October 22nd, 2020

Why do authorities hesitate to do the right thing?


By Letter to the Editor on February 21, 2020.

Balancing the rights of the individual with that of the group, and the rights of a minority with that of the country, has exerted the minds of professionals and lay people for centuries. Historically, the country comes first regarding national interests.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “2. 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.”

Rights and freedoms are conditional and have limits. The Charter states that these rights and freedoms must be exercised peacefully within the laws of Canada and its provinces. When a demonstration turns violent, the law is broken, and the police may intervene.

If it is unlawful for demonstrators to injure people or damage property, then it is unlawful, too, hurting Canada’s economy. By blocking roads and railway lines, the right of the majority to move freely (Charter, section 6) is violated, and various sectors of the economy will suffer severe losses.

The government and legislatures have the right to uphold the law by removing the blockades and blockaders. Get the ringleaders. When people break the law, they lose some of their rights and freedoms.

Demonstrators must learn and accept that there is a vast difference between peaceful and damaging demonstrations. One cannot fight for one’s own rights by trampling on the rights of others.

I can’t understand why the authorities hesitate to do the right thing by ending these unlawful disruptions of Canada’s transport and the economies dependant on it.

Is it to win a seat on the Security Council? How can one presume to help keep the world in order if one can’t control a small disruptive section in one’s own country?

Jacob Van Zyl

Lethbridge

Share this story:

12
16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DougCameron

Well said Jacob and welcome to the “Upside Down World”. Somehow the rights of the law abiding citizens are trampled upon by the lawless citizens. It’s like the drug addicts that roam the city here in Lethbridge doing illegal drugs that somehow seem to have more rights than the people they rob and assault.

The right to protest peacefully and express an opinion are fine in my book. What isn’t right, is when you make others suffer because of your personal agenda. It gets far worse when many jump on the bandwagon across the country with the agenda of “Look at me! Look at me!”

This new age of the internet and social media is to blame for much of this B.S.

johnny57

I think Jacob, if Trudeau was to book-in to a clinic for a “physical” the Doctor would soon realize that his patient was the first human male to be born with-out a spine.

phlushie

It is very simple. If politics is involved, there is no criminal act on either the pro or con side. Kind of a tit for tat, if a polition commits a criminal act there are no consequinces, the same for those that commit criminal acts against political decisions. This must be fair??????

IMO

Mr. Van Zyl:

Did you express similar sentiments when United We Roll started up to subsequently cause traffic delays and snarl ups?

Did you express similar sentiments when United We Roll resulted inconvenienced Canadians across the country en route to Ottawa?

Did you know that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the sovereign right of Aboriginal title in Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010? In this ruling, are you aware that the highest court in the nation has established the legitimacy of the thousands and thousands of years of history substantiating the existence of Aboriginal governance models in this country?

Did you know that last year the BC Legislature passed Bill 41? Bill 41 commits the province to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that resource developments require the “free, prior and informed consent” of affected Indigenous peoples.

In summary, then:

1. In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada established that Aboriginal right to title exists.
2. In 2019, the BC Legislature passed Bill C-41 to implement UNDRIP.
3. UNDRIP specifically states states that resource developments require the “free, prior and informed consent” of affected Indigenous peoples.
4. CONSENT is the operative word here.

Can it not be correctly stated, then, that both the BC Supreme Court and subsequently the RCMP are in direct contravention of both the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling and Bill C-41?

Indeed, Mr. Van Zyl, there should be repercussions when the law is broken.

Therefore, how do you respond when the government of British Columbia utilises the RCMP to disregard a ruling established by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 and then orders the RCMP to subsequently break a law just recently approved by the BC Legislature?

Indeed, Mr. Van Zyl, “the government and legislatures have the right to uphold the law.”

The question remains, whose government and whose law?

zulu1

And no doubt you are quite content with total economic chaos, thousands out of work , businesses going bankrupt , and Canada’s reputation as a reliable trade partner in shreds Get real !

biff

imo – hear! hear! another splendid entry.
jvz, i wonder if you would stand aside were, say, a pipeline to be rammed through your church, or your home or church or home of one you supported. would you stand by as a peaceful onlooker, exercising your right to effectively do nothing as it all tumbled down?
moreover, the protest is peaceful…just blocking some transport here and there.
what is not peaceful is how big corp gets their way, using the guise of lawfulness. laws are simply ink on paper, not necessarily good and just tenets to live by. many have had enough of the trampling and degradation of the land, water, air and species. this approach does not live in a vacuum – it affects everything.
as for the argument that a majority of band councils have approved etc., keep in mind these councils are far more corrupt than are the hereditary chiefs, and only exist due the imposed indian act of forever ago (thanks, imo). consequently, we can say that it is a white man’s imposed law that has led to a so-called majority of bands supporting. keep in mind band councils are roughly as corrupt as are our govts – pretty ugly.
for the religious folk: sit back, let this play out peacefully, and maybe pray for your planet. it is not looking so well of late.