The restrictions on worship and gatherings during the pandemic, and the possibility that people who have not been vaccinated recently may be denied employment, have made some Canadians wonder how these things can happen given Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“It is at those moments when individuals stand up against the state and the mob… Constitutional guarantees are so important because it should protect individuals under such circumstances,” said Derek James, a lawyer who worked in Alberta, on constitutional issues, accepting Said in the interview.
Ironically, the guarantees of such rights in Section 1 of the Charter also include loopholes that can suspend these rights. “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms stipulated in it, and they are only subject to reasonable restrictions stipulated by law, which can be justified in a free and democratic society,” it wrote.
The “fundamental freedoms” outlined in Section 2 of the Charter include “(a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; (d) Freedom of association.” However, the public health orders, the review of doctors and the media who disputed the COVID-19 narrative, and the increasing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination show that these freedoms are not for those in power. Not that important.
The Constitutional Freedom Justice Center has tried Challenge the constitutionality of these public health orders But it has had limited success. In one example, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Christopher Hinkson, overturned the province’s ban on outdoor protests, but refused to take the same action against the ban on face-to-face religious gatherings following a legal challenge from the Judicial Center .
Rights and “modern liberalism” values
The writer and scholar William Gairdner used a chapter in his book “Canada’s Trouble… Still” to explain why the then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s 1982 Charter of Rights It runs counter to the common law tradition inherited by Canada. Geldner told The Epoch Times that this has contributed to “a judicial war of moral and ideological nature to control our unions.”
Geldner said: “You can say that this country… has changed, mainly by judges with the same beliefs: very progressive, very modern liberals, not classical liberals,” Geldner said. Na said that he is also a writer for The Epoch Times.
“So they reshaped the country, and that’s what Pierre Trudeau wanted. He believes that the law should come from smart judges who understand the principles of the law, not from the common law and the actions of ordinary people who go to court and insist on their rights. What it does.”
In Gherdner’s view, Pierre Trudeau even ignored the provincial jurisdictions outlined in the federal system of Canada’s Constitution and used federal tax leverage to force provinces to accept federal policies.
“Healthcare should be a provincial right-it still says that in our BNA [British North America] behavior. But with the emergence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the federal government became interested in balancing social and medical benefits for every Canadian,” he said.
“Ottawa uses its taxation power to increase revenue and then distributes it to the provinces, as long as they are willing to [under the Canada Health Act]. “
The challenge of the pandemic
In Galdner’s view, the pandemic poses a unique challenge, for which there may not be a simple answer.
“John Stewart Mill’s old principle, as long as you don’t hurt others, you can do whatever you want. Now it doesn’t work on this issue, because you don’t know if you are infected with the virus, and no one knows you too,” he said.
“All epidemics create this defensive social and legal sentiment, and you will be vigilant for everyone. Then, if you get a certain standard, such as a vaccine they claim to be effective — even if it doesn’t work in the end, even if it gives The people who took it brought some deaths and some difficulties—you started to bring the police in to take action, and make people who don’t want to accept it in principle become untouchables.”
Galdner is more worried that new norms and ideas may restrict freedom indefinitely for some public health or other reasons.
“This puts the whole country in a moral dilemma, because when will we stop shutting down society? When will there be dead? One a day? Or are there no deaths? …When the next flu comes, ordinary flu, will we close? We have never closed society for this. We must do this now because we have set a moral precedent? What will we do? No one asks these questions.”
The constitution should provide “protection of the people”
Salim Mansour, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario, said the constitution should provide useful restrictions on government powers.
“Historically, the constitution limited the government’s power to act. The constitution protects the people. Rights do not come from the government—these rights are either historically or granted by natural law. We are free people. “Mansour said in an interview.
Mansour said that when it comes to basic freedoms of speech, belief and association, people should stand up and the judiciary should protect their rights.
“So when the government says you can’t do this or you can’t do that, you will close the church, etc. The government must explain why you can’t do this. This is where justice can protect the people, or should Defend the people. “
This News Originally From – The Epoch Times