Charter rights section 15.1 giveth and 24.

2 taketh away Citing the Constitution Charter rights and Law Society publications inadmissible embarrassing evidence It is the Attorney Generals responsibility to help us understand this Why do I get in so much trouble putting it to him? Why doesnt he just explain? Charter 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and

has the right to the equal protection

and equal benefit of the law

without discrimination
and, in particular,

without discrimination
based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. 24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Executive Council. The responsibilities stemming from this role are unlike those of any other Cabinet member. The role has been referred to as

"judicial-like" and as the "guardian of the public interest".

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. Excerpt from Legal Aid Illegal www.Docket13.com Attorney General Administers the Law Society Act From my understanding appoints the Chair and 4 others and selects 5 more selected from a list provided by the society An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest - which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available.

Law Society voices support for sustainable legal aid

Tuesday, February 13 Organization: Release: Law Society of Upper Canada TORONTO, Feb. 12 /CNW/ - The Treasurer of the Law Society of Upper
Canada, Gavin MacKenzie, today expressed the Law Society's continuing concern over the need

for a well-funded and sustainable system of legal aid

in Ontario. "We believe that the right of vulnerable citizens to legal assistance is an important
component of the administration of justice in a free and democratic society," the Treasurer said. 2

"Since the Ontario Legal Aid Plan was founded in 1967, the Law Society has recognized that legal aid should be considered a right, not a charitable gift, and that individuals

are equal before the law

only
if they are assured the option of legal representation."
What Ontario lawyers perceived in the 1920s, what the Joint Committee expressed in the
1960s, and what many people experience first-hand in Ontario courts every day, is that

individuals are equal before the law only if they are

assured
the option of representation by counsel. In a democratic society,everyone should be able to participate fully in society and

have their rights protected.

Canada has an adversarial justice system that anticipates two roughly equal parties presenting their cases before a judge in a court of law. What happens if there is an imbalance of power between the two parties?
When an Ontarian cannot afford to hire a lawyer,

an imbalance of power exists, especially

when the state is one of the parties

This is what happens
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149878237/They-of-the-Material-World-Cannot-Touch-theSpirit-of-the-Law-as-It-Is

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single collection or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to comprise a written constitution. Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, whether sovereign or federated, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially written constitutions, also act as limiters of state power by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution

fundamental rights.
Generally, every modern written constitution confers specific powers to an organization or institutional entity, established upon the primary condition that it

abides by the said constitution's limitations.

According to Scott Gordon, a political organization is constitutional to the extent that it "contain[s] institutionalized mechanisms of power control for

the protection of the interests and liberties of the citizenry,

including those that may be in the minority."[7]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law.[2] The doctrine of human rights in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations, has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world. The idea of human rights [3] states, "if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights."

Despite this, the strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day.

Indeed,
the question of what is meant by a "right" is itself controversial and the subject of continued philosophical debate.[4] Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the atrocities of The Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights.[5]Ancient societies had "elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights".[6] The modern concept of human rights developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics.[7] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition that became prominent during the Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution. From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century. Gelling as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda.[8] All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[9]

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 5

Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[5] Hence, the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau enacted the Charter in 1982. Universal Declaration of Human Rights The pursuit of human rights was a central reason for creating the UN. World War II atrocities and genocide led to a ready consensus that the new organization must work to prevent any similar tragedies in the future. An early objective was creating a legal framework for considering and acting on complaints about human rights violations. The UN Charter obliges all member nations to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights" and to take "joint and separate action" to that end. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

though not legally binding,

was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 as a common standard of achievement for all. The Assembly regularly takes up human rights issues. A large share of UN expenditures addresses the core UN mission of peace and security. The peacekeeping budget for the 20052006 fiscal year was approximately US$5 billion, 2.5 billion (compared to approximately US$1.5 billion, 995 million for the UN core budget over the same period), with some 70,000 troops deployed in 17 missions around the world.[60] UN peace operations are funded by assessments, using a formula derived from the regular funding scale, but including a weighted surcharge for the five permanent Security Council members, who must approve all peacekeeping operations. This surcharge serves to offset discounted peacekeeping assessment rates for less developed countries. As of 1 January 2011, the top 10 providers of assessed financial contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations were: the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, China, Canada, Spain and the Republic of Korea.[61] Special UN programmes not included in the regular budget (such as UNICEF, the WFP and UNDP) are financed by voluntary contributions from other member governments. Most of this is financial contributions, but some is in the form of agricultural commodities donated for afflicted populations. Since their funding is voluntary, many of these agencies suffer severe shortages during economic recessions. In July 2009, the World Food Programme reported that it has been forced to cut services because of insufficient funding.[62] It has received barely a quarter of the total it needed for the 09/10 financial year.

Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the atrocities of the Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights.[5] Ancient 6

societies had "elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights".[6] The modern concept of human rights developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics.[7] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition, became prominent during the Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and have been responsible for numerous human rights abuses.[52] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies is both controversial and ill-defined.[citation needed] Multinational companies' primary responsibility is to their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies may be larger than the economies of some of the states within which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated in a report in 2003: In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights.[54] These were considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004,

but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.[55]

As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a special responsibility to be the guardian of

that most elusive concept - the rule of law.

The rule of law is a well established legal principle, but

hard to easily define.

It is the rule of law

that protects individuals, and society as a whole,

from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties. Legal Certainty Independent Judiciary ???????

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.
The responsibility is

to present the case fairly

- not necessarily to convict. This is a fundamental precept of criminal law, even if it is not a particularly wellunderstood concept among the general public. One of the Attorney General's responsibilities in fostering public respect for the rule of law, is to assist the public in understanding the nature and limits of the prosecutorial function.

I see no reason not to respect the rule of law

Pick Your Knows