I just got done listening to Viva Clips where one of the lawyers Keith Wilson was speaking about the court case making a constitutional challenge to the mandates. Very interesting and so now I'm keen to follow this channel and others talking about the topic.
doesnt the charter specificly says no province or authority should never go against the charter period even if the past new laws ? how come quebec can go against the charter sign by the queen
@@musqul8566 It does no such thing. It enables legislatures to pass laws that temporarily overrule court decisions that would render them inoperable with regard only to provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Charter, and they have to be renewed by the same legislative process every five years, or they cease to be effective. These are legislatures that were used to having parliamentary supremacy, and they gave it up provided they had recourse to avail to it in certain limited circumstances. It was a compromise that brought the Constitution home in 1982. It would have been eliminated from the Constitution in the 90s if Canadians had voted to support the Charlottetown Accord, but we didn't.
@@duderino6171 you could say it only applies to them. It governs them not individual man or woman but those Canadian Persons under the legislature and statutes enacted. Are you a Person/Citizen/Human under them by consent or choice or do you believe your an individual man that has not submitted to their observations? What capacity do you act under? Do you have a choice? Or no choice, so you act in capacity required to survive, as a Person not an individual man ?
So a store can require vax passports and deny me access to their service, but they cant use the police to enforce those rules? What if the police show up and tell me I have to provide vax passport? Now are they breaking the law?
Trespassing. Private business can ask Police to trespass under existing Trespass laws but Police can't enforce rules and policies of private businesses like masking because it is NOT LAW.
Yeah, a store can tell you to wear an onion on your head if you want to enter the premises. It's private property, just like your house; you set the rules there. On the flip side, you have the right to tell them to get bent and take your business elsewhere. They don't own your wallet; you do. The police can tell you you have to provide proof of vaccination _if the province you live in has mandated that that is a health requirement,_ which is a provincial power and _responsibility_ under the Constitution. It's a demonstrable matter of public safety, like it or not.
Can not give someone the wrong directions to the Hospital. Can not cause a certain amount of damage by Crying wolf. Can not Say "BOMB" on an "Airplane". "Yell "Fire" in a theatre."
On the Canada website it says the responsibility to help others is like you know to volunteer. But I think what it really means is that's the spirit of the law you use your rights to fulfill your responsibilities. Some people might think that sounds chorish but that's not what it means it means you're a goodly person when you do things that are good for other people. As a matter of fact, that's how you really attain status.
When you use your rights to do charity in any form big or small carrying groceries opening a door helping a lady across the street pushing a car standing up for your neighbor speaking for the cause of those who are unable to speak for themselves protecting people against bullies.. by the way, bullies are those who do not do these things.
So when it comes time to ask, when it came time to act, are you trying to tell me nobody knows the difference between helping others and blah blah blah?
technically all land in Canada is owned by the Queen. You don't buy land to own it , you buy land to have rights to the land that you are technically borrowing.
There's no way the courts would ever agree with you. You have the right, under security of the person, not to be vaccinated. But society has the right not to be infected by you, and to deny you access to certain public spaces if you present yourself as that threat. That's how it works. You're not the only one with rights.
An injunction issued by a judge to prevent the communication of certain information that might violate fundamental justice or due process by being prejudicial in a court proceeding, sufficient to survive an Oakes Test challenge (i.e,, a reasonable limitation in a free society).
I just got done listening to Viva Clips where one of the lawyers Keith Wilson was speaking about the court case making a constitutional challenge to the mandates. Very interesting and so now I'm keen to follow this channel and others talking about the topic.
Excellent presentation containing 3 parts on constitutional Law. keep up the good work.
It is so excited and helpful to know about the Canadian law. I would recommend this presentation to every immigrated new Canadians.
Section 52 which made the Con law the supreme law of Canada is from Constitutional Act 1982, not 1867. The mistake appears in 2:32 of this video.
doesnt the charter specificly says no province or authority should never go against the charter period even if the past new laws ? how come quebec can go against the charter sign by the queen
The notwithstanding clause basically allows both feds and provinces to violate rights at will.
It allows it, but the Federal government has never used it.
