<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[Social justice warriors now dominate our judiciary and are making the always limited guarantees of individual rights in Pierre Trudeau’s Charter a joke. Far from protecting free speech or freedom of movement, the Courts have endorsed massive state repression as long as it advances “equity” and other leftist goals. — Paul Fromm<\/strong><\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why Canada should abolish Section 1 Author of the article: Arjun Singh, Special to National Post Publishing date: Sep 23, 2021 \u2022 1 day ago \u2022 4 minute read \u2022 <\/a> 368 Comments<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n By all accounts, vaccine passports are here. Quebec, with the most provincial chutzpah, first introduced them, and B.C. followed suit. As have Ontario and Alberta, after Doug Ford\u2019s U-turn from his \u201cHard no\u201d earlier this year and Jason Kenney\u2019s similar opposition<\/a>. Outside government, scores of businesses are mandating vaccinations for employees, with proof being required \u2014 else, they be terminated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One would think, in governments\u2019 cases, that the law would safeguard citizens\u2019 freedoms. Indeed, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that Canadians have the \u201cfreedom of conscience and religion\u201d (Section 2a), freedom of movement within Canada (Section 6) and \u201cequal protection \u2026 before the law\u201d (Section 15). At the very least, this would prevent the imposition of vaccine passport requirements on citizens \u2014 vaccinated or otherwise \u2014 for travelling, let alone while accessing basic services: for most charter rights are fundamental. Quebec\u2019s programme and the Trudeau Liberals\u2019 recent federal vaccine mandate for flights and trains,<\/a> thus, ought to be dismissed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But this is Canada: where, for years, left-wing Liberal values have slowly invaded our legal system. This was true for Trudeau\u2019s father, Pierre Elliot, as it is now. Hence, in 1982, when the charter was introduced, its first section included the following proviso: \u201cThe Canadian Charter \u2026 guarantees the rights and freedoms set out subject only to reasonable limits \u2026 as can be justified in a free and democratic society.\u201d In essence, the charter rights of anyone may be limited for what the state considers \u201creasonable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n By itself, this clause is only partly dangerous. Absolute freedom, in any context \u2014 especially if causing physical harm \u2014 is undesirable; as the ever-pithy Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said, \u201cthe right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.\u201d But, as most would agree, allowing the government to judge whether its own acts are \u201creasonable\u201d is, itself, an invitation for power to abuse such privilege. From Quebec\u2019s strict curfews to Ontario\u2019s police crackdowns, the pandemic and its oppressive responses in the name of \u201cscience\u201d have laid that truth bare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In response, one would expect the courts, upon petition, to step in and stop government overreach, being the constitution\u2019s supposedly \u201cnon-partisan\u201d referees. Until 1986, in Canada, that was true \u2014 until left-wing jurists, after rewriting the law, captured the judiciary that interpreted them. That year the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by Trudeau appointees, established the Oakes Test in R. v. Oakes to determine what restrictions on charter rights were \u201creasonable.\u201d Among others, it allowed the curbing of charter freedoms in the name of \u201ca commitment to social justice and equality\u201d and \u201crespect for cultural and group identity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n With this decision, a faction of activist judges \u2014 seeing the constitution as a \u2018living tree\u2019<\/a> to be pruned without the people\u2019s consent \u2014 reset the foundations of freedom overnight, bending them towards progressive politics. Instead of having minimal restraints for public order, all charter freedoms could now be legally impeded in the name of contested left-wing concepts like \u201csocial justice\u201d and protecting \u201cgroup identity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Worse, neither did the court define what these terms meant, enabling the left \u2014 via its dominance of social science academia \u2014 to influence their meanings, suiting the moment\u2019s political objectives. As its late Chief Justice, Antonio Lamer, himself said, Section 1 empowered judges to \u201cmake essentially \u2026 a political call.\u201d In effect, the constitutional \u201creferees\u201d changed the rules mid-game, to ensure their side would always win.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, with Oakes, the dangers of Section 1 were fully unleashed, and have since beat a toll on Canadians\u2019 civil liberties \u2014 capturing our constitution for the supremacy of \u201cwoke\u201d social mores. \u201cWhoever would overthrow a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech,\u201d said Benjamin Franklin; and, true to form, it was one of the first casualties. In the Keegstra and Andrews decisions, the Supreme Court used Section 1 to allow the criminalization of speech \u201cinciting hatred\u201d \u2014 an ambiguous offence, at best, which effectively curbs free speech for the sake of hurt feelings. Once more, in the Little Sisters case, Section 1 rubber-stamped the Chretien Liberals\u2019 banning of LGBTQ books\u2019 import for their \u201cobscenity.\u201d This spate has continued, with governments and courts in concert over the years using Section 1 to curb the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (R. v. Stone), conservatives\u2019 participation in elections (Harper v. Canada) and, most recently, to ban travel by citizens during COVID-19 (Taylor v. The Queen).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In defending such overreach on the charter, the progressive establishment has often asserted the notion of \u201ccollective rights\u201d as the reason for restraining individuals, e.g., \u201csafe spaces\u201d precluding free speech to avoid public offence. There are few greater absurdities than this; \u201crights\u201d exist to protect individuals and minorities from tyranny of the majority, which \u2014 with strength in numbers \u2014 needs no further safety in a democracy. By claiming a \u201ccollective right\u201d of any kind, the Canadian left turns the very notion of rights on its head. It is legal fiction at best, and a neo-Marxist praxis at worst \u2014 a desperate attempt to stir up \u201cclass conflict\u201d between the majority and minority where none ought to exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the future, it\u2019s highly likely that Section 1 will be used again to uphold encroachments upon citizens\u2019 rights \u2014 from vaccine passports to online censorship (e.g., Bill C-10) and others. Canadians must, hence, stand on guard for thee and expunge this threat \u2014 regardless of the high bar for constitutional change. If Section 1 is the end of charter rights, we must end it, first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Arjun Singh is a recent graduate of political science from the University of Toronto.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Arjun Singh: Left wing values have invaded Canada’s legal system and diminished our charter rights Arjun Singh: Left wing values have invaded Canada’s legal system and diminished our charter rights [Social justice warriors now dominate our judiciary and are making … Continue reading ![\"The](\"https:\/\/smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital\/nationalpost\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/Charter-Anniversary-20120607.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=288\")
<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Arjun Singh: Left wing values have invaded Canada’s legal system and diminished our charter rights<\/h5>\n\n\n\n