How the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Ignores the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Recent events should have awoken people to a simple fact: GOVERNMENTS will do whatever THEY want, despite the LEGAL "protections" and "guarantees" of the (nearly worshipped but ignored) CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.
Many people have recently been loudly complaining, and lawsuits launched, howling out: "THEY are infringing our rights", "How can THEY do that?" and "THEY can't do that!".
The sad answer is THEY can do anything THEY want and always have, but now THEY are emboldened and panicking so its just more obvious, and in our face. Many newly awakened people finally care about law, GOVERNMENTS and LEGISLATION in a whole new way because it personally affects their most basic freedoms ie. bodily integrity, masking, job loss by MANDATE. For many, the law never really matter until it became very personal and on their doorstep or pocketbook.
First, take note, the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS is of limited application, "recognizes" rights that you already had/have at law, and moves you/traps you into the LEGAL system of limited rights, changeable rights, grey areas and argument, LEGAL interpretations, rather than the principles of law that do not change which existed before the CHARTER and still exist today. Are you sure you want to invoke the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS instead of your rights at law?
- The CHARTER grants no rights to anyone! Some JUDGES claim in decisions that the CHARTER "grants" rights, which is repeated ad nauseam, but this is an obvious lie by reading the CHARTER language itself – the word "grant" is never used – "recognize" is, which means something already existed
- IT only applies to FEDERAL, PROVINCIAL and TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT actions
- IT only "recognizes" rights that exist already - word recognize used three times
- IT mentions "protection" one time in the context of law not LEGISLATION - "equal protection and equal benefit of the law"
- IT gives an aggrieved party a LEGAL document to point to when one complains to GOVERNMENT about GOVERNMENT action, or files a lawsuit, the common law is not written but is recognized as where rights are recognized and protected
- IT, in effect, exists as a PUBLIC NOTICE LEGAL warning to GOVERNMENTS to respect the specific enumerated rights and gives a recognition to all un-enumerated (unwritten) rights at law which must also be respected, upheld, protected and not diminished
- IT gives LAWYERS, JUDGES unlimited opportunity to argue over language, interpretation, circumstances and more
- IT gives a false sense of security to people that they are actually protected from GOVERNMENT wrongdoing that did not exist before
- IT gives a false sense of remedy for people who feel the GOVERNMENT has infringed on enumerated, recognized CHARTER rights
- IT defaults an action into a LEGAL SYSTEM controlled court game where LEGAL manipulation can occur rather that a law court system where rights of wo/man are more likely to be protected
Fundamentally, every one has waived their natural, unlimited rights as a man or woman, at law, in exchange for limited and "suspendable" LEGAL rights (for as LEGAL PERSONS) "guaranteed and protected" by the "CHARTER" and a whole host of FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BENEFITS and PRIVILEGES. Never mind there is a built in exception clause...which was recently used abusively, without the required LEGAL or lawful justification.
In effect, all GOVERNMENT programs/application forms are an invitation to "sign here and give up your unlimited rights at law in exchange for limited LEGAL RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES and some LEGAL BENEFITS, all of which GOVERNMENT can reduce or eliminate anytime."
The game of "you are free" is being exposed as not-so-free-as-you-thought. A powerful example of how long ago the veil of pretend freedom slipped was 2015 when a GOVERNMENT LAWYER who's sole job was to review proposed LEGISLATION to see if it infringed on CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS sued the GOVERNMENT because, too often, the LEGISLATION he was employed to review/vet by the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE had up to a 95% chance of being ILLEGAL (ie. contravene the CHARTER). Sadly for him and us, his professional advice was ignored and that LEGISLATION was still being passed instead of redrafted. After years with his alarms ignored by his superiors, he sued the GOVERNMENT, in an attempt to hold the GOVERNMENT accountable to the principles of law requiring THEM to only pass LEGISLATION that had less than a 50% chance of infringing on rights guaranteed by the CHARTER. Some legislation he found had up to 95% chance of infringing CHARTER rights.
- "Even when a proposed law's chance of passing muster with the courts was estimated at less than 5 per cent, Mr. Schmidt's supervisors in the justice department told him he could still find it had a "credible argument" to succeed, and was therefore consistent with the Charter. He said consistency should mean "more likely than not" – that is, more than a 50-per-cent chance of success."
95% chance of infringing rights means GOVERNMENT does not care about respecting rights, and also flips the LEGAL system to force fundamentally ILLEGAL LEGISLATION to be challenged by people, who often do not have the resources to raise a challenge. The GOVERNMENT has a DUTY to ensure laws are not likely to infringe on CHARTER rights but THEY know that almost no one will/can challenge the LEGISLATION when harmed by it, so effectively THEY get away with ILLEGAL LEGISLATION, all the time.
