Civil Disobedience

-Được sự khuyến khích của anh Analyst, chuyên gia về Common Law, tui xin hỏi anh về Civil Disobedience - không biết tiếng Việt gọi là gì .
-Xin anh Analyst cho biết
1- Hiện nay trong giới Luật gia của Mỹ, họ quan niệm vấn đề này như thế nào ? (thí dụ như cái "khuynh hướng" bênh / chống xuyên qua các bài thảo luận) .
2- Anh có học / làm bài thảo luận nào về vấn đề này chưa khi còn ở trường ? vậy quan điểm cá nhân anh về vấn đề này hiện nay như thế nào ?
3- Anh có ý kiến gì không (lời khuyên / cảnh cáo) về phong trào Civil Disobedience có thể lớn mạnh ở VN - thí dụ như bắt đầu bằng các cuộc biểu tình chống cường hào ác bá, chống đàn áp công nhân ở các cơ xưởng của người ngoại quốc ... chống nhập cảng độc phẩm và sản phẩm thiếu tiêu chuẩn từ bọn đế quóc bành trướng chủ nghĩa, chống mất đất đai, lãnh hãi ....

Cám ơn sự đóng góp của anh Analyst và cũng xin các bạn khác cho ý kiến .

Cám ơn NN đã hỏi anh câu hỏi này. Anh phải trả lời câu hỏi và chăm sóc trong room anh đang quản lý cho nên không kịp trả lời cho em được sớm hơn nhưng sẽ quay trở lại. Cho phép anh nói đơn giản và ngắn gọn trong thời gian cho phép trước nghe rồi sẽ quay lại.
Trong trường luật theo anh biết không có dạy cho sinh viên civil disobedience như em hỏi vì nó không phải là một điều đúng đắn xét theo mặt luật pháp mà nói. Nó thực chất là một hành động mang tính xã hội nhiều hơn. Trong xã hội anh đang sống, nó là một quốc gia pháp trị nghĩ là bất kể bạn là ai bất kể bạn có thành phần xã hội như thế nào bạn phải tuân thủ luật pháp đã ban hành theo đúng với Hiến Pháp. Nếu như có một quy định ban hành mà quy định đó được toà án tối cao có thẩm quyền phán quyết rằng nó vi phạm Hiến Pháp thì nó phải bị bãi bỏ. Xã hội pháp trị khuyến khích mọi người nói chuyện với nhau bằng luật pháp theo cách này thay vì là ban hành luật mà phản đối xã hội (bằng biểu tình) và không làm theo như em hỏi. Bản thân em đã sống qua xã hội đó chắc có thể em đã biết. Vì lẽ đó, nếu hỏi một luật sư common law họ sẽ khuyên rằng xã hội muốn tồn tại phát triển phải là một xã hội pháp trị và mọi thứ giải quyết trên đó phải bằng luật pháp. Giả sử rằng em có một quyết định đúng luật nhưng quyết định đó là chèn ép người dân bình thường thì anh nghĩ chắc là trong lần bầu cử sau em về nhà "đuổi gà cho vợ" quá.

-Anh Analyst google lâu quá !
-Rõ ràng là anh chưa có thảo luận về đề tài này trong trường Luật bao giờ . Dĩ nhiên Civil DO không phải là 1 điều Luật nhưng nó liên quan đến Pháp Luật - Hành Pháp, Tư Pháp và Lập Pháp .
-Chắc chắn là 1 xã hội văn minh thì không cần CvDo . Nhưng Common Law (hay bất cứ thứ nào khác) không có nghĩa là văn minh . Thí dụ như thứ Common Law mọi rợ của thực dân Anh ở Ấn .
-Civil Disobedience là tranh đấu ôn hòa, không chấp nhận các hành động khủng bố bạo động như bắt cóc, ám sát, pháo kích bừa bãi vào khu dân cư, quăng lựu đạn vào rạp hát chợ búa ... như ở Iaq hiện nay hay ở VN 1954- 1975 .

