How many of our laws are invalid?


PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#1
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states government may only pass such laws as are "demonstrably justified". To me this gives the question as what constitutes justification. I would suggest there are only a few true justifications to restrict our liberty and freedom.

1- National security
2- Public safety
3- Preventing infringement of other citizens rights and freedoms

This means many of our laws and regulations are invalid under the constitution. I think it is time to force the govt to to reevaluate most of the legislation in our country.
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states government may only pass such laws as are "demonstrably justified". To me this gives the question as what constitutes justification. I would suggest there are only a few true justifications to restrict our liberty and freedom.

1- National security
2- Public safety
3- Preventing infringement of other citizens rights and freedoms

This means many of our laws and regulations are invalid under the constitution. I think it is time to force the govt to to reevaluate most of the legislation in our country.

Right, you're in charge of that, then.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+2
#3  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

Right, you're in charge of that, then.

I'm trying. I challenge my reps at every level and try to rally the citizens. Find far too many are just apathetic.
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

I'm trying. I challenge my reps at every level and try to rally the citizens. Find far too many are just apathetic.

You should leave a nice steaming double-coiler on Harper's doorstep. That'll learn 'em.
 
Corduroy
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

This means many of our laws and regulations are invalid under the constitution.

According to you, but it's not up to you.
 
gerryh
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

I'm trying. I challenge my reps at every level and try to rally the citizens. Find far too many are just apathetic.

If you think a law is unconstitutional, then I would think that the proper course of action would be to get a lawyer and challenge the law in the SCOC.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

According to you, but it's not up to you.

According to the constitution. And it is up to me...and you...and every other citizen.
 
Corduroy
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

According to the constitution. And it is up to me...and you...and every other citizen.

Sadly no. The supreme court decides if a limit of charter rights is "justified", their criteria is however they feel. The Charter and constitution are designed specifically to limit majority rule. You and I cannot determine what is constitutional.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

If you think a law is unconstitutional, then I would think that the proper course of action would be to get a lawyer and challenge the law in the SCOC.

I agree. That is the constitutional process. It costs a boatload of money I don't have to hope the SCOC will rule against their employers.

The better route is upward pressure on our legislators from the masses to ensure freedom and uphold the constitution.
 
gerryh
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

I agree. That is the constitutional process. It costs a boatload of money I don't have to hope the SCOC will rule against their employers.

The better route is upward pressure on our legislators from the masses to ensure freedom and uphold the constitution.



So, what laws, in particular, do you feel are unconstitutional?
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

So, what laws, in particular, do you feel are unconstitutional?

One example would be a bylaw here in edson saying I cannot park my trailer in front of my house. There is no safety issue, I do not infringe on anyone's rights or freedoms and it certainly isn't a national security matter.

I am certainly not referring to the great majority of the CCC if that was what you were looking for.
 
Corduroy
#12
This is about you parking your trailer in front of your house?
 
Sons of Liberty
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states government may only pass such laws as are "demonstrably justified".

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

To me this gives the question as what constitutes justification.

That is why they worded it the way they did, to intentionally leave it open for interpretation hence arguments become near indefensible.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

This is about you parking your trailer in front of your house?

Just an example.
 
gerryh
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

One example would be a bylaw here in edson saying I cannot park my trailer in front of my house. There is no safety issue, I do not infringe on anyone's rights or freedoms and it certainly isn't a national security matter.

I am certainly not referring to the great majority of the CCC if that was what you were looking for.


That is a local by law. In your opening post you made it sound like it was in regards to provincial or Federal laws. Obviously, since this is the example you gave, not being able to park your RV in front of your house is a big deal for you. Really? There's nothing more important for you to whine about? RV parking?
 
Corduroy
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Just an example.

Calling something unconstitutional either implies a great violation of rights or some illegal exercise of power. You're talking about parking a trailer.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

That is a local by law. In your opening post you made it sound like it was in regards to provincial or Federal laws. Obviously, since this is the example you gave, not being able to park your RV in front of your house is a big deal for you. Really? There's nothing more important for you to whine about? RV parking?

