Rigging the Separation of Powers and Power of the Judiciary

Can an outside regulatory body limit the ability of courts to fulfill their function on the Separation of Powers?

Section 52 of the Constitution of Canada?

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

The 3 branches of Government are the Executive; Legislative and the Judicial branch.

Very simply put the Courts role is to interpret the laws passed by the Legislative branch and those implemented by the Executive. The actions of the Executive and the laws of the Legislative branch are reviewable by the courts.

With the independence (presumed) of the Judiciary, it is able to keep the Executive and Legislative powers in check vis a vis our Constitution. It is a beautiful harmony.

BUT.

There is one flaw in the system. The Courts only rule on what it filed and before them.

If you provide power to another body. Say the Law Society. And you give it the power to sanction dissenting lawyers, then QUITE SIMPLY YOU DILLUTE THE COURT’S ABILITY to protect the nation.

YOU DO.

Particularly if supporting the official opposition, or different political ideologies is open to sanction. YOU SILENCE NOT JUST SPEECH, BUT THE ROLE OF LAWYERS AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT AND VERY DANGEROUSLY:

YOU SILENCE THE COURTS. BECAUSE THEY DON’T HEAR WHAT WE DON’T FILE.

THUS they don’t rule. They don’t hear argument or evidence nor do they interpret what isn’t before them.

How do you know when society has made a wrong turn, if you silence the lawyers saying: woah, or careful, or let’s consider that.

What else does our Nation look like? I wonder what you get for CCP funding elections. Nothing. Not bills that enable the government to watch Canadians. Not cameras everywhere. Not bills that restrict speech (just read bill 36 passed in British Columbia for a chill up your spine. No horror genre could top it)

Not governing bodies that are altering their scope. Not professionals like doctors loosing their ability to practice ergo feed their family for non-narrative speech. Not Identity politics that resemble Mao’s China. Not attacks on Canadian symbols or history. Not division politics. Nothing really to see here.

The EXECUTIVE Minority, propped up Government HAS LOOKED AT ITSELF. The party propping up the government has said there are processes, other then defeating the government by ceasing to prop it up.

Well that is an interesting aside. But back to the meat and potatoes.

I wonder when you put lawyers in the kettle for unacceptable ‘speech’, if you rig the ability of the courts to put checks and balances on the legislative and executive branches.

That is also the new frontier of ‘governance’.

Think on it. You have some lawyers, a few, in dissent who examine their world differently. In traditional common law fashion they can mount their cases, maybe lose a few, but as a result of the bench continuing to consider these view points, perhaps win a few. The bench gets all the evidence and all the law and all the oral arguments balanced with cross examination, the rules of evidence and fulfill its mandate in upholding the Charter and Constitution.

Whereas if you check those lawyers out a la Jordan Peterson, the bench never hears those cases. The challenges are not made.

It becomes a self-fulfilling coup on the Constitution.

And cleverly by deciding through another source of power, the Professional Body, you have circumscribed the courts ability to perform its role in society vis a vis the government.

All the while it looks like you have the same balance or division of power with the same checks and balances. But the law, the courts, and officers of the courts have been attacked.

And so has the Rule of Law.

For me, speech you don’t hear, are the ideas you are not exposed to and the possibilities we don’t live together in true harmony with the protections of the Charter.

Political speech we are not allowed to hear or utter means we are living in a state that doesn’t have our Charter and Constitution. A government that tells us what is the narrative seems like a dangerous precedent to let stand.

Speech by lawyers Courts don’t hear has the potential to set up a FAR, FAR, GREATER WRONG. It will undermine democracy under our Constitution for as long as that is allowed.

There is no shame in any argument. The court can rule as it considers and decides. It is the failure of the Court to hear those arguments that sets up the danger.

How significant the silence is, may not be for this generation to understand.

Those who have stood against their governments, especially in trying times, whether lawyers or not, are SOMETIMES HATED BY THE MAJORITY OF THEIR CITIZENS.

History will reflect very poorly on setting up a system that alters the checks and balances of the Judiciary through Governing Bodies.

It is precisely when GOVERNMENTS IN THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES ARE GRANTING THEMSELVE LARGE POWERS, AND IN PARTICULAR THE ABILITY TO CONFER NARRATIVE, THAT WE NOT ALSO SEE THE WHITTLING DOWN OF DISSENTING LAWYERS, WHOSE SPEECH ISN’T APPROVED UP BY NARRATIVE GOVERNING BODIES.

If the speech Jordan got in trouble for was political speech, then what are we seeing. Only the lawyers that see this, will say this. But will they have their licenses intact?