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." ~Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Why We Can''t Wait, 1963
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. ~Bishop Desmond Tutu
Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one. ~Chinese Proverb
If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobediance, 1849
You''re not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can''t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it. ~Malcolm X
Laws are only words written on paper, words that change on society''s whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians, lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or economic status, is a fool. ~John J. Miller, And Hope to Die
Disobedience, the rarest and most courageous of the virtues, is seldom distinguished from neglect, the laziest and commonest of the vices. ~George Bernard Shaw, Maxims for Revolutionists
Theo anh là 1 LS Common Law thì hành động của các ông Ghandi, Martin LutherKing, Phan BộI Châu, Phan chu Trinh ..., và nhiều ngưo8`i VN hiện nay là sai ?

-Anh Analyst google lâu quá !
-Rõ ràng là anh chưa có thảo luận về đề tài này trong trường Luật bao giờ . Dĩ nhiên Civil DO không phải là 1 điều Luật nhưng nó liên quan đến Pháp Luật - Hành Pháp, Tư Pháp và Lập Pháp .
-Chắc chắn là 1 xã hội văn minh thì không cần CvDo . Nhưng Common Law (hay bất cứ thứ nào khác) không có nghĩa là văn minh . Thí dụ như thứ Common Law mọi rợ của thực dân Anh ở Ấn .
-Civil Disobedience là tranh đấu ôn hòa, không chấp nhận các hành động khủng bố bạo động như bắt cóc, ám sát, pháo kích bừa bãi vào khu dân cư, quăng lựu đạn vào rạp hát chợ búa ... như ở Iaq hiện nay hay ở VN 1954- 1975 .

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." ~Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Why We Can''t Wait, 1963
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. ~Bishop Desmond Tutu
Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one. ~Chinese Proverb
If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobediance, 1849
You''re not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can''t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it. ~Malcolm X
Laws are only words written on paper, words that change on society''s whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians, lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or economic status, is a fool. ~John J. Miller, And Hope to Die
Theo anh là 1 LS Common Law thì hành động của các ông Ghandi, Martin LutherKing, Phan BộI Châu, Phan chu Trinh ..., và nhiều người VN hiện nay là sai ?

NN, anh xin trả lời theo từng câu hỏi của em hỏi như sau:
(i) Anh chưa bao giờ thảo luận với họ và cũng chưa bao giờ nghe họ nói về việc này cả em. Có thể em cũng biết, đa số đi làm chỉ lo kiếm tiền, làm dài giờ xong là muốn về nhà với gia đình thôi. Cuộc sống ở đây là mang tính cá nhân nhiều em cũng biết mà phải không. Nhưng anh nghĩ luật sư mà thiên về human rights thì sure họ rất là excited với mấy cái này đó em.
(ii) Không em, trong các subjects anh học anh chưa bao giờ học vấn đề này CD nhưng anh đoán là môn học elective (tự chọn) không phải môn chủ lực thì rất có thể môn Human Rights Law hoặc môn mà thiên nhiều về phục vụ cho quyền lợi của người dân thường trong xã hội rất có thể họ sẽ học. Nếu không thì sinh viên học bằng đại học đầu tiên cũng có thể họ học vì đa số luật sư học bên này ra là họ học ngành xã hội (Arts, Science) không em. Anh thì trong bằng đầu tiên anh học IT nên cũng không học về xã hội.
(iii) Quan điểm của anh là ở Việt Nàm làm sao anh không có ý kiến đâu. Ở common law countries biểu tình cũng là việc bình thường thôi em. Ngày ngày đi làm thấy biểu tình như đi chợ. Tuy nhiên, là một người được giáo dục ở một quốc gia pháp trị và được đào tạo để tin vào pháp trị, anh không ủng hộ biểu tình nhiều lắm đâu vì:
(a) Kết quả cũng không được nhiều chỉ là một cách tạo áp lực lên executive mà thôi. Nếu executive mà theo loại do chính dân thực sự bầu lên nếu làm sai cho về nhà "đuổi gà" trong lần bầu cử đến thì không nói nếu không sự tác động cũng giới hạn.
(b) Anh thiên về hướng dùng Constitutional Law hơn em. Anh sure là em có nghe về the Bill of Rights trong Hiến Pháp Mỹ phải không? Anh nghĩ anh theo hướng này.
Cám ơn em đã hỏi anh và nếu được đừng có đùa lan man bị treo nick nữa nghe.

