That's the gist of the post, you can stop reading now.
n Edmonton man is suing the City of Edmonton for $565 million, citing nuisance and a public health hazard created by the temporary mandatory mask
In a statement of claim filed in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Monday, Glenn Miller argued the new mask law has led to an increase of used
masks on city streets and created a “health crisis.”
Miller is calling for city council to rescind the bylaw within 10 days and he will terminate the legal proceedings. Otherwise, he will be seeking $565
million in remediation.
The rest is discussion and etcetera about change and stuff.
I doubt this will go very far, and I'm not arguing one way or another here.
It will, however, be interesting to watch the legal scene evolve as more and more people speak out against the incredibly widespread changes being
made (and those not being made) in regulation, law and social control. This goes far beyond a simple lawsuit, and we're seeing police reform, the
creation of a new political party in the US, and a small libertarian resistance on the west coast of Canada declaring independence from the system.
This is the stuff of true change, not riots and tantrum, but level-geaded legal discourse and responsible peaceful action.
Anyways, this is what my digging tells me about the legality of this and similar claims, and a bit about what limits there are:
Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not
to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
The Supreme Court has said that “liberty” protects not only the right to be free from physical imprisonment (except in accordance with the
principles of fundamental justice) but also “inherently private choices” that go to the “core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and
Of course, mandatory masking would not be a violation of liberty or security of the person if the law is “in accordance with the principles of
There’s no set list of principles of fundamental justice, but two commonly used to challenge laws are the principles against arbitrariness and
Fmr. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin,case R v. Bedford :
"An arbitrary law is one with “no rational connection” between the purpose of the law and its impacts, while an overbroad law is one “so broad
in scope that it includes some conduct that bears no relation to its purpose.”
Canadian Constitution Foundation
Interesting... so the lawsuit holds water only if it can prove overbreadth by including points that don't serve the purpose.
Again, that means this particular case likely won't go very far, but it does provide a valuable example for the argument against other issues popping
up- such as imprisonment for disobeying an order that has serious contest, and bylaws that limit access to important services.
Here's an American perspective:
US Constitution 1st Ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The most significant change to U.S. quarantine laws may have been the federal Public Health Service Act (1944), which clearly established and
regulated federal quarantines for the first time. States get their power to enact quarantines from the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which
says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”
While you may think of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a research agency, federal law does give the CDC some enforcement
power. Under 42 U.S. Code § 264 of federal regulations parts 70 and 71, the CDC is authorized to detain, medically examine and release persons
arriving into the United States and traveling between states who are suspected of carrying these communicable diseases.
In the last decade, talk of quarantines rose again during the Ebola outbreak. The American Civil Liberties Union argued that Ebola quarantines were
Because the Ebola quarantines of 2014–2015 were not medically necessary, they violated the U.S. Constitution. A quarantine is a form of imprisonment
and therefore a very significant incursion on an individual’s freedom. Under the Constitution, quarantines are permitted only when the state has a
compelling interest in imposing one and when such interventions are the least restrictive measures available to prevent the spread of disease.
Because the Ebola quarantines were not medically necessary, they did not satisfy those criteria. Furthermore, quarantined individuals are legally
entitled to due process of law, including a timely hearing before a judge or other neutral arbiter. Few of the states that imposed quarantines did
this. States are also required to quarantine under humane conditions, and not all states did
The pandemic has shaken up the board and moved around some pieces.
The world is changing.
Some people want to quit playing altogether, some are throwing pieces around and flipping the table.
The wise watch and learn, and make their moves accordingly.
Be the wise, watch and learn, and take action as best you can when you have the ability to do so in the name of what is right.
edit on 2-9-2020 by ADAMandEVIL because: Eta fixes