Author Description

Jurisprudentially, there are two values that compete for paramountcy in judicial decision-making: to serve truth or, alternatively, fairness. In the aboriginal context, the Canadian judges seem to be trying to be fair to the vast majority of people and the building of their nation, at the expense of the constitutional truth. This is apparent when you consider the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 in the leading 2014 case, Tsilhqot'in. Section 35(1) says: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed." The Court interpreted section 35(1) to mean the judges have to balance the national interest against the aboriginal interest. In the result, the judges overrode the "existing" aboriginal rights that section 35(1) expressly and explicitly placed beyond the reach of the courts to repeal. Yet section 35(1) says nothing about such a judicial discretion to repeal the saved "existing" aboriginal rights. The judges simply invented, out of thin air, a power of repeal of those aboriginal rights constitutionally placed beyond the jurisdiction of judicial repeal. That is the struggle behind the struggle. The structural integrity of the rule of law and the status of the constitutional democracy have been destroyed by the tension between the law as it is written, and the new "law" as the judges recently invent it. That is what this book is about. That is the seemingly unsolvable problem: how to rescue the truth from feelings of fairness. The solution to that problem is independent and impartial adjudication, which is missing from native and newcomer litigation. It must be brought into existence lest bias rule instead of the law.Sergeant Dennis Ryan of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police representing the Gustafsen Lake Crisis Management Team in September 1995 stated: "Kill this Clark, smear the prick and everyone with him."Why? "The very foundations that Canadian s