Sau đây là trích đoạn trong bài giãng của ông Khoa Trưởng trường Luật Toronto về ảnh hưởng của Civil DisObedience trên Luật Pháp Canada và vai trò của các Luật gia.
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:uX1REImCLNYJ:www.ohlj.ca/archive/articles/41_23_macpherson.pdf+civil+disobedience+law&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=ca
Tui có các bài tranh luận khác của các Luật gia và đặc biệt là bài được điểm tối đa của 1 sinh viên trẻ nhưng không post lên được. Không biết anh Analyst học Luật trường nào bên Mỹ mà chưa hề thảo luận về CvOb.
Tui không hiểu tại sao anh Analyst lại không có ý kiến về Civil Obedience ở VN ? Anh khinh thường những người biểu tình ở VN và cho rằng họ không đáng được quan tâm ?
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND THE LAW:
THE ROLE OF LEGAL PROFESSIONALS
©
B
Y
T
HE
H
ONOURABLE
J
AMES
M
AC
P
HERSON
*
I.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
II.
CASES IN WHICH PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO BE IN COURT . . . . . . . . . . 373
III.
CASES IN WHICH PEOPLE WANT TO BE IN COURT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
IV.
CASES IN WHICH PEOPLE END UP IN COURT?"THEY MAY OR MAY NOT
WANT TO BE THERE, BUT THEY ARE WILLING TO DEFEND THEIR
POSITION IF CHALLENGED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
A. Daishowa Inc. v. Friends of the Lubicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
V.
CASES IN WHICH PEOPLE KNOWINGLY BREAK THE LAW AND END UP IN
COURT?"CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
VI.
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
I.
INTRODUCTION
Justice is one of the most important subject areas in a democratic and
civilized society. If you asked Canadian citizens to close their eyes and identify
the areas in which they want governments to be involved, and indeed to do a
good job, I suspect that most of them would say: health care, public education,
provision of a basic social safety net for the poor, sick and afflicted, and justice.
The importance the public attaches to justice is nothing new. It is as old
as Confederation as reflected in ss. 91(27), 91(28), and 92(14) of the
Constitution Act, 1867,
1
all of which assign powers to both the federal and
provincial levels of government to enact laws relating to various aspects of the
justice system.
The preamble to the Constitution provides: ?oWhereas Canada is
founded upon principles that recognize . . . the rule of law.? A judge?Ts oath of
office requires the judge to faithfully uphold the law where it is clear what it

Page 2
372
OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL
[
VOL
. 41,
NOS
. 2 & 3
prescribes and proscribes. But, because justice also depends on access to the
courts, a crucial role of governments and of courts is to promote access, of
people and of issues, to the justice system. That is the theme of my remarks
today. Naturally, my perspective on that theme will be that of the judge, in my
case a trial judge for six years and an appellate judge for two years.
Now, this presentation is offered as part of a project on civil
disobedience and the limits of the law. Civil disobedience creates a problem for
the above-described roles of judges. It involves a flaunting of the law. It often
leads to the repression of activists and agitators for change, posing difficult
questions when these disobedient citizens come before the courts. How should
judges assess the way in which frontline law officers deal with wilful, public
breaches of the law? What are they to be told as to how they should exercise
their necessary discretion? Inasmuch as the choices they made were informed
by consciously andunconsciouslyheldpoliticalbeliefsandperceptionsofwhat
is acceptable to conventional wisdom about the legitimacy of particular legal
rules or implementations, they may lead to outcomes that will appear arbitrary
or discriminatory if given approval by the judiciary. The courts might inflame
dissatisfaction with the status quo by adhering to the strict letter of the law.
Doing justice and giving access to justice are not simple tasks. These very
difficult questions inhere in a legal system committed to liberal democratic
principles. The dissident must be given some room for manoeuvre, while the
status quo is to be defended. The judge is on the frontline. One of the ways in
whichjudgesdischargetheirverycomplexobligationsisbyreadinggenerously
their role in providing access to justice. This presentation considers how this is
done as judges settle the very narrowly presented issues before them.
For the purposes of the discussion, I divide the cases into discrete
categories. I begin by noting the kinds of situations where a person is brought
before a court almost certainly against her will. Here the judges try to satisfy
their constitutional mandate to provide access to justice by furnishing the
reluctant participant with as much aid as possible. More strongly, courts
sometimes have to consider giving assistance to people who want to challenge
perceived abuses of power. In one set of circumstances, this can be done by
giving organized protest groups more standing to be heard in judicial
proceedings. It might also be done by reading elastically the apparent legal
restrictions on social and political strategies to change the status quo. This may
help to assure the public that grievances may be forcefully protested in our
liberal democratic polity, that theauthority of law and theStatedoesnot require
blind obedience. Here I consider two sets of situations. Implicitly, of course,
there will be limits on the extent to which courts will feel themselves entitled
to manipulate existing doctrines. There are limitations on their capacity to
accommodate dissent and, in effect, to treat it as if it were perfectly acceptable
behaviour.

Page 3
2003]
The Role of Legal Professionals
373
2
R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
I think the cases that come before judges can be divided into four broad
categories. I will identify those categories and discuss the role of judges in each
of them, with a particular emphasis on what judges can and should do to
promote access to the courts.
II.
CASES IN WHICH PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO BE IN COURT
This is an obvious category of case and the criminal law is its most
obvious component. There is no formal problem with respect to access in these
cases. A person is charged with a criminal offence and, usually, there will be a
trial and a verdict. However, the criminal justice system is not an easy one for
the ordinary accused person to navigate. Criminal cases can be long and
complex. Moreover, they involve a value of high significance in Canadian
society?"the liberty of the subject.
There is another reality in the criminal justice system, namely, a strong
link between criminal activity and poverty. A very large percentage of accused
persons in Canada come from backgrounds of poverty, low education and
broken families. Yet, in the 1990s, government funding of legal aid programs
decreased by 30 per cent across Canada.
These facts?"the length, complexity and importance of a criminal trial,
the background of many accused persons, and the weakening of the legal aid
system?"taken together, create a real problem in the criminal justice system. A
growing number of accused persons are being forced to represent themselves
in criminal trials.
A judge can alleviate this problem in several ways. In criminal cases,
a provision in the Criminal Code is an important potential tool for appellate
judges:
684.(1)A court of appeal or a judge of that court may, at any time, assign counsel to act on behalf
of an accused who is a party to an appeal ... where, in the opinion of the court or judge, it appears
desirable in the interests of justice that the accused should have legal assistance and where it
appears that the accused has not sufficient means to obtain that assistance.
(2)Where counsel is assigned pursuant *****bsection (1) and legal aid is not granted to the accused
pursuant to a provincial legal aid program, the fees and disbursements of counsel shall be paid by
the Attorney General ... in the appeal.
2
Unfortunately, a similar provision is not available to trial judges,
although they have an inherent jurisdiction, in the interests of ensuring a fair
trial, to order the appointment of counsel.
Another example of the courts providing assistance to self-represented

continue ....
Another example of the courts providing assistance to self-represented

