Justice Denied

Post Reply
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:45 am

Justice Denied

Post by WestViking »

One of the requirements of a free and open democracy is a fair, impartial and independent justice system. That no longer exists in Canada. We are governed by a lawless lot.

From the appointment of judges to the refusal to enforce the First Nations Financial Transparency Act to the SNC-Lavalin scandal to the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman scandal, to the current blockade crises, our justice system has government fingerprints all over it.

Yesterday’s speech Prime Minister Trudeau gave stating that it would be totally wrong for a government to order police to enforce the law (complete with a curled lip) was insulting. Having the government tell police not to enforce court ordered injunctions is equally squalid. The irony escaped Mr. Trudeau and his handlers.

Our Prime Minister, Premiers and various cabinet ministers, federal and provincial must stop mucking about in justice matters. They write the laws. The justice system takes care of enforcement. The justice system is designed as a stand-alone element of our governance and must never become a tool of governments.

Our courts can overturn laws that are inconsistent with our constitution and the charter of rights embodied therein. That protects us from overly onerous laws.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms exists to protect us from our governments. When governments interfere in the justice system, they are violating our right to independent and impartial application of the law. Political interference in justice is the norm in totalitarian states. It has become the norm in Canada and that is not acceptable.

Parliament is the oversight body for the federal government. The opposition parties are failing us. The government is interfering with the independence of the justice system. The opposition should not be demanding that the government enforce the law; it should be demanding that the government cease interfering in the justice system.

We spend hundreds of millions employing judges, prosecutors, police chiefs, police officers and support staffs all of whom have acquired extensive experience and skills. They do not need guidance from a cabinet minister recently appointed or a Prime Minister who decries interference in the justice system while he is interfering in the justice system.

You can’t make this stuff up. A government that does not respect the law cannot enforce the law. The protestors are highly organized and include non-indigenous and foreign elements. Support for BC hereditary chiefs is a convenient excuse for disrupting governance. The real world has caught up with our Prime Minister’s elitist ideologies and finds him unprepared to deal with the nuts and bolts of governance that matters.

Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:21 pm

Re: Justice Denied

Post by Theresa »

Frightening isnt it?

User avatar
Duane Berke
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:14 pm

Re: Justice Denied

Post by Duane Berke »

Troot-Owe initially said he couldn't call upon police to dismantle the rail barriers yet he has called off the RCMP investigating HIMSELF.
"When you get to the end zone, act like you've been there before." - Vince Lombardi

User avatar
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:28 am

Re: Justice Denied

Post by PeterODonnell »

Part of the problem is this rather crazy paradigm of "nation to nation" relations that we seek to have with first nations communities. In legal terms, a first nation is essentially a municipality. They should have no standing as a nation, the imbalances are obvious and I think even a lot of native people see the system as ridiculous.

A second layer of insanity comes from the decision to treat any group that self-defines to be important as, well, important. If we are going to be in discussions with first nations, then it needs to be with one clearly defined group who would be the elected version of a town council. Otherwise we are inviting chaos because that elected group (who are to some extent responsible to their voters) may hold entirely different views from such groups as "hereditary chiefs" or elders, even god help us matriarchs.

To consult those people and also the elected councils, receive conflicting or opposite views, is to invite chaos. And the self-defined groups will be nothing more than self-interest lobbies. In my small town, it would be the equivalent of going to the local Legion or golf course or ski lodge and asking around the table what people thought of a proposal, then going to the town council for their views. What if you get two entirely different sets of responses? Who speaks for the people in the town (or native band?) -- well it has to be the one elected council, and that's all. These other groups, whatever their rhetoric or claims should have no standing. If they speak for their people, then let them seek and gain election.

I'm the hereditary chief of the O'Donnell Clan and I have an over-riding right to all the money in the Mint. How's that?

Post Reply