On Thursday, Supreme Court Chief Justice McLachlin conferred property rights to a B.C. Indian band based on hearsay testimony of the generational variety, and a decidedly activist interpretation of the intent of centuries-old treaties. Yet as recently as 1996 in the R. v. Edwards decision, this same judge looked at the invisible print between the straight forward lines in Sec. 8 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure) and summarily declared , "It (The Charter) protects people not places". With one stroke of her pen she dashed any hopes that Trudeau's wonderful Charter protected the property rights of ordinary Canadians.
So I have a question. If I wanted to look up the Supreme Court of Canada in a dictionary, would I find it next to inconsistency, or hypocrisy?
I wouldn't worry too much. Back in '06 PMH said that he'd get us property rights.
ReplyDeleteIt would be easy to be sour at the Indians, but they've got all the stuff that yellow white folks don't have: guts, perseverance, commitment. They've got the government dancing to their drums for one reason: all branches - judicial, legislative, executive - know damned well that there would be unpleasant consequences if they didn't listen up. TYhings will continue to deteriorate until such time that the rest of this country figure out this basic lesson. I'm not holding my breath.
ReplyDeleteYup. There's a reason Harper hasn't said boo about property rights all these years. 95% of the population would say "Huh?" Don't I already own my toys? (boat, RV, motorcycle, convertible car...)
DeleteAnd the answer to that is, "not until you get them paid off..." :)
Delete