There are many federal and provincial laws that are hard to justify as matters of public safety, national security or rights infringements.

Example: The national parks act says I need a permit to hike into the back-country. Not just ask permission to use a park I own as a citizen but pay money to have some peon give that permission. How is that demonstrably justified? I suggest it is just a revenue scheme.
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

Calling something unconstitutional either implies a great violation of rights or some illegal exercise of power. You're talking about parking a trailer.

Those little bylaws are the most annoying ones. I have a buddy that lives in a "heritage" neighbourhood. He needs to ask city hall's permission to paint his house. That really stuck in my craw for some reason. Asking permission to paint your own house?
 
Corduroy
#19
You seem to be ignoring the fact not all laws need to be justified as public safety or national security. The charter doesn't say that. The phrase you're citing refers to limits of charter rights. Nothing else. The charter says nothing about parking your RV and walking in the park. Those aren't charter rights.
 
gerryh
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

There are many federal and provincial laws that are hard to justify as matters of public safety, national security or rights infringements.

Example: The national parks act says I need a permit to hike into the back-country. Not just ask permission to use a park I own as a citizen but pay money to have some peon give that permission. How is that demonstrably justified? I suggest it is just a revenue scheme.

Of course it's a revenue "scheme". There is up keep to those parks. It's called a "user fee". You think those that up keep those parks do it out of the goodness of their hearts?

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

Those little bylaws are the most annoying ones. I have a buddy that lives in a "heritage" neighbourhood. He needs to ask city hall's permission to paint his house. That really stuck in my craw for some reason. Asking permission to paint your own house?


He would have known about that when he bought the house.
 
Corduroy
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

Those little bylaws are the most annoying ones. I have a buddy that lives in a "heritage" neighbourhood. He needs to ask city hall's permission to paint his house. That really stuck in my craw for some reason. Asking permission to paint your own house?

I don't know how people got it into their heads that they have the right to do anything on their landed property. It's never existed in law or precedent. You shouldn't feel like this is some kind of violation of rights, but more that it's shattered your illusions of property rights. You don't really "own" land. In a sense you just rent from the state.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

Calling something unconstitutional either implies a great violation of rights or some illegal exercise of power. You're talking about parking a trailer.

I gave that example because I recently discussed it with the corporate revenue collector (bylaw officer). When asked to justify the law his first response was that it was not insured if not hooked to my vehicle, not that it should matter if it is a stationary object and someone hits it, so I showed him my policy clearly stating I was fully insured whether attached or not. He then stated it would be an eyesore. When pressed how a 2 year old trailer worth as much as my first house was an eyesore he changed his tune to "it was voted in by the majority of the town's citizens so I asked him to point me to the referendum and when it was held etc knowing full well there was never a vote. His response was to turn around and walk away.

It is this type of thing that govts at all levels engage in in violation of the charter and we need to stop it before they legislate our entire lives.

The danger is not with those who would control us but with those who stand idly by and allow it to happen.
 
Corduroy
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

I gave that example because I recently discussed it with the corporate revenue collector (bylaw officer). When asked to justify the law his first response was that it was not insured if not hooked to my vehicle, not that it should matter if it is a stationary object and someone hits it, so I showed him my policy clearly stating I was fully insured whether attached or not. He then stated it would be an eyesore. When pressed how a 2 year old trailer worth as much as my first house was an eyesore he changed his tune to "it was voted in by the majority of the town's citizens so I asked him to point me to the referendum and when it was held etc knowing full well there was never a vote. His response was to turn around and walk away.

You're trying to tell me this isn't about the trailer-sized chip on your shoulder but then proceed to explain to me this trailer saga in unnecessary detail. I don't care.

Quote:

The danger is not with those who would control us but with those who stand idly by and allow it to happen.

