Why the Charter of Rights was a huge mistake and how the Supreme Court has enabled a racially-biased justice system.

[blackbird]

"

Consider

made by courts. A Stephen Harper era law permitting consecutive sentences for mass murderers was overridden because the Supreme Court reasoned it was “cruel and unusual punishment,” just as it was deemed “cruel and unusual punishment” to impose a minimum sentence for the crime of luring and having sex with a minor, just as it was deemed “cruel and unusual punishment” to jail someone for four years for recklessly shooting a gun at a house.

The courts have been similarly legislating on social issues from the bench for decades, such as on abortion, gay marriage, prostitution and euthanasia. Judges have also strayed into areas of policy in new and confounding ways. For example, rulings have determined it would violate the Charter to dismantle an illegal homeless camp on public property, just as a court has found that removing bike lanes would also be unconstitutional."

Carson Jerema: The Charter was a mistake

In addition to these repeated abuses by Supreme Court power in their application of the Charter of Rights, there is the repeated reduced sentences being given to FNs criminals based purely on race.

Sentence cut in half for Saskatchewan man who identifies as Métis | National Post

Indigenous man who terrorized girl half his age gets reduced sentence | National Post

Nunavut man sentenced to one day in custody for biting off neighbour's ear

These reduced sentences for FNs are a result of liberal politician's and Supreme Court liberal-appointed judge's ideology.  For some strange reason they think criminals have more rights than everyone else and the safety and security of society is given a low priority.

A dangerous repeat offender was just released in B.C., who the police believe is a serious risk to re-offend.  He was released before on conditions that he did not follow, and he broke the law, and here we go again.  There seems to be nothing anybody can do about it.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2025 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

Another AI copy/paste. 
 

[blackbird]

37 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Another AI copy/paste. 
 

 

39 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Another AI copy/paste. 
 

False!  No it wasn't AI.  It was written by Carson Jerema as the OP says.  The link shows it as an article in National Post.  Other links to news items are also there.  Don't make up phony claims!

 

[August1991]

The Charter was written to restrict the powers of the State.

====

Trudeau Snr was a federalist.

Levesque was a democrat. 

[CdnFox]

I was going to say no, but then i caught carney's speech.  I'd rather have had locus but whatever. 

[I am Groot]

The Charter itself, if properly interpreted by unbiased people, isn't so very bad. The problem is that's not who gets to interpret it. The problem with the Charter starts in law school. How do you get into law school in Canada? Good marks in high school? Sure, as a base. But not nearly enough. Everyone has that. No, the important part is the personal statements, ie, the letter you write "Why I want to be a lawyer", as well as extra-curricular activities and volunteer work. They're looking for a certain kind of person - someone who is involved in antiracism, say, involved in left-wing politics, volunteers at immigrant support networks, goes to Africa to drill for water, is deeply committed to reconciliation and settling treaties. And, of course, above all else, if you can demonstrate you're anything but a straight white male, you get more points. The more 'ethnic' you are, the more you can talk about your 'life experience' of being oppressed by racism and discrimination, the more you can demonstrate your resentment towards Canada and its society, the better.

In other words, they want to know that you're one of them. So the law schools, who have long screened who gets hired, also screen who gets accepted as a student. Then the left-wing social activists who make up its professariate will teach those students about social justice and advocacy and activism from a legal standpoint. And every spring another troop of social justice lawyers will march out into the world.

And how do you get to be a judge in Canada? You conform to the left-wing social justice beliefs of Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party. Almost every judge appointed in the last ten years has been appointed first and foremost due to their demonstrated adherence to the Trudeau vision. Of course, it also hugely helps if you're not a straight white male.

So you take a group already pre-screened for left-wing social activism, further screen them in university, take the worst of them and make them judges, and then promote the worst of those judges up to higher levels. 

That's our judicial system. These are the people interpreting the Charter.

Edited September 27, 2025 by I am Groot

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, I am Groot said:

The Charter itself, if properly interpreted by unbiased people, isn't so very bad. The problem is that's not who gets to interpret it. The problem with the Charter starts in law school. How do you get into law school in Canada? Good marks in high school? Sure, as a base. But not nearly enough. Everyone has that. No, the important part is the personal statements, ie, the letter you write "Why I want to be a lawyer", as well as extra-curricular activities and volunteer work. They're looking for a certain kind of person - someone who is involved in antiracism, say, involved in left-wing politics, volunteers at immigrant support networks, goes to Africa to drill for water, is deeply committed to reconciliation and settling treaties. And, of course, above all else, if you can demonstrate you're anything but a straight white male, you get more points. The more 'ethnic' you are, the more you can talk about your 'life experience' of being oppressed by racism and discrimination, the more you can demonstrate your resentment towards Canada and its society, the better.

In other words, they want to know that you're one of them. So the law schools, who have long screened who gets hired, also screen who gets accepted as a student. Then the left-wing social activists who make up its professariate will teach those students about social justice and advocacy and activism from a legal standpoint. And every spring another troop of social justice lawyers will march out into the world.

