Empower the nation, not protect freedom


It’s been 40 years since the Charter of Brilliant Rights and Freedom was born in earnest from the eyebrows of philosopher King Pierre Elliott Trudeau, making Canada from the rather nasty bubbles that sway from the sea to the shining C-minus and giving us something sweet. Will-the smell of freedom that was all sick-make darkness. Or, I collect it from a retrospective, but I’m having a little trouble harmonizing that particular golden branch with the sour, insect-like fruit in front of me.

A person called the governor yelled at me. “On April 17, 1982, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II proclaimed the 1982 Constitution … for the first time in our history, our Constitution enshrines our rights and freedoms.” Therefore, Magna Carta / The entire business of the Honorary Revolution was a pile of old fish heads. When the founders of Canada proudly talked about protecting freedom, they were thinking about something else.

Apparently it was our re-founder. In 1981, despite the provisions of our constitutional rights as an ally or an enemy, there was considerable debate. It was all controversial because we had nothing. But their quaint concern was whether the sovereignty of the parliament in which the members were elected was, alone among government officials, a significant protection or an imminent threat to them.

As I say, it was controversial. And the main reason is Joseph Howe when we were charged with saying “it’s a free country”, singing “the strong and free of the true north”, and liberating the Nova Scotia colony. Not because he was stupid to quote a 1835 speech addressed to the jury. In an era when the truth was not defense, authorities said by exposing their corruption: [your ancestors] Did you grow up? (The jury was as confused as the speaker, acquitted him and boldly nullified the unjustified infringement of the ancient right to free speech.)

It was controversial, primarily because the provisions were nevertheless virtually unused, except for Quebec nationalists who cared little about our historical freedoms as Chattering Class knew. Important section 1 slipped virtually unnoticed.

That’s what I say here, drive the truck beyond those freedoms. (But there is no nasty Canadian flag.) More formally, the Charter is “only subject to reasonable restrictions set by law that can be clearly justified in a free and democratic society.” We guarantee the rights and freedoms we have set. ” But S. 1 does not say how or who has to prove it. Just “Now you see it, but now you can’t.”

Recently, I hosted a True North Strong and Free (also) network discussion. Former BC Prosecutor General Suzanne Anton, QC, Queen’s Law Professor and Executive Director of Rights Probe Bruce Pardy, and former Newfoundland Prime Minister and last surviving 1982 signator, Brian Peckford, participated. Constitution. And Peckford made it very clear that S.1 was just for a real emergency. But the courts ambushed the laws of nature, hanging them from “living trees” and freeing traditional “negative” freedoms such as freedom of speech and meetings “from your unwilling companions, or your unwillingness.” The “positive” right to rob or impose this, that, or something else from a good companion.

In Canada, almost anyone who wants to go to court to defend the well-established freedom understands it. But if you want to force your doctor to perform the steps they dislike, step up immediately. The National Post summary of the “10 Important Proceedings that Shaped Canada’s Rights and Freedom” includes abortion, euthanasia, employment by offended people, taking illegal drugs, and wearing religious weapons at school. I am. And seizures.

In our panel discussion, Professor Purdy correctly argued that the Charter empowers the administrative state. But that’s not a scenario. Rather, it is an inevitable result of a particular idea, and the embarrassing ignorance of pre-1982 constitutional history, such as the 1689 Bill of Rights, is a secondary feature. The main issue is the unexamined belief that utilitarianism is and should be our guiding principle.

According to one expert, the illustrious success of the charter is “a true army of grumpy lawyers, who have filed endless charter proceedings against all governments larger than the village of two homes,” even “populist rights.” He claimed to be seen in that he accepted the COVID. As he said, “Everyone wants the guarantee of the Charter to apply for them.” But his ridicule is that those champs are not for them. He emphasized Anton’s point that he was trying to discover.

Whether you like it or not, just those who want to make you a better person, break the egg of classical liberalism and rejuvenate an omelet of social justice.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

John Robson


John Robson is a documentary filmmaker, National Post columnist, Dorchester Review contributor editor, and Executive Director of Climate Discussion Nexus. His latest documentary is “Environment: True Story”.