4 May 20
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 commenced the modern era of British (and Canadian) constitutional law. A foundational Act of Parliament of the new era was the Bill of Rights of 1689. Among the provisions of the Bill of Rights was the declaration that “the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament was illegal.”
It also declared that, among the wrongful policies of the overthrown King James II, was “the execution of laws without the consent of Parliament.”
Today, regal authority is exercised through members of the cabinet and, in particular, the Prime Minister. Just because the Prime Minister, Prince Justin, is an elected member of Parliament, that does not change the fact that Orders-in-Council are acts of regal authority in the British-Canadian political system. It is in no wise clear that Orders-in-Council issued by the cabinet automatically have the “consent of Parliament.” Parliament in Canada consists of the House of Commons as a whole and the Senate.
The entire regime of restrictions by which the economy of Canada was shut down, and people deprived of their jobs, and prevented by order from visiting their own property seems to be in violation of the Bill of Rights, 1689. The consent of Parliament is obtained by legislation, and any legislation that violates the Charter of Rights, such as freedom of peaceful assembly, association, (Section 2(c) and (d)), and the right to move within Canada and gain livelihood (Section 6) requires the invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause. This has not been done.
Therefore, it seems that the entire regime of measures ordered by the Prime Minister and the various Premiers of provinces are illegal, being straightforward violations of civils rights, both ancient and modern.
People who feel oppressed by their governments have a right to be, because they are, and illegally so.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment