Anyone who knows the legal system, or have watched lawyers argue a case, would know that semantics [definition - 1 : the study of meanings] play an important role. Lawyers will not only argue the definition of a word, but the context in which it was used. Thus, it shouldn't surprise anyone that a good dictionary is key good legal arguments, with diction at the base of any philosophy justice.

A good dictionary and an understanding of semantics will help anyone understand the fundamentals of a justice system. However, one component is often overlooked - diction. [definition - 2 : choice (use) of words ] The reason is that often the use of a word can change the meaning (definition). This means that the context [definition - 1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning] in which a word is used, is equally important. Understanding this a construct can be built on justice, and specifically, fundamental justice. (consider these definitions)

{Webster's New World Dictionary College Ed. ; Copyright 1951 to 1957}

  1. [Definition # 1] Justice - (n) 1. the quality of being righteous. 2. impartial ; fairness

  2. [Definition # 2] Fundamental - (adj) 1. of or forming a foundation or basis; basic, essential (n) 1. a principle, theory, law, etc. serving as a basis

  3. [Definition # 3] Impartial - (adj) favoring no one side or party more than another; without prejudice or bias ; fair ; just -SYN see fair

  4. [Definition # 4] Fairness - (n) see fair

  5. [Definition # 5] Fair - (adj) 7. Just and honest ; impartial ; unprejudiced : as a fair judge

  6. [Definition # 6] Objective - (adj) 1. of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking;

  7. [Definition # 7] Subjective - (adj) 1. of, affected by, or produced by the mind or a particular state of mind;

  8. [Definition # 8] Arbitrary - (adj) 2. based on one's preference, notion or whim, hence 3. capricious 4. absolute ; despotic - SYN see dictatorial

    The definitions of subjective and arbitrary define the justice system as it is, and the definitions 1 to 6 the way it should be. The very statements, "there are many barriers to obtaining access to the courts" (4), and "In addition to financial obstacles and risks, Charter litigants face many procedural obstacles." (5), clearly state the Canadian Justice position as contradictory to justice and fundamental justice.

  9. [Definition # 9] Vigilante - (n) a member of a vigilance committee.

  10. [Definition # 10] Vigilance Committee - 1. a group of organized without legal authorization professed to keep order and punish crime when ordinary law enforcement agencies apparently fail to do so. 2. especially formerly in the south, such a group was organized to terrorize and control Negro and Abolitionists and during the Civil War, to suppress support of the Union.

  11. [Definition # 11] Revenge - (v.t.) to take vengeance ; 1. to inflict damage, injury, or punishment in return for; retaliate for; 2. to take vengeance in behalf of (a person, oneself, etc.) ; (n) 3. desire to take vengeance; vindictive spirit

  12. [Definition # 12] Vindictive - (adj) 1. revengeful in spirit; inclined to vengeance. 2. said or done in revenge; characterized by vengeance: as, vindictive punishment ; vindictive stresses the unforgiving nature of one who is animated by a desire to get even with another for a wrong, injury, etc. ; mean, or malicious vindictiveness - spiteful

  13. [Definition # 13] Vigilante Justice - justice of vengeance, arbitrary, despotic

Definitions 9 to 13 describe the results of being a justice system base in subjective justice. The consequences of which have lead to judges, prosecutors, politician, police being effective placed above the law with laws that prevent prosecution and liability. In other words, the same standard of law that applies to the ordinary citizen does not apply to those who enforce the law. As well, there is a third standard for the wealthy who can afford good lawyers. These definition can be clearly seen in the Canadian Justice System.

Although, the Canadian Justice System, claims, "Constitutional remedies are matters of considerable importance."(1) Yet in chapter 2 of Constitutional Remedies in Canada, states, "Canadian courts have historically been reluctant to order constitutional remedies against government...".(2) Clearly a contradiction between the stated purpose of justice and the practice. Not surprisingly, "Kenneth McNaught has observed that Canadian Courts have often convicted those who engage in civil disobedience...."(3) However, increasing, the courts are being relied on for constitutional remedies, and as a result, "there are many barriers to obtaining access to the courts" (4) constructed by the government (law makers) to discourage the public from turning to the courts. Furthermore, "In addition to financial obstacles and risks, Charter litigants face many procedural obstacles.". (5)

Now, while the Canadian Justice System is not identical to all justice systems, it is representative. The reasoning here, is that the Canadian Justice System considers itself to be part of the larger Anglo-American Justice System. (8) Then considering the influence of American Democracy globally, it may be stated all justice systems in countries calling themselves a democracy, have a common ground. This means that the Canadian Justice System can be used as a typical model.

