MRN wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:59 am
at what point do you have a moral responsibility to consider whether or not more effective ways of reaching them are available?
If the courts will not uphold their prior precedents, those being:
1. Charter analysis has two stages, first determining whether a right or freedom is denied or infringed, and second, if a right is denied or infringed, can the limit be saved by section 1 as “demonstrably justified”,
2. at the first stage, rights are interpreted broadly and liberally, so if there is an interpretation by which it might be construed that the right or freedom is denied or infringed, then that interpretation is the one that is resorted to instead of the interpretation that regards the right or freedom not to be denied or infringed, and the onus in the first stage is on the party claiming the right or freedom is denied or infringed according to a broad and liberal interpretation, or “purposive” as has also been described, to show that it is,
3. if there is a denial or infringement, then the onus is on the party seeking to limit the right or freedom to provide an objective of pressing and substantial concern to a free and democratic society and provide a preponderance of evidence that the objective is achieved by the limit, the right or freedom is minimally impaired, and the benefits of the objective are proportionate to the deleterious effects of the limit,
if the courts will not uphold those conditions, then there is no way that humanity can possibly achieve a world that I would be content to live in, so I end my life. This is in no way an immoral choice, and anybody who claims it is has the onus of proving so, conclusively.
MRN wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:59 am
at any given time in a direct democracy the majority could choose to abrogate or ignore rights you and I both cherish
Even if the courts affirm that letting ISS members pay their taxes to the ISS instead of the Crown unless and until such time as the Crown creates a legislative assembly in which section 3 Charter rights are available to be exercised without interruption, R v Crawford would still stand, in which it is stated that remedying the rights of one person in a way that causes the right of another person to be denied is not an acceptable situation to allow in a one sided fashion. So the courts will remain in force to disallow the ISS from making decisions that override any rights or freedoms in the Canadian Charter. Even all in its own, the ISS has an independent and impartial judicial body which can negate decisions of the interactively elected legislative bodies when those decisions infringe upon individual rights and freedoms.
MRN wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:59 am
I actually did offer you an answer to that and you blew right past it
Fair enough, yeah, I did, but you said that if the Queen were to refuse to sign the Constitution in 1982 it would have become the supreme law anyway but then you blew right past the follow up question whether the means by which the Constitution could be made the supreme law without royal assent would have anything to do with the events of 1688. If you want to carry on from there I’d be interested in hearing any remainder of the Glorious Revolution and the decisions made in its wake that can still be considered part of the Constitution of Canada by virtue of the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that the government of Canada is similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom, for which the events of 1688 played probably the most substantial part of formulating constitutional principles of the U.K. of any other major event in history.
So the question is precisely what conditions must exist for it to be ethical for a regime to impose its governance upon every resident of a specified land with or without consent. I was only bringing up the historical context, in which I used the enactment of the Constitution of Canada, the discontinuance of elections by the Nazis in the Weimar Republic, and the supplanting of the Iranian government by the CIA as examples to try to find the common thread about what constitutes a de jure government versus a de facto government in the eyes of people who claim that there are some circumstances where consent can be ethically absolutely disregarded as having any bearing whatsoever on the ethics of a situation.
