Why the Courts Won’t Rule on the Violations of Our Rights | Interview with Leighton Grey, Lawyer
298 Views
3
On Canada’s founding principles…
It's important to understand that Canada fundamentally is intended and is designed to operate as a constitutional democracy. That's the structure of Confederation. That's how our laws are supposed to be made.
On the real pandemic…
The pandemic exists in Canada and in the world primarily by presumption; an ideology that has been broadcast and I think has been carefully designed to spread fear. The real pandemic is not the virus. The virus is real, it's endemic, it's with us. It's a Corona virus which is a type of virus that based upon my understanding of science and the science behind it is a type of virus that has been around as long as mankind. It tends to be very contagious, but not to be lethal.
On the hesitancy of the judicial system…
I've worked in our courts for decades and I've yet to meet a corrupt judge. I think the judges that I've known are good people who want to make sound decisions. And I think they go to the Bench because they feel very strongly that they have something to offer the Canadian public and they go there to be of public service.
It's important for people to understand that Canada is part of an ancient, common-law tradition that comes to us from England. It's very unique to other types of legal systems in that it gives judges, to a limited extent, the ability to not only interpret, but sometimes create law. And that's because judges will tend to follow or show deference for the decisions made by previous judges.
On the future…
COVID-19 is now considered an endemic thing that is with us, it’s the pandemic of fear that's been weaponized.
There are very effective ways to deal with the medical threat of COVID-19. We need only look at countries like Sweden or in Florida, which incidentally has the lowest per capita rate of infection in North America for COVID-19, to know that there are much better, more effective ways to deal with whatever medical or public health crisis COVID-19 may present.
Where the pandemic of fear can be continued, governments can continue to operate in this period of emergency powers where they're not really beholden to the public. And they don't have to worry about creating laws in the normal way of constitutional democracy. And I think that is a main cause for the extent of delay. Having seen Alberta's science, their science is not persuasive. And they realize that it's not very persuasive. But unfortunately, to this point, that's not something that we've been able to get a court to really scrutinize carefully.
On the fight for our civil liberties…
Our argument is that these lockdown restrictions violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a way that requires judges to look at them critically and strike down these laws. They're inconsistent with the Supreme law of the land. That's a big ask. For a judge, they have to consider very carefully because it asks them to step into the legislative executive branch of government. Historically lawyers and judges are reluctant to do that because in a real sense, it's anti-democratic. Judges have been reluctant to step into that arena because it shows a lack of deference for the legislature.
It's important to understand that Canada fundamentally is intended and is designed to operate as a constitutional democracy. That's the structure of Confederation. That's how our laws are supposed to be made.
On the real pandemic…
The pandemic exists in Canada and in the world primarily by presumption; an ideology that has been broadcast and I think has been carefully designed to spread fear. The real pandemic is not the virus. The virus is real, it's endemic, it's with us. It's a Corona virus which is a type of virus that based upon my understanding of science and the science behind it is a type of virus that has been around as long as mankind. It tends to be very contagious, but not to be lethal.
On the hesitancy of the judicial system…
I've worked in our courts for decades and I've yet to meet a corrupt judge. I think the judges that I've known are good people who want to make sound decisions. And I think they go to the Bench because they feel very strongly that they have something to offer the Canadian public and they go there to be of public service.
It's important for people to understand that Canada is part of an ancient, common-law tradition that comes to us from England. It's very unique to other types of legal systems in that it gives judges, to a limited extent, the ability to not only interpret, but sometimes create law. And that's because judges will tend to follow or show deference for the decisions made by previous judges.
On the future…
COVID-19 is now considered an endemic thing that is with us, it’s the pandemic of fear that's been weaponized.
There are very effective ways to deal with the medical threat of COVID-19. We need only look at countries like Sweden or in Florida, which incidentally has the lowest per capita rate of infection in North America for COVID-19, to know that there are much better, more effective ways to deal with whatever medical or public health crisis COVID-19 may present.
Where the pandemic of fear can be continued, governments can continue to operate in this period of emergency powers where they're not really beholden to the public. And they don't have to worry about creating laws in the normal way of constitutional democracy. And I think that is a main cause for the extent of delay. Having seen Alberta's science, their science is not persuasive. And they realize that it's not very persuasive. But unfortunately, to this point, that's not something that we've been able to get a court to really scrutinize carefully.
On the fight for our civil liberties…
Our argument is that these lockdown restrictions violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a way that requires judges to look at them critically and strike down these laws. They're inconsistent with the Supreme law of the land. That's a big ask. For a judge, they have to consider very carefully because it asks them to step into the legislative executive branch of government. Historically lawyers and judges are reluctant to do that because in a real sense, it's anti-democratic. Judges have been reluctant to step into that arena because it shows a lack of deference for the legislature.