A city in Quebec is introducing the Canadian version of the Chinese “Social Credit” System. What will YOU do?
Would you be the kind of citizen who would check up on your neighbor to make sure that they put enough organic matter in their compost bin? Would you consider reporting them to the authorities in the hope of gaining some kind of reward?
By The C.P.U. / PowerShift Team
The real lawful shareholders and co-owners of Canada are all around you: regardless of skin color or religion, they are business owners, public servants, family members, friends, colleagues, retirees, your kids and grandkids, and every Indigenous person!
Part 1 – ARTICLE 1
This also goes for self-governing States. Together, we are the proud owners of the biggest and most lucrative business in the country! We could even be entitled to dividends from the exploitation of our natural resources, making sure no one would know poverty or hunger, and everyone could be well taken care of.
In 2023, why can’t we rejoice in our wealth and power as a nation?
Generations of politicians have disregarded our collective rights to self-determination and governance, leaving the door wide open for corruption and globalization. Thanks to Canada’s obsolete political system – partocracy – and stealth authoritarianism, politicians are not held accountable to the citizens and can prioritize the interests of outsiders who rarely favor other goals except their own financial gains, over the peoples’ best interest.2
While a common mistake is to think we have a fair democracy in Canada, the only type of democracy we have is a parliamentary democracy (for parliamentarians only) and the citizens’ only role is to vote every four years for representatives promoting temporary policies used for votes with the belief that they will actually be put in place after elections.
What else have the Canadian politicians and legal professionals done in Canada to subvert our rights? They have surreptitiously manipulated the “Rule of Law” into a “Rule by Law” by erasing the history of Constitutional Law and the Rule of Law from the law school curriculums.
What is MISSING from our legal Canadian history? The collective and personal peoples’ rights that Canada was to imbed into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms from the Universal Human Rights Declaration has disappeared in a puff of smoke. More precisely, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that Canada and the UK both signed onto in 1976 binding both countries, guaranteed us all these rights within the international instruments signed by them.
Here are great examples of how the Rule of Law was manipulated through legal scholar corruption which now leads us to Supreme Court Justice Rule of Law corruption in 2023:
In order to request that our collective civil and political rights be properly recognized, and that we should be respected as the legal shareholders and co-owners of Canada, lawyers would need to be updated on the missing links within the Rule of Law, as well as the principles and history that have purposely denied us all of our legal, lawful rights to rule above government as the collective Head of State. There would be no episodes of Supreme Court Justices or any lower court Justices falsely misleading or contradicting and diminishing lawyers fighting for our rights while following the Rule of Law.
Supreme Court Justices make false comments, which its documents prove otherwise, as we have seen in the latest Supreme Court cases regarding our non-derogable rights such as Freedom of Association and Freedom of Expression. Canadian citizens and Indigenous Peoples need to rise and take proper legal action.
The most infuriating and telling of all is when the Supreme Court of Canada itself perpetrates actions that go against even their own previous precedents in regard to Human rights, such as when the Supreme Court denies leave in COVID-related organ transplant case:
By Ian Burns (June 9, 2023, 3:01 PM EDT) — Canada’s top court will not hear the case of an Alberta woman who was taken off an organ transplant waitlist because she did not want to get a COVID-19 vaccine.5
Annette Lewis’ application for leave to appeal the decision dismissing her case was denied by the Supreme Court, June 8. Lewis, who suffers from what the courts have described as an “idiopathic condition” which is progressive and debilitating, was part of a program which made it mandatory that patients receive the vaccine prior to transplantation. Lewis tried to restore her place on the list and sought a declaration that the vaccine requirement violated her Charter right to freedom of conscience, the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right to equality, arguments which were rejected by the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (Lewis v. Alberta Health Services, 2022 ABQB 479) and the Alberta Court of Appeal (Lewis v. Alberta Health Services, 2022 ABCA 359). Both courts found the Charter does not apply to doctors’ exercise of clinical judgments.
The 1985 Siracusa Principles were never part of our legal education system. These principles were meant to protect the rights of citizens from government overreach.6 They could positively change the outcome of our human rights cases, and the last three years could have been drastically different from an economic, health and labor perspective. Moreover, all politicians and legislative officials should be required to know the basics of international law binding within our Constitution before creating laws; precisely, in reference to international instruments binding on Canada.7
When it comes to citizens’ issues, most legal offices and politicians are in conflicts of interests due to government and corporate contracts, which further limits access to legal counsel.
So, to whom can we turn to for help when our system allows us no political power?
The fact that crucial concepts have been gradually removed or neglected from the curriculum makes it extremely difficult for lawyers and Justices to grasp the severity of the treason done to Canadians and Indigenous Peoples in Canada since 1931.
Future generations of lawyers should be taught the true impact that our fundamental international human rights, laws, principles, and treaties have on Canadian law and how they are to be respected. These are the rights that the WHO, ILO, NATO, WTO, and the WEF must also respect.
Furthermore, the Treaty of Rome 1957, acceded to by the UK in 1973 by joining the EU, also affected Canada until 20208. Another vital Treaty is the Statute of Rome International Instrument, creating the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998 (to which the U.S.A. refused to participate9). It is ironic that Canadians have paid part of the ICC’s legal establishment, yet in Canada, the peoples’ rights have been and are still being abused by our governing bodies.10 11
We are in the midst of an epic social, cultural and political crisis that affects almost every developed country. We must look forward to the day when the collective people, as Head of State above the government, will be able to ensure and maintain peace, order and good governance once and for all! We would take pride in how we replaced a corrupt political and legal system by revamping democracy to suit the needs of the people rather than the greed of corporate and political interests. All aspects of life in Canada could be positively influenced by the SHIFT of political POWER from the elites to informed and engaged citizens!
This would even be the dawn of an era when the Indigenous Peoples of Canada would finally be treated with the respect they deserve and, along with the Canadian citizens, would make sure the horrors and transgressions of the past centuries remain in the history books.
We still have a lot of work to do. By uniting in our collective power, with all our wealth properly restored to us as the lawful shareholder and co-owners, we will be able to celebrate the true meaning of what Canada Day should be about!!!
The Canadian Peoples’ Union NFP
Nicole Lebrasseur, C.E.O.
contact@thepowershift.ca
Tel: 226-777-5580
Sources:
SELF-DETERMINATION
Self-determination in International Law: A Democratic Phenomenon or an Abuse of Right?
Vladyslav Lanovoy*
DOI:10.7574/cjicl.04.02.388
© Author
Self-determination has been recognised as an erga omnes right 12 and even as a peremptory (jus cogens) norm. 13
Traditionally, international law has been silent on the choice of internal governance structures to be adopted within each state. Legal scholarship, in particular across the Atlantic, promptly advocated for an emerging ‘right to democratic governance’ in international law. 16
The argument is that democratic governance, in particular its procedural elements such as multiparty elections, is necessary for the realisation of self-determination. his article re-evaluates the underlying thesis and argues that democracy conceived as a multiparty political system is not a sufficient condition for the realisation of the right to self-determination in contemporary international law.
Like many other human rights, the right to self-determination is not absolute. Its exercise is limited by the principles of territorial integrity and uti possidetis juris (ie. the creation of a new entity must occur within the previous administrative boundaries). 17
It is widely agreed that there are two means of exercising the right to self-determination in international law: an external one, which provides the people with the right to determine the international status of the territory; and an internal one ensuring the right of peoples to self-government within the confines of the parent state. 18
Outside the decolonisation context, and subject to the potential exception of remedial secession,19 international law does not bestow upon groups, including ethnic, national, religious, cultural, or linguistic minorities, the right to exercise external self-determination. These groups are instead entitled to a form of self-government or autonomy within the confines of their parent state. 20
As the Supreme Court of Canada held:
The recognized sources of international law establish that the right to self-determination of a people is normally fulfilled through internal self-determination—a people’s pursuit of its political, economic, social and cultural development within the framework of an existing state. 21
Similarly, the Badinter Commission of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia stressed that ‘communities’ within a state may have the right to self -determination, but its exercise could not (in the absence of agreement) result in changes to state borders existing at the time of independence. Rather, the right implied an acknowledgement of a people’s cultural identity and their legal protection as minorities under relevant international instruments. 22
Accordingly, today self-determination is mainly consummated in its internal form, so as not to ‘dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States’. 23
It is questionable whether the choice of a democratic form of government, within the understanding of a multiparty democracy, is yet an additional limitation to the people’s exercise of the right to self-determination. (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217A (III) (UDHR) art 21 and ICCPR, art 25 do not require a multiparty setting as a precondition of the right to political participation. See also UN Human Rights Committee, ‘CCPR General Comment 25: Article 25
International law does not impose a restriction on the people’s choice as to the form of government, as long as the exercise of that choice takes place in a free manner, without any external influence or coercion. Foreseeing democracy as the only legitimate outcome ‘cannot truly be considered a free act of self-determination’. 25
Moreover, democracy, conceived as a majority rule in elections, is not a sufficient guarantee for the proper operation of the right to self-determination outside the decolonisation context. The genuine realisation of the right to self-determination implies not only a transparent electoral benchmark, but also respect of the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty, compliance with and promotion of other human rights, and the implementation of the rule of law.
The right to self-determination needs to be exercised in a free and fair way, benefiting from a representative government. However, the choice of people as to the governing system and its modalities is not dictated as a matter of positive international law. Mandating that a people must determine to be free, as denied by a particular procedural model of democracy, significantly constrains their right to make a free determination of their own political status. This, of course, is not to say that self-determination should not be exercised, or that the full extent of its consequences can be realised in practice outside a functioning democracy. 29
Article 25 ICCPR provides that every citizen has the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, which necessarily entails the right to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections. 33
Such elections must be by universal and equal suffrage, held by secret ballot ‘in circumstances which guarantee the free expression of the will of the electors. 34
Other provisions of international and regional instruments setup similar parameters for the expression of the will of the people. However, critically, the democratic interpretation of article 25 ICCPR is not universally accepted in contemporary international law.35
Nor does the interdependence of human rights imply that self-determination can only be exercised with a particular form of government in place. 36
As the Human Rights Committee pointed out in its General Comment:
– The rights under article 25 are related to, but distinct from, the right of peoples to self-determination.
– By virtue of the rights covered by article 1(1) peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and to enjoy the right to choose the form of their constitution or government. Article 25 deals with the right of individuals to participate in those processes which constitute the conduct of public affairs.37 General Comment 25 (n 24) 2.
Both democracy and self-determination are ‘sources of political legitimacy, both are considered to be important for the enjoyment of individual rights and both hold that the power derives from the people. 38
Article 1 ICCPR and ICESCR could then be regarded ‘as affirming the self-direction of each society by its people, and thus as affirming the principle of democracy at the collective level’. 39
In the Western Sahara Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court) clarified that the people of a territory entitled to self-determination have the right ‘to determine their future political status by their own freely expressed will’. 53
The Court stressed that ‘[t]he validity of the principle of self-determination, denied as the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples, is not affected by the fact that in certain cases the General Assembly has dispensed with the requirement of consulting the inhabitants of a given territory. 54
In practice, ‘the will of the people’ meant the will of the majority of the inhabitants of a colonial territory. 56
Yusuf argues that the right to self-determination ‘is manifestly opposable to unconstitutional forms of government such as military governments, as well as to authoritarian or despotic government’. 57
Finally, the exercise of the right to self-determination, in particular in its internal mode, may ‘take a variety of forms, from autonomy over most policies and laws in a region or part of a State (…) to a people having exclusive control over only certain aspects of policy. 69
International law provides no ‘guidelines on the possible distribution of power among institutionalized units or regions’. 70
One possible way to define the representativeness of the government in the context of the right to self-determination is that:
the government and the system of government is not imposed on the population of a State, but that it is based on the consent or assented by the population and in that sense is representative of the will of the people regardless of the forms or methods by which the consent or assent is freely expressed. 71
It remains questionable how much democratic pedigree exists in the concept of self-determination.
In the author’s view, a right to democracy or democratic governance remains de lege ferenda, and should not be conflated with the right to self-determination.
(Definition – “de lege ferenda”: being on the basis of new law) NL
Conclusion
Eleanor Roosevelt stated back in 1952 that ‘[j]ust as the concept of individual human liberty carried to its logical extreme would mean anarchy, so the principle of self-determination given unrestricted application could result in chaos. 102
Once regarded self-determination has not caused over the years the instability or disorganisation of the international society as some had predicted. In a great majority of cases, it has allowed people to liberate themselves from colonialism and alien domination.
It is undeniable that any people entitled to the right to self-determination must exercise it freely, whether through a plebiscite, referendum, or some other agreed procedure. However, the imposition of a multi-party democracy as the form of government is not a requirement in positive international law for the exercise of the right to self-determination, even if many authors argue the point de lege ferenda. What international law requires for the exercise of self-determination is the existence of a government that is representative (not necessarily a multiparty democracy), that respects human rights, and that does not discriminate against the people entitled to the right to self-determination.
The international community is yet to witness the emergence of ‘a duty not only of the state concerned, but also of other states and international organisations, to ensure the respect of the rights of peoples freely to choose a government which truly represents them and reflects the expression of the will of the majority in free and fair elections. 105
Yusuf explains that ‘such legal obligation of other states could consist of the withholding of recognition, individually or collectively, from governments which are not respectful of the will of their peoples or the suspension of their membership in universal or regional organizations. 106
You can read and download the entire document here: Self_determination_in_International_Law
References:
12. East Timor Judgment (n 2) para 29; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136, para 155 (Wall Advisory Opinion).
13. Antonio Cassese, International Law (2nd edn, OUP 2005) 65. See also David Raic, Statehood and the Law of Self-determination (Kluwer Law International 2002) 218–19; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia) (Preliminary Objections) [1996] ICJ Rep 595, para 90 (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Kreca).
16. Thomas M Franck, ‘the Emerging Right to Democratic Governance’ (1992) 86 AJIL 46.
17. Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) (Judgment) [1986] ICJ Rep 554, para 25. See also Robert McCorquodale, ‘Self-Determination: A Human Rights Approach’ (1994) 43 ICLQ 857, 875–76.
18. Steven Wheatley, Democracy, Minorities and International Law (CUP 2005) 5–6.
19. Quebec Reference (n 11). he doctrine of remedial secession remains highly controversial. In Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (Advisory Opinion) [2010] ICJ Rep 403, para 81 (Kosovo Advisory Opinion), the Court took a minimalist approach without discussing the subject. See, eg, Antonello Tancredi, ‘A Normative “Due Process” in the Creation of States through Secession’ in Marcelo G Kohen (ed), Secession: International Law Perspectives (CUP 2006); Simone F van den Driest, Remedial Secession: A Right to External Self-Determination as a Remedy
to Serious Injustices? (CUP 2013); Allen Buchanan, Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations of International Law (OUP 2004).
20. For state practice see Raić (n 13) 230–33. See generally, Marc Weller, ‘Settling Self-Determination Conflicts: Recent Developments’ (2009) 20 EJIL 111 (identifying nine different categories of self-determination settlements).
21. Quebec Reference (n 11) para 126.
22. Arbitration Commission of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, ‘Opinion No 2’ (reprinted in 1992) 31 ILM 1497, 1498–99 (Badinter Opinion No 2). See Jan Klabbers, ‘he Right to be Taken Seriously: Self-Determination in International Law’ (2006) 28 Human Rights Q 186, 204: suggesting that ‘the right to internal self-determination came about, it could be argued, as a compromise position: Where secession or external self-determination would be out of reach, the least one could expect from states is that they would somehow not make peoples’ lives too miserable.’
23. Friendly Relations Declaration (n 8) principle 5, para 7.
24. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217A (III) (UDHR) art 21 and ICCPR, art 25 do not require a multiparty setting as a precondition of the right to political participation. See also UN Human Rights Committee, ‘CCPR General Comment 25: Article 25
25. Cecile Vandewoude, ‘The Rise of Self-Determination versus the Rise of Democracy’ (2010) 2 Goettingen J Intl L 981, 984; Eckert (n 15) 69–70.
29. Eckert (n 15) 57.
33. ICCPR, art 25.34. UDHR, art 21; European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (adopted 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953) ETS No 5, protocol 1, art 3 (European Convention on Human Rights); American Convention on Human Rights (adopted 22 November 1969, entered into force 18 July 1978) 1144 UNTS 123 art 23; and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986) 1520 UNTS 217 art 13.
35. Vidmar, Democratic Statehood in International Law (n 28) 19–39.
36. See Vidmar, ‘he Right of Self-Determination and Multiparty Democracy’ (n 1); Vidmar, ‘Judicial Interpretation of Democracy’ (n 24)
38. James J Summers, Peoples and International Law: How Nationalism and Self-Determination Shape a Contemporary Law of Nations (Martinus Nijhof 2007) 372.
39. James Crawford, ‘Democracy and International Law’ (1993) 64 BYBIL 113, 116. See UN Human Rights Committee, ‘Third Periodic Reports of States Parties due in 1992’ (17 June 1996) UN Doc CCPR/C/76/ Add.6, 32. States often refer to the democratic process or the right to democracy in relation to the right of self-determination: eg ‘[t]he exercise of the right to self-determination required the democratic process’ (Germany (13 October 1988) UN Doc A/C.3/43/SR.7, 76); ‘[t]he internal aspects of self-determination (…) includes [sic] the right of people to choose their own form of government and the right to democracy’ (India (17 June 1996) UN Doc CCPR/C/76/Add.6, 32). See also Patrick Thornberry, ‘The Democratic or Internal Aspect of Self-Determination with Some Remarks on Federalism’ in Christian Tomuschat (ed), Modern Law of Self-determination (Martinus Nijhof 1993) 120; Wheatley (n 18) 135–36
53. Friendly Relations Declaration (n 8) principles 5, 7.
54. Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion) [1975] ICJ Rep 12, para 70. See also paras 121–22 (Separate Opinion of Judge Dillard) (‘the present Opinion is forthright in proclaiming the existence of a “right” (…) he pronouncements of the Court thus indicate, in my view, that a norm of international law has emerged applicable to the decolonization of those non-self-governing territories which are under the aegis of the United Nations’); para 81 (Declaration of Judge Nagendra Singh) (‘the consultation of the people of the territory awaiting decolonization is an inescapable imperative whether the method followed on decolonization is integration or association or independence. (…) Thus even if integration of territory was demanded by an interested State, as in this case, it could not be had without ascertaining the freely expressed will of the people—the very sine qua non of all decolonization’). See also he Right of Peoples and Nations to Self-Determination, UNGA Res 637A (VII) (16 December 1952) UN Doc A/RES/637(VII) [A], 2, which expressly states that the exercise of the right to self-determination should take place in accordance with ‘the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, the wishes of the people being ascertained through plebiscites or other recognized democratic means, preferably under the auspices of the United Nations.
56. Higgins, The Development of International Law (n 8) 104; Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, ‘Study prepared by Héctor Gros Espiell: he Right to Self-Determination—Implementation of United Nations Resolutions’ (20 June 1978) UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/405, 10–11.
57. Yusuf (n 26) 384.
70. Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (n 4) 332.
71. Raic (n 13) 279.
105. Yusuf (n 26) 384 (emphasis in original).
106. ibid. For the consequences of the breach of the right to self-determination on third parties, see Wall Advisory Opinion (n 12) para 159 (including the obligations of non-recognition and non-assistance).
OPEN LETTER REQUEST
Ohsweken, April 05, 2023
TO: SENATORS and PARLIAMENTARIANS BY REGISTERED LETTER, EMAIL or FAX
Senate and Parliament of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada, K1A 0A4
____________________________________________________________
Dear Senators and Parliamentarians,
We, the Canadian Peoples’ Union NFP (C.P.U.) – represent Canadian citizens and Indigenous Peoples throughout Canada. We are requesting your help to ensure that our civil and political rights above our government, as well as yours, are properly respected. With the imminent approval of Bill C-11, the Notwithstanding Clause (article 33) as well as Province of Ontario Bill-3, these rights can, once more, go unaddressed by our governments. (BTW, what I meant by the Senators declaring Bill C-11 unconstitutional is meant to mean inside their meeting.)
With your dutiful collaboration as our representatives, we are asking you to declare Bill C-11 unconstitutional in its entirety. The government cannot deny us any of our rights as specified in the Siracusa Principles, which include non-derogation of “freedom of expression” as stated by the United Nations subcommittee of which the Canadian government and the Quebec Government are very aware of. The subcommittee further commented on the Notwithstanding Clause (article 33):
Fact: Québec Premier Bourassa passed Bill 178, which included the notwithstanding clause to restrict the use of commercial signs in languages other than French. After the new law was criticized by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Premier had the National Assembly rewrite the law so that it conforms to the Charter. The notwithstanding clause was removed.
See: CCPR/C/47 /D/359/1989 and 385/1989/Rev. 1 – 5 May 1993 http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/html/v359385.htm
To continue to ignore these facts and the RULE OF LAW indicates that those who write our laws, including those who approve them without the knowledge of the Siracusa Principles, or instill them even though they are aware of them, create an injustice to all Canadians and Indigenous Peoples of Canada, especially to those worldwide who fought for these rights during and after WWII.
These are the very principles our laws and human, civil and political rights were created for. They also complete the foundation of the Rule of Law. Anything else is a rule by law, which is contradictory to the very cornerstone of this country.
The responsibility to respect International Laws and universal rights, such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 which Canada and the U.K. have signed in 1976, falls upon both the U.K. and the Canadian Parliaments. In addition, the Courts must uphold both the Constitution and the International Laws under the Rule of Law Principles (principles that protect the people from governments that create seemingly arbitrary laws that are neither based on the Rule of Law, nor on protecting the people). Instead, by not honoring the citizens’ collective rights, Canada has been ruling BY law since 1982.
A request for an official constitutional correction placing the collective people in our rightful place was addressed to the United Kingdom by the C.P.U. in March 2022; unfortunately, we received no response. On July 30, 2022, in Ottawa, the C.P.U. and its supporters stood up and activated our collective civil and political rights, which was another step in initiating a dialogue with the U.K. and the Canadian governments. Prior to 2022, the C.P.U. had also written to David Lametti and various other officials hoping to shed light on the neglected state of democracy in Canada, including the disregarded non-derogation of the rights of our peoples during the pandemic; no response was received.
The deliberate malfeasant advice given by Minister of Justice Mr. Lametti, and the legal stance of the Canadian government reflects a gross injustice perpetually committed against Canadian citizens and Indigenous Peoples, and to yourselves “our Senators and Parliamentarians,”.
It does not matter which province you are from or represent; all Canadians are equal across the provinces and territories. No provincial or municipal government has the right to have different rules under these legislatures ignoring equality rights of all its peoples. The last 3 years could have been very different if our rights had not been omitted; the World Health Organization cannot override these rights anymore than the Canadian Governance. These are serious breaches of international treaties and a complete disrespect of the peoples of our country.
It is crucial that these issues be addressed by all Parliamentarians, all Canadians, and all Indigenous Peoples of Canada. Furthermore, utilising “controlled” surveys or inviting favoured people to speak at inquiries without getting input from all sides of the situation does not and cannot show that Canadians want what the governing bodies do. More needs to be done before making such claims or applying unconstitutional laws.
You will find attached in PDF or paper format the Siracusa Principles which has been successfully used in courts of law and in Canada by our Justices when in conflict with the Canadian Government. These key principles are not included as part of the curriculum in law education in Canada. All lawyers and Canadians need to know about these principles as court challenge outcomes could have been different than what we have witnessed in the last 3 years and before; this includes the prevention of the use of the Emergency Measures by the Canadian Government, as they did, thus making the inquiry null and void.
The irony in all of this, is that Canada claims to be excellent in protecting the rights of Canadians, and our human rights agencies are there to make sure that Canada implements its obligations. From our research their statements are hypocritical.
Please refer to sections 30, 31 and 32 of the Siracusa Principles below:
30. National security cannot be invoked as a reason for imposing limitations to prevent merely local or relatively isolated threats to law and order.
31. National security cannot be used as a pretext for imposing vague or arbitrary limitations and may only be invoked when there exists adequate safeguards and effective remedies against abuse.
32. The systematic violation of human rights undermines true national security and may jeopardize international peace and security. A state responsible for such violation shall not invoke national security as a justification for measures aimed at suppressing opposition to such violation or at perpetrating repressive practices against its population.
States parties should not derogate from Covenant rights or rely on a derogation made when they are able to attain their public health or other public policy objectives by invoking the possibility to restrict certain rights, such as article 12 (freedom of movement), article 19 (freedom of expression) or article 21 (right to peaceful assembly), in conformity with the provisions for such restrictions set out in the Covenant, or by invoking the possibility of introducing reasonable limitations on certain rights, such as article 9 (right to personal liberty) and article 17 (right to privacy), in accordance with their provisions;
(d)
States parties may not resort to emergency powers or implement derogating measures in a manner that is discriminatory, or that violates other obligations that they have undertaken under international law, including under other international human rights treaties from which no derogation is allowed. Nor can States parties deviate from the non-derogable provisions of the Covenant – article 6 (right to life), article 7 (prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or of medical or scientific experimentation without consent), article 8, paragraphs 1 and 2 (prohibition of slavery, the slave trade and servitude), article 11 (prohibition of imprisonment because of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation), article 15 (principle of legality in the field of criminal law), article 16 (recognition of everyone as a person before the law) and article 18 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) – or from other rights that are essential for upholding the non derogable rights found in the aforementioned provisions and for ensuring respect for the rule of law and the principle of legality even in times of public emergency, including the right of access to court, due process guarantees and the right of victims to obtain an effective remedy; see the attached pdf below.
Furthermore, as stated by the Human Rights Committee, our rights are also protected online. No government can use laws to regulate our online access under freedom of expression. Nothing in law states that the government has the right to rule over the people. The government does not have this right, even if it thinks it does through the election process.
The Canadian Governments and Parliamentarians need their votes to reflect the conscience of the people when laws being passed affect them directly. This is why parliamentarians should not be allowed to vote as partisans on statutes and Acts but rather should vote their conscience in consideration of their fiduciary obligations to the people. It is obvious that during parliamentary votes, parliamentarians do not reflect taking into consideration the right of conscience of all Canadians since they must act according to their party’s orders on how to vote. Bill C-11 and other bills like it, should not get drafted in the first place.
Our livelihood is in peril due to our governing bodies’ decisions. Where is the justice in all of this? If we can’t depend on our Senators and Parliamentarians to provide a “Sobering Second Thought” with the ability to veto what is unconstitutional, who can we depend on when so many breaches are being orchestrated?
Looking at the big picture of what Canada has become since 1982 given the RULE OF LAW and the concealment of the Siracusa Principles from lawyers and observing the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal along with the provincial agencies fraught with abuse and negligence of all of our rights; it is never too late to take positive action. You can all help make a huge difference by eliminating Bill C-11 and to further assist us in disallowing unconstitutional laws that derogate from our rights, and yours.
Appended is an excerpt of the forgotten Universal Declaration of Human Rights which are automatically embedded in our constitution under international Instruments that Pierre Elliot Trudeau and all Prime Ministers and Premiers since, have hidden from public knowledge. As well, the Siracusa Principles are attached for your perusal so that the Canadian Government, Parliament, Provincial and Municipal legislatures can no longer ignore it.
We would be honored if you would schedule a meeting with us at your convenience. If you would like more information, please do not hesitate to contact us as time is of the essence before Canada is irreparably ruptured by those who want to destroy our country and its peoples. Please see the Appendix on pg. 7.
Without Prejudice,
Respectfully and warmest regards,
Nicole Lebrasseur
The Canadian Peoples’ Union NFP
Activating our Collective Civil and Political rights
nicole@canadianpeoplesunion.com
Tel: (226) 777-5580
thepowershift.ca
______________________________________________________________
APPENDIX:
1. Universal Human Rights:
ARTICLE 5
1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.
2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
Part 1
ARTICLE 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue ·their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence. . .
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
PART II
ARTICLE 2
1. Each State Party to the present “Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or Legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
ARTICLE 3
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.
ARTICLE 4
1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States ·Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other
obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.
2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.
3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.
See the attached PDF.
2. Rights Committee General comment No. 37 (2020) on the right of peaceful assembly (article 21)*
Section III
Obligation of States parties regarding the right of peaceful assembly
States must leave it to the participants to determine freely the purpose or any expressive content of an assembly. The approach of the authorities to peaceful assemblies and any restrictions imposed must thus in principle be content neutral, 21 and must not be based on the identity of the participants or their relationship with the authorities. Moreover, while the time, place and manner of assemblies may under some circumstances be the subject of legitimate restrictions under article 21, given the typically expressive nature of assemblies, participants must as far as possible be enabled to conduct assemblies within sight and sound of their target audience.22 See the attached PDF.
Read more here: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G20/232/15/PDF/G2023215.pdf?OpenElement
3. Guidelines for lawyers in support of peaceful assemblies
Lawyers and legal practitioners play a crucial role in helping to ensure full respect for the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and access to justice. They do so by supporting organizations’ and individuals’ ability to comply with any procedures required by law for the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; by working to ensure that individuals and groups are protected against violations and abuses in the context of peaceful assemblies; by holding those responsible for violations to account; by pursuing remedies for those whose human rights have been violated in the context of peaceful assemblies; and by promoting structural changes oriented towards the reform of systems which may lead to violations of the rights to freedom of assembly and association. See the attached PDF.
Read more here: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G21/166/18/PDF/G2116618.pdf?OpenElement
You can download the PDF version of this letter here:
Other sent documents to the Senators
Easier to read Original Byllantyne U.N. Document
Principles on Indigenous and other Customary or Traditional Justice Systems, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law
Many of you were probably outraged at the results of the latest Public Order Emergency Commission. However, citizens must understand that we don’t have our collective rights and that our political and judicial systems are not under our control. Furthermore, crucial legal information is missing from the Canadian law education curriculum. In order to actively engage ourselves in the search for a solution to all the madness we are witnessing since 2020, we must comprehend the many factors that hinder our fight for collective freedom. The road to a truly beneficial form of democracy and to our rightful place as Collective Head of State is certainly paved with obstacles, but with everything hanging in the balance, it is definitely worth a try.
If you are asking yourself why the petitions you have signed over the past years led nowhere, why the convoy and its supporters are still being vilified, and why the Commission ruled in favor of the Emergency Measures, the answer is simple: all three layers of our government (municipal, provincial and federal) are following a globalist and aggressive agenda and have no regard for the people. Our collective rights to self-determination and self-governance, which should have been properly enshrined in our Constitution since 1982, would have allowed the collective people – Canadian citizens as well as the Indigenous Peoples – to have full executive power and final decision-making authority over the elected officials, thus preventing many of the troubles we faced in the past years. Yet to this day, these veto rights are still disregarded while our other existing rights are also being destroyed, leaving us in a state of helplessness in the face of government corruption and tyranny.
Canada’s Obsolete Political System and Frayed Legal System
Our current obsolete political system, Partocracy, enables elected politicians to act upon the policies they choose. These politicians will favor policies that benefit themselves and the private sector actors who support them long before favoring policies that would actually be good for the people. For instance, do you find it appropriate that politicians with shares in pharmaceutical companies coerce us with what to put in our bodies? Absolutely NOT, especially when the World Health Organization cannot override our rights to bodily autonomy, as specified in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights! In addition, the only form of democracy in Canada is parliamentary democracy, which is a democracy only for parliamentarians. The collective people does not have a voice in government; plainly put, protests, petitions, convoys, and elections every four years will not motivate the government to respect us by honoring our rights.
To whom can we turn to for help when the government does not have our best interest in mind and our system allows us no political power? Lawyers with a solid knowledge of binding international human rights and constitutional law would be an obvious option. Yet, over the years, these concepts have been gradually removed or neglected from the curriculum. For instance, the 1985 Siracusa Principles and the history of the Rule of Law are missing from our legal education system. These principles could change the outcome from losing to winning our human rights cases, and the last three years could have been drastically different from an economic, health and labor perspective. Moreover, all politicians and legislative officials should be required to know the basics of international law binding within our Constitution before creating laws.
On top of an unfavorable political system – Partocracy – parliamentary democracy that concerns only parliamentarians, and major legal principles ignored by lawyers and politicians, something else must be considered. When it comes to citizens’ issues, most legal offices and politicians are in conflicts of interests due to government and corporate contracts, which further limits our access to legal counsel.
The citizens, in desperation, are grasping at straws to find a solution. Unfortunately, other obstacles hinder our progress when it comes to considering options, such as the Pseudo Law presumption. Donald J. Netolitzky and Richard Warman describe Pseudo Law as: ” a collection of legal-sounding but false rules that purport to be law, employed by groups including the Detaxer and Freemen-on-the-land movements”[1]. Many groups are misled by such rules that give false hopes because ”pseudo law is universally rejected by Canadian Courts’’[2]. An example of a Pseudo Law presumption that applies to this current fight is court self-representation. It is commendable that so many groups have gotten involved in the search for freedom and solutions, and that so many citizens have been educating themselves. We must nonetheless have the necessary knowledge to recognise Pseudo Law presumptions.[3]
One solution stands out
The PowerShift to Freedom – a project of the Canadian Peoples’ Union NFP (C.P.U.) – is concerned with having our international rights to self-determination and self-governance recognized. These rights were given to the peoples in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples 1960 and The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, which both Canada and the United Kingdom signed and legally ratified in 1976.While The PowerShift’s legal researchers are hard at work, a key action that concerns the rest of us is the ”Indigenous and Civil Unified Sovereign Enactment Convention of Consent” at ThePowerShift.ca. This is a living document created in 2014 to be signed by all Canadian and Indigenous Peoples 15 years old and over who want our combined rights to be lawfully recognized in our Constitution.
The Convention of Consent is free, completely confidential (contrary to petitions) and will become legally binding once it reaches 51% of the citizens in 7 provinces. Signing it is the ultimate way to show the government and the world how much we want our VETO rights over our government and ensure our safe and prosperous future. It is important to remind ourselves that our rights over our natural resources and the profits they generate are also among the many things that the government is stealing from us. The citizens should be duly recognized as the primary legal shareholders and co-owners of these Canadian resources.
With a proper democracy in place and the collective people as Head of State with final decision-making authority over our governance, taxation could be turned into dividends.
Becoming a formal member of the C.P.U. means you become a political game-changer, with the purpose of placing the civil and political rights power to the citizens through the PowerShift to Freedom movement. Your contribution helps finance the legal teams and expenses that will inevitably be necessary to set things right.
After the decadence of the elites will come the triumph of the Peoples!
We are in the midst of an epic cultural and political crisis that affects almost every Western country, and we must look forward to the day when the collective people will be able to ensure and maintain peace, order and good governance. We could take pride in how we replaced a corrupt political system and revamped democracy to suit the needs of the people rather than the greed of corporate and political interests.
We could help teach future generations of lawyers to respect international human rights laws, principles and treaties. All aspects of life in Canada could be positively influenced by the SHIFT of political POWER from the elites to informed and engaged citizens.
This could even be the dawn of an era when the Indigenous Peoples of Canada could finally be treated with the respect they deserve and, along with the Canadian citizens, could make sure the horrors and transgressions of the past centuries remain in the history books.
[1] “Enjoy the Silence: Pseudolaw at the Supreme Court of Canada” Donald J. Netolitzky and Richard Warman. Published in Alberta Law Review, March 2020n[2] Ibid.n[3] “After the Hammer: Six Years of Meads v. Meads” Donald J. Netolitzky, 2019. 56:4 Alta L Rev 1167 at 1168 [Netolitzky, “Hammer”]; McRoberts, supra note 19 at 643. This contains clues to detect and avoid pseudo law.
The Canadian Peoples’ Union NFP
Nicole Lebrasseur
contact@thepowershift.ca
Tel: 226-777-5580
The Atlantic Charter set goals for the post-war world and inspired many of the international agreements that shaped the world thereafter, most notably the United Nations.
The Atlantic Charter was a pivotal policy statement issued on August 14, 1941, that defined the Allied goals for the post-war world. The leaders of the United Kingdom and the United States drafted the work and all the Allies of World War II later confirmed it. The Charter stated the ideal goals of the war with eight principal points :
Adherents of the Atlantic Charter signed the Declaration by United Nations on January 1, 1942; it became the basis for the modern United Nations.
The Atlantic Charter made it clear that America was supporting Britain in the war. Both America and Britain wanted to present their unity, mutual principles, and hopes for the post-war world and the policies they agreed to follow once the Nazis had been defeated. A fundamental aim was to focus on the peace that would follow and not specific American involvement and war strategy, although U.S. involvement appeared increasingly likely.
The Atlantic Charter set goals for the post-war world and inspired many of the international agreements that shaped the world thereafter. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the post-war independence of European colonies, and many other key policies are derived from the Atlantic Charter. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/the-atlantic-charter/
The Atlantic Charter was a joint declaration released by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on August 14, 1941 following a meeting of the two heads of government in Newfoundland. The Atlantic Charter provided a broad statement of U.S. and British war aims.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill
The meeting had been called in response to the geopolitical situation in Europe by mid-1941. Although Great Britain had been spared from a German invasion in the fall of 1940 and, with the passage of the U.S. Lend Lease Act in March 1941, was assured U.S. material support, by the end of May, German forces had inflicted humiliating defeats upon British, Greek, and, Yugoslav forces in the Balkans and were threatening to overrun Egypt and close off the Suez Canal, thereby restricting British access to its possessions in India. When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, few policymakers in Washington or London believed that the Soviets would be able to resist the Nazi onslaught for more than six weeks. While the British Government focused its efforts on dealing with the Germans in Europe, they were also concerned that Japan might take advantage of the situation to seize British, French, and Dutch territories in Southeast Asia.
Churchill’s copy of the Atlantic Charter
Churchill and Roosevelt met on August 9 and 10, 1941 aboard the U.S.S. Augusta in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, to discuss their respective war aims for the Second World War and to outline a postwar international system. The Charter they drafted included eight “common principles” that the United States and Great Britain would be committed to supporting in the postwar world. Both countries agreed not to seek territorial expansion; to seek the liberalization of international trade; to establish freedom of the seas, and international labor, economic, and welfare standards. Most importantly, both the United States and Great Britain were committed to supporting the restoration of self-governments for all countries that had been occupied during the war and allowing all peoples to choose their own form of government.
While the meeting was successful in drafting these aims, it failed to produce the desired results for either leader. President Roosevelt had hoped that the Charter might encourage the American people to back U.S. intervention in World War II on behalf of the Allies; however, public opinion remained adamantly opposed to such a policy until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Churchill’s primary goal in attending the Atlantic Conference was “to get the Americans into the war.” Barring that, he hoped that the United States would increase its amount of military aid to Great Britain and warn Japan against taking any aggressive actions in the Pacific.
Roosevelt, on the other hand, wanted the British Government to affirm publicly that it was not involved in any secret treaties, particularly ones concerning territorial questions, such as those concluded by the Allies during the First World War concerning the division of enemy territory at war’s end. Roosevelt also wished to arrange the terms by which Great Britain would repay the United States for its Lend Lease assistance. Roosevelt wanted the British to pay compensation by dismantling their system of Imperial Preference, which had been established by the British Government during the Great Depression and was designed to encourage trade within the British Empire by lowering tariff rates between members, while maintaining discriminatory tariff rates against outsiders.
Churchill was extremely disappointed by Roosevelt’s refusal to discuss American entry into the war. Furthermore, Churchill understood that several aspects of the proposed joint declaration might be politically damaging for the Prime Minister. Churchill worried that the abandonment of Imperial Preference would anger the protectionist wing of his Conservative Party. The Americans also proved unwilling to warn Japan too strongly against any future military action against British possessions in Southeast Asia. Finally, both Churchill and many members of his Cabinet were alarmed by the third point of the Charter, which mentions the rights of all peoples to choose their own government. Churchill was concerned that this clause acknowledged the right of colonial subjects to agitate for decolonization, including those in Great Britain’s empire.
Nevertheless, Churchill realized that the joint declaration was the most he could accomplish during the conference. While the United States would remain neutral, the declaration would raise the morale of the British public and, most importantly, bind the United States closer to Great Britain. Therefore, when Churchill forwarded the text of the declaration to his Cabinet on August 11, he warned them that would it be “imprudent” to raise unnecessary difficulties. The Cabinet followed Churchill’s recommendation and approved the Charter.
While the Atlantic Charter of August 1941 was not a binding treaty, it was, nonetheless, significant for several reasons. First, it publicly affirmed the sense of solidarity between the U.S. and Great Britain against Axis aggression. Second, it laid out President Roosevelt’s Wilsonian-vision for the postwar world; one that would be characterized by freer exchanges of trade, self-determination, disarmament, and collective security. Finally, the Charter ultimately did serve as an inspiration for colonial subjects throughout the Third World, from Algeria to Vietnam, as they fought for independence.
On January 1, 1942, representatives of 26 nations at war with the Axis powers met in Washington to sign the Declaration of the United Nations endorsing the Atlantic Charter, pledging to use their full resources against the Axis and agreeing not to make a separate peace.
The Founding of the UN in San Francisco
At the Quebec Conference in August 1943, Secretary of State Cordell Hull and British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden agreed to draft a declaration that included a call for “a general international organization, based on the principle sovereign equality of all nations.” An agreed declaration was issued after a Foreign Ministers Conference in Moscow in October 1943. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin in Tehran, Iran, in November 1943, he proposed an international organization comprising an assembly of all member states and a 10-member executive committee to discuss social and economic issues. The United States, Great Britain, Soviet Union, and China would enforce peace as “the four policemen.” Meanwhile Allied representatives founded a set of task-oriented organizations: the Food and Agricultural Organization (May 1943), the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (November 1943), the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (April 1944), the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (July 1944), and the International Civil Aviation Organization (November 1944).
U.S., British, Soviet (known now as Russia), and Chinese representatives met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington in August and September 1944 to draft the charter of a postwar international organization based on the principle of collective security. They recommended a General Assembly of all member states and a Security Council consisting of the Big Four plus six members chosen by the Assembly. Voting procedures and the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council were finalized at the Yalta Conference in 1945 when Roosevelt and Stalin agreed that the veto would not prevent discussions by the Security Council. Roosevelt agreed to General Assembly membership for Ukraine and Byelorussia while reserving the right, which was never exercised, to seek two more votes for the United States.
Representatives of 50 nations met in San Francisco April-June 1945 to complete the Charter of the United Nations. In addition to the General Assembly of all member states and a Security Council of 5 permanent and 6 non-permanent members, the Charter provided for an 18-member Economic and Social Council, an International Court of Justice, a Trusteeship Council to oversee certain colonial territories, and a Secretariat under a Secretary General.
The Roosevelt administration strove to avoid Woodrow Wilson’s mistakes in selling the League of Nations to the Senate. It sought bipartisan support and in September 1943 the Republican Party endorsed U.S. participation in a postwar international organization, after which both houses of Congress overwhelmingly endorsed participation. Roosevelt also sought to convince the public that an international organization was the best means to prevent future wars.
The Senate approved the UN Charter on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2. The United Nations came into existence on October 24, 1945, after 29 nations had ratified the Charter.
During World War II, the United States began to provide significant military supplies and other assistance to the Allies in September 1940, even though the United States did not enter the war until December 1941. Much of this aid flowed to the United Kingdom and other nations already at war with Germany and Japan through an innovative program known as Lend-Lease.
FDR Signing the Lend-Lease Bill
When war broke out in Europe in September 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that while the United States would remain neutral in law, he could “not ask that every American remain neutral in thought as well.” Roosevelt himself made significant efforts to help nations engaged in the struggle against Nazi Germany and wanted to extend a helping hand to those countries that lacked the supplies necessary to fight against the Germans. The United Kingdom, in particular, desperately needed help, as it was short of hard currency to pay for the military goods, food, and raw materials it needed from the United States.
Though President Roosevelt wanted to provide assistance to the British, both American law and public fears that the United States would be drawn into the conflict blocked his plans. The Neutrality Act of 1939 allowed belligerents to purchase war materiel from the United States, but only on a “cash and carry” basis. The Johnson Act of 1934 also prohibited the extension of credit to countries that had not repaid U.S. loans made to them during World War I—which included Great Britain. The American military opposed the diversion of military supplies to the United Kingdom. The Army’s Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, anticipated that Britain would surrender following the collapse of France, and thus American supplies sent to the British would fall into German hands. Marshall and others therefore argued that U.S. national security would be better served by reserving military supplies for the defense of the Western Hemisphere. American public opinion also limited Roosevelt’s options. Many Americans opposed involving the United States in another war.
Even though American public opinion generally supported the British rather than the Germans, President Roosevelt had to develop an initiative that was consistent with the legal prohibition against the granting of credit, satisfactory to military leadership, and acceptable to an American public that generally resisted involving the United States in the European conflict.
On September 2, 1940, President Roosevelt signed a “Destroyers for Bases” agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the United States gave the British more than 50 obsolete destroyers, in exchange for 99-year leases to territory in Newfoundland and the Caribbean, which would be used as U.S. air and naval bases. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had originally requested that Roosevelt provide the destroyers as a gift, but the President knew that the American public and Congress would oppose such a deal. He therefore decided that a deal that gave the United States long-term access to British bases could be justified as essential to the security of the Western Hemisphere—thereby assuaging the concerns of the public and the U.S. military.
In December 1940, Churchill warned Roosevelt that the British were no longer able to pay for supplies. On December 17, President Roosevelt proposed a new initiative that would be known as Lend-Lease. The United States would provide Great Britain with the supplies it needed to fight Germany, but would not insist upon being paid immediately.
Instead, the United States would “lend” the supplies to the British, deferring payment. When payment eventually did take place, the emphasis would not be on payment in dollars. The tensions and instability engendered by inter-allied war debts in the 1920s and 1930s had demonstrated that it was unreasonable to expect that virtually bankrupt European nations would be able to pay for every item they had purchased from the United States. Instead, payment would primarily take the form of a “consideration” granted by Britain to the United States. After many months of negotiation, the United States and Britain agreed, in Article VII of the Lend-Lease agreement they signed, that this consideration would primarily consist of joint action directed towards the creation of a liberalized international economic order in the postwar world. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/lend-lease
Lend-Lease Memorial
The United Kingdom was not the only nation to strike such a deal with the United States. Over the course of the war, the United States contracted Lend-Lease agreements with more than 30 countries, dispensing some $50 billion in assistance. Although British Prime Minister Winston Churchill later referred to the initiative as “the most unsordid act” one nation had ever done for another, Roosevelt’s primary motivation was not altruism or disinterested generosity. Rather, Lend-Lease was designed to serve America’s interest in defeating Nazi Germany without entering the war until the American military and public was prepared to fight. At a time when the majority of Americans opposed direct participation in the war, Lend-Lease represented a vital U.S. contribution to the fight against Nazi Germany. Moreover, the joint action called for under Article VII of the Lend-Lease agreements signed by the United States and the recipient nations laid the foundation for the creation of a new international economic order in the postwar world.
The Yalta Conference took place in a Russian resort town in the Crimea from February 4–11, 1945, during World War Two. At Yalta, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin made important decisions regarding the future progress of the war and the postwar world.
World Leaders at the Yalta Conference
The Allied leaders came to Yalta knowing that an Allied victory in Europe was practically inevitable but less convinced that the Pacific war was nearing an end. Recognizing that a victory over Japan might require a protracted fight, the United States and Great Britain saw a major strategic advantage to Soviet participation in the Pacific theater. At Yalta, Roosevelt and Churchill discussed with Stalin the conditions under which the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan and all three agreed that, in exchange for potentially crucial Soviet participation in the Pacific theater, the Soviets would be granted a sphere of influence in Manchuria following Japan’s surrender. This included the southern portion of Sakhalin, a lease at Port Arthur (now Lüshunkou), a share in the operation of the Manchurian railroads, and the Kurile Islands. This agreement was the major concrete accomplishment of the Yalta Conference.
The Allied leaders also discussed the future of Germany, Eastern Europe and the United Nations. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin agreed not only to include France in the postwar governing of Germany, but also that Germany should assume some, but not all, responsibility for reparations following the war. The Americans and the British generally agreed that future governments of the Eastern European nations bordering the Soviet Union should be “friendly” to the Soviet regime while the Soviets pledged to allow free elections in all territories liberated from Nazi Germany. Negotiators also released a declaration on Poland, providing for the inclusion of Communists in the postwar national government. In discussions regarding the future of the United Nations, all parties agreed to an American plan concerning voting procedures in the Security Council, which had been expanded to five permanent members following the inclusion of France. Each of these permanent members was to hold a veto on decisions before the Security Council.
Initial reaction to the Yalta agreements was celebratory. Roosevelt and many other Americans viewed it as proof that the spirit of U.S.-Soviet wartime cooperation would carry over into the postwar period. This sentiment, however, was short lived. With the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 12, 1945, Harry S. Truman became the thirty-third president of the United States. By the end of April, the new administration clashed with the Soviets over their influence in Eastern Europe, and over the United Nations. Alarmed at the perceived lack of cooperation on the part of the Soviets, many Americans began to criticize Roosevelt’s handling of the Yalta negotiations. To this day, many of Roosevelt’s most vehement detractors accuse him of “handing over” Eastern Europe and Northeast Asia to the Soviet Union at Yalta despite the fact that the Soviets did make many substantial concessions. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/yalta-conf
During and immediately after the Second World War, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other allied nations engaged in a series of negotiations to establish the rules for the postwar international economy. The result was the creation of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank at the July 1944 Bretton Woods Conference and the signing of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at an international conference in Geneva in October 1947.
Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes at the inaugural meeting of the International Monetary Fund’s Board of Governors, March 8, 1946. (International Monetary Fund)
The lessons drawn by U.S. policymakers from the interwar period informed their approach to the postwar global economy. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and officials such as Secretary of State Cordell Hull were adherents of the Wilsonian belief that free trade promoted not just prosperity, but also peace. The experience of the 1930s certainly suggested as much. The policies adopted by governments to combat the Great Depression—high tariffs, competitive currency devaluations, discriminatory trading blocs—helped destabilize the international environment without improving the economic situation. This experience led leaders throughout the anti-Axis United Nations alliance to conclude that economic cooperation was the only way to achieve both peace and prosperity, at home and abroad.
This vision was articulated in the Atlantic Charter, issued by Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the conclusion of the August 1941 Atlantic Conference. The Charter’s fourth point committed the United States and the United Kingdom “to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity,” while its fifth point expressed their commitment to “the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security.” The two countries elaborated upon these principles in Article VII of their February 1942 agreement on lend-lease aid. In that article, the United Kingdom agreed that in return for U.S. lend-lease assistance, it would cooperate with the United States in devising measures to expand “production, employment, and the exchange and consumption of goods,” to eliminate “all forms of discriminatory treatment in international commerce,” to reduce barriers to trade, and generally to achieve the goals laid out in the Atlantic Charter.
By early 1942, U.S. and British officials began preparing proposals that would foster economic stability and prosperity in the postwar world. Harry Dexter White, Special Assistant to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, and John Maynard Keynes, an advisor to the British Treasury, each drafted plans creating organizations that would provide financial assistance to countries experiencing short-term balance of payments deficits; this assistance was meant to ensure that such countries did not adopt protectionist or predatory economic policies to improve their balance of payments position. While both plans envisioned a world of fixed exchange rates, believed to be more conducive to the expansion of international trade than floating exchange rates, they differed in several significant respects. As a result, from 1942 until 1944, bilateral and multilateral meetings of allied financial experts were held in order to settle upon a common approach. Agreement was finally reached at the July 1944 United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, a gathering of delegates from 44 nations that met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The two major accomplishments of the Bretton Woods conference were the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), commonly known as the World Bank. The IMF was charged with overseeing a system of fixed exchange rates centered on the U.S. dollar and gold, serving as a forum for consultation and cooperation and a provider of short-term financial assistance to countries experiencing temporary deficits in their balance of payments. The IBRD was responsible for providing financial assistance for the reconstruction of war-ravaged nations and the economic development of less developed countries. In July 1945, Congress passed the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, authorizing U.S. entry into the IMF and World Bank, and the two organizations officially came into existence five months later. The fixed exchange rate system established at Bretton Woods endured for the better part of three decades; only after the exchange crises of August 1971, when President Richard M. Nixon suspended the dollar’s convertibility into gold, and February/March 1973 did floating exchange rates become the norm for the major industrialized democracies.
Agreement on international trade proved more difficult to achieve. One of the most contentious issues was the system of preferential tariffs established among the members of the British Commonwealth in 1932, whereby trade within the Commonwealth was subject to lower tariffs than trade between the Commonwealth nations and the rest of the world. U.S. officials such as Cordell Hull opposed imperial preferences on both ideological and practical grounds—the United Kingdom and Canada, both members of the system, were the United States’ two largest trading partners—and called for their abolition; however, many U.K. and other Commonwealth officials favored keeping the preferences, at least until the United States agreed to reduce the high Smoot-Hawley tariffs set in 1930. After more than four years of negotiations on this and other issues—such as the rules that would govern tariff negotiations and the structure of a proposed new organization to oversee international trade—agreement was finally reached in 1947. Twenty-three nations meeting in Geneva from April to October 1947 concluded the first postwar round of tariff negotiations, leading to reductions in tariffs and imperial preferences, as well as a draft charter for a new institution, the International Trade Organization (ITO). Participants also signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), designed not only to implement the agreed tariff cuts but to serve as an interim codification of the rules governing commercial relations among its signatories until the ITO was created. In November 1947, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment convened in Havana to consider the draft ITO charter; four months of negotiations later, the representatives of 53 countries signed the finished charter in March 1948. However, strong opposition in the U.S. Congress meant that the ITO never came into existence. Instead, it was the GATT that governed postwar international trade relations for almost fifty years. Under the GATT’s aegis, eight rounds of trade negotiations resulted in significant tariff reductions among its members before it was superseded by the World Trade Organization in 1995.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/bretton-woods
Federal and provincial representatives had met in Canada as early as 1927 in order to devise a mutually satisfactory domestic amendment procedure, but no agreement had been reached by 1930–1931. Such an agreement was to prove highly elusive.
As a result it was necessary to retain the possibility of recourse to the Parliament at Westminster in order to accomplish at any moment in the future amendments to the UK legislative texts which formed part of the Canadian Constitution. As far as Canada was concerned, the Statute of Westminster, 1931 appeared to maintain the status quo ante.
After much discussion, a provision which eventually became section 7(1) of the 1931 Statute was approved.73 This provision effectively left the UK Parliament at the apex of the Canadian legal system; and it would take over fifty years before Canadians could settle on a new procedure to amend the Constitution of Canada and repeal section 7(1).
https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/17/4/1173/5710822
Download the pdf here: Dominion status Historymoz078
Is it illegal for the Canadian Government, the Provincial Premiers, and City Mayors to derogate from legal International Universal Human Rights Treaties even in times of emergency or war that both Canada, and the U.K. have signed?
The answer to the above question is an absolute YES, it’s illegal!
You can continue reading and downloading, or watch the video explaining this blog and documents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIS4eCwoWh4
What would Canadian John P. Humphrey, a drafter of our Universal Human Rights 1948 and non-derogation of rights, have said to the Rouleau Commission about what has transpired in Canada since 2020?
Canada’s hypocrisy
The Government of Canada can’t say they didn’t know who this man was, and what he has done for the peoples of this country and worldwide.
Professor John Humphrey, McGill News Vol. 52, No. 3,
p. 1 — Photo Credit: Nick Deichmann, McGill News / McGill University Archives, PR034886
Historical Facts:
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
History of the Declaration
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, was the result of the experience of the Second World War. With the end of that war, and the creation of the United Nations, the international community vowed to never again allow atrocities like those of that conflict to happen again. World leaders decided to complement the UN Charter with a road map to guarantee the rights of every individual everywhere. The document they considered, and which would later become the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was taken up at the first session of the General Assembly in 1946.
The Commission on Human Rights was made up of 18 members from various political, cultural and religious backgrounds. Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, chaired the UDHR drafting committee. With her were René Cassin of France, who composed the first draft of the Declaration, the Committee Rapporteur Charles Malik of Lebanon, Vice-Chairman Peng Chung Chang of China, and John Humphrey of Canada, Director of the UN’s Human Rights Division, who prepared the Declaration’s blueprint. But Mrs. Roosevelt was recognized as the driving force for the Declaration’s adoption.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RR4VXNX3jA&t=136sn
See the link below to read more on our rights and why they are automatically imbedded into our Constitution even, if they are not inserted into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Provincial Charters. See: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
REALITY: The International Universal Human Rights, including The International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, supersede our national and provincial Charters that were agreed to by the U.K. and Canada. Neither the World Health Organization (WHO), Health Canada, Public Health, nor any Private Corporate Policy can infringe upon these rights regarding employees or customers, even if they unknowingly signed an agreement against these rights just to be able to work.
Even though Canada was deemed an independent Country (State), the U.K. was responsible for the proper decolonization of Canada’s colonial peoples. According to the U.K. Imperial Parliament, “Independence” only meant that the State itself was self-governing, not its citizens.
As the U.K. has reported “Independence does not mean Liberty”, nor does “Independence mean Sovereignty”. The 1982 patriation of Canada from the U.K. was meant to be about the proper self-determination and decolonization of Canadians and Indigenous Peoples.
However, Pierre E. Trudeau and the provincial premiers made certain that “We the People”, along with the Indigenous Peoples, did not collectively replace the Crown as the official shareholders, co-owners of the Crown of Canada. We were not effectively positioned above the government, thus unable to make important decisions for the betterment of this country and its citizens. This is where the theft of our Collective Rights occurred by disregarding our rights within “,The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1514)”, or our collective and individual rights within “,The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”.
More succinctly said, Pierre E. Trudeau seized our lawful collective rights for the Parliament of Canada, then appointing the government as Head of State, under the guise of a Parliamentary democracy and Parliamentary sovereignty. “We the Canadian Peoples” should have been the Collective Head of State above our government.
In 1982, the U.K. gave Canada 15 years to meet certain requirements. The government was required, in that allotted time, to consult the Peoples, which comprises of the entire population and the Indigenous Peoples, by way of referendums or other mode of consultation. These conditions were not met. Therefore the U.K. Imperial Parliament is still responsible for our proper self-determination and decolonization, which is why our Canada Act 1982 still sits in their legislature awaiting repeal forty years later.
There were two failed attempts to garner populace opinion through referendums. What did the Government and the Provinces do after that? They met behind closed doors and signed the agreements in private, without the Peoples’ consent. This type of behavior is not carried out by a specific political party. All parties follow the same code of conduct. Neither of the documents signed at that time placed the people above our government as the Collective Head of State as final decision makers, instead of the Crown, as it should lawfully have been.
The reason for this blog post is to provide the proof that all levels of Canadian Governance, Public Health, Associations, the Boards of Education and Licensing, and many Public and Private Corporations through their policies, to name a few, have derogated from respecting our Universal Human Rights, on purpose or through sheer ignorance since 1982. What Canada and the Provinces are doing to Canadians and Indigenous Peoples is atrocious.
In the instance of employees refusing the mandates, being sent for re-education, as being done with Jordan Peterson, our government is mirroring China’s mandates where crimes against humanity are being done to Muslims in re-education camps. To what levels will Canadians permit intrusion into their very existence before taking legal action, to stand up to these atrocities occurring in a country purported to be democratic
The beginning of one of the biggest atrocities that the U.K., Canadian Governments and Judiciary have done since 1960, other than what has transpired as of 2020, is to neglect the required legal education of its Peoples regarding our rights to collective self-determination and proper decolonization.
Both the U.K and Canada stayed silent with regard to our right to Decolonization and Self-determination from the U.K. It didn’t matter that we were self-governing, we were, and are, still considered, through strict Constitutional Law, to be a colony of the U.K. 1982 proves it!
Section 9 of the Constitution 1867-1982 where Section B, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms resides, and within this Charter #3 stipulates the democratic rights of citizens, this is where the downfall of Canadians began. The theft of our Civil and Political rights (Section 1 of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights) occurred through the exclusion of our collective rights.
Since the creation of the 1982 Charter and its acceptance, without first educating the citizens and Indigenous Peoples, Pierre E. Trudeau, all other Prime Ministers and Provincial Premiers have, to this day, played a fundamental role in the corruption and deceit against its populace. Through the proper implementation of the “Rule of Law“, this maneuver would constitute a treasonous act by omission and oppression of our collective and individual rights, stipulated within “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”.
Canada purporting to be a democratic country means that it is a country ruled by the “Rule of Law“. As quoted by the United Nations Security Council – “Laws which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards“.
UNSC: The “rule of law” is a concept at the very heart of the Organization’s mission. It refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.
Download the PDF
For many years, our governments have purposely neglected the “Rule of Law” which is entrenched into our Universal Human Rights, which was furthermore automatically entrenched into our Constitution as a consequence of the International Treaties, signed by Canada and the U.K., whether our government has made laws for them or not. No person can ignore the fact that our heads of the Canadian Government, Judiciary, Military, CSIS, RCMP, and Police knew what they were doing against the citizens and Indigenous Peoples since 1982. Canadian Governance has been, and maintains, a “Rule by Law” stealth authoritarianism against Canadians and Indigenous Peoples. This has to end.
How can we end their treasonous acts against us?
We can begin by looking here:
Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 – The supremacy clause
Provision
52.(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Similar provisions
The Constitution contains three provisions that are relied upon to provide an appropriate remedy to findings of inconsistency with the Charter: section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that a law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect; section 24(1) provides remedies against unconstitutional government action; and section 24(2) provides for the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Charter.
The Canadian Bill of Rights does not include an identical provision, although section 2 is somewhat analogous. Similar provisions may be found in the following international instruments binding on Canada: article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; article 2(1)c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; article 2(f) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and article 4(1)b) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
See also the following international, regional and comparative law instruments that are not legally binding on Canada but include similar provisions: section 2 and section 172(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America; article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Note, byway of contrast, section 4 of the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act (a non-constitutional document) in terms of the effects of a “declaration of incompatibility” with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The first mistake we make, including Lawyers and Jurists in Canada, is to fail to notice the omissions in the statements made on the Department of Justice website Sec. 52 (1) supremacy clause. They have only mentioned: “Similar provisions may be found in the following international instruments binding on Canada”. For instance, they deliberately omitted from the Charter, most of the International United Nations Treaties to which the U.K. and Canada have legally signed. This includes the non-derogation of our rights, even in times of Emergency or War, to which they must initially justify before such derogations (suspension of law). Only certain aspects of our rights can be derogated from, and only for very short periods of time.
Quote by Lord Carswell re: Chagos decolonization from the U.K. “It is the function of the courts, however, to adjudicate upon legal rights, and no matter how sympathetic they may be to a party who has been badly treated in the past, they are required to apply the law in the present and apply it properly and impartially”.
The precise non-derogations clauses can be read in the “Siracusa Principles” document, written by Jurists from many countries including John. P. Humphrey from Canada.
Therefore, this clearly means that the “Rule of Law” and non-derogation of our rights in Canada is being purposely ignored, according to the Constitution Act 1867-1982 and Provincial Constitutions as they are inconsistent with International Treaty laws and … this fact makes the U.K., Canada, the Provinces, the Judiciary, Public health, etc., in breach of these International Treaty laws.
It also means that they are also guilty of treason by ignoring most parts of:
Now, take a closer look, you can see the deception for yourself below:
The Canadian Bill of Rights does not include an identical provision, although section 2 is somewhat analogous. Similar provisions may be found in the following international instruments binding on Canada: article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; article 2(1)c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; article 2(f) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and article 4(1)b) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Lie and Oppression by Omission
There is a lot more binding Canada and the U.K. to the signed treaties than article 2 (personal rights) of the Covenant, especially with collective self-determination and decolonization of its people, required in 1982 when we would have determined: how we would have governed ourselves, and what responsibilities the government would have.
To add insult to injury most people, lawyers and jurists included, etc., will regurgitate the words of the government, without being cognizant that Canada and the Provinces had, since 1960 and 1966, 10 years to implement the rights to the decolonization and self-determination of its people, which was made official at the International level, and still remained so in the Treaties of 1976, since these rights are automatically part of our constitutions. Considering that Canada and the provinces have excluded some of our rights, and even if we take the date of ratification 1976, then they still cannot use any excuse for not having created the laws required. 47 years later and one would submit that their actions were deliberate, treasonous, justifying their own agendas.
Taking the full measure of what has happened since 1960 and especially 1982, if our rights would have been legally recognized in the Charter and Section 9 of our Constitution, “We the Collective People” would have had the authority to hold government to account.
“We the People” had the right to decide if and how we would choose to hold government to account so that they are fully accountable to us. The following is the difference between article 1 (collective rights) of the International Covenant and Article 2 (individual rights) Canada’s interpretation of Article 1:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
Now, compare Article 2 that Canada says it recognizes:
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
The documents provided in this blog along with the 3 previous blog posts will prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the objective of Siracusa’s International Commission of Jurists was to incite the signatory countries of the Covenant to uphold and implement the “Rule of Law”, even in times or Emergency or War.
There is NO true justification for our governments, no matter the level, to have implemented totalitarian actions by imposing unlawfully created laws on purpose. The strategy of divide and conquer has also been implemented against the Canadian citizens and Indigenous Peoples, keeping us from seeing the sleight of hand performed by our governments, judiciaries and private corporations, to remain in a position of totalitarian power over the populace, all without our informed consent.
When Governments and Judiciaries no longer follow the “Rule of Law“, it is up to the people of this country to end the corruption lawfully. We must learn to defend the “Rule of Law” the proper way. That can only happen through knowledge by becoming more educated and vigilant in our actions, by knowing our rights as Canadians and Indigenous Peoples, and by coming together, united for the sake of this country, ourselves and future generations.