First they came for the trailers. But I didn't speak up because I didn't own a trailer.
 
gerryh
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

I gave that example because I recently discussed it with the corporate revenue collector (bylaw officer). When asked to justify the law his first response was that it was not insured if not hooked to my vehicle, not that it should matter if it is a stationary object and someone hits it, so I showed him my policy clearly stating I was fully insured whether attached or not. He then stated it would be an eyesore. When pressed how a 2 year old trailer worth as much as my first house was an eyesore he changed his tune to "it was voted in by the majority of the town's citizens so I asked him to point me to the referendum and when it was held etc knowing full well there was never a vote. His response was to turn around and walk away.

It is this type of thing that govts at all levels engage in in violation of the charter and we need to stop it before they legislate our entire lives.

The danger is not with those who would control us but with those who stand idly by and allow it to happen.

Well, when it comes to a trailer not hooked up to a vehicle, the danger is in the fact that if an emergency vehicle (ie firetruck) needs to be where that trailer is, it's not possible to move it quickly. Safety concern. I'm surprised the bylaw officer didn't bring that fact up.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

You seem to be ignoring the fact not all laws need to be justified as public safety or national security. The charter doesn't say that. The phrase you're citing refers to limits of charter rights. Nothing else. The charter says nothing about parking your RV and walking in the park. Those aren't charter rights.

Quote:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Application of Charter

Quote:

32. (1) This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

All matter within the authority means all laws.

I really don't care if you want to allow govt control of your life and your freedoms to be infringed as you are obviously ok with it but I refuse to let it be enacted upon me.

Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

You're trying to tell me this isn't about the trailer-sized chip on your shoulder but then proceed to explain to me this trailer saga in unnecessary detail. I don't care.



First they came for the trailers. But I didn't speak up because I didn't own a trailer.

If you don't care why the f*ck is your tw*t in a knot arguing in this thread? Go back to whatever useless govt approved thing you were doing previously.
 
Corduroy
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Application of Charter


All matter within the authority means all laws.

Nope, it means the rights and freedoms set out in the charter. Not all laws. Just the rights and freedoms in the charter, as it clearly says in the very section you quoted.

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

If you don't care why the f*ck is your tw*t in a knot arguing in this thread? Go back to whatever useless govt approved thing you were doing previously.

I don't care about your trailer. I do care about charter rights though, and I'm trying to explain to you that your trailer and charter rights aren't the same.
 
DaSleeper
#27
Maybe his trailer's a bloody eyesore.....
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Well, when it comes to a trailer not hooked up to a vehicle, the danger is in the fact that if an emergency vehicle (ie firetruck) needs to be where that trailer is, it's not possible to move it quickly. Safety concern. I'm surprised the bylaw officer didn't bring that fact up.

How is it any more of an issue than if it is hooked to my truck when I'm not there? They do have 2 lanes plus room to park on both sides of the street. Or are you claiming firetrucks can't block traffic in an emergency?

Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

Nope, it means the rights and freedoms set out in the charter. Not all laws. Just the rights and freedoms in the charter, as it clearly says in the very section you quoted.



I don't care about your trailer. I do care about charter rights though, and I'm trying to explain to you that your trailer and charter rights aren't the same.

Quote:

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

It would appear we do have rights and freedoms other than those specifically listed. You have to go a long way before you can educate me about the charter darling.

It would also appear from your comments you hold the belief we as citizens only have whatever rights and freedoms the corporate conclave in Ottawa tell us we can have. Reality is they only have the control we allow them to have and you are willing to give them all the control they want.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Of course it's a revenue "scheme". There is up keep to those parks. It's called a "user fee". You think those that up keep those parks do it out of the goodness of their hearts?

How much upkeep is there on wilderness? Do we as citizens not pay taxes for our parks? I'm ok with user fees for non-citizens but we already pay.
 
DaSleeper
#29
How close to a neighbour's driveway do you park?, does he have an unrestricted view of incoming traffic coming out of his driveway?
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

How close to a neighbour's driveway do you park?, does he have an unrestricted view of incoming traffic coming out of his driveway?

Doesn't restrict anything. Neighbors drive is about 300 feet
 
no new posts