By Dr. Charles I M Lugosi, SJD with the Hon. Brian Peckford
May 27, 2023
1. Section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes Canada’s unwritten Constitution. In Saumur v. City of Quebec,  2 S.C.R. 299 Justice Rand of the Supreme Court acknowledged fundamental original freedoms that are arguably absolute: “…freedom of speech, religion and the inviolability of the person, are original freedoms which are at once the necessary attributes and modes of selfexpression of human beings and the primary conditions of their community life within a legal order.”
2. I contend that an original freedom is a natural law truth that all human beings are free by nature and equal in their inherent God given rights, including those life, liberty, conscience, thought, belief, opinion, religion, and speech. I further contend that these rights and freedoms are the lifeblood of a free and democratic society. The example that I will focus on in this discussion are the original freedoms of speech and expression, without which a free and democratic society cannot exist.
3. What is a free society? In the Big M Drug Mart,  1 SCR 295, at para. 94-95, Chief Justice Dickson attempted to give a definition:
“A truly free society is one which can accommodate a wide variety of beliefs, diversity of tastes and pursuits, customs and codes of conduct. A free society is one which aims at equality with respect to the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms … Freedom must surely be founded in respect for the inherent dignity and the inviolable rights of the human person. … Freedom can primarily be characterized by the absence of coercion or constraint. … Coercion includes not only such blatant forms of compulsion as direct commands to act or refrain from acting on pain of sanction, coercion includes indirect forms of control which determine or limit alternative courses of conduct available to others. Freedom in a broad sense embraces both the absence of coercion and constraint, and the right to manifest beliefs and practices.”
4. Significantly, the Supreme Court approved limitations even on guaranteed freedoms: “Freedom means that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience.”
5. What are the characteristics of a democratic society? Dickson CJC discussed this in 1986 in the Big M case:
“… an emphasis on individual conscience and individual judgment also lies at the heart of our democratic political tradition. The ability of each citizen to make free and informed decisions is the absolute prerequisite for the legitimacy, acceptability, and efficacy of our system of selfgovernment. It is because of the centrality of the rights associated with freedom of individual conscience both to basic beliefs about human worth and dignity and to a free and democratic political system that … in my view underlies their designation in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as “fundamental”.”
6. A genuine democracy is evaluated by how it treats its minorities. A political system that enacts legislation and issues executive orders to the detriment of those who do not hold political power threatens democracy. A democracy thrives when it is served by a strong and vibrant Constitution that embodies the values and morals of its society. The Constitution acts as a check and balance against the power of those who are elected to public office, for it serves as a shield against the tyranny of the majority.
7. In a democracy, freedom of expression must be unrestrained when it comes to exposing and proclaiming the truth.
8. In Cusson v. Quon, 87 O.R. (3rd) 241 (2007), the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized a public interest defense to responsible journalism. Justice Sharpe stated at para. 125:
“Democracy depends upon the free and open debate of public issues and the freedom to criticize the rich, the powerful and those, such as police officers, who exercise power and authority in our society. Freedom of expression extends beyond political debate to embrace the “core values” of “self-fulfilment”, “the communal exchange of ideas”, “human dignity and the right to think and reflect freely on one’s circumstances and condition … Debate on matters of public interest will often be heated and criticism will often carry a sting, and yet open discussion is the lifeblood of our democracy. This court recognized … that “[i]f these exchanges are stifled, democratic government itself is threatened”.
