75 Replies to “Incoming Lawsuit by Former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford”

  1. Anyone else getting the feeling that Jordan Peterson is becoming our last best hope in Canada. I pray nothing happens to him everyday.

    1. The fine print “subject to limitations” will be used by the failed lawyer/liberal party fundraiser to dismiss the case. The “Charter” is just ass-wipe with fancy words.

      1. It’s not fine print. It’s article 1. 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.

        1. So are you saying you support that? Or are opposed to that?

          Because “here are the only rights you get and only when we, the government, says you can have them” ARE NOT RIGHTS.

          1. What other “free and democratic society” are the feds going to point to? Germany and China?

        3. This document lays out the law with respect to freedoms which we can decide to take away at any time we feel like it, say when numerous hobgobblins come along to alarm the populace.

  3. I remember watching and listening to this articulate and intelligent man back then.
    But I don’t recall these “forefathers” including a clause that all freedoms are absconded if our overlords ever should perceive a national physical “health” threat.
    When did they give themselves this power? What year and campaign did they run this by us?

    1. “When did they give themselves this power? What year and campaign did they run this by us?”

      Was probably the same year when they campaigned on carrying out the Native Genocide.

      1. When they gave us the Constitution. All Premiers were lawyers. The Constitution was designed by lawyers, for lawyers. There was no mandate by the citizenry.

  4. The federal government may well counter with Article 1 of the charter which says “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” They’ll argue that their restrictions or both reasonable and justified.

    Many view Article 1 as a “get of out jail free” card for the government, allowing it to ignore the remaining 33 articles.

      1. They don’t have to prove it. They have to “demonstrably justify” it, which means that they must show they are addressing a matter of public concern in a reasonable manner. That the pandemic is a matter of public concern seems obvious. Exactly what constitutes “reasonable” has been defined by a series of tests in existing jurisprudence.

        So the lawyers would likely be arguing over whether government actions pass that series of tests for “reasonableness”.

        1. Fuck off, KM.
          While you’re fucking off, read up on the Oakes test for constitutionality.

          1. The blog owner, Kate McMillan, has asked that posters remain civil. I suggest you respect her request.

          2. “YeahWell”, You may not like it (I know I don’t), but KM may have a point. It’s a loophole big enough to drive a truck through (make that a convoy of trucks. Metaphor deliberately chosen given the current set of circumstances.)

            They drafted that language for precisely the reason that the governments of the day did not want their hands tied. Given the state of corruption of this country’s governments and legal system, that language makes it very easy for a corrupt judge to dismiss this suit.

          3. fc, the fact is, none of the vid restrictions would pass the Oakes test, but we would need honest judges to confirm that. In the absence of honest judges, it doesn’t matter whether or not there are any loopholes, as SCOTUS regularly demonstrates.

          4. KM, you print outright lies, which is quite uncivil.
            I am simply responding in an abridged matter with an equal level of civility.
            Lie to my face, get told to fuck off. Its very simple.

          5. Yes, the Oakes test is a part of the jurisprudence over Article 1 I mentioned. That’s the sort of thing the lawyers would be arguing over.

            You apparently are getting your gitch in a knot because you think there’s no chance that the government can pass that Oakes test. Fine, make that case. But don’t swear at me for explaining what the lawsuit will likely revolve around.

          6. “KM, you print outright lies, which is quite uncivil.”

            And what precisely was a lie?

          7. KM:”And what precisely was a lie?”
            You substituting “justified” for “demonstrable”, as the standard lefty is prone to do.
            You will note that political considerations don’t come into play when “demonstrable” is honestly used, but hey, that won’t stop judges and people like you from making things up and changing definitions as you go along.

            demonstrable
            dĭ-mŏn′strə-bəl
            adjective
            Capable of being demonstrated or proved.
            Obvious or apparent.
            Capable of being demonstrated; that can be proved beyond doubt or question.

            Again, fuck off.

          8. YW:

            “Proof” and “demonstrably” are not the same thing. Proof sets too high of a bar, and is not used in constitutional jurisprudence. You will not find it in the Oakes test. Even the “demonstrably” only makes an appearance in that the measures must be rationally connected to the objectives. The Supreme Court does not insist, however, that the evidence justifying the measure be absolutely fool proof, only that it be reasonable.

