I'm really sorry to have to do this svezg, you being a very new contributor to Quatloos with only, to date, three posts, two of which flattered me (a very scarce, prized commodity around here). But, as the sole Canadian Quatloos moderator I'm tasked with the responsibility of stopping wild reckless postings on Canadian topics such as your most recent. You wrote;
I hesitate to respond because I don't know Canadian law, and because I fear feeding a troll, but there seems to be (at least) one error in logic in Psam's logic:
the consistent view of the Supreme Court of Canada is that rights shall be defined broadly and liberally (Sauve v Canada para 11)
I don't doubt this true so I didn't bother checking the source, but it seems to me that there is a difference between defining rights as broadly as theoretically possible, versus defining rights as broadly as realistically possible.
Have you been paying any attention to what Psam had been saying? A difference between broadly defined rights as theoretically possible and as realistically possible? Realism? Where has realism ever entered into Psam's dream world? It isn't a concept he acknowledges, he may not even uderstand the word. It's Psalm's belief (and I readily concede that it appears to be an entirely honest, sincerely held belief) that the entire framework of the government of Canada, in fact the very basis of the legitimacy of an entity identifying itself as the government of Canada, exists solely to fulfill Psam's demands of what he claims are his constitutional rights. These rights are absolute regardless of how extreme his interpretations are, no matter how unhinged they may be from what the rest of us consider to be reality. Psalm doesn't believe in defining "realistic" limits.
He interprets Part 1, Section 3 of the Constitution:
Democratic Rights
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
To mean that we Canadians have the right to vote whenever we want for whomever we want. No limits. Want to vote ten times tomorrow? A hundred? A thousand? As far as Psam is concerned the constitution demands that you be allowed to. if you can't then any claim of Canada being a democracy is just a cruel sham. Psam, Quatloos's constitutional expert, doesn't recognize artificial limits like legislated election dates or "realistically possible". Either we have voting rights or we don't. We have either a democracy or a dictatorship, there's no middle ground. If we can only vote every four years or so we have a dictatorship and may as well be in North Korea!
So your statement
Therefore, when Psam says "it is more broad and liberal to say that...", that statement might be true in and of itself, but it is a non sequitur because that's not the ONLY consideration when it comes to constitutional interpretation.
Is right in one context but wrong in another. It's correct in the context of the courts and the legislature where, as you point out, the limit of constitutional rights must be balanced against other equally compelling and competing issues. But it's wrong in the context of Psam's fantasy world where there are no competing issues. If he says something is his constitutional right, no matter how demented or regardless of what any objective observer might think, that's it, end of the analysis.
But he's not just some ranting nutcase, he had a constructive solution to the gross violation of his rights. Psam, sacrificing himself for Canada, struggled for years to construct a voting system that allowed perpetual endless 24/7 voting. He finally came up with something, I read it once. It seemed completely idiotic and unworkable to me but I must be wrong because Psam said it was entirely practical. But when Canada denied him total control over the entire national voting system by refusing to adapt his system he decided that Canada owed him redress. Since he was apparently no better than a slave in a total dictatorship he concluded that he should be exempt from being a Canadian while still enjoying all of the advantages of living here. His solution? Canada, to compensate him for violating his rights, was required to exempt him from all of its laws. Seems only fair. He wanted the Attorney General of British Columbia to sign a proclamation formalizing this by saying that provincial authorities would not enforce any laws against him. When this was refused he went to the Supreme court of British Columbia to get a court order ordering the government to issue the statement.
As his Facebook postings show his court loss has deeply embittered him. Yet it must also have pointed out to him how insignificant and powerless he really is. This might be why he's afraid to return to court (almost five years and counting). Overall Psam's attitude reminds me of babysitting my three year old grandson yesterday. He spotted a Kinder Egg (banned in the United States!) in the fridge and wanted it. When I told him no he had a tantrum for a few minutes but somehow life went on as if his tantrum counted for nothing. At least my grandson doesn't post raving grossly obscene Facebook entries when life doesn't accede to his every demand.