9. McLachlin CJC and Major, J., dissenting in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 827, recognized freedom of speech and expression as an inalienable original freedom that is integral to a free and democratic society:
“… liberal democracy demands the free expression of political opinion, and affirmed that political speech lies at the core of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantee of free expression. [para. 1]
… Political speech, the type of speech here at issue, is the single most important and protected type of expression. It lies at the core of the guarantee of free expression; [para. 11] …
The right of the people to discuss and debate ideas forms the very foundation of democracy; see Reference re Alberta Statutes,  S.C.R. 100, at pp. 145-46. … As Dickson C.J. stated in R. v. Keegstra,  3 S.C.R. 697, at p. 764, “[t]he state therefore cannot act to hinder or condemn a political view without to some extent harming the openness of Canadian democracy and its associated tenet of equality for all.” [para. 12] …
… Permitting an effective voice for unpopular and minority views — views political parties may not embrace — is essential to deliberative democracy. … Free speech in the public square may not be curtailed merely because one might find the message unappetizing or the messenger distasteful … [para. 14]
… The ability to engage in effective speech in the public square means nothing if it does not include the ability to attempt to persuade one’s fellow citizens through debate and discussion. This is the kernel from which reasoned political discourse emerges. [para. 16] … Members of the public — as viewers, listeners and readers — have a right to information on public governance, absent which they cannot cast an informed vote; … Thus the Charter protects listeners as well as speakers; [para. 17]
10. In Switzman v. Elbling and A.G. of Quebec,  SCR 285, Abbott J. suggested at p. 328 that the freedoms of speech and expression were absolute:
“… neither a provincial legislature nor Parliament itself can ‘abrogate this right of discussion and debate.’”
11. How is it that freedom of speech, religion and the inviolability of the person, which are all part of the lifeblood of a free and democratic society, has become limited in the era of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
12. I contend that the limitation by the Charter in Section 1 of absolute rights and freedoms is incompatible with a free and democratic society. A free and democratic society in the Western tradition is known by its absolute freedoms of speech, religion and the inviolability of the person, which are all original freedoms recognized in Canada’s unwritten Constitution. The inviolability of the person includes, without limitation, the right to life, and the freedoms of conscience, thought, belief, opinion and expression. To this list I would add the absolute right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly, for the limitation of these freedoms is not compatible with a free and democratic society.
13. The text of other various provisions of the Charter identifies substantive rights that cannot be limited by the government. Those rights include the right of every citizen to vote, the right of every citizen to enter, remain in and leave Canada, the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, and the right not to be subject to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
14. Some substantive rights are qualified, subject to internal limits in the written text, and are not absolute. Examples include the continuation of elected governments beyond five years in times of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, limitations upon equality and mobility rights by affirmative action laws, search and seizure that is determined by a court to be reasonable, and whether the principles of fundamental justice permit the depravation of an individual’s right to life, liberty and security of the person.
15. The principles of fundamental justice are understood to include the principles at the foundation of natural justice, such as impartiality, fairness, and the opportunity to present one’s case. In the Charter era, those principles include the genuine rule of law (as I define it – see Addendum), equality, and the presumption of innocence.
16. Legislation or executive action that weaken or abolish any of the principles of fundamental justice, in my view, cannot be saved or justified in any circumstances by s. 1 of the Charter, and must be declared to be no force and effect, contrary to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. [See Appendix]
17. My views diverge from decades of established jurisprudence that has used the text of section 1 of the Charter as a “one size fits all” test to save or justify legislation or executive action that limits the rights and freedoms of people. The Supreme Court has decided that there are no absolute Charter rights and freedoms, even though the text of the Charter identifies which specific rights and freedoms are guaranteed.
18. To determine whether any particular right or freedom may be subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, the Court since 1986 has applied what is known today as the Oakes test. That test was created in the context of a criminal case where the defense successfully argued that putting the onus of proof upon a defendant on trial for a narcotics criminal allegation to prove innocence violated the defendant’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
19. To establish that a limit to a constitutional right or freedom is justified, a court must be satisfied that the limit is “reasonable” and “demonstrably justified” in a “free and democratic society.” Is the objective of the limitation of sufficient importance to override a constitutional right or freedom? Is the objective related to concerns that are pressing and substantial to warrant importance? If yes, then are the chosen means proportional, in that the measures to limit constitutional rights and freedoms are both reasonable and demonstrably justified?Proportionality depends on the circumstances, and requires a balancing test between the interests of society and the interests of individuals and groups. The measures taken to limit constitutional rights and freedoms must be carefully designed, and not be arbitrary, unfair, or based on irrational considerations, and be rationally connected to the government’s objective to limit rights and freedoms. The measures taken must impair as little as possible the right or freedom at stake. Above all, the measures imposing limits must be proportional. The greater the effects of the measures are, the greater the importance of the objective must be, in order to be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
20. In Oakes, the Court recognized that the objective of combating drug trafficking was a worthy objective, but its measures were not proportional in its effects, for the reverse onus law in s. 8 of the Narcotics Control Act could result in the wrongful conviction of someone who was guilty only of possession, but not of trafficking.