          10. “Demonstrable means what it means no matter what circumlocutions you make.”

            It doesn’t matter what you think it means. It only matters how the Supreme Court interprets it. And they seem to have interpreted it mildly, requiring only that the connection between measures and objectives be “rational”, which does not demand perfect certainty. Rather the court only seems to ask that there be a reasonable likelihood that the measures will be effective based on the evidence.

            Besides which, my real issue was with Art’s use of the word “prove”. That’s a word that does NOT appear in the charter or the jurisprudence, and is too strong.

          11. “It doesn’t matter what you think it means. It only matters how the Supreme Court interprets it.”
            The supreme court can declare that fish are in fact birds, but that doesn’t make it true.
            Again, fuck off.

          12. So you’ve gone from “Pay attention to the Oakes test!” to “Never mind the Oakes test! It makes no sense.”

            You’re also swearing at me for decisions that the Supreme Court made. If you don’t like their jurisprudence, I can probably find you their address so you can let them know. I’m sure telling them to fuck off will be highly persuasive.

        2. Killed Marmot:

          NO. Wrong. WRONG.
          Demonstrable is not “we feel like it so there” but PROOF.
          Proof that the risk from C19 with a worldwide survival rate of 99.7% warrants the wholesale rampant destruction visited upon our country.

          C-19 with lethality of about 5% of that of the Spanish Flu of 1918.

          And provincial governments have not acceded to requests for information used to formulate this bogus response.

          That said, he has close to 0% chance of success in this thoroughly corrupt banana republic.

          1. The “reasonable” part includes a likelihood that the government’s actions will achieve their objectives. If the evidence points to the actions being ineffective then the court should not deem it reasonable.

        3. That said, there needed to be a full description of apolitical mechanism required to prove that there is a demonstrable need for the suspension of rights and freedoms.

          No way on gawd’s green earth could C19 pass this test.

          1. XM,
            The definition of “demonstrable” is apolitical, and quite concise.
            That doesn’t preclude judges from declaring people’s feelz being hurt as “harm.”, as then “demonstrable” simply means some snowflake saying he was “harmed” in the feelz.
            We’re fucked.
            That is all.

        5. KM, you seem to be quite resilient to being sworn at, so stop whining about it.
          I don’t like the way you excuse sending troopers out to fuck innocent people over.
          So, fuck off.

          1. “I don’t like the way you excuse sending troopers out to fuck innocent people over.”

            YW, you really are a moron of the first order. I never said I approved of any of it. I am only describing what the federal government’s defense would likely be.

            It is entertaining, though, having you think that swearing at people has some kind of shock value, as if no one’s ever heard those words before but you.

        6. Definition of a pandemic is a disease which causes more than 5 percent of deaths in a year. The “Covid” and it’s variants do not reach that threshold. The use of the term “pandemic” is used to alarm the populace as Mr. Mencken said.

        7. The fake constitution needs to be burned and go back to what we once had. FREEDOM.

      2. No, it’s the opposite. YOU have to prove it’s NOT justifiable.
        Guilty until proven innocent.

        1. The onus for a lawsuit is usually with the plaintiff. In this case, however, if the government’s actions are deemed to override charter articles then the onus might fall on them to “demonstrably justify” it.

        2. Yup.
          Even if you do prove its not justifiable, the judge can trot out the ole hypothetical snowflake whose feelz are “harmed.”

      1. Worse yet, MikeT: “Demonstrable harm” now entails the hurt feelz of some hypothetical snowflake that the judges can invoke as they see fit.

  5. Good luck Peckford and good on you but brace yourself for a CYA” Peace, Order and Good Government” ruling.

  6. I hope he succeeds but given the mushy text and premise on supremacy of the state, well used to protect the unconstrained uber legislators of the SCOC, it was never a “real” constitution.

  8. Pierre Trudeau’s “Constitution” isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, as we’re about to find out, thanks to Pierre’s illegitimate whelp.

    1. Yeah. May as well throw it out and have zero legal documents asserting any individual rights at all.
      A given document is worth exactly as much as the people who claim to live by it, be it the US constitution or ours.

