Respect for “the rule of law?”

It depends…

The “rule of law” is an authoritarian-sounding phrase.

Maybe that’s because laws are meant to be “enforced” by “enforcement officers”. Notice the root word “force” in the expected actions of the people who are assigned the authority (another authoritarian-sounding term) to keep people “on the straight and narrow”.

Which Ontario political parties claim to respect the rule of law?

I prompted BINGchat to answer this question and expect the answer to be “all of them”. To my surprise, the reply was

“According to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, there are currently 23 registered political parties in Ontario 1. However, I could not find any information on which parties claim to respect the rule of law.”

It seems to me that many (most?) of our politicians and heads of government bureacracies are quite selective in which laws to enforce and which to apply “selective amnesia”. The fact that they do so with impunity is simply one more example of the privilege that goes with government employment.

I personally have little respect for “the rule of law”.

It required force and aggression to work. Instead, I generally reserve my respect for the Four Principles for Civil Society rather than the hundreds of thousands of rules created by strangers who don’t even know that I exist except possibly by a file number.

Two of those Principles involve Respect and Fairness. Concerning laws, a word about both is warranted.

A FAIR LAW is one that:

• Applies to everyone equally - no exceptions!

• Contains no bias that favours one group of people at the expense of others.

• Enables most disputes to be resolved without need of lawyers and government courtrooms where “institutional bias” is embedded in “

  their “due process”.  Justice must not be available only those who can afford the most expensive lawyers.

RESPECT must be earned.

• I respect the power that any government office-holder can wield over me, but I am wary of the person who holds that office until I know if he or she is worthy of my respect and trust.

• How can I ever respect an authority figure who has all the power and I have none? My person & property rights are ignored by most “lawmakers” and “law enforcers”. Any disputes must be resolved “on government turf” rather than independent and impartial mediators. Fear and trepidation are inevitably what citizens feel for government authorities. Mutual respect can’t be achieved until truly civil society is allowed to exist.

What is a PERSON?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a person as “an individual human being”. I find this definition wanting, especially when applied in a legal context.

I prefer

“A person is an individual human being who possesses a body, mind and assets which have been created, earned or otherwise legitimately acquired, and who can freely apply these to life, liberty and choice of purpose.”

The federal Charter of Rights & Freedoms addresses our ‘civil rights’ according to the the Oxford definition of person but it fails to address any aspect of individual property rights. Common Law and government courts are how and where property rights issues are dealt. However, if my preferred definition of person applied, it would bridge and invoke both the Constitutional and Common Law.

Why is this important?

I met with City Councillor Mike Perry today to discuss a potentially new Rural Zoning By-law which has become contentious with local property owners. This is partially because the proposed document defines person is a strange and suspicious way. The current installation of the current document and its enforcement implications, if passed into law, will open up the risk if many unexpected and undesirable consequences to property owners when dealing with City bylaw enforcement officers.

If the more wholesome definition of person & property rights were defined and featured prominently in the future zoning document and enforcement practices, the property owners will feel less vulnerable to unfair and inappropriate zoning decisions. It is not in the interests of the City to create many unhappy property owners due to costly outcomes from a new set of autocratic rules that have not yet been adequately tested by the City or its rural constituents.

Here is an analogy. Would you expect that government officials would coerce or force a citizen to take a new experimental vaccine if it had not been adequately tested for safety and efficacy? No, of course not! Then why would they choose to coerce or force inadequately tested zoning bylaws on thousands of property owners?

Person & Property Rights is a hot topic after Covid.

The Ontario Landowners Association is holding its Annual General Meeting  tomorrow at the  Douro Community Centre. The fact that this event is sold out attests to the interest in the topic of property rights. Property Rights 101 is a popular introduction to this topic by OLA executive Elizabeth F. Marshall. The only reason why organizations and books like these exist is because of the vulnerability that we feel whenever a government official pays you an unexpected visit carrying a book of bylaws or a needle to stick in your arm.