Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Confusions of the Supreme Court nothwithstanding

1 Whereas "Canada is founded on principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the rule of law"

2 Whereas the provision of aid in suicide is aiding and abetting an act of murder, and recognized as such in Canadian law

3 Whereas a promise to provide aid in suicide is equally conspiracy to murder

4 Whereas Canadian law nonetheless further recognizes that a suicide, as victim of a murder, is more in need of living aid than of criminal prosecution

5 Whereas the logical procession from principles to consequences is not a fault in Law, but one of the underlying principles of the rule of law,

6 Whereas the act or conspiracy of a free person, capable or otherwise, is not alienated of its free character by anticipated sufferings

A Therefore it is already, unambiguously, and constitutionally illegal for all, whether licensed as a medical agent or not, to provide aid in the suicide of a disabled individual, or to promise aid in the suicide of a person either currently disabled or anticipating future disability.

B Furthermore, there is no conflict with the constitution in this conclusion, as security from both murder and conspiracy to murder are both founded on the Charter provision: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person [...] except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

C In Particular, the exception "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" has always intended the proportioned and proportionate acts, of the state or civilians, necessary to protect themselves against an active menace; it is a perversion and contradiction to the constitution to deny (6) to reconstruct the lawful protection of another's life as compelling an earlier suicide, or depriving anyone of "Life, liberty and security of the person".

3 comments:

me said...

Hurray for something!

Belfry Bat said...

Well, no, not really, not yet (or... "not anymore"?). One would only have to write such a thing if certain state officials, acting in some official capacity, had not arrogated to themselves a pretended authority to so misread and misjudge what is really quite simple and straightforward.

Belfry Bat said...

er... I confused myself ... "one would only" ↦ "one would not"

Post a Comment