And how do you get to be a judge in Canada? You conform to the left-wing social justice beliefs of Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party. Almost every judge appointed in the last ten years has been appointed first and foremost due to their demonstrated adherence to the Trudeau vision. Of course, it also hugely helps if you're not a straight white male.

So you take a group already pre-screened for left-wing social activism, further screen them in university, take the worst of them and make them judges, and then promote the worst of those judges up to higher levels. 

That's our judicial system. These are the people interpreting the Charter.

Yup 

Remember when the law college tried to ban any student of trinity western university from ever being recognized by the bar because Christians don't like gays so they shouldn't be lawyers?

[I am Groot]

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yup 

Remember when the law college tried to ban any student of trinity western university from ever being recognized by the bar because Christians don't like gays so they shouldn't be lawyers?

They did ban them. and the Supreme Court supported them.

[Political Smash]

On 9/24/2025 at 4:19 AM, blackbird said:

"

Consider

made by courts. A Stephen Harper era law permitting consecutive sentences for mass murderers was overridden because the Supreme Court reasoned it was “cruel and unusual punishment,” just as it was deemed “cruel and unusual punishment” to impose a minimum sentence for the crime of luring and having sex with a minor, just as it was deemed “cruel and unusual punishment” to jail someone for four years for recklessly shooting a gun at a house.

The courts have been similarly legislating on social issues from the bench for decades, such as on abortion, gay marriage, prostitution and euthanasia. Judges have also strayed into areas of policy in new and confounding ways. For example, rulings have determined it would violate the Charter to dismantle an illegal homeless camp on public property, just as a court has found that removing bike lanes would also be unconstitutional."

Carson Jerema: The Charter was a mistake

In addition to these repeated abuses by Supreme Court power in their application of the Charter of Rights, there is the repeated reduced sentences being given to FNs criminals based purely on race.

Sentence cut in half for Saskatchewan man who identifies as Métis | National Post

Indigenous man who terrorized girl half his age gets reduced sentence | National Post

Nunavut man sentenced to one day in custody for biting off neighbour's ear

These reduced sentences for FNs are a result of liberal politician's and Supreme Court liberal-appointed judge's ideology.  For some strange reason they think criminals have more rights than everyone else and the safety and security of society is given a low priority.

A dangerous repeat offender was just released in B.C., who the police believe is a serious risk to re-offend.  He was released before on conditions that he did not follow, and he broke the law, and here we go again.  There seems to be nothing anybody can do about it.

 

 

Divide and conquer while forcing oppression and making criminals out of decent Canadians while facilitating serious offenses committed by minorities as worthy of a slap on the hand to further chaos while disheartening Canadians thus attempting to detour us from seeking justice because they do not represent justice quite obviously and quite obviously they represent divide and conquer for the WEF agenda while their sock puppets here and other sites attempting to downplay revealing their rubbish.

Edited September 28, 2025 by Political Smash

[herbie]

OMG you want to claim political bias by citing an example of them not allowing politically biased lawyers?
No wonder you're against a Charter of Rights.
Your fifty year old + concepts of reality are showing again. 

[I am Groot]

21 hours ago, herbie said:

OMG you want to claim political bias by citing an example of them not allowing politically biased lawyers?
No wonder you're against a Charter of Rights.
Your fifty year old + concepts of reality are showing again. 

I've said it before. Almost no one in Canada would dispute that Trump stacked the U.S. Supreme Court to get the decisions he wanted and that this has worked well for him. Yet the left in Canada outright refuses to believe the Liberals have done the same with Canada's Supreme Court. Yes, the SC is now hopelessly biased, not to the liberal left but to the far left on social values and views. That's particularly so over native treaties and 'reconciliation' matters. The idea of even allowing, much less giving credence to 'oral history' is absurd, just as a start. 

And the SC has no problem at all with politically biased lawyers. It encourages it. All the law schools insist on it for admission and hiring. The law societies are now starting to demand strict, formal adherence to the left's social justice views, as well.  No, the SC is okay with politically biased lawyers as long as they share that bias. It just doesn't want lawyers who might be conservative-minded. Unless, of course, they're 'ethnic'. No one thinks the social views of immigrant Muslim lawyers aren't completely governed by their own religiously inspired social values, but that's okay. The SC just doesn't want Christians whose views might be colored by their religious values.

Edited September 29, 2025 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

If anyone questions how hostile universities in Canada are towards anyone who is even moderately/mildly conservative, this story ought to demonstrate it. A University of Saskatchewan law student dared to mildly question DEI policies, and that began a multi-year process by the university to pillory him as an evil racist. 

And even worse than the  university's behaviour is the behaviour of other law students, which is sort of what I've been talking about. These are the people who are going to be appointed as judges one day by the Liberal government.

He mildly questioned DEI. His law school calls that 'misconduct' | National Post