Home > Culture, Politics > Convenient Rights

Convenient Rights

December 11th, 2020 Leave a comment Go to comments

link:  Toronto restaurant owner arrested for breaking COVID-19 restrictions – OHS Canada MagazineOHS Canada Magazine

The fundamental foundation of democratic, “western” nations is the principle of “freedom” for their citizens.  In fact, apart from the economic benefits associated with “freedom” the presumed liberty to live in an open and non-restrictive society is attractive in its own right.  Were this not true, there would not be restrictions against people trying to get into these desirable societies and instead, we’d see massive movement to less open nations.

In the United States, a formal legal document which should supersede all other subsequent political edicts is known as the US Bill Of Rights which is an addendum to the US Constitution.  This hallowed document enshrines the rights and privileges of its citizens and therefore all laws created by legislators must adhere to their sacrosanct tenets.  More importantly, these rights make clear the limitations that governments have on the people.

Not to be outdone, Canada has a similar document, The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms enshrined to much fanfare ( and controversy) in 1982.   The oldest of such declarations is probably the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of The Citizen, penned in 1789.  These documents essentially address similar issues for their citizens: specifically the restrictions of government upon people’s daily lives.

It’s probably no coincidence that an entire industry has blossomed in these nations like mold in a communal shower, to address and translate the meaning of these documents, namely lawyers.

When nations use these declarations as their guide, citizens should be confident that no subsequent edicts can be imposed that changes or suspends those guarantees without proper process.  These are the fonts from which all laws governing citizens can be derived.  It’s like the law of gravity; you can’t just suspend it because you feel like going cliff diving. There can be no capriciousness in the execution of laws which contravenes the foundation document.

And yet…the disregard for these rights have never been more egregious than what we see today as governments at all levels impose tyrannical ( not hyperbole) restrictions on their citizens in the absence of a critical national emergency such as for example, war or invasion.  The fact is, most people are about as political as border collies: they are indifferent to the machinations of politicians and lawyers since they have daily lives to lead. But the recent events worldwide have brought to light the importance of having basic inalienable rights.

The expected and supposed guardians of the rights enshrined in the top legal documents of the land are conspicuously absent as the principles are increasingly ignored.  There should be loud and indignant protests from the learned legal community, academics and constitutional scholars on the legality of the measures taken by all governments during this past year of ‘pandemic’ control.

Instead, the challenge has been taken up by a very few brave individuals such as the man in the linked story, who are willing to call out the government for their inappropriate response to an issue which has not been fully statistically proven as harmful.  Debate and discourse on the merits of government action have been suppressed by a compliant media, whose very existence should be to question government policies.  As an example of this, a recent “news” story by one of the largest media outlets in Canada ran a sensationalist headline: It read “BC records deadliest day of pandemic as total cases top 40,000”.  Characterizing “deadly” with infections is disingenuous at least and propaganda at worst.  There are not 40,000 people dying, they only claim 40,000 infections…a statistic which is likely debatable.  Slanted media has always been a nuisance, but now they’ve become a menace to innocent society. At the same time, this same news outlet reports on the tragic personal story of a woman’s father who died at….97.  Ninety seven.

There are hints that pushback is beginning to emerge.  As of an hour ago, the Hudson’s Bay company is suing the Ontario Ford government over the lockdown edict.  Also, hot off the press in the United States, the US Supreme court has just unanimously ruled that citizens can sue their governments for violating individual rights.  Note, unanimously

We may yet see the end of this tyrannical nightmare imposed against people by overreaching governments.  The only downside is that lawyers will win again.


  1. Christopher Erickson
    December 12th, 2020 at 10:35 | #1

    Excellent article in all regards!