Page 4
374
OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL
[
VOL
. 41,
NOS
. 2 & 3
3
John F. Kennedy: Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the President
(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962-64) vol. 3 at 816.
4
Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Borowski, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575.
accused persons is the duty counsel program for inmate appeals developed by
mycolleague,JusticeMarcRosenberg.TheCourtofAppealtravelstoKingston
several times a year to hear appeals from inmates in the Kingston-area
penitentiaries. Justice Rosenberg, with the co-operation of the defence bar, has
developed a program whereby defence counsel, including some of the most
capable in Ontario, provide legal assistance to the inmates in the presentation
of their appeals. They provide this service on a pro bono basis. The idea of a
single judge, and the unselfish service of a substantial number of defence
counsel, show the legal profession at its best.
III. CASES IN WHICH PEOPLE WANT TO BE IN COURT
In this category of case, individuals and groups seek access to the
courts, either because they want to challenge a perceived abuse of power
(usually by government) or because they hope that the law will provide them
with something they perceive as positive. In my view, governments and courts
should not be concerned about this category of case. In a speech to students at
Amherst College in October 1963, President John Kennedy said: õ?oThe people
who create power make an indispensable contribution to the nationõ?Ts greatness,
but the people who question power make a contribution just as indispensable,
especially when that questioning is disinterested.õ?
3
I agree with this statement. In a constitutional democracy anchored in
the principle of the rule of law, the courts are a necessary and important forum
for reviewing the laws and conduct of governments.
Once again, judges play an important role in this category õ?" to promote
access to the courts. In Canada in recent years, the courts have played this role
by expanding the definitions of standing and intervention to permit a wider
range of individuals and groups to bring important legal issues to the courts.
The test for standing in the private law domain is a narrow one õ?" a
person can make a claim only if he or she has a direct interest in the subject
matter of a claim. For many decades, that was also the test for standing in the
public law domain. That changed, almost completely, with the decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada in Minister of Justice of Canada v. Borowski
4
, in
which thecourtpermittedJosephBorowski,amaleManitoban, to challengethe
abortion provisionsof the Criminal Code in the Saskatchewan courts. Martland
J. enunciated this test for standing, at p. 608:

Page 5
2003]
The Role of Legal Professionals
375
5
Ibid. at 598.
6
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to
the Canada Act 1982 (U.K), 1982, c. 11.
7
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 113.
8
R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 [repealed: S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 274(a), effective June 28, 2002).
9
S.B.C. 1987, c. 25 [now S.B.C. 1998, c. 9].
õ?Ư [T]o establish status as a plaintiff in a suit seeking a declaration that legislation is invalid, if
there is a serious issue as to its invali***y, a person need only to show that he is affected by it
directly or that he has a genuine interest as a citizen in the vali***y of the legislation and that there
is no other reasonable and effective manner in which the issue may be brought before the Court.
5
This definition, coupled with the enactment of the Charter
6
the
following year, has opened the door to many individuals and groups to bring a
broad range of social issues to the courts.
The courts have similarly broadened the notion of intervenor status in
public law litigation. An intervenor is a party with no direct stake in litigation
but with a point of view that it wants the court to be aware of when the court is
consideringitsdecision.Agoodexampleoftheroleofintervenorsinpubliclaw
litigation is the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Law Society
of British Columbia v. Mangat.
7
In that case, Mr. Mangat, an immigration
consultant,challengedaBritishColumbialawthatprohibitednon-lawyersfrom
practising law. He said that this law conflicted with the federation Immigration
Act
8
which permitted non-lawyers to appear on behalf of clients before the
Immigration and Refugee Appeal Board.
The parties in the case were, of course, the Law Society of British
Columbia and Mr. Mangat. However, the court permitted the following parties
to appear as intervenors to make arguments on the legal issuesõ?" Attorneys
General (Canada, Ontario, Manitoba, and British Columbia), Organization of
Professional Immigration Consultants Inc., Canadian Bar Association, and
Association of Immigration Counsel of Canada.
Ultimately, Mr. Mangat won because the provisions of the Legal
Professions Act of British Columbia
9
were found to be in conflict with federal
constitutionalpoweroverimmigrationandnaturalization.Therefore,thefederal
Immigration Act, which allows non-lawyers to appear before the Immigration
and Refugee Board, most prevail.
My conclusion on the second category of cases that come before the
courts is this: courts have encouraged, and should continue to encourage, resort
to the courts through broad and liberal definitions of the concepts of standing
and intervention.
IV. CASES IN WHICH PEOPLE END UP IN COURTõ?"THEY MAY OR