21. What emerges from a careful reading of the Oakes case, is the Court’s awareness of the need to be very careful in its application of section 1 to ensure the preservation of Canada’s free and democratic society. The governing principle is that legislation may not intrude upon rights and freedoms when there is an adverse impact upon life in a free and democratic society that abides by the Rule of law and the Supremacy of God. The goal of the Court was to see that people who may be innocent are not wrongfully convicted. This is consistent with biblical law, and the Rule of Law, that only the guilty are punished.
22. The Oakes test began to be used universally in Charter litigation. The original test became eroded, with the result that the careful nuances and hierarchy of rights envisioned by Chief Justice Dickson has been varied in favor of a diluted simplified version of the original test. Scholars and practitioners, including Christopher Bredt and Brian Bird, have advocated for a rights-specific approach to a section 1 analysis.
23. Today, the Court has abandoned the stringent standard of justification and weakened the evidentiary threshold required to support a section 1 justification. An example of this is found in the Court’s decisions about freedom of expression in public places, for the method or location of the expression may be regulated and limited. The effect of the Court’s resort to definitional balancing is to shift the evidentiary burden from the government to the Charter claimants and is coupled with the weakening of the government’s evidentiary burden at the section 1 stage of analysis.
24. The loss of constitutional rights and freedoms also occurs when the Court reduces the value of the Charter right or freedom at stake, depending on the context of the alleged breach. One needs only to remember the examples of the truckers protest in Ottawa and the enactment of bubble zone laws to ban disagreement or disapproval with government objectives to understand the severely diminished value of the right to assemble and to express peaceful political protest. When the federal Liberal government used its executive power to unilaterally activate the Emergencies Act, without meeting the pre-conditions stipulated in that legislation, to crush a perceived political threat to its power. This act violated the Rule of Law and demonstrates that the guarantee of rights and freedoms in the Constitution is worthless in a society that is no longer free or democratic.
25. A new element has been introduced into the section 1 test: deference to the government’s reasonable apprehension of harm test, which presumably extends to any political threat to the ruling political party.
26. In 2023, the government of Canada passed a new censorship law, the Online Streaming Act that limits freedom of speech and expression on the internet, in social media and in broadcasting. This legislation is incompatible with a free and democratic society. The Canadian Radio and Television Commission has been vested with the authority to prevent the dissemination of content that may be truthful but categorized as “disinformation.” The CRTC must ensure that the information that is allowed be accessed by the people of Canada “reflects” Canadian “attitudes, opinions, ideas, and values.” Who decides what these attitudes, opinions, ideas and values are? The government in power, of course!
27. Now the programming available to the people of Canada must “serve the needs and interests” of “racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages — and reflect their circumstances and aspirations, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of Indigenous peoples and languages within that society.” The result is that Canadians no longer have a free and open internet, and that Canadian content really means a propaganda platform to advocate for the political agendas of special interest groups such as LGBTQ activists.
28.The “nanny” state wants to control the thoughts, views, opinions and attitudes of Canadians who deserve to have access to all information so that they can have access to the entire marketplace of ideas in order to be able to discern the truth. Unfortunately, the task of the government appointed panel of 9 commissioners on the CRTC is to decide what information must be purged and blocked from public access. In this way, the CRTC can shape public opinion and eliminate opposing viewpoints that do not serve the interests of the ruling political party.
29. In its decision of 2022-68 the CRTC banned Russia Today (RT). In doing so, the CRTC stated:
“… non-Canadian services do not have a right to be distributed in Canada … the Commission can de-authorize services where it is of the view that the distribution of a service … is no longer consistent with the policy objectives and, therefore, no longer serves the public interest.