  9. Even if it was, it would take a non corrupt court to make it mean anything. The SCOC is a bunch of third rate Librano hacks who are there as a reward for loyal Party service. Just keep those pension promises Master Justin and we’ll be good little toadies and do as we’re told.

    A SCOC ruling defying their Liberal Masters? What got you thinking this was a real country?

  11. The Turdhole Charter is a worthless POS of a document thats why Juthtin the Turdhole and every Premier and every bureaucrat in the country casually wipe their ass with the stupid thing, everyday.

    Peckford is delusional if he thinks the Turdhole Charter will save Canadians from globalist tyranny… if the Turdhole Charter was going to protect Canadians from lawless Governments terrorizing the citizens it would’ve already happened. ITs been 2 effing years!

    If this tyranny was affecting the french language industry racket then the Turdhole Charter would indeed be invoked and used to impose more french, cause thats the primary purpose of the Turdhole Charter… protecting the racial and french language rackets.

    The Turdhole Charter is a document of the State by the State for the State, individual rights are vaporous and an illusion.

    Peckford is about to prove beyond a doubt the utter uselessness of the Turdhole Charter in protecting individual “rights and freedoms” of Canadians.
    Go for it, dummy.

  12. Unfortunately I don’t think Peckford stands a chance. Because courts in Canada side with Gov/Libranos. Back in March 2021 Supreme Court of Canada ruled that “global climate change is real. It’s caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities and it poses a grave threat to the future of humanity”.

    So when as Supreme Court, you’re BS-ruling like this on such things, clearly a delicate thing like Charter of Rights and Freedoms / covid times won’t stand in your way. May take 10 years but they gonna’ stand with theTurd and against Peckford in this matter.

    1. They also decided that “hate speech” laws passed the Oakes test, and its therefore OK to censor people, despite there being no “demonstrable harm” other than the feelings of snowflakes.

    2. Absolutely, Dan.
      It is a variation on Stalin’s famous “It is not who votes that counts; it is who counts the votes.”
      It is not the legality of a case, or the facts of the circumstances; it is which judge hears the case.”
      You see any judges out there who are going to buck the narrative of a Pandemic Emergency on this one?
      Me neither.
      Especially, as you so rightly said, when they just affirmed the Fear Porn over an imaginary Climate Emergency.

    3. And Beverly McLachlan ruled that the SCOC can re-write, over-write, write-in or erase any provisions of the Constitution Act I and II as deemed fit. Despite government has to go through a process to do it.
      See Delwyn Veld Vs Alberta. A case about work misconduct that turned into special rights for the alphabet life-form crowd.

  13. every once in a while i learn more in the comments section than in a lot of text books, keep it coming!

  14. Every time the feds stomp on our rights the high court rules it’s justified because they’re doing it for our own good. I have no faith in our judicial system, they always rule in tyranny’s favor.

    1. Yup.
      When the judges are corrupt, no Constitution can help us, no matter how strongly worded.

  15. That charter was not completed out of a desire to right a wrong.
    It was completed so that PET could have a legacy to draw attention away from all the damage he did.
    He didn’t agree to anything in good faith as he could care less whether it protected anyone, he was only concerned with his own prestige.

  16. Regardless of the outcome , the fact that one of the Founders of the Charter is taking Trudeau gov to court is a massive PR disaster for Trudeau.

    That coupled with the Trucker Protest , which has morphed into a general protest , and food shortages , at some point the Laurentian Elite who support Trudeau will be forced to eject him in order to save the Liberal Party.

  17. its funny how so many people think that the fact that the government decides to violate our rights that that means we don’t have said rights.
    There are actually people who think that Canadians don’t have the right to bear arms, for example.

    1. “There are actually people who think that Canadians don’t have the right to bear arms, for example.”
      OJ is one of these people.

  19. If you can win an election with twenty percent of eligible voters, and you get to stack the courts against the citizenry, then the citizenry is left with only one recourse to rid itself of the pestilence of fascism.
    There are over ten million unregistered firearms in Canada, experts estimate, I’m not sure the government should be going all third Reich, it could end very badly for everyone involved.
    JMHO

    1. Exactly. It is a truism that if you don’t use them or aren’t prepared to use them, you eventually lose them. This applies to brains as well as guns.

