of intellect who would lead Canadians into the paradise
of a 'just society' (read, a society defined and limited
by the State, i.e., the patrons and matrons of the courts as the 'voice' of the
State. The roots of Trudeau's angst are to be found culturally in his Jesuitical education
(at one time the most demanding) and in his embrace of the socialist idea that turns
the 'Social Contract' of Jean-Jacques Rousseau on its head. The major shift
in emphasis from this charter is the identity of 'group rights', i.e., rights for
those groups favoured by the State. The French 'group' is especially given
the right of bilingualism in the whole country and this has been incorporated
into the Federal Public Service where the 'French Group' are given preference
over individuals who aren't French or not bilingual. Competence is largely
irrelevant or at least just an afterthought. All sorts of groups have benefitted
from the Charter, Gay groups, Feminist Groups and on and on; not Gay
individuals or Feminist individuals but as 'members' of a group who the
Supreme Courts have identified as 'vidtims.'.
The bottom line in the midst of all the challenges and interpreations of the Charter
is that the relationship between the 'governed' and "governor' changed Canada
from possessing almost the entire inheritance of liberty and rights that is the
British Constitution and stretching back to the 9th century and developed
more fully each and every century thereafter. The document is remarkably
similar to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , again
built upon socialist theory.
Post a Comment