Who is or was John P. Humphrey?
News release
Humphrey made important contributions to the advancement of international law and human rights; “Government of Canada recognizes John P. Humphrey as a person of national historic significance”n
From: Parks Canada
News release November 17, 2022 Gatineau, Quebec
John P. Humphrey – Inaugurated in September 2000 and located at Pierre Elliott Trudeau Park, the Côte Saint-Luc Human Rights Walkway is dedicated to those men and women who, by their steadfast commitment to humankind, have held high the torch of human rights and let it light the world.
https://cotesaintluc.org/services/sports-recreation/human-rights-walkway
Quotes
“Canadians have been strong voices for the protection of human rights, but few individuals have contributed as much to advance the efforts as John P. Humphrey. His work contributed to the adoption of human rights initiatives around the world. John P. Humphrey has a noteworthy place in the history of Canada and is befitting of recognition as a person of national historic significance.”nThe Honourable Steven GuilbeaultnMinister of Environment and Climate Change and Minister responsible for Parks Canada
“As a Canadian lawyer, scholar, and human rights activists, John P. Humphrey was instrumental in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1947, which has served as a basis for drafting Canadian federal, provincial, and territorial laws that protect human rights. We are proud to honour Mr. Humphrey as a person of national historic significance for his prominent role in promoting human rights globally, as well as for being an integral part of Canada’s constructive engagement in the world.”nThe Honourable Mélanie JolynMinister of Foreign Affairs
“John Humphrey believed strongly in the importance of human rights for all and the power of educating people about their rights. His commitment and vision have been foundational to the work of Equitas and continues to guide us today as we support human rights defenders across the world and with them, work towards greater social justice for all. We are thrilled that his contribution to Canadian history is being recognized and will act a reminder that defending human rights is the responsibility of all of us.”nOdette McCarthynExecutive Director, Equitas
John P. Humphrey was also a jurist who, along with others from many countries, explained the absolute NON-DEROGATION of Human Rights, even in time of war, by any country against its people clearly stated within the “Siracusa Principles”. These jurists made certain that their motives behind the principles were not to be misinterpreted. They wanted to ensure that there was no room for error by justices.
Why were the “Siracusa Principles” so important during the Emergency Measure Act which was illegally enforced by Canada and the provinces?
A study was made in regard to countries derogating from Human Rights. Here are the document findings and recommendations, or download the PDF below: Human rights in pandemics: criminal and punitive approaches to COVID-19
Summary box
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOcsTcDBw8Y
See: SIRACUSA PRINCIPLES, Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by American Association for the International Commission of Jurists.
You decide!
In Canada’s criminal code, this could qualify as terrorism when these policies are accepted by Government that cause massive deaths and go against our laws under the criminal code:
THE GREAT RESET
Klaus Schwab about Canada: “We infiltrated Cabinet”
The Forum of Young Global Leaders is a community of innovators from diverse backgrounds and experiences. Search current members and alumni by year awarded sector or region. https://www.younggloballeaders.org/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1_8-jLQkIn
Here are just a few examples of Canadians trained by the WEF. Some have been omitted from the YGL listings.
Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada, Canada
Chrystia Freeland
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Canada
Ailish Campbell
Ambassador of Canada to the European Union, Global Affairs Canada, Canada
Terry Beech
Member of Parliament, Parliament of Canada, Canada
François-Philippe Champagne
Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Canada
Sean Fraser
Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Canada
Karina Gould
Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Employment and Social Development Canada, Canada
Renée Maria Tremblay
Deputy Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice of Canada, Supreme Court of Canada, Canada
Jagmeet Sing
Leader, Canada’s New Democrats, New Democratic Party of Canada, Canada
Scott Brison
Vice-Chair, Investment & Corporate Banking, BMO Financial Group, Canada
Jennifer Corriero
Co-Founder and Executive Director, TakingITGlobal, Canada
Alessandra Galloni (Fact checking?)
Editor-in-Chief, Reuters, CanadA
Brett House
Deputy Chief Economist, Scotiabank, Canada
Vera Kobalia
Co-Founder, Olyn, Canada
Josef Penninger
Director, Life Sciences Institute, University of British Columbia, Canada
Cheryl Perera
Founder and President, OneChild Network and Support Inc., Canada
Catherine Raw
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, NORTH AMERICA, Barrick Gold Corporation, Canada
Nolan Watson
President and Chief Executive Officer, Sandstorm Gold Ltd, Canada
Facebook (Canada’s social media control)
Mark Zuckerberg
Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Meta, USA
It is very important to understand the Rule of Law principles and what they are based on. It is also important to understand our rights as Canadian citizens here and at the international level. Once we understand their dynamics, then, we can see more clearly on how we can enforce our rights.
Please save this blog post as I will return to add more information to it. But for now, the most important part of this post is for Canadians to see through the political double speak and misinformation utilized to make us believe someone in politics will save us.
Only we, the people can save this country. Understanding the dynamics and legalities of the Federal government, the Provinces, and the United Kingdom under the guise of the “Rule by Law” instead of the “Rule of Law” within our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is crucial.
Fortunately for us, by being a democratic society, the Rule of Law gives us the tools we need to protect our country and our future from being manipulated into a world governance by private corporations at the hands of our politicians, and Canadian Mayors under the “Great Reset” New World Order.
I have attached the PDF documents for you to read. Keep them close as they are important to understanding the Law that can secure our true Freedom and save our country, its resources for our children and generations to come.
In the News today: The Unconstitutional “Notwithstanding” clause
The reason for our claim that the notwithstanding clause is unconstitutional is because of our Canadian Constitution, which includes our International Human Rights that further include the non-derogation of “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)”, that both Canada and the UK signed onto in 1976.
The International Universal Human Rights laws that includes all of our rights that Canada and the UK signed make the Notwithstanding clause unconstitutional when it comes to these rights.
This non-derogation of rights under “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)” gives we, the people the power to challenge any laws brought by any levels of government using the notwithstanding clause, or any public government agency, corporation, association, employers, unions, etc. or anyone else ignoring our legal right to non-derogation from them at any time and especially in the situation such as an emergency or war.
And just as surprisingly, neither can The World Health Organization (WHO) itself, derogate from any of our rights. See the document below. Our Governments and Public Health lied.
If Canadians support this cause, then we have a good chance in finally being legally recognized as the official shareholders, co-owners of the Crown of Canada without outside interference and infiltration within our governments to this day in order to end the manipulation, coercion, deceit and lies committed against us all.
NL
Documents on NON Secession (separation) of Provinces or Territories from Canada legality explained.
1. The Purposes and Principles of the U.N. Charter Origins, Subsequent Developments in Law and Practice and (Mis)interpretation in the Context of Unilateral Secession Claims in the OSCE Area
“Third, self-determination has rather been recognized as applying to the peoples of independent States as a whole, including minority groups as part of their populations within those States, and provides for the right to choose their own form of government without external interference and participation in the conduct of public affairs at appropriate government levels.”
See more in the document here: self determination proof shrs-article-p180_180
2. Unilateral Secession v. Territorial Integrity of States
Unilateral Secession v. Territorial Integrity of StatesFULLTEXT01
Non-Derogation of Rights
Non-Derogation of Rights during Emergencies or War
(d)
States parties should not derogate from Covenant rights or rely on a derogation made when they are able to attain their public health or other public policy objectives by invoking the possibility to restrict certain rights, such as article 12 (freedom of movement), article 19 (freedom of expression) or article 21 (right to peaceful assembly), in conformity with the provisions for such restrictions set out in the Covenant, or by invoking the possibility of introducing reasonable limitations on certain rights, such as article 9 (right to personal liberty) and article 17 (right to privacy), in accordance with their provisions;
(d)
States parties may not resort to emergency powers or implement derogating measures in a manner that is discriminatory, or that violates other obligations that they have undertaken under international law, including under other international human rights treaties from which no derogation is allowed. Nor can States parties deviate from the non-derogable provisions of the Covenant – article 6 (right to life), article 7 (prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or of medical or scientific experimentation without consent), article 8, paragraphs 1 and 2 (prohibition of slavery, the slave trade and servitude), article 11 (prohibition of imprisonment because of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation), article 15 (principle of legality in the field of criminal law), article 16 (recognition of everyone as a person before the law) and article 18 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) – or from other rights that are essential for upholding the non-derogable rights found in the aforementioned provisions and for ensuring respect for the rule of law and the principle of legality even in times of public emergency, including the right of access to court, due process guarantees and the right of victims to obtain an effective remedy;
See the document here: nonderogationfiles
2. Guidelines for lawyers in support of peaceful assemblies
See the document here: lawyers A_HRC_47_24_Add.3_E
3. The World Health Organization (WHO) nor Public Health can infringe on our Universal Human Rights
W.H.O. statement
The right to health, as with other rights, includes both freedoms and entitlements:
“Freedoms include the right to control one’s health and body (for example, sexual and
reproductive rights) and to be free from interference (for example, free from torture and
non-consensual medical treatment and experimentation).
Entitlements include the right to a system of health protection that gives everyone an
equal opportunity to enjoy the highest attainable level of health.”
See the document here: Human rights
The “Notwithstanding” clause
Within this document you will see that the statements are in controversy of the International Human Rights Covenants. It is up to all Canadians to expose this fraud against our rights.
1. The Centre for Constitutional studies explains it well.
See the document here: notwithstanding clause
2. Justice.GC.CA
See the document here: Charterpedia – Section 33 – Notwithstanding clause
3. Government Background paper
See the document here: notwithstanding clause gov.2018-17-e (1)
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience.
