Would a Judiciary selected by the government

be considered INDEPENDENT so as to meet the purpose of the Charter to protect the people FROM the
policies and actions of all levels of government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1982
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights.
The Charter is intended to
protect certain political and civil rights of people in Canada
****from****
the policies and actions of all levels of government.

It is also supposed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights.[3][4]
The Charter was preceded by the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was introduced by the government of John
Diefenbaker in 1960.
However, the Bill of Rights was only a federal statute, rather than a constitutional document.
Therefore, it was limited in scope and was easily amendable. This motivated some within government to
improve rights protections in Canada.
The movement for human rights and freedoms that emerged after World War II also wanted to entrench the
principles enunciated in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[5]

Hence, the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau enacted the Charter in 1982.

Independent Judiciary
?

Responsibility for Court Administration (s. 5(c))
A key component of the Attorney General's responsibilities to ensure the administration of justice in the
province is the administration of the courts and as a result the responsibility for maintaining liaison with the
judiciary.
Given the fundamental importance of
the independence of the judiciary,
the responsibility for courts administration is often a very sensitive and delicate issue.
Great care and respect for the
principles of judicial independence must be exercised in this area.

In 1959, an international gathering of over 185 judges, lawyers, and law professors from 53 countries, meeting
in
New Delhi and speaking as the International Commission of Jurists, made a declaration as
to the fundamental principle of the rule of law.
This was the Declaration of Delhi. They declared that the rule of law implies certain rights and freedoms,
that it implies an independent judiciary,
and that it implies social, economic and cultural conditions conducive to human dignity.

The Declaration of Delhi did not, however,
suggest that the rule of law requires legislative power to be subject to
judicial review.[39]
?
Stated or Implied eh?

The following was extracted from the Law Society of Upper Canada - Lawyers Pro Conduct
103) Interpretation
(f) rules of professional conduct
cannot address every situation,
and a lawyer should observe
the rules in the spirit as well as in the letter.
Rule of Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the law.
Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is
legitimately exercised only in accordance with,
publicly disclosed laws,
adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process.
The rule of law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy.
According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law commonly include
a clear separation of powers,
legal certainty,
the principle of legitimate expectation and equality of all before the law.
The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that
"the phrase the rule of law has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general over- use"
GO POE
General Over-use Proclamations Only Elusivity

publicly disclosed laws
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.


[edit] United Nations
The Secretary-General of the United Nations defines the rule of law as:[40]
a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private,
including the State itself,
are accountable to laws that are publicly
promulgated,
equally enforced and
independently adjudicated,
and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.
It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law,
equality before the law,
accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law,
separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of
arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.
The ancient concept of rule of law can be distinguished from
rule by law,
according to political science professor Li Shuguang:
"The difference....is that, under the rule of law,
the law is preeminent and
can serve as a check against
the abuse of power.
Under rule by law,
the law is a mere tool for a government,
that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."[25]

Renewed interests?

The General Assembly has considered rule of law as an agenda item since 1992, with renewed interest since
2006 and has adopted resolutions at its last three sessions.[41] The Security Council has held a number of
thematic debates on the rule of law,[42] and adopted resolutions emphasizing the importance of these issues in
the context of women, peace and security,[43] children in armed conflict,[44] and the protection of civilians in
armed conflict.[45] The Peace building Commission has also regularly addressed rule of law issues with respect
to countries on its agenda.[46]
[edit] International Bar Association

2009
The Council of the International Bar Association passed a resolution in 2009 endorsing a substantive or
"thick" definition of the rule of law:[47]
An independent, impartial judiciary;
the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair and public trial without undue delay; a rational and
proportionate approach to punishment; a strong and independent legal profession;
strict protection of confidential communications between lawyer and client;
equality of all before the law;
these are all fundamental principles of the Rule of Law. Accordingly, arbitrary arrests; secret trials; indefinite
detention without trial; cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; intimidation or corruption in the electoral
process, are all unacceptable. The Rule of Law is the foundation of a civilized society. It establishes a
transparent process accessible and equal to all. It ensures adherence to principles that both liberate and protect.
The IBA calls upon all countries to respect these fundamental principles. It also calls upon its members to speak
out in support of the Rule of Law within their respective communities.


While there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy',
[6]

equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy
since ancient times.
[7]


These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and
having equal access to legislative processes.
For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply
to anyone seeking to become a representative,
and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a
constitution.
[8][9]

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedom for
their citizens than others.
[10][11]

However, if any democracy is not structured
so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process,
or any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in its own
favor,
then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.
[12][13][14]


Mulroney of Canada stole the RCMP making Commissioner a Deputy Minister

www.DamageControl13.com


http://www.scribd.com/doc/113882977/Spirit-Intent-Precedence-de-Jure-Constitution-or-Romans-13-Gaming-
the-System-de-Facto