In the case of Canadian television services, section 5 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987 provides that:
5 (1) A licensee shall not broadcast …
(b) any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability; …
(d) any false or misleading news.
… In addition to concerns about the programming targeting Ukrainians, the record of this proceeding also indicated that the programming on RT has also historically targeted the LGBTQ2+ communities. … [and] clearly constitute abusive comment in that they tended to or were likely to expose gay men to hatred or contempt on the basis of their sexual orientation. … [and] negatively impact the public perception of Ukrainians, the Commission considers that that too would constitute abusive comment.”
30. It is only a matter of time before Fox News gets cancelled from Canadian broadcasting. Canadians were unaware that the child killer at the Nashville Covenant Christian School was transgender until this information was broadcast by Fox News on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Canadian media withheld this information because this news might tend to or is likely to expose the transgender community to hatred or contempt on the basis sexual orientation.
31. A censorship decision by the CRTC is an administrative action that is subject to judicial review governed by administrative law principles. In Canada v. Vavilov,  4 SCR 653, the merits of an administrative tribunal’s decision will not be overruled if it is reasonable. At para. 10, the Court stated: “The analysis begins with a presumption that reasonableness is the applicable standard in all cases.” At para. 15, the Court added:
“… the court conducting a reasonableness review must focus on the decision the administrative decision maker actually made, including the justification offered for it, and not on the conclusion the court itself would have reached in the administrative decision maker’s place.”
32. There are only two exceptions to a presumptive reasonableness review. At para. 10, the Court stated: “Reviewing courts should derogate from this presumption only where required by a clear indication of legislative intent or by the rule of law.”
33. What’s wrong with knowing all the facts? Would the minds of Canadians be poisoned by knowing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Has Canada become a nation of snowflakes? Can the people of Canada handle the truth?
34. In the 1950’s, legislation was passed to protect Canadians from the evil ideas of communists. The Supreme Court ruled that this law was wrong. In Switzman v. Elbling,  SCR 285 (SCC), Rand, J. stated:
“Apart from sedition, obscene writings and criminal libels, the public law leaves the literary, discursive and polemic use of language, in the broadest sense, free. The object of the legislation here … is admittedly to prevent the propagation of communism … The aim of the statute is … to prevent what is considered a poisoning of men’s minds, to shield the individual from exposure to dangerous ideas, to protect him, in short, from his own thinking propensities.
… But public opinion, in order to meet such a responsibility, demands the condition of a virtually unobstructed access to and diffusion of ideas. Parliamentary government postulates a capacity in men, acting freely and under self-restraints, to govern themselves; and that advance is best served in the degree achieved of individual liberation from subjective as well as objective shackles.
… Liberty in this is little less vital to man’s mind and spirit than breathing is to his physical existence.”
35. So long as section 1 is wrongly interpreted to limit constitutional original freedoms, like freedom of speech and expression, Canada can never be a free and democratic society.
36.The universal use of a “reasonable” or “reasonable limit” test to curtail original guaranteed constitutional freedoms is dangerous, for it has the effect of eliminating truth and enables social engineering. The BC human rights decision of Oger v. Whatcott (No. 7) 2019 BCHRT 58 is a prime example of how political speech, which is supposed to be the single most important freedom in democracy, is no longer protected in Canada.
37. Oger was a candidate in a provincial general election and was the target in a Flyer distributed door to door by Whatcott. He asserted that Oger was unfit to hold public office because Oger was dishonest for self-identifying as a woman. Whatcott exposed the truth that Oger was born a biological male and that it was impossible for Oger’s DNA to change from male to female. Whatcott contended it was a lie for Oger to pretend to be a mature female of the human race. Whatcott quoted from the Bible as authority to justify his religious and moral belief that they were only two genders, male and female. Whatcott argued that his message was truthful and the message in his Flyer was constitutionally protected.
