Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, we discuss the phenomenon of people who call themselves “Freemen of the Land.”
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week, and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
For more Kyla Lee, follow her on Twitter.
This case involves a man named Norris Barens, who argued he shouldn’t have to have a driver’s licence because he’s a human being. His argument is that all humans are “freemen of the land,” and are permitted to do whatever they want unless they enter a social contract with the state.
His argument is ridiculous and has no place in Canadian society.
But still, the case involved four levels of court in Canada, when finally it was rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada. The SCC had an opportunity here. It could have made a clear declaration that these “freemen of the land” cases have no basis in law.
Here was an opportunity where the SCC could have said we can stop wasting judicial resources on freemen of the land, that those arguments have no place, and their proponents should not be entertained.
Instead, we have to listen to these types of cases. These cases occupy a significant amount of time when hey come before the court. Because it was never clearly decided and denounced by the SCC, we have to continue listening to these poisonous arguments.