  20. My other question is why is Peckford doing this now ? Whats he been waiting for ? Its been 2 years of terrorism.

    Is the truckersforfreedom movement embarrassing the political class into pretending to do something ?

    If you’re not french speaking, “metis” or Indian or some other special class of citizen then don’t expect the Turdhole Charter to “protect” you from anything.
    The Charter was imposed without consent from those plebs it rules over and its primary purpose is to usurp the will of the people while social engineering schemes and radical racial marxism are imposed by an unaccountable anti democratic judicial branch… a politicization of the judiciary. The NAZI’s did the same thing.
    The cynic in me is suspicious of Peckfords motivations, and his timing.
    Peckford of all people knows the limitations and manipulations of the Charter and he knows damn well that the Charter is not about “protecting rights”, so what the hell is he up to with this stunt ?

    1. Don’t forget bona fide criminals and terrorists are also allowed to rely on the Charter. Again, a document that says “these are your only rights and only when we, the government, says you can have them” is a recipe for dictators.

  21. Regarding the Constitution, I hold a degree in philosophy. The “100” level courses give people the necessary tools to rip some big holes in the document. The biggest one is simply defining the terms used.

    The next one is encountering the word “reasonable.” In the ethics course we bang into cultural relativism. A great tool for anthropologists, it opens the door to my example which sucks all the oxygen out of the room. All of the young leftists exhibited every sign of their brains being rewritten. “What’s true for you is true!”, crashes into my example and the poor socialists’ brains compartmentalism is crushed.

    Needless to say I was both liked and seriously disliked by the wannabe Marxist/Leninists.

    Apply that example to reasonable and the whole constitution collapses. If it is reasonable to hold an extreme belief—whatever extreme it may be—and you have a lawyer sharing said extreme belief that lawyer will present arguments that may appear “reasonable” to the court, but are in fact opposite to the society reasonable people desire.

    Now add in Supreme Court Justices that want to rewrite the law instead of the constitutional legislative bodies—Canada and the USA have too many of them—and “reasonable” becomes the mechanism for governments and others to do anything they want.

    At that point I stop reading the Canadian Constitution beyond disinterested curiosity. The document defeats itself in the preamble and section one. Now when lawyers add in the notwithstanding clause the paper becomes less useful than toilet paper and every lawyer I have asked about the constitution just rolls their eyes, shakes their head, and gives a rueful chuckle.

    The rest of the Canadian Constitution becomes irrelevant. It means whatever anyone wants.

    So when any Prime Minister blessed by the Main Stream Media (currently bought and paid for and extorting more money as we speak) wanted or currently wants to become a dictator like the “admire[d] for their basic dictatorship” Chinese there is little we can do about it.

    I admire the protesters for their efforts and I resist in my small ways, but the current PM has shown little interest in listening to the conservative and normal reasonable viewpoints and all interest in listening to and catering to the socialists and special interest groups.

    The trucker (I am one) convoy is going to get smacked around by a PM that appears to listen and may even duplicitously appear to ease the restrictions for a moment. The retribution he has shown towards Alberta and others will be sure to follow.

    Remember, all of the socialist and craziness things today have been predicted long ago.

    I know if I am around long enough that I will be in a camp. But I believe I won’t be.

    Believe it or not as you will, just don’t take the Mark!

    1. “The document defeats itself in the preamble and section one…The rest of the Canadian Constitution becomes irrelevant. It means whatever anyone wants.

      Exactly. Which is why I have no, zero, faith in lawsuits against the gov’t. They provide interesting distraction & sound bites, but not much more. Our glorious & illustrious leaders have been subverting the law for more than 2 years now. It’s time and the convoy is just the spearhead.

  22. We have no rights. It’s been very nearly two years! All our so called rights vanish at the whim of a few bureaucrats with no thought or consideration. I moved out of Quebec, fled as an oppressed refugee over Bill 101. I thought I was safe because people in the West were basically honest and decent and just wouldn’t do what the Quebecois were doing. I had faith in the people not the worthless bit of paper with the double barrel out clause.
    I was wrong. I am sorry I chose to move west instead of South. I am sorry I brought my children up here. I’m sorry my grandchildren are growing up Canadian.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation