I Want A New Country

The Supreme Court Of Shut Up And Do As You’re Ordered, Peasant.

Let’s call this what it is: a shocking abandonment of judicial duty and a blatant disregard for Canadians’ fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has just refused to hear two critical cases that challenged the federal COVID vaccine travel mandate. This isn’t just a legal technicality. It’s a clear message from the highest court in the land: “We’re not interested in defending your freedoms. We’d rather sidestep controversy and protect government overreach.”

The cases in question, Peckford et al. v. Canada and Hon. Maxime Bernier v. Canada, were crucial tests of the limits of government power. The Honourable Brian Peckford, the last living signer of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, stood up to challenge the draconian mandates that the Trudeau government imposed. These mandates effectively barred unvaccinated Canadians from traveling — a blatant violation of mobility rights under the Charter. Yet, the Supreme Court has chosen to declare these cases “moot,” arguing that since the mandates have been lifted, there’s no point in reviewing their legality.

30 Replies to “I Want A New Country”

  1. You expected the hand picked high court to go after the people who hand picked them?.. Sure, why not..

  2. Yeah, about the shredding of ‘charter’ rights. Good-bye and f*ck off Canada.
    Or to put it another way, Hey, I don’t beat the crap out of my wife anymore so I should not be charged with assault.

  3. Unjust laws are no laws at all. When diplomacy fails then it will be resolved on the battlefield. How does that quote go, tree of liberty on occasion has to fed blood

  4. Makes me sick, but does not surprise me. Refusing to hear the cases ensures we the people can have our rights taken away again should they choose to cede them.

  5. I’m not surprised. They shat on the Charter years ago with the cross-border beer thing out east. They have never (or almost never) supported the citizens.

    Neither government nor courts are for the people. Stop expecting them to help.

  6. The robed legislators masquerading as a judiciary should be replaced with AI. The interpretations of the mercurial Charter by algorithms would be more objective than those progressive partisans. I would support the entire legal profession being replaced with AI. At least AI doesn’t have political ambitions.

  7. They are about as useful as hind teat on a boar hog. Proving once again that the law is an ass! 🙂
    Cheers
    C in C
    1st St Nicolaas Army
    Army Group True North

  8. Canadians continue to fail at Civics. When you are a Subject of the Crown in a Monarchy, bad things happen to you. You are worthless. You are powerless. You are weak. You are obedient.

    When you are a Sovereign Citizen in a Representative Republic, you will rule the world. You are strong and fearless. You are well armed and dangerous to the status quo. The world looks up to you in awe.

    1. I am so sorry you failed Civics 101. A parliamentary democracy is not an absolute monarchy.

  9. “The government can impose sweeping restrictions, violate Charter rights, and then simply withdraw those measures to avoid legal accountability. It’s a dirty trick, and the Supreme Court just endorsed it”

    Yes, just like they endorsed it with the emergencies act.

  10. The first coup by Canada’s legal cartel was substituting stauate law for commonlaw. Then the next more nefarious coup was when all the Premiers and the Prime Minister (lawyers all, I believe, but stand to be corrected), “repatriated” the Constitution without a mandate
    by the citizens via referendum. A Constitution made by lawyers, for lawyers. Canadians are not free, they’re subjects, and the various law societies are ultimately running the show.
    Standing by now to be called names.

  11. They did the same thing with the Jordan Peterson case.
    By refusing to even hear it, they don’t have to address or admit the obvious truths in it. They would have to do some convoluted legalese to even pretend to uphold the law as they reach their predetermined conclusion.
    Simpler to simply not hear it. The cases are brought by a former premier and MP – meh. No matter.
    I am so mad at that court – there really is no recourse left but separation, rebellion, or some combination. I don’t know what the answer is – as long as the media holds sway over the (little) minds of so many Canadians, this sort of absolute farce is going to continue.
    So if I murder someone, and they are already dead, I guess there is no trial, as it is all “moot” now?
    And…..there were lives and livelihoods lost because of those mandates.

  12. “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
    Law is the key word, a law can only be created by an act of Parliament. A mandate from the PM is not a law.
    The charter is now worthless.

  13. I think that it’s good news… the provinces simply need to write new laws then. And, say it with me: notwithstanding.

  14. Alexandre de Moraes would be proud of the SCOC.

    He would look up to Canada’s Supreme Court and say to himself, “Why didn’t I think of that?”

  15. I talk to Liberals and they’re insane. They have no problem with government over reach, they HATE the freedom convoy , HATE Trump and wouldn’t do anything different if the CBC and CTV told them Covid’s here again. Liberals are over “due process”, Nuremberg, and some guys in Santa suits getting another week up at the cottage rather then working is cool with all of them.
    I think it’ll take Liberal Politicians showing up to rape wives and daughters like in the movie Braveheart for 1/2 of the average Canadians, to get it.
    The other half would hold their own daughters and wives down.

  16. I read one article that the self same court is going to hear complaints from the snivel service union about going into work three days a week-why is the court interfering with labor laws and union contracts?

Navigation