To illustrate this further, we can easily find examples, placing the U.S. justice system (which is supposed to be the standard for justice in a democracy) within the definition of subjective (arbitrary) justice. The principle cases, that the comes to mind, are the "Scottsboro" case and the "Fatty Arbuckle" case. In these cases, not only was the process of "due process" violated, but the prosecutors clearly illustrate the definition of retribution and meet the definition 9 to 13. These same issue appear more recently in the OJ Simpson case, and the Boston Au Pair trial.

The political swing in the justice system can be seen in the history of the justice system from the 1960's to the 1990's. Where in the 1960's society was on the political right before it moved to the political left in the late 1960s and then moved back to the right in the 1990's. It was in the 1970s that legal reform really began, particularly with the civil rights movement. It was a promising move away from the draconian laws of the segregated past. A past that criminalized, the now celebrated freedom fighters Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Celebrated by politicians like the Late Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who in 1982 brought the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Canada, based on a position paper, that he wrote as the Minister of Justice in 1968.(7) These reforms were intended to provide a freer society than existed in the past. However, what occurred was something different - it freed dangerous criminals. This began the swing back to the right in the late 1980s. The public demanded safer streets, a cause that was picked up by politicians and pushed onto prosecutors. This is where just as reforms were underway, the menace of drug addiction appeared in the 1980s. Sponsored and supported by militarily equipped organized crime gangs, used as a weapon in the covert operations of the cold war. The weapon created by our advanced society to control others, began to turn on us. As these weapons of the cold war had begun to seep back into our society in the late 1960s and in the 1970s, in the 1980s the trickle becomes a flood. Along with the drugs came the crime and the violence, using the new freedom to avoid jail. Not surprisingly, as the fear that spread through society, the call for harsher and harsher measures in the 1990 have begun to push back the promises of freedom and now cast suspicion on everyone. This call halted the erosion of "Crown privilege" (the move toward freedom and fundamental justice) begun by Trudeau's paper, as his successor, Jean Chrétien - the current Prime Minister of Canada - began to use this privilege for the government. A government, that is increasingly becoming abusive and anti-democratic. Using the law, and the threat of jail, to force submission and discourage decent. This has resulted in (once again) the arrest of peaceful protestors using paramilitary police tactics. [Reference; the B.C. inquiry] Then "Crown privilege" is used, as a threat, forcing the innocent to plead guilty or face jail. [Reference; custodial terms for provincial offenses and civil disobedience] Then the barriers, and obstacles, placed before the common public first by the crown and now by the government, once again denies them the right to basic justice; to fundamental justice.

Above, no matter what the political view was (left or right) justice remained within the definitions 7 to 13. Definitions that stand against the term fundamental justice which is supposed to be objective. (Definitions 1 to 6). To date no justice system has existed that has been based, and existed, in definitions 1 to 6. And this has been the UN's failure. The court system they have set-up falls under the definitions 7 to 13. To the point that the US has pulled out fearing prosecution. It is for this reason that this justice system has been set-up.

The justice system of Democratic Earth is an objective fundamental justice. It's constitutional philosophy (which forms the philosophical base for justice) is itself objective (see the "Constitution" section of Democratic Earth). Here, there is no retribution, just reform and repair. This court of justice works to correct problems, as such no one need fear this court.

All numbered references are from "Constitutional Remedies In Canada" by Kent Roach, published by Canada Law Book copyright 1999

(1) Chapter 1, page 1-1, ¶ 1.10

(2) Chapter 2, page 2-1, ¶ 2.10

(3) Chapter 2, page 2-15, ¶ 2.320 & footnote 86

(4) Chapter 4, page 4-1, ¶ 4.20

(5) Chapter 4, page 4-1, ¶ 4.30

(6) Chapter 5, page 5-29, ¶ 5.570

(7) Chapter 2, page 2-32, ¶ 2.660

(8) Chapter 2, page 2-32, ¶ 2.660