GOVERNMENT actors often do not follow correct, specific, clear LEGAL procedure either, so the actions THEY take are often ILLEGAL (and unlawful) procedurally, but THEY get away with that too because people generally do not know the correct LEGAL procedure and again do not have the will/resources to challenge.
So, GOVERNMENT passes ILLEGAL LEGISLATION and often fails to follow LEGAL procedure in other ways because 99% of the time it does not matter because THEY know THEY will not be caught, nor sued for doing so. Effectively, it is open season on 'the people' by the GOVERNMENT due to no accountability.
Back to the GOVERNMENT LAWYER who effectively "blew the whistle" by suing and ultimately lost the lawsuit (and his $155k per year job). Why because the FEDERAL court concluded that a lowly 5% chance of not infringing was sufficient to meet the test/obligation/DUTY of GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION.
To be clear, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can pass LEGISLATION that has a 95% chance of infringing your "guaranteed CHARTER rights" and that is ok, LEGALLY, at the moment.
Are you good with that?
If you really care about your rights it is best not to rely on the CHARTER as the be all end all. It is one tool with specific uses and not the best for everything. It is important to understand the limitations of the CHARTER!
Instead find out more about your rights at law that have always existed. The CHARTER is a red herring to lure you voluntarily out of law and into LEGAL, the world of LEGAL FICTIONS, TITLES, BENEFITS, PRIVILEGES, ACTS, assumptions, presumptions, DEEMING, HEARSAY, LEGAL OPINION and shifting POLITICAL winds.
- "Edgar Schmidt was once a lawyer earning $155,000 a year for the federal Justice Department, examining proposed laws for consistency with the Charter of Rights. But he felt uneasy about the way he was told to do his job, believing that officials in his own department – and the Justice Minister himself – were involving him in breaking the law. So he sued his employer."
- "Even when a proposed law's chance of passing muster with the courts was estimated at less than 5 per cent, Mr. Schmidt's supervisors in the justice department told him he could still find it had a "credible argument" to succeed, and was therefore consistent with the Charter. He said consistency should mean "more likely than not" – that is, more than a 50-per-cent chance of success."
- SOURCE ARTICLE link below - Sean Fine Justice Writer Published March 2, 2016
------
Links
Here are some links to the news articles of the time and the decision:
Sean Fine - Justice writer- Published September 20, 2015
Sean Fine - Justice Writer - Published March 2, 2016
Court Decisions and Commentary
Supreme Court of Canada - 2019-04-04 -
(Application for Leave) Edgar Schmidt v. Attorney General of Canada, 2019 CanLII 25897 (SCC)
Edgar Schmidt v. Attorney General of Canada, 2019 CanLII 25897 (SCC), <https://canlii.ca/t/hzjpp>
Federal Court of Appeal
Schmidt v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 55 (CanLII), [2019] 2 FCR 376, <https://canlii.ca/t/hr59w>
Federal Court of Appeal - 2016-08-19
Schmidt v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 206 (CanLII)
Federal Court - 2016-03-02
Schmidt v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 269 (CanLII), [2016] 3 FCR 477
Court Case Commentary
Manitoba Law Journal, vol 43 no 2, 2020 CanLIIDocs 3650
https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/journals/16/3271
Lawyers Serving the State: Ethical Issues When Administrative Directions Conflict with the Client-State’s Interests 2020 CanLIIDocs 3656
https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2020CanLIIDocs3656?autocompleteStr=Edgar%20Schmidt&autocompletePos=2#!fragment//BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoByCgSgBpltTCIBFRQ3AT0otokLC4EbDtyp8BQkAGU8pAELcASgFEAMioBqAQQByAYRW1SYAEbRS2ONWpA
Why the FCA Decision in Schmidt v Canada (Attorney General) is Clearly Erroneous
https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2020CanLIIDocs3657#!fragment//BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoByCgSgBpltTCIBFRQ3AT0otokLC4EbDtyp8BQkAGU8pAELcASgFEAMioBqAQQByAYRW1SYAEbRS2ONWpA
https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2020CanLIIDocs3658#!fragment//BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoByCgSgBpltTCIBFRQ3AT0otokLC4EbDtyp8BQkAGU8pAELcASgFEAMioBqAQQByAYRW1SYAEbRS2ONWpA
------
BONUS: Not directly related but interesting commentary because the Genetic Discrimination Act created a LEGAL protection for people from being forced to take a vaccine or PCR test, by creating a criminal charge for doing so, and the GOVERNMENT argued in court that the ACT that IT passed was ILLEGAL (what? yep!):
2020 CanLIIDocs 3659
BONUS 2:
Download or order the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS and the Canadian Bill of Rights:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Plain-Language Summary)
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT guide explains the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter)