Procedural By-law against Charter of Rights says reader

Council has successfully preserved its destruction of Democracy in Saugeen Shores.

Procedural rule 14.11 provides:

    “A delegation, once heard, shall not be entitled to be heard on the same topic for a period of six (6) months from the date of first being heard, without prior permission of council.”

14.11 is not applicable because my 2 delegations were not on the same topic [the first heard on June 11 “Save the Train,” and the other not heard but originally scheduled for July 9 “Save Democracy in Saugeen Shores”]. Despite this, on 3 different occasions I nevertheless “urgently” begged council for permission [pursuant to 14.11] to present my Delegation on July 9, 2018. Having heard nothing back regarding my 3 urgent requests for “permission,” I attended the Saugeen Shores council meeting last night figuring council would grant me permission to present my Delegation that was critical of council. To my surprise [not really], council did not even raise my requests made pursuant to their own procedural rule 14.11. As a result, I left the meeting without being permitted to address council related to my Delegation. In addition, without any lawful authority, the council and the Town of Saugeen Shores continue to not even post my written Delegation materials on the Public Record under Communications for review by fellow Citizens and the media. All done unilaterally and summarily, without any discussion, without any reasoning, and without any lawful justification. And all done in the darkness of secrecy, without Citizens’ and media knowledge.

Section 1 of our Charter, the Supreme Law of the Land, provides:

    “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Procedural rule 14.11 is not a “reasonable limit” that “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” that would allow our council to violate a Citizen’s unfettered fundamental right to communicate with his or her elected officials in a Public Forum, coupled with violating every other Citizen’s commensurate right to participate in any way they may wish in response to their fellow Citizen’s communication to their elected officials. In other words, every Citizen’s fundamental right to communicate with their elected officials in a Public Forum is violated by procedural rule 14.11 that cannot be demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit. “This right is central to Democracy.” R. v. Robbins, [2004] O.J. No. 202 (Ontario Court of Appeal).

Even if procedural rule 14.11 could in some way impossibly pass Constitutional muster, 14.11 is nothing more than an illusion and sham, without remedy for the Citizen. There is absolutely no mechanism for a Citizen to obtain 14.11 “permission of council” to waive the unlawful 6 month rule. I tried, and council does not even give me the common courtesy of providing me with any response whatsoever. I must admit that I may have missed another procedural rule enacted by council to protect themselves from being held accountable to Citizens. There might be a procedural rule that requires an original signature from a Citizen seeking “permission.” Or there may be another procedural rule that requires a written motion seeking “permission” that must be filed at least 6 months prior to council being able to consider the request. All unjustified as an excuse for violating the Supreme Law of the Land and the Citizen’s fundamental right to communicate with his or her elected officials in a Public Forum. R. v. Robbins