38. Oger complained that Whatcott’s political and religious expression offended both s. 7(1) of the BC Human Rights Code that forbids any publication that “indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate” and in s. 7(2), a publication that “is likely to expose a person or a group or a class of persons to hatred or contempt.”
38. The Tribunal engaged in a balance and proportionality analysis and determined that the objectives of the human rights legislation justified limitations upon Whatcott’s freedoms of political expression and religion. The Tribunal relied upon the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Comm.) v. Whatcott,  1 SCR 467, which utilized the Oakes test. The Tribunal ruled that it must apply only an objective test, the perspective of an imaginary reasonable person, as envisioned by the Tribunal, to decide if Whatcott violated s. 7(1)(a) or (b) of the Code or both. [para. 25]
39. The Tribunal ruled that freedom of expression is not absolute, for this freedom may be limited if the values expressed in the ideas are judged to detract from values held by a reasonable person’s vision of a free and democratic society. [para. 107] In other words, the reasonable person envisioned by the Tribunal will accept that some expression has greater equal than other expression. In other words, politically correct woke speech is encouraged and valued; truthful speech that is unpopular and offensive is not valued and suppressed.
40. The Tribunal refused to accept that Whatcott’s message in his Flyer was constitutionally protected political speech. It ruled that Whatcott’s Flyer undermined democracy and was unlawfully discriminatory, for it challenged the legislated imposed human right of transgender ideology:
“This framework of deceiver/pretender is at the heart of the ideas that Mr. Whatcott puts forth in the Flyer. By calling Ms. Oger’s identity a “falsehood” and an “impossibility”, she is cast as deceptive and therefore unworthy of public office …
The Flyer … seeks to exclude a group of already marginalized persons from political life. In Mr. Whatcott’s own words, he sought to disinvest Ms. Oger “of all political power” because she is a transgender woman. This speech does not enrich Canada’s democracy — it undermines it.
[See para. 105-127]
41.Whatcott’s attempt to impugn a political candidate’s moral integrity and fitness to hold public interest office and to persuade voters to vote for other candidates in other political parties was determined by the Tribunal not to be a “legitimate public interest.” His conduct demonstrated an intention to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. Accordingly, the Flyer violated s. 7(1)(a) of the Code. [para. 135-136]
42. It did not matter that Whatcott spoke the truth. There is no defense of truth in defending an allegation of hate speech in human rights proceedings. Evidence of truth is inadmissible and not relevant in human rights cases:
“… Truthful statements can be … presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech.” [para. 149]
43. The Tribunal concluded that Whatcott’s expression was not political speech but hate speech, prohibited by the Code:
“A reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the Flyer as likely to expose Ms. Oger and transgender people to detestation and vilification based on their gender identity. This is a violation of s. 7(1)(b) of the Code.” [para. 176]
44. Do you consider yourself to be a reasonable person? I invite you to read two examples from Whatcott’s Flyer that were identified by the Tribunal as likely to expose Oger and transgender people to hatred and contempt.
|Ronan Oger (picture left) is a biological male who has renamed himself “Morgane Oger” after he embraced a transvestite lifestyle. Ronan is running for the NDP in the Vancouver-False Creek riding and B.C.’s media and the NDP are promoting a false narrative that Ronan is a woman born into a male body … The truth is there are only two genders, male and female and they are God given and unchangeable. Ronan may have government ID that refers to him by the French female name ‘Morgane’ and the media, NDP and everyone in the riding might try to pretend Morgan is a woman. But the truth is Ronan’s DNA will always be male, he will never have a uterus, and no amount of cosmetic surgery, fake hormones, or media propaganda is going to be able to change these facts.“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them”. Genesis 1:27Because gender is God given and immutable, “transgenderism” is an impossibility. A male cannot “transition” into a female, nor can a female “transition” into a male. One can only cross dress and disfigure themselves with surgery and hormones to look like the gender they are not. This practice is harmful and displeasing to God … [para. 155]|
|In addition to the physical and social consequences of adopting a false sexual and gender identity, there are spiritual consequences too. Our God is a God of truth. Those who promote falsehoods like the NDP and B.C.’s major media and say it is ok to indulge in homosexuality or embrace a transvestite lifestyle do so to their eternal peril. Liars and the sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, nor will cowards. The truth is many B.C. residents know that promoting homosexuality and transvestitism is wrong, but are too cowardly or morally corrupt to speak up and defend what is true:“As for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death”. Revelation 2:8 [para. 162]|
45. If you believe in the Bible, and are a devout Christian, you will believe that Whatcott’s thoughts are not hateful at all, but acknowledges the supremacy of God and obeys the moral authority of the Bible. His political message is an application of his sincere religious beliefs. As a reasonable person will find that Whatcott’s message was not hateful but truthful, lawful and constitutionally protected.
