How many of our laws are invalid?

[PoliticalNick]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[gerryh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Sons of Liberty]

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.

That is why they worded it the way they did, to intentionally leave it open for interpretation hence arguments become near indefensible.

 

[PoliticalNick]

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

Just an example.

 

[gerryh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.