Rule of law or rule of authority?

The year is 2009. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issues a health advisory on the outbreak of a novel influenza strain. A police officer patrolling in a subway station compels you to hold a filthy escalator handrail when no such requirement exists in law. What do you do?

The rule of law is the principle by which nations are governed through the legislation of laws as opposed to the whims, predilections and prejudices of individual government officials. It is supposed to keep us safe from abuses of power ranging from unwarranted arrests and searches to more extreme acts of violence like abductions and acts of torture.

For the rule of law to be viable and function properly, both agents of the state and the citizens they serve are supposed to know the law and obey it.

A recent ruling of the Court of Appeal of Québec has put into case law that has the potential to adversely impact the rights and freedoms of people in Canada.

Simply stated, the ruling affirms that a police officer can suspend your constitutional rights and compel you to follow their instructions even when there is no basis in law for them to do so. This overreach is commonly referred to as colour of law, something which is defined as any act appearing to be based on legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists.

In essence, the ruling condones giving individual police officers the equivalent powers of martial law against targeted individuals, irrespective of whether or not it has been ascertained the said person has actually violated any law. All the officer in question needs in order to suspend a person's rights is to have assumptive grounds.

If left unchallenged, the ruling will normalize questionable tactics like ‘fishing expeditions’ and other related forms of unconstitutional harassment. Unfortunately, policing in the post 9/11 era is increasingly becoming a matter of curtailing rights in the name of security theatrics and the politics of fear. This is a dangerous precedent in law because it allows for narratives based on little more than biased perceptions and unfounded suppositions to have equal standing with fact-driven, procedural police work.

Suffice to say, any ruling that gives police officers discretionary power to overstep the Charter is antithetical to the values we hold dear in a free and democratic society.

The ruling puts into question the right of an accused to be informed of the nature and the cause of their alleged infraction. It makes it a civil offense to question a police officer's conduct and motive. In essence the ruling makes it a thought crime to even suspect a police officer of exceeding their authority, and anybody guilty of such a mindset should not be afforded any protection or recourse at the time of the incident. Granting police the power to springboard a refusal to comply with an illegal order into criminal charges at the discretion of the officer in question is a bad precedent in law because it creates a chilling effect whereby the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights is inhibited or discouraged by the threat of legal sanctions. Ultimately, by seeking to place limits on the rights of an accused until such time as proceedings can take place in a court of law, the ruling serves to blur any vital distinction between legal consent and illegal coercion.

It is a very poorly reasoned ruling, which paves the way for rule of authority to supersede the rule of law, and as such needs to be quashed.

The purpose of the 1becomesmany campaign is to raise awareness and solicit support for a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the weeks and months to follow, this site and related social media channels will be disclosing – for the edification of the public at large – information taken from an extensive archive of materials, including court documents and official correspondences.

It my sincere hope the information will appeal to people from all walks and stages of life; from homemakers, students, and retirees, to teachers, social workers, artists, and civil rights activists; from members of the media, including aspiring journalists, to lawyers, professors, and politicians.

If you or somebody you know would like to learn more or get involved please consult the contact information.