Please read section 32. It only applies to a few sections in the Constitution Act 1982. Not to every section in both Constitution Acts
Sorry .... section 33
@@musqul8566 It does no such thing. It enables legislatures to pass laws that temporarily overrule court decisions that would render them inoperable with regard only to provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Charter, and they have to be renewed by the same legislative process every five years, or they cease to be effective. These are legislatures that were used to having parliamentary supremacy, and they gave it up provided they had recourse to avail to it in certain limited circumstances. It was a compromise that brought the Constitution home in 1982. It would have been eliminated from the Constitution in the 90s if Canadians had voted to support the Charlottetown Accord, but we didn't.
Can i get an authentic copy of the charter of rights and freedoms?
google?
Did the court have to retry the Irwin toy case again in 5 years?
No, the ruling stands; it's up to the legislature to keep passing bills that exempt themselves from applicability... every five years forever.
Thanks. Useful.
WHO HAS THE BALLS TO ENFORCE THIS
These are good times to learn it and start enforcing it
22 seconds in. Section 32 (1) (a) (b)
Seems to me this only protects people in Government.
@@duderino6171 you could say it only applies to them. It governs them not individual man or woman but those Canadian Persons under the legislature and statutes enacted.
Are you a Person/Citizen/Human under them by consent or choice or do you believe your an individual man that has not submitted to their observations? What capacity do you act under? Do you have a choice? Or no choice, so you act in capacity required to survive, as a Person not an individual man ?
@@duderino6171 The crown not see mafia family.
So a store can require vax passports and deny me access to their service, but they cant use the police to enforce those rules? What if the police show up and tell me I have to provide vax passport? Now are they breaking the law?
Trespassing. Private business can ask Police to trespass under existing Trespass laws but Police can't enforce rules and policies of private businesses like masking because it is NOT LAW.
Yeah, a store can tell you to wear an onion on your head if you want to enter the premises. It's private property, just like your house; you set the rules there. On the flip side, you have the right to tell them to get bent and take your business elsewhere. They don't own your wallet; you do.
The police can tell you you have to provide proof of vaccination _if the province you live in has mandated that that is a health requirement,_ which is a provincial power and _responsibility_ under the Constitution. It's a demonstrable matter of public safety, like it or not.
Can not give someone the wrong directions to the Hospital. Can not cause a certain amount of damage by Crying wolf.
Can not Say "BOMB" on an "Airplane". "Yell "Fire" in a theatre."
The Responsibility to: Help Others. Could you Define it for me?
On the Canada website it says the responsibility to help others is like you know to volunteer. But I think what it really means is that's the spirit of the law you use your rights to fulfill your responsibilities. Some people might think that sounds chorish but that's not what it means it means you're a goodly person when you do things that are good for other people. As a matter of fact, that's how you really attain status.
When you use your rights to do charity in any form big or small carrying groceries opening a door helping a lady across the street pushing a car standing up for your neighbor speaking for the cause of those who are unable to speak for themselves protecting people against bullies.. by the way, bullies are those who do not do these things.
So when it comes time to ask, when it came time to act, are you trying to tell me nobody knows the difference between helping others and blah blah blah?
That's the individual right of the charter. So-and-so is obviously not helpful.
Whereas every human has every human need.
I'm still in disbelief about the queen passing and more disbelief in what's been ignored here it would seem
Seriously? She was in her 90s. "Disbelief" would be for Princess Diana in her 30s. C'mon. And what, exactly, are you on about "being ignored here"?
Why've you stopped??
Thanks sir
somebody help me to understand it's you do not own your properties we just leasing them even done pay for them. the government can come and take it.
technically all land in Canada is owned by the Queen. You don't buy land to own it , you buy land to have rights to the land that you are technically borrowing.
they shouldnt be limit base on other felling that doesnt make sence anyones cant makeup felling on anything
Covid regulations are definitely not minimally impairing.
Especially if your not vaxxed
There's no way the courts would ever agree with you. You have the right, under security of the person, not to be vaccinated. But society has the right not to be infected by you, and to deny you access to certain public spaces if you present yourself as that threat. That's how it works. You're not the only one with rights.
elaborate "gag order".
An injunction issued by a judge to prevent the communication of certain information that might violate fundamental justice or due process by being prejudicial in a court proceeding, sufficient to survive an Oakes Test challenge (i.e,, a reasonable limitation in a free society).
interesting
I'm still in disbelief about the queen passing and more disbelief in what's been ignored here it would seem
The video was posted two years ago.