Page 6
376
OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL
[
VOL
. 41,
NOS
. 2 & 3
10
(1998), 39 O.R. (3d) 620 [Daishowa].
MAY NOT WANT TO BE THERE, BUT THEY ARE WILLING TO
DEFEND THEIR POSITION IF CHALLENGED
The people involved in these cases display a mixture of ambivalence
and principle. They are, in the words Professor Rosenthal used in his remarks
on this panel, õ?opeople who risk violating the lawõ?.
This is not classic civil obedience, because people are not overtly
breaking the law. Butõ?"and I regard this as an important pointõ?"there is much
less need for civil disobedience in Canadian society today than, for example, a
generation ago when I was a law student like you. That is because, in the 25
years I have been a lawyer, law teacher and judge, the law and the legal
profession have developed in important ways that render resorting to civil
disobedience less necessary. The law itselfõ?"and here I am thinking of the
superb Charter jurisprudence enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in
the first few years of the life of the Charterõ?"is now sufficiently liberal and
creative to permit progress on major social issues through the courts. As for the
legal profession, there is now a coterie of well-trained and dedicated lawyers
prepared to represent people engaged in these issues. Your own Parkdale Legal
Services Clinic immediately comes to mind.
Let me illustrate this significant shift with an example from my
experienceasatrialjudge. Twenty-fiveyearsago,theimpugnedconductinthis
case would have been labelled civil disobedience, even by those engaging in it.
The reason is that the law was both clear and narrow and would have prohibited
the conduct.
In the late 1990s, the parties who engaged in the conduct made no such
concession.Theyassertedthattheirconductwaslawfulalthoughtheywerealso
prepared, in classic civil disobedience mode, to accept the legal consequences
if the courts declared that they were wrong.
A.
Daishowa Inc. v. Friends of the Lubicon
10
The Lubicon Cree is a small and poor native band in northern Alberta.
They have been engaged for many years in a land rights dispute with the
Government of Alberta.
Daishowa Inc. (õ?oDaishowaõ?) is a large multi-national forest products
company. The Government of Alberta granted Daishowa logging rights in the
disputed territory. Daishowa built a large mill in Peace River. It also has a plant
in Manitoba where it manufactures paper products, principally bags and boxes
which it sells to Canadian retailers.

Page 7
2003]
The Role of Legal Professionals
377
The Friends of the Lubicon (õ?o
FOL
õ?) is a very small Toronto-based
group which supports the Lubicon Cree. Its three principal members at the
relevanttimewereapeacestudiesstudentattheUniversityofToronto,achurch
worker and a Shiatsu massage therapist. The
FOL
mounted what I would call an
Amnesty International-type campaign in support of the Lubicon Cree. They
wrote letters, spoke in public schools and organized small conferences. Not
surprisingly, none of this had any effect on Daishowa, which continued to
exercise its logging rights.
Then someone on the
FOL
had a bright idea. He realized that it would
do no good to picket Daishowaõ?Ts mill in Peace River, Alberta or its plant in
Manitoba because such activity would be almost invisible to the public.
However, he learned that Daishowa provided boxes and bags to many of the
largest and most well-known retailers in Canada. Relying on this knowledge,
the
FOL
conceived of a boycott campaign, not against Daishowa directly, but
rather against the consumers of Daishowa products.
ThefirsttargetwasPizzaPizzaoutletsinToronto,withplacardsurging
people to boycott Pizza Pizza. The campaign workedõ?" spectacularly. The
FOL
expanded it to other retailers. It worked again and again. Within three years,
approximately 50 Canadian companies stopped buying Daishowa products in
ordertopreventtheboycottoftheirproducts.Thelistofcapitulatingcompanies
reads like a Whoõ?Ts Who of the Canadian retail sceneõ?"Pizza Pizza, the
LCBO
,
Cultures,CountryStyleDonuts,Mr.Submarine,Bootleggers,
A
&
W
,
KFC
,Roots,
Club Monaco, Mảvenpick Restaurants, Holt Renfrew, and many more.
Eventually, Daishowa resorted to the courts and sought a permanent
injunction restraining the
FOL
õ?Ts conduct. Daishowa contended that the
FOL
õ?Ts
conduct was tortious in several respectsõ?"interference with economic and
contractual relations, intimidation, defamation, and the use of unlawful means,
including unlawful secondary picketing.
The
FOL
defended the action and were represented by Sierra Legal
Defence Fund.
The starting point for Daishowaõ?Ts legal argument was the correct
submission that secondary picketing is unlawful in the labour relations context
in Ontario. Daishowa argued that the change in context, from labour to
consumer relations, should make no legal difference.
The
FOL
õ?Ts response was that its activity had nothing to do with an
economic dispute between employers and employees. Rather, its activity was
speech on an important public issue, the fate of the Lucicon Cree in Alberta. I
agreed with this distinction.
Daishowaõ?Tsargumentthenbecamethatthemessageinthe
FOL
õ?Tsspeech
was an economic message, namely urging consumers not to buy Daishowaõ?Ts
products and that this type of speech was not worthy of legal protection when
set against the losses Daishowa was suffering (profits for sure, and potentially

