Action4Canada - March 06, 2022


Hon. Brian Peckford

Topics
Oates case justification
Hosted by
Tanya Gaw
Mentioned
Rocco
Empower Hour Weekly Update March 2nd How Do We Take Our Country Back？

Episode Stats


Length

8 minutes

Words per minute

124.26

Word count

1,014

Sentence count

48


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

In this episode, I discuss the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and why it is the supreme law of Canada and why governments have no right to override it. I also talk about the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in the case of the O'Connor v. Canada case and why the government should be required to justify what they are doing.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Topics generated with Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct.
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.000 I want you to know, and you can go check this for yourself, just click in the Charter Rights and Freedoms and read down through it, section 52 of that charter says the supreme law of Canada is the Constitution.
00:00:16.900 No other law in Canada supersedes this constitutional law. So you are on safe ground, everybody, when they say that when we talk about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we're talking about the supreme law of Canada.
00:00:35.640 The Charter of Rights and Freedoms are in the Constitution. It's called the Constitution Act of 1982. And so it is there in law, in the Constitution, that the Constitution is the supreme law.
00:00:50.780 Therefore, the Charter of Rights, which is in the Constitution, is the supreme law of our nation.
00:00:56.860 As mentioned earlier, there are at least four provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which are extremely important.
00:01:07.200 Section 2, Section 6, Section 7, and Section 15. And 2 has to do with your freedom of expression, your freedom of conscience, your freedom of religion, your freedom of assembly, your freedom of association.
00:01:31.720 That's under Section 2. That's under Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Make no mistake about it. You can go read it for yourself. It is there in the supreme law of this nation.
00:01:44.000 Then we come to Section 6, which is the mobility section, which says you and I, as citizens of Canada, have the right to travel anywhere in Canada and even leave Canada.
00:01:58.040 That's a right enshrined in the supreme law of Canada. It's amazing when you look at what's going on now to think that the government would even attempt to do something to violate these things.
00:02:12.140 And that kind of travel mobility right is something very specific to our Charter, and it's extremely clear.
00:02:26.740 Many other bills of rights is not as clear as it is in ours.
00:02:30.620 And then we go to Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which talks about life, liberty, and security of the person.
00:02:39.220 So if ever you wanted to know that you have a right to freedom, you have a right to your security as a person, in other words, these injections are completely beyond the scope of the Charter and are illegal or unconstitutional.
00:02:59.620 That is Section 7.
00:03:29.600 There are many in the country, and the governments are part of this, and this is something that everybody should really strive to understand.
00:03:39.580 Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that the governments have the right to override what I just said in Section 2, 6, 7, and 15.
00:03:56.220 If they can demonstrably justify taking those actions to override the Constitution, they have to demonstrably justify in law with reasonable limits that is consistent with a free and democratic society.
00:04:17.400 My argument, when I got involved in this, and saw what was going on, I couldn't stay quiet any longer, is that not one government, federal, provincial, or territorial, has demonstrably justified what they are doing.
00:04:38.960 There's not one cost-benefit analysis, there's not one study, there's not one report by any government, which says, here is our argument justifying the measures we're bringing in to fight this so-called pandemic.
00:04:55.440 None, none, none, zero, there isn't any, and therefore, they have not met the test of Section 1 to override Sections 2, 6, 7, and 15.
00:05:09.300 Any reasonable person who knows a language and knows the words justify and demonstrably knows that these governments not only have to justify what they have done, they have to demonstrably, in other words, very, very clearly and very detailed to justify this.
00:05:33.460 Has any government had a select committee of their legislature or of the House of Commons, go study this, bring in experts from all over the world, and hear both sides of the story, and then let that select committee report back, this would be democracy, this would be our parliamentary democracy, if that's what we did, right?
00:05:52.000 Or have had a full hearing in the parliament and brought the experts right into parliament or right into the legislature, you're allowed to do that.
00:06:02.800 You're allowed to do that.
00:06:04.820 And so the governments have not taken the time to honour what is in Section 1 even, which they have the right to override.
00:06:17.600 But obviously, when you read this, you know right away that there's going to have to be some pretty powerful stuff come forward in order to justify what they're doing, to demonstrably justify what they're doing.
00:06:29.720 And by the way, I want to say to anybody who's really thinking about what I've been talking about, and Section 1, and how governments can override it if they can demonstrably justify, if they're really interested legally in this, there was a case in 1986 called the Oates case.
00:06:50.360 Just plug in or Google in the Oates case, and it'll come up.
00:06:54.660 And in that case, the judge, because the case, the person who was bringing the charge invoked the charter, the judge was forced to look at Section 1.
00:07:08.340 And he then elaborated on what he thought Section 1 meant.
00:07:13.420 And guess what, Tanya?
00:07:14.820 It meant what you and I are talking about.
00:07:16.920 So any time a case, and I'm sure Rocco and others who were involved in this will bring up the Oates case, because what I've just talked about demands to be justified.
00:07:28.400 The judge elaborates upon that.
00:07:30.400 He also elaborates upon within the law, because it says, right, by law.
00:07:35.240 It also says in a free and democratic society.
00:07:37.940 And the judge elaborates on all those phrases.
00:07:40.280 And any case now that came before the Supreme Court, they would have to rely on that particular precedent that was set in 86, which very, very much validates what we're saying, that using that Oates case, we can see that none of the governments have demonstrably justified what they're doing.
00:08:03.960 And that Oates case is a really good example of how we can win the argument in the courts.