Breaking News - Canadian Marijuana laws declared unconstitutonal

[Guest niall]

Breaking News - Canadian Marijuana laws declared unconstitutional

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/13/pot-toronto.html

 

Lightening struck twice for Lawyer Brian McAllister of Ontario,

Canada. This is the second time that McAllister has succeeding in

convincing a judge to declare Canadian pot laws unconstitutional.

The last time he succeeded all pot charges were quietly dismissed

over an entire summer by the Canadian government, until a collateral

attack by another case was used by the courts as an excuse to

resurrect a dead law.

 

Michele Kubby argued before the BC Supreme Court that you cannot

resurrect a dead law and that you cannot use a collateral attack to

gut a decision. Unfortunately, the three judge panel was determined

to hold the party line on prohibition.

 

Now, a new day is dawning for my Canadian friends and not a moment

too soon, because the Harper government and US narks have been

working together to lock up Canadian activists and eliminate

cultivation by patients and caregivers.

 

I am very happy for all of Canada. Friday the 13th is certainly your

lucky day!

 

--Steve Kubby

[WantDaChronic]

that will be huge if it goes in our favour but i see alot of government interference happenning over the next few days, they'll probably recommend writting new laws or something instead of making possession of marijuana legal though

[Tom]

If they are declared unconstitutional then they can't write new laws until the constitution is changed and that means a lot of work for all involved, Canada is one of the countries at the forefront of cannabis reform and I think that the court rules it unconstitutional they'll probably take the easy way out and follow the UK's lead in decriminalisation.

 

[MongyMan]

My understanding is that Canada is a commonwealth country governed under the same basic westminster system as Australia. Does Australia have anything in the constitution that makes cannabis laws illegal in Oz? Any legal minds out there?

 

Peace MongyMan

[Tom]

The federal constitution doesn't really cover drug usage, the individual state governments have the major control here in Oz. As the constitutions were drawn up mostly before cannabis use was illegal there is probably a good chance that the laws are mostly unconstitutional but convincing the judge would would not be easy or cheap.

 

[Al B. Fuct]

My understanding is that Canada is a commonwealth country governed under the same basic westminster system as Australia. Does Australia have anything in the constitution that makes cannabis laws illegal in Oz? Any legal minds out there?

Canadian law is similar enough to ours but this particular decision hinged upon the Canadian govt handing out cannabis but never making possession legal.

In court, the man argued that the federal government only made it policy to provide marijuana to those who need it, but never made it an actual law. Because of that, he argued, all possession laws, whether medicinal or not, should be quashed.

 

The judge agreed and dismissed the charges.

 

Unless that sequence were to happen here, it's unlikely that you'd get a similar judgment in Australia.

 

I'm also not sure of which Canadian constitutional provision was exceeded by the govt handing out weed without legalising it so to compare the Canadian constitution to ours for this purpose.

[Frazz]

Keeping in mind Howard has chosen the majority of High court judges so the highest court in the land is loaded toward howard's prohibition views ... filthy pig that he is

 

[Al Fish]

Canada is in a very similar position to Australia.

I attach (again) a document and internet reference.

 

www.members.westnet.com.au/unrealneil

 

Al Fish

Paul_Perrett_Orders_in_Council_Statement.doc

[Al Fish]

An Old Email

 

Thanks for your kind note.

I've read the attached release with interest.

Kind Regards

 

Kevin Rudd

 

-----Original Message-----

From:

Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2002 1:18 PM

To: Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au

Subject: Press Club Address

 

 

Dear Sir,

I have just finished viewing your address to the Australian Press Club & I must advise that you more than distinguished yourself. Top Marks!

Regarding your 'problem State' remarks I herewith include a Press Release which is a little dated but, as complex legal matters go, this is nothing to be surprised at. I feel that in some part the matters raised in this Release go some way to explaining the current world view as that view pertains to Australia.

Finally, regarding the matters raised in the Press Release, events are about to become interesting, very interesting. If you would appreciate further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully,

[uK Barrister’s contact details deleted]

 

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

LEGAL CHALLENGE TO AUSTRALIAN SOVEREIGNTY

 

[Deleted] solicitors have been instructed by a leading group of Australian historical researchers to mount a challenge in the High Court seeking as declaration that Australia is truly an independent nation. The UK court will be asked to consider whether or not that present law and executive function in Australia is flawed and invalid. This challenge may well have a significant impact upon Canada and New Zealand. Australian legal; Counsel has already stated that such a challenge should take place. UK Counsel's opinion is being sought.

 

Notes to Editors - By declaration at the Imperial Conferences of 1917,1921 and 1923 the United Kingdom government commenced the process of independence for the five named dominions, Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Newfoundland. After the inter-imperial Relations Conference of 1926 the Balfour Declaration reiterated the policy decisions. By legislation commencing in 1931 the United Kingdom Parliament gave its imprimatur to the process and formally recognised de jure the separation of sovereignty which had already taken place de facto. However, within the executive branch of the United Kingdom Government it appears that elements exist which do not agree with the actions of the Parliament and who seek to negate thew legislation by means of proclamations and appointments under other United Kingdom legislation, including powers authorising the use of the Royal Sign Manual for the creation of Orders, Warrants and Commissions. By applying that legislative power to lands no longer under sovereign authority in places and jurisdictions which are no longer dependencies of the United Kingdom as required by law, these persons have misled Her Majesty with the deliberate intent of subverting the laws of the United Kingdom Parliament.

 

In short it appears that certain individuals decided to defy the Parliament to maintain as long as possible the trappings of Empire and have proceeded to continue making appointments as if the Commonwealth of Nations is simply the British Empire under another name. The view of the Secretariat of the Commonwealth of Nations is that Her Majesty's position in each of the member realms of the Commonwealth of Nations is titular only with no continuing executive authority.

 

On balance there is a strong presumption that the later legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament prevails giving independence to the Dominions including Australia and that the Commissions of Appointment insofar as they confer executive office and authority are a nullity. It also appears clear that the current sovereign has never possessed the power of executive appointment in the Dominions having ascended to the throne after the demise of the appointment and executive powers as the result of independence legislation.

 

CONTACT ALAN [Details dleted]

 

WORD/AUSTRALIAPRESSRELEASE1/392001

[postman]

The Queen of the United Kingdom is excluded from any position of power in Australia by the United Nations Charter and is excluded under UK law from the issue of a Letters Patent to other than a British Subject. A Letters Patent must refer to an action to be taken with regard to a British Citizen. The Immigration Act 1972 UK defines Australian Citizens as aliens.

 

The Governor General,s Letters Patent is a pathetic comedy of errors. We are greeted in the name of the Queen of Australia (titular title) who becomes the Queen of the United Kingdom in the next paragraph of the Letters Patent. This Queen gives instructions to the Governor General with reference to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK. Here we have a clear breach of Article 2 paragraph 1 of the United Nations Charter. Under both UK and International Law, the Queen is a British Citizen.

 

State Governors are in a worse position as their authority comes from Queen Elizabeth 11 of the United Kingdom and section 7(1) of the Australia Act 1986. If the validity of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK cannot be established within the British or international law and, if the authority of the Governor General and the State Governors is invalid for the same reasons then so is the political and legal system of the Government of Australia.