Page 8
378
OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL
[
VOL
. 41,
NOS
. 2 & 3
11
Ibid. at 648-49.
12
[1963] 2 O.R. 81.
jobs in Alberta and Manitoba).
I concluded that this argument did not assist Daishowa because in a
series of major cases, the Supreme Court of Canada had decided that
commercial speech was protected by s. 2 of the Charter. I reasoned:
If the great principle of freedomof expression protects a corporation, say Daishowa, whose simple
message is: õ?oHere is why you should buy our productsõ?, then is there any reason why the same
principle should not protect a small group of consumers of Daishowa products, say the Friends,
from saying to fellow consumers: õ?oHere is why you should not buy Daishowaõ?Ts productsõ?? In my
view, the answer is clear; there is no reason, in logic or in policy, for restraining a consumer
boycott.
Indeed, the argument for protection of the expression of the consumers is perhaps even the better
one. The corporationõ?Ts expression is almost always entirely economic; it is designed to promote
its own economic interests and, inevitably, to harm the economic interests of competitors. There
is no õ?opublic issueõ? context within which most of the corporationõ?Ts expression will operate. Nike
hires Tiger Woods to speak on its behalf because it wants to make money and harm Adidas and
Reebok. Roots hires Ross Rebagliati because it wants to sell more winter jackets and hats, and
hopes that Sporting Lifeõ?Ts sales of the same items will decline. There is nothing unlawful about
any of thisõ?"the attempt to persuade people to purchase your product, and a concomitant attempt,
either explicit (e.g. negative advertising) or implicit, to dissuade people from purchasing a
competitorõ?Ts product, is entirely an economic message and entirely a lawful form of expression.
The Friendsõ?T message has a similar starting point. It is, as Daishowa asserts, a message with a
negative economic content; it says bluntly to the public õ?oDo not buy Daishowaõ?Ts bagsõ?. However,
there is no economic self-interest in the Friendsõ?T message; they do not add as a reason õ?obecause
we have better or less expensive bags to sellõ?. Rather, the economic component of the Friendsõ?T
message is anchored in the same foundation as all of its activities, namely an attempt to focus
public attention on a public issue, the plight of the Lubicon, and Daishowaõ?Ts alleged connection
to that issue.
11
Twenty-fiveyearsago,Canadianlawwouldnothavepermittedthisline
of reasoning. The
FOL
õ?Ts conduct would have been seen as unlawful and the
FOL
members would have been seen, even by themselves, as being engaged in civil
disobedience. But the law developed in those 25 years. The Charter was
enacted and the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted it in a fashion that
converted the
FOL
õ?Ts conduct from unlawful to lawful, from civil disobedience
to protected speech on an important issue.
As the judge in the Daishowa decision, the guidance of the
Charterwascrucial.Daishowa reliedheavilyonanow40-year-oldcase,
Hersees of Woodstock Ltd. v. Goldstein
12
, which suggested that
secondary picketing was illegal under common law. But I could not
accept the applicability of the Hersees reasoning because it was specific
to the labour relations context. In Daishowa, I was dealing with the

