Everyone rambles on about constitutions and their constitutional rights but no one seems to remember one major item that is in every constitution I have read including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms governing CANADA. There is this little small section where it states:
Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
So what does that mean to us? It means that the constitution recognizes that there are other rights not mentioned with in it’s boundaries. So what are these rights? Well for one, before there was a nation formed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms called CANADA there was a group of people calling themselves “government” and claiming to rule the people. One of these persons was called John Diefenbaker.
Now John was a member of the now defunct political party that called itself the Progressive Conservative Party. An oxymoron in more than name. He studied law at the University of Saskatchewan and was born in Ontario. All really irrelevant points. What he did do that is relevant is that he oversaw the writing of a Bill in Canada called the Bill of Rights.
Now typically when we hear that term we tend to think of the american Bill of Rights and forget that Canada also has such a document. What is interesting about this document that makes it different from the constitution is that It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, …
Now that statement is most profound indeed. It acknowledges that the rights by which it continues to recognize are NOT granted by the government but are fundamental freedoms that can’t be interfered with by another man. These rights have existed and will continue to exist and the Charter did NOT replace them. And one of the first rights is the (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
Read that last part again if you would … enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law. That means that every time a cop or someone else stops you and interferes with your right to enjoy your property they’re violating your fundamental freedoms. Even if it’s just a quick traffic stop and issuance of a ticket. It’s against the law for them to do that according to Canada. So why do we let them continue to do this?
Well I for one don’t let them do this. I stand and I defend mine, and your, rights in the courts where they can be won. I stand and I argue that the “crown” does NOT have the right to take our property on a whim. And I am about to embark on another endeavor where the “crown” will have to explain when and how due process of law became a cop on the side of the road acting as judge, jury and executioner for a friend. If you believe that roadside confiscation of property, in this case a car, without due process is wrong then share this article and comment below. I for one do NOT accept that random regulations without injury grants anyone the right to confiscate property and cause injury in order to demand compliance. This is NOT 1930 and this is NOT Germany or Italy. As such I demand that this activity be stopped and that the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people be respected.
Peace and Prosperity,
Rob
