Supreme Court declines to hear Covid vaccine travel mandate cases | Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
OTTAWA, ON: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is disappointed to announce that the Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear the appeals in two cases that challenged the federal Covid vaccine travel mandate. The cases are Peckford et al. v....
To recap:
TL;DR - Canadian government can pass any executive order unconstitutional law unchallenged as long as it's rescinded by the time it grinds its way to court.
They're actually going to disembowel the Emergencies Act ruling, aren't they. Fuck that Wagner faggot.
Edit: I also want to say that the "surprise" travel mandate lift in June 2022 is awfully suspicious given the timing of the rulings on those cases just a couple months later. What do you want to bet that there was some warning or collusion on behalf of the judiciary to the executive?
Last living signer huh? That'll show him.
Maybe he should have put something about guns in that Charter...
https://x.com/MaximeBernier/status/1829187365660749991
I’m extremely disappointed by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to dismiss our appeal in the case against the tyrannical Liberal travel ban for the unvaccinated.
We obviously cannot trust the courts anymore in this country to uphold our constitutional rights and freedoms. Too many of them have been hijacked by far-left woke activists masquerading as judges.
There is only one solution: inform and educate, change the climate of opinion, to make sure more Canadians are awakened, and no future government dares to implement such awful discriminatory policies again.
This is what the PPC has been doing and will continue to do.
There is another option...
Those delusional retards still think they can vote their way out
Just out of interest, what's the rationale? "no standing?"
It's similar, but more so "mootness"
Trudeau's handpicked judges ruled that they don’t have to actually adjudicate the legality and constitutionality of past laws to "save resources" if the law at present is temporarily suspended.
Oh, good! "Indigenous" have rights now, so we can just Mootness all their legal complaints! Mass graves? They're already dead, it's moot! Abductions? Those were in the past, it's moot! The rapes? Well, are they actively raping you this second? No? Moot!
This is why the voluntary cessation of the ACT in question by the government does not render a case mood in the united states. Otherwise they would just turn off the law anytime they were in danger of losing a court battle and then turn it on again when the coast was clear.
Explain like I'm five.
Ok now explain now I'm not five.
No no no I said now I'm not five.
Oh, you're sure?
Can you explain like the Judge isn't a 5 year old?
Oh.
Even more bullshit because they're still hearing a much smaller case about a woman who wasn't allowed to travel to 1 province to visit a sick relative.
Yet this case that impacted millions of Canadians, brought on by a former cabinet minister & current leader of a political party AND a former Premier whose the last living person to sign the charter saying the charter was violated...nah we cool, fam.
Canadians are gay faggots cuck cock suckers pussies bitches.
We imprisoned grandmothers in solitary confinement for walking into the capitol after police opened the doors
Yup, seems that it might have been a mistake taking the Queen out of the picture.
But it worked great for the US and so why not?
Charter of Rights & Freedoms**
** Many restrictions apply
Know what section 1 of the charter is, essentially it's 1st amendment?
That the rights about to be listed can if fact be violated if someone really feels like it should.
The Charter, unironically, needs to be abolished. Human rights are a terrible thing and have caused significant damage to our society.
Let's not throw the baby with the bath water. The idea of human rights allow for most of the freedoms we take for granted.
The mistake was to proclaim rights without mentioning their respective responsibilities. I don't have the right of free speech: I have the right and the duty to tell the truth.
The Western liberal language of "human rights" has been hijacked by all of the forces in the world that don't believe in those rights and refuse to uphold them, but use them instead as a weapon against the only peoples who have ever cared about them.
The UN, comprised of corrupt, oppressive third-world governments, shrieks about "human rights" whenever any Western country says they're going to do something about human trafficking and illegal migration, so they can continue to use the prospect of emigration to the West as a means of diffusing political doscontent at home. George Soros and the WEF will crackle about "human rights" whenever you propose depriving them of their legions of cheap slave labor. The Israelis and the Arabs will both unironically use "human rights" as an excuse for continuing to massacre each other. The Climate Change Cult will cite "human rights" as justification for insisting we de-industrialize our economies and destroy our own standard of living. And Justin Trudeau will preach about the "human right" to not be exposed to a virus, something utterly impossible to protect people from in the first place, as a reason to deprive 20% of his own populace of their human rights.
That language at this point is so utterly pozzed that I'm not sure it's salvageable.
The problem is so many people have no sense of morals
You have the right lie, too. Morality is not in the purview of the the legislature, it is society's role to police morality.
Doesn't society do that through laws?
Nope. Society can't make laws.
That word right there, is curiously absent in most modern rhetoric. "Duty". As well as "truth". Scary words to the regressives trying to corrupt what's left of Western nations and Western culture at large.
The main reasons it needs to be scrapped is that it was written or heavily edited by one side of the political spectrum, ''jurisprudenced'' by pozzed or ''usefully-neutral'' judges, and only one side of the political spectrum is forced to follow the charter.
Bruce Pardy, Law Prof @ Queens U has spoken about the fact that the Courts have adopted a pozzed "living tree doctrine" interpretation from Day 1 from its enactment in the 80s.
He reviewed at some point one of the first cases to use the Charter: female retired cops complained they didn't get full RCMP pensions like the men did because the vast majority of the women only worked part time. The Courts awarded them full benefit payouts because: Women.
It was essentially the US Women's Soccer Team case about 35 years early.