Sunset Sketches of a Little Country

Thursday, December 29, 2005

1982 Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

What a lovely time of year - snow covered trees and lawns even in the busiest city. All the truck and trouble covered for a moment by a shimmering white cloak.

My dear friend Edward provided me with a second reference book to help me fill the gaps between my departure in 1944 and the present.

He explained that the existing British legislation outlining the authorities and limitations of Canadian governments was altered in 1982 and all the old British North America Acts were renamed Constitution Acts of the original year.

Splendid, I thought. Canada will move forward to take its proper place in the world and have a new set of operating rules - rules designed for the 20th Century.

Two things struck me as I reviewed this documentation - the new importance of the Supreme Court and the fact that none of the pre-1867 British Acts were changed at all.

It all starts with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that states as its introductory premise "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" and then flows on to outline some limits on the (thereby) conditional freedoms and rights it thereafter describes.

I am brought to this observation by the recent Judgments of the Supreme Court on Indecency, (R. v. Labaye,2005 SCC 80 and R. v. Kouri, 2005 SCC 81 ).

This split-decision's reasons defy everything but gravity!

The 'winning side's' discussions seem to be taking place in a blissful paradise where the residents are assumed to deem tolerance (of what these same residents surely find distasteful, nay disgusting and degenerate) as the greatest of virtues.

After reading the Court's artistically devised sophistry, my attention was returned to the Charter's introductory phrase and my thoughts crystallized on one concept - the libertine Court is taking the Charter out of context.

The Canadian people are getting doctored-truths and back-drafted judgments crafted to justify the predispositions and biases of the Court's members while they protest (too much) that their wordy machinations are intended to produce the opposite result.

It seems some one of the Justices had this "reasoning" prepared and ready for a HomoSexualist 'Bathhouse' case to be brought and pulled it out for use on this convenient HeteroSex situation.
Why else in Labaye (at 46 ) would they refer to "targeted groups" (or have fornicators and adulterers also been "read in" as analogous groups?)

This is preposterous! How can this Court so deftly ignore the foundational principle of the document that empowered their emboldenment?

How can this be? Does no one read the Judgments? the Constitution?

Time for a walk with my dear little dogs.

Another day.