Clean-up from 21 Sep, 2018 update
First off, I have to acknowledge a "bad" in last week's reference to one of the agencies C3RF coordinated with in Shelah Poyer's battle against the BC Human Rights Tribunal. Recall Shelah was taken to task for daring to refuse a trans-woman, with male genitalia, a "manzilla". That organization was the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Government (CC4RG), not Concerned Citizens for Responsible Government as I stated. My apologies and here's a link to the CC4RG web site.
Last week's update generated comment on the "bestiality" tweet I used to highlight judicial activism within the Canadian system of jurisprudence. The commentator noted that the actual award did not reflect such activism as it was in line with the letter of the law as written. This law dates back to 1892 and it understood that "penetration" was an essential element of the crime. Lacking any initiative by the Canadian Parliament to amend this definition over the years, bestiality law in Canada is less than comprehensive in accommodating justice. We see here that the Supreme Court followed the intent of the written law, as it should, and did its job in recommending Parliament act to close gaping loopholes. We also see that it is best to consult original sources in discussing judicial activism and I stand corrected for not doing so. Thanks to the commentator for bringing this forward.
So, is judicial activism a factor impacting your Charter Rights?
The bestiality case, if anything, was more reflective of parliamentary inaction than it was judicial activism. Does that mean that the latter is not a factor that impinges on your right to speak, worship and think freely? Hardly.
Andrew Coyne, as much as three years ago, wrote that the historic "euthanasia" case marked the end of judicial restraint. An era that saw the judiciary interpreting law as it should - in consort with written text, the historical context, precedent or logical consistency. With the "assisted suicide" case he argued that the courts had become untethered from any obligation to find support for its decisions "in a sensible reading of the Constitution". How does this impact your ability to exercise your Charter Rights? Easy, if the courts can set aside your "fundamental" freedoms to accommodate "changes in the matrix of legislative and social facts" you may very well lose those freedoms. One can easily argue that this was the case with the Trinity Western University case that saw the Supremes "balance away" freedom of religion and conscience in order to accommodate the sensibilities of a certain group. In doing so, they inferred there is a proportionality rule that exists between a fundamental right afforded to individuals and an equality right that belongs to an identifiable group. Is this truly the case?
It would seem it is time for Parliament to provide its own balance, as in check and balance, to make laws that are less subject to capricious treatment by the courts - even as they take the wrappers off available tools such as the "notwithstanding" clause. If this does not happen, your freedoms as an individual Canadian will be swamped by more popular, and virtuous, group rights.
Regular feature - C3RF Twitter highlights
Given this week's concentration on "judicial activism" perhaps it is fitting to take a look at other forms of activism that stand to impact your Charter Rights. First among these has to be the longstanding and persistent efforts of United Nations human rights organizations to reshape individual rights as group entitlements.
At the forefront of these efforts is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Adopted by the General Assembly in 1966, Canada is obligated to take its measures into consideration for law-making purposes. One of the more controversial measures entails the move away from "incitement of violence" alone as a restriction to free speech to the more nebulous and vague language that calls on states to outlaw speech that "constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.
This was not a problem for Canada but it was for the United States when it ratified the treaty in 1992. They did so only on the condition that the wording "could not be interpreted as authorizing or requiring restrictions on freedom of speech and association in contravention of the U.S. Constitution or other laws.” It is here we begin to see paths diverge with Europe and Canada opening the door to shutting down speech that could offend. It is this opening that the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) would exploit so effectively to move non-Muslim nations towards accepting sharia speech codes in order to better fight "Islamophobia". Motion M-103 ring a bell?
The ICCPR was then but now we have a new U.N. initiative in the form of the Global Compact on Safe, Open and Regular Migration. This initiative attained final draft status in July of this year and moves to General Assembly adoption this December. Its aim is to "cover all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner". Rooted in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, this compact seeks to improve migration governance and "dispel misleading narratives that generate negative perceptions of migrants". Indeed, the Compact will "reaffirm the commitment to eliminate all forms of discrimination, including racism, xenophobia and intolerance against migrants and their families." Once again, does Motion M-103 ring a bell with its commitment to "quell a rising tide of hate and fear"? Additionally, the governance proposed is one of "shared responsibility" that will entail the sacrifice of sovereign will to a "unity of purpose". This is the case as "no State can address migration on its own". Indeed, States and persons shall be subject to laws that are "consistent with international law".
It would appear that the Compact will present nation states with little choice but to set aside their national priorities to make way for a better world. A world ruled by international law and a mandate to wipe out intolerance. This sounds like M-103 on steroids. By the way, the United States, Hungary and Australia have rejected the Compact as they see it as an unacceptable constraint on national sovereignty. Here's a smattering of related C3RF tweets:
Ongoing operations and trends
C3RF continues to coordinate efforts with like-minded groups and organizations to protect your fundamental Charter rights and freedoms. These efforts include supporting C3RF's own Valerie Price and Madeline Weld as they take the Ottawa Public Library to court over their refusal to show the documentary film "Killing Europe". C3RF would like to be in a position to provide financial support to their cause should it be required. With your support, we will continue such efforts even as we seek to educate the Canadian public on threats to their treasured fundamental and individual rights and freedoms.
Speaking of "Killing Europe" which can be found here, the producer has released another documentary in the form of "Killing Canada". I have viewed this film and highly recommend it to you. Not only as I have a cameo role in this production but because it is an inciteful look at the "star chamber" nature of Canada's human rights machinery and the thuggery of complicit, hateful anti-free speech groups. "Killing Canada" can be found here.
For those of you who have recently contributed to our coffers, thank you very much. We cannot continue to operate and progress such initiatives without such aid. Having said that, we could certainly use a lot more of it from all others and hope you can contribute towards making a difference. If you are able to make a monthly donation, no matter how small, even $5/month, it will help us plan our finances and provide funding for a rainy day which is sure to come.
And while you're considering making a difference, please follow C3RF on Twitter, on Facebook and on our web site and share with friends our great content and a realistic outlook on the continuing battle for Charter Rights in Canada.
Major Russ Cooper (Ret'd)
Co-Chair C3RF
