Nothing gets the socialists and moralists more inflamed with bursting national pride than to point out how ?nice Canada is? and ?how wonderful Canadians are?. While the self-proclaimed superiority of Canadians is more than mildly obnoxious, it is the lack of substance to back up such claims that really grates. A document chattering about ?rights? is one clear example of misplaced communal pride. Considering that no-one in the ?kind? Dominion has read the document it might as well be Das Kapital that is the central bible of Canadian ?superiority?. How can you support a document you have never read and have no idea about?



So what is a ?rights charter?? They are meant to update Constitutions which do not mention the ?rights? of individuals. It sounds fine but it is a Marxist-socialist canard. First off such a charter has nothing much to do with ?rights?. It is written for lawyers, politicians and social engineers. This is clear by its inability to say anything concrete, its internal contradictions and its duplication of existing law. It is not new, necessary or clear. Such a document becomes a useful bible for legal minds, lobby groups, axe-grinders, and twisty politicians. It is a charter of ?Politically Correct Code?, suitable for massive misinterpretation.

Few documents are as unclear, nonsensical or unnecessary as this declaration of existing law. And that is the problem. Contrary to media hyperbole ?Charter of Rights? are not some super-duper invention, nor do they fill up yawning holes in existing laws. There is nothing in a charter of so-called rights which is not [or was not], already defended by legal statue and precedents. Rights ?charters? are documents that serve no civil purpose. They are political and social engineering tools and unneeded ones at that, which take existing laws and give more power to the judiciary.

More judicial power, brokered by unelected and politically appointed judges, which sit for life, is not a positive development. It entrenches unaccountable decision-making; allows politicians to ignore Parliament and appeal to judges under ?rights issues? to push forward social engineering programs; and it launches an entire industry of lawyers all fresh out of law school eager to produce more paper, statutes and cases expanding government and ergo legal power.

Consider section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights. It guarantees that ?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.?

Not one of these four above-mentioned freedoms is outside of past or current law. These freedoms are already firmly established in Case Law and in legal statutes with a deep history of rulings supporting such ideals. The Charter is redundant on those issues.

Consider then section 15 of the Charter:: ?Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the rights to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.?

Again all laws in all jurisdictions pre-Charter covered those issues without any exception. It might feel good to put such ideas inside a federal and Constitutional document but then abuses arise. For example Section 15 says that everyone is equal before the law. Sure a good idea. But section 35 says that Native Indians are more equal and have special status. How does that fit in with the ?everyone is equal? theory? It doesn't. Contradictions in a vague document are bound to occur ? and they do with regularity inside any rights document.

How about this? Property rights and private ownership are not part of the Charter ? except for cases relating to Native Indians [of course]. How is that equal and just? Indians have rights to land and property protection but not others? How can everyone be equal under the law when the basis of civilization ? property rights ? is not protected? Does this mean that Government can use the Charter to ?further communal rights? and steal my property for the public good? Where does my protection against Government come in as a ?right??

Further all Charter ?rights? must be ?multi-cultural? in context [section 27]. Specifically it says that, ?This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.? This is legal gobbly-gook. Prior to the 1960s Canada was mostly Franco-British. Is the past 40 years of vapid and hasty multi-culturalism exclusionary to 400 years of previous history? If so why? Since when do ?rights? charter's take on social engineering as one of their prime purposes?

In a good book on the ?rights? game, writers Morton and Knopff [The Charter Revolution & the Court Party] present data and evidence of judicial activism based on the Charter document. Starting with Trudeau, judicial activism has resulted in constitutional laws being over-turned, non-state institutions attacked and vilified; and once fringe groups made mainstream. There is no doubt that the main winners of the rights game are lawyers, politicians and lobby interests.

Gay ?rights?, minority ?rights?, women's rights and increasingly [as with the Arar case] Muslim and Arab ?rights? make a mockery of the Charter's claim to ?equality? and sameness. The Charter chops up society into little groups ? each with a grievance; a lobby company; high paid lawyers and lots of sorrowful tales of woe and hard times. They rush to court, using ?rights? as some vague term to justify any and all actions.

Decisions in their favor impact politics, society and non-state actors. The Charter is not some dumpy PhD thesis collecting dust in some over paid lumpy professors drawer. It is a living breathing part of the Constitution ? used in all manners, for all reasons ? many of them dubious at best.

That the Charter, or any declaration of rights which is so poorly worded is unnecessary in a mature society is just saying the obvious. The Charter splits up society, leads to national dis-unity and the maintenance of the multi-cult model of separateness. The Charter's main purpose is to not only enhance legal power of unelected officials but to ensure that the once Franco-British majoritarian culture is destroyed.

It is for that reason that the media and their political friends so love it. For cultural Marxists a ?rights? document is a necessary weapon in their war on civilization and their lust to control society.