originally posted on December 27, 2020
Recently the Mayor of Vancouver, British Columbia started an appeal to the federal government to alter drug laws so that the epidemic of drug-related deaths in Vancouver could be reduced. Have a look. The ISS may be able to help with this. A member of the ISS is planning to enter the Headquarters of the Vancouver Police Department on June 20, 2021 in possession of a substance that is contravened in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In preparation for this, correspondence has been prepared to send to the BC Minister of Justice and the federal Minister of Health advising them of these intentions and requesting feedback on whether they can affirm the validity of this constitutional precedent without the need of this possibly controversial action.
Please note the following important paragraphs in this correspondence:
“Furthermore, if I do not hear back from you, then I intend to enter the Vancouver Police Department Headquarters at 2120 Cambie St. with one hundred dollars worth of a substance containing ‘[c]oca (Erythroxylum), [or] its preparations, derivatives, alkaloids and salts’, as described in section 2 of Schedule I of the Act, on June 20, 2021, to make a confession to possession of the substance and hand it over to be used as evidence in any prosecution taken against me. If prosecution is executed under the direction of the Crown, then I intend to use the constitutional defence described herein to petition, motion, or otherwise request that the Court stay the proceedings as a remedy to the impugned denial of rights described herein.” [p.6]
“The BC Constitutional Question Act states in section 1 that ‘[t]he Lieutenant Governor in Council may refer any matter to the Court of Appeal or to the Supreme Court for hearing and consideration, and the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court must then hear and consider it.’ The BC Attorney General Act states in section 2(a) that ‘[t]he Attorney General is the official legal adviser of the Lieutenant Governor and the legal member of the Executive Council’. The matter could be decided definitively without me needing to walk into a situation where my liberty may be in peril.” [p.7]