What does a civilized society do when democracy no longer exists?
All democracies are supposed to exist with the consent of the people. Rules are drawn up that the people agree to, then the people elect representatives to represent them and this is called representative democracy. The rules that define our “democracy” today are written in The Constitution under the banner of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This Charter was imposed without an individual vote of the people. Surely if people are to live by a set of rules they should have the chance to vote on these rules? Instead we have a situation where this Charter is interpreted by appointed, non-elected judges, or to put it bluntly, ex-lawyers. These ex-lawyers, now judges, are appointed by the Prime Minister of whatever political party is in power. Any thinking person has to ask, “ How can non-elected judges rule the people from a document that was not given acceptance by the people?”
“The trouble with law and government is lawyers” Clarence Darrow
Government and their advisers, lawyers, imposed this Charter upon us. Oh sure, different groups were given input, but at the end of the day the most important part of this process, a referendum by all the people, did not take place. Now we have rule by the judiciary and instead of interpreting the law they are making the law.
Example 1: A judge “reads in” words not in the Constitution. The words the judge “reads in” have never been defined, yet this is considered a done deal. No explanation, the non-elected have spoken and the elected politicians succumb. So much for “democracy.”
Example 2: A judge declares the Constitution is a “living tree.” This then becomes a judicial excuse for judicial decisions to be planted in an imaginary judicial garden that negates all common sense and makes a mockery of law. If this Charter is a “living tree” then its fruit is rotten and diseased.
Example 3: A judge issues an ultimatum to parliament and gives it 2 years to bring in an absurdity called “same-sex marriage.” This judge cites the “equality” section of the Charter. Now we have a whole raft of judges declaring any objections to same-sex marriage are “unconstitutional.” What is going on? Is there a virus eating judicial brain cells that so called intelligent people can declare this claptrap a “constitutional right?” The non-elected dictate to the elected and the elected grovel before their judicial masters. Something smells in the political and judicial halls of power. A suspicious mind might even wonder at the speed these nonsensical judicial decisions are implemented. Though no one dare call this a conspiracy, it is certainly a form of judicial despotism and cannot be called “democracy.”
Unfettered judicial power now dictates to “democracy.” The politicians say, “The Charter is supreme and the Supreme Court has ruled,” yet parliament is supposed to be supreme as it gains its authority from the people through elections. Which raises the question, “If parliament is no longer supreme, why bother having elections?” Games are being played with “democracy” and the people are the pawns in the political and judicial games.
“The forms of law have always been the graves of buried liberties.” Tourgee
Decisions of judicial guff are hailed as “landmark decisions.” Any sane person knows or should know that these “landmark decisions” being handed down are anything but sensible and are ridiculous. The only “landmark” they bring to mind is a vision of an insane asylum inhabited by judges who are let out each day to proliferate their madness.
Can these judicial rulings that have become judicial ravings be allowed to continue? Surely there are some sane and decent politicians and judges left who have the courage to rebel and say out loud, “These political and judicial emperors have no clothes.” Something has to be done. Numerous articles and opinion pieces have been written exposing this incompetence on the Bench and in parliament, but nothing happens. Trite phrases like, “The independence of the judiciary,” are trumpeted aloud and we are all expected to live with this insanity in “law.” The not-withstanding clause in the Charter could be used to restore some sanity, but cowardly politicians would rather let this judicial farce continue than restore ethics, decency and liberty to the land.
Some people, still believing they live in a “democracy,” make reasoned submissions to the Mad Hatters in ermine trimmed gowns ruling us; however, reasoned submissions cannot be made to dictators nor does reason have any effect on those whose power is all encompassing and their reasoning fraudulent. Therefore, the destroyers of democracy are given credence by people appearing before them. People should not have to argue decency in front of those who would impose decadence. A civilized society should remove those who subvert the Constitution from the bench.
What will it take before the people are pushed to their limits? Even a worm will turn eventually. What will be the catalyst that turns disgust into action? Every action has a reaction as the saying goes. What will the reaction be when a civilized society finally realizes democracy no longer exists?
Stephen J. Gray
Oct. 6, 2004.
