The Supreme Court has usurped the power of the elected officials that we put into power and have decided to legalize shoot ‘em up sites in Canada.
When you read the details of their ruling about the controversial supervised drug injection site in Vancouver, they actually uphold the law against illegal narcotics that the federal government was invoking to shut down the site. They basically admit that the federal government was within its legal rights to close the shooting gallery. Yet, they still forbid the federal government from doing so because the judges think that the site is good policy and supposedly saves lives. So they’ve clearly moved from a role of interpreting and enforcing the law to a policy-making role. They think they know what’s best for you and me, regardless of which policies we vote for.
There goes our democracy.
Here’s a release from REAL Women of Canada.
For immediate Release
September 30, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECIDES
CANADA’S NATIONAL POLICY ON DRUGS
RE: VANCOUVER DRUG INJECTION SITE
The Supreme Court of Canada in its decision handed down today on the legality of the Vancouver drug injection site, has arrogantly decided that it is more capable of determining Canada’s national drug policy than the elected government.
It has ordered the Minister of Health to continue the operation of this controversial drug injection site, even though, under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act (CDSA), this is supposed to be a matter for the Minister’s discretion.
In its judgment, the court talks on both sides of its mouth by claiming it is not interfering with the exercise of ministerial discretion but then goes on to state that the Minister must grant the exemption not only for the Vancouver site, but also generally for all other applicants for drug injection sites in the country, on the grounds, that to do otherwise, would deprive [addicts] of their “life and security of person” under Section 7 of the Charter.
The practical effect of this decision is that the court has exempted the Vancouver drug injection site from the criminal provisions on illicit drug use and has only graciously allowed the federal government to “regulate” these sites, thus fundamentally changing our national drug policy by widening the use of illegal drugs.
The court has made the decision despite the fact that Canada has been criticized numerous times by the UN’s International Narcotic Drugs Control Board (INCB), for establishing this site, the first in North America, as it contravenes UN drug treaties ratified by Canada. Apparently, the Supreme Court is of the view that the UN drug treaties ratified by Canada are not binding on us.
The Supreme Court gave as its reasons to exempt the drug injection site from the provisions of the CDSA the fact that it supposedly “saves the lives and health” of drug addicts.
This is highly questionable since this conclusion is based on the flawed research provided by a group of advocates and promoters of the Vancouver drug injection site who have a conflict of interest in this research, since they were also the lobbyist and advocates for the establishment of the drug injection site over a decade ago.
This points out that judges are ill positioned to make national policy decisions. They have limited access to social data, depend on biased and narrow arguments of the litigants, and also on unreliable information in the media. They are Isolated from society, and are not exposed to differing perspectives, since there is no public debate, such as occurs in Parliament.
This decision by the Supreme Court on the Vancouver drug injection site stands as a monument to the determination by the Supreme Court to control Canada’s national agenda, not Parliament, presumably on the basis that it believes it knows what is best for the Canadian public.
This decision directly attacks the democratic process and is a flaunting of the power and influence of the courts using the vague words of the Charter to promote their own ideological perspective. (Source)