Page 9
2003]
The Role of Legal Professionals
379
13
Daishowa, supra note 9 at 644..
14
2002 SCC 8.
15
Ibid. at para. 70..
16
The Writings of Henry David Thoreau, reprint of 1906 ed. (New York: AMS Press, 1968) vol. 4 at
356-87.
17
The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, 1958-97) vol. 26 at 538.
assertion of freedom of expression in a consumer boycott, and I pointed
out that it is precisely that right which is protected by the Charter:
The fact that freedom of expression is protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
coupled with the absence of any economic rights, except for mobility to pursue the gaining of a
livelihood, in the same document, is a clear indication that free speech is near the top of the values
that Canadians hold dear.
13
Today, it would be an easier conclusion to reach, because the
Supreme Court of Canada has, essentially, reached the same one. In
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 558 v. Canada
Beverages (West) Ltd.,
14
the Court dealt with secondary picketing in a
labour dispute.
The Hersees rule ... denies free expression any value outside primary picketing. Given the vast
scopeofactivitiescapturedwithinthenebulousboundariesoftheterm"secondarypicketing"from
peaceful picketing to the highly disruptive, an absolute prior restraint on all such activities risks
unduly compromising freedom of expression. It would extend, for example, to peaceful picketing
aimed at consumers, without disruption of access to the store, employment, deliveries or any other
facet of the secondary employer''s business. In our opinion, a blanket prohibition is too blunt a tool
with which to handle such a vital freedom.
15
The Charter has changed the face of Canadian jurisprudence, as
well as the art of non-violent political change.
V.
CASES IN WHICH PEOPLE KNOWINGLY BREAK THE LAW
AND END UP IN COURTõ?"CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
Over a century and a half ago, Henry David Thoreau wrote his classic
Essay on Civil Disobedience
16
as an explanation of his refusal to pay taxes in
protest against the Mexican-American war in the 1840s. In the 20th century,
Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. put Thoreauõ?Ts ideas into action.
Classiccivil disobediencehasfourcomponents1) clear identification
of the law being challenged; (2) open disobedience of the law; (3) non-violence
(Gandhi: õ?oCivil disobedience does not admit of any violence or countenancing
of violence, directly or indirectlyõ?
17
); and (4) acceptance of the legal

Page 10
380
OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL
[
VOL
. 41,
NOS
. 2 & 3
18
D.G. Tendulkar, Mahatma: The Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, new ed., rev. (Delhi:
Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 1960-63) vol. 2 at 84.
consequencesof breaking thelaw(Gandhi:õ?oCivildisobedienceisapreparation
for mute sufferingõ?
18
).
The implication of this fourth component is that the practitioners of
civil disobedience target governments in their hope to change certain laws.
They do not expect the courts to change the laws because, provided the laws are
constitutional, they acknowledge that the courts are sworn to uphold the rule of
law. Thus, whereas lawyer Rosenthal can say to you õ?oas a lawyer, in court I will
try to advance the politics of my clientõ?, as a judge I can say no such thing. For
a judge, the rule of law is more important than any single law, even a bad law.
VI. CONCLUSION
It is a wonderful time to be a first year law student in a great Canadian
law school. The long tra***ion of this school is to develop lawyers who will try
to represent people and issues which other lawyers ignore. I hope that at least
some of you will embark upon your legal careers faithful to that tra***ion. You
will enjoy the work if you do, and you will bring honour to the profession and,
hopefully, improve Canadian society.

Khổ bác Nội, đến giờ nầy đã thắc mắc. Mấy người dân khiếu kiện đã thơi thới giản tán, về quê trong nỗi niềm hân hoan không thể tả rồi.
Tui từng đề cập đến vụ nầy, chẳng có ma nào góp lời, trừ bác Trịnh với vài dòng xuôi xị, nhập nhằng.
Riêng anh Analyst, có lần ảnh nhắc đến kiểu làm chính trị của Việt kiều tại Orange county. Tui nhắc khéo ảnh là luật sự, phải chính xác trong việc dùng từ ngữ. Sau thì có được PM của ảnh, anh anh em em rất thân mật, giải thích vài dòng. Vậy là đủ hiểu rồi, hehehe, chẳng cần nói nhiều.
Bác có rảnh, vào Vinhxuan.org, đóng góp, chia sẻ với anh em. Bọn tụi tui vốn dốt nát, nên cứ ra sức học tập dân chủ, bác ạ.