COVID Cases: For Some Judges, Government Can Neither Deceive Nor Be Deceived | Epoch Times | John Carpay:
Decembr 27, 2024 - "The years 2022 and 2023 have seen numerous court rulings in which some Canadian judges upheld government violations of our charter freedoms of association, expression, religion, conscience, mobility, peaceful assembly, and bodily autonomy. These outcomes are disturbing, but worse yet was the failure of some judges to require governments to show 'demonstrably' (with persuasive evidence) that their violations of charter rights or freedoms were doing more good than harm.
"The 1986 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in R. v. Oakes requires judges to place the onus on government to show that its freedom-violating law, policy, regulation, or decision is rational, violates the charter right or freedom as little as possible, and actually brings benefits that exceed the costs and harms. When governments claim that their freedom-violating health orders and mandatory vaccination policies are based on science, both the Oakes test and the charter itself require judges to take a hard look at the government’s 'science' claim, to determine its veracity....
"Judges have signed-up for a job that requires listening to competing experts, analyzing their reports, weighing the evidence, [and] arriving at a conclusion.... Judges have no qualms about assessing the scientific strength of clashing claims and competing expert reports when dealing with criminal law, family law, and all kinds of civil claims. Oddly, some judges suddenly lose their willingness to apply the same thinking, reasoning, and analytical faculties when confronted by a government chanting 'science' as a mantra or slogan.... Judges then simply rule in favour of the government, without seriously analyzing the actual evidence that was put before them by both sides.
"For example, in the case of Ontario v. Trinity Bible Chapel, paragraph six of the judge’s ruling says:
Various affidavits were filed on this hearing, including evidence from medical experts. These experts disagree on several points, including the extent to which Covid-19 posed an unprecedented threat to public health, the extent to which the virus can be transmitted outdoors, and the extent to which religious gatherings pose a greater risk of transmission than retail settings. My role is not that of an armchair epidemiologist. I am neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific debates and controversy surrounding Covid-19. The question before me is not whether certain experts are right or wrong. The question is whether it was open to Ontario to act as it did, and whether there was scientific support for the precautionary measures that were taken.
"One can see the contradictions in this statement. While declaring that she is 'neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific debates and controversy surrounding Covid-19,' the judge nonetheless ... effectively resolves the scientific debates and controversy in favour of the government.... If the judge is not equipped to resolve scientific debates and controversy, how can she possibly assess whether the government has any 'scientific support' (let alone enough “scientific support') to justify violating the fundamental charter freedoms of citizens? While upholding the government’s violations of Ontarians’ freedoms, the judge makes no effort to explain why or how the government’s evidence is better or more persuasive than the evidence presented to her by citizens who depend on her to defend their charter rights....
"In other words, what the judge really says is: The government need only show me a little bit of scientific 'support' (not proof and not compelling evidence) and I will then readily approve and endorse the government’s violations of Charter rights and freedoms. I will not hold the government accountable to the full weight of the charter; I will not require the government to justify demonstrably with persuasive evidence that its freedom-violating laws are rational and are actually doing more good than harm. I refuse to weigh the evidence that is put before me by competing experts, even though I do this all the time in other legal disputes....
"Sadly, this is not the only case where the charter’s standard that governments must 'demonstrably justify' any violation of a charter right or freedom was overlooked. The new standard adopted by judges seems to be that the federal and provincial governments can violate our human rights and constitutional freedoms with impunity, provided the government claims that some emergency exists and that there is some unknown quantity of 'scientific support' for charter-violating laws and policies. These same judges are likely to approve new laws to confine us to the '15-minute city' where we live, and uphold the government’s violation of our charter-protected mobility rights. The government would simply need to claim that a 'climate emergency' exists and trot out a vague amount of 'scientific support'....
"As the judge in the Ontario v. Trinity Bible Chapel case said, “I am neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific debates and controversy” … although she does consider herself to be sufficiently equipped to rule in favour of the government violating our charter rights and freedoms.
No comments:
Post a Comment