46. If you reject the supremacy of God, and the moral authority of the Bible, you will detest and vilify Whatcott for offending your view of reality. You will believe that gender fluidity is real and must be respected in a society that promotes and caters to self-identification, self-delusion, hedonism, immorality and narcissism. You will view yourself as reasonable, tolerant and accepting, and will oppose offensive expression that opposes inclusion, equity and diversity. As a reasonable person, you will find Whatcott’s expression to be hateful and discriminatory.
47. These extreme opposite views of what is objectively reasonable, illustrate why the section 1 Oakes test, when diluted into a simplified objective test of reasonableness, in reality imposes the personal views of the judges. The reasonable person does not exist and is just a legal fiction. This fiction allows rights and freedoms to be limited as the judges see fit. This defeats the intention of the authors of the Charter of Rights and Freedom, who wanted to guarantee certain absolute fundamental rights and freedoms that needed to sustain a free and democratic society.
48. The Oger case marks the death of political free speech and indirectly labels the Bible as hate literature. Anyone who quotes from the Bible, and tries to make Biblical morality relevant to contemporary political and cultural issues in modern day society, risks being prosecuted, thanks to the decision in Oger.
49. Resort to the latest reasonableness version of the Oakes test to limit original guaranteed rights and freedoms was never the intent of those Provincial Premiers who signed on to the final version of the Charter, according to the last living signatory to that document, Brian Peckford:
“The intent of section 1 was to be operable in a war, insurrection, or a threat to the very existence of the state.” The courts have mangled the concepts of demonstrably justified and free and democratic society, and have saved unconstitutional legislation and executive orders by just emphasizing a reasonable test. “Reasonable” has come to mean whatever the Supreme Court thinks is “reasonable.” This is wrong. Values and morality just become tradeable goods in a dark and unprincipled blob of jurisprudence.”
50. It is time to reclaim the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to restore it to its original vision, for the Constitution of Canada is all that guards this nation from its slide into tyranny. The judiciary must cast aside their assumptions, political bias and personal values and properly defend the Constitution of Canada with courage, by upholding the Supremacy of God, the authentic Rule of Law, and enforce the guarantee of all rights and freedoms, some of which are original, inalienable and absolute, found in in both the written and unwritten Constitution of Canada.
I define the “Rule of Law” as life in a society governed by inherently just moral laws sourced from the Law given by God, where the people are submissive and obedient to the Supremacy of God. Life under the “Rule of Law” means to live in a free and democratic society that honors God’s Commandments, abiding by absolute standards of right and wrong, in a society characterized by willful obedience to truth, justice and righteousness. Constitutional limits are placed on the power of government, to permanently guarantee and protect the freedoms of conscience, religion, and morality from infringement. The authentic Rule of Law ensures equality, for no one individual or faction is above the law. All human beings, at all stages of life, from conception to natural death, have equal absolute inalienable rights to life, liberty and security of the person. The powers of the government are limited. All branches of government, whether executive, legislative, or judicial, are under the law, and accountable to moral and constitutional scrutiny to ensure conformity with the authentic Rule of Law. Justice, truth, freedom and democracy are the hallmarks of the Rule of Law.
Constitution Act, 1982
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
52 (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
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.
2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Charles Lugosi, Victoria, BC May 27, 2023