Government obligation to our rights - canadian government conspiracies

Go to content

Government obligation to our rights

Our Human Rights
All you ever need to know!

You were born a free human being with human rights and freedoms.
 
You were not born a class of subject enumerated in section s 91 or s92 of the Constitution Act 1982. But
 
Right now you have given every indication that you are a civil law citizen subject to their legislation. This would include a mistake made on an application for the foundation document you have that they are using to come at you with!

We need nothing from the government that they are not already obligated to provide without our giving up our inherent rights and freedoms to receive!

 
The government needs the conspiracy for the appearance of being in compliance with the constitution and international treaties.

The following video is the government conspiracy in action and the proper response of private individuals to any attempt to the imposition of government will.

From AMCs' Hell on Wheels: Season 1, Episode 6 Pride, Pomp and Circumstance (11 Dec. 2011) approximately 20:25 involving government land! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abVfe2upuTI&feature=youtu.be

Here the government is trying to achieve an exchange of consent! Their only play is to hope we accept their claim of authority.

What authority is that with regards to imposing statute law on those not willing to submit to being a class of subject under their authority?

Sound farfetched? See the header text above? Prime Minister of Canada "John Diefenbaker" stated this truth so simply. “, a free Canadian or free to choose those who shall govern my Country!”

 
Note: If you think that a human being can go into one of their courts and prove you are a human being you are not ready!


THE BOOK OF GENESIS
Chapter 1

[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

The Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions. See .

The Canadian governments were founded in section 91 or section 92 of the Constitution Act 1982 and were not granted authority over the people.

You were not born a class of subject enumerated in section 91 or section 92 of the Constitution Act 1982. Subjects who are in servitude to the governments. They are created by statutes!

President Ronald Regan at one time was asked by a spectator how the spectator could become a government employee and Regan responded by saying if you have a Social Security card you already are one. Same applies here!


Here is their conspiracy in action!

The government needs your consent and until they get consent they have no authority!

This quote is both 100% accurate and 100% untrue in bijural Canada. "An illegal activity is as agreed and as was stated perfectly by the British Columbia Government in writing and applies equally to their government and agents as it does to everybody else - “your obligations under law, while you are in this province you are subject to all of the laws of Canada and British Columbia, including those with respect to your conduct while you are here or any property you may have here. If you engage in conduct that is contrary to the law of Canada or British Columbia you will be subject to whatever penalties or remedies that the law may provide”. See rule of law.

If you identify yourself using government issued identification or respond when the corporate government is addressing a class of its subject created and enumerated in either section 91 or section 92 of the Constitution Act 1982 [depending on which government] you are a government employee subject to their internal de facto legislation.

Governments cannot break the law. Nor can they legalize an illegal activity! So how can any legitimate Government put armed thugs with a licence to injure or kill other Canadians on the streets for disobedience to a not be considered terrorism under the C-51, controversial anti-terrorism bill? For some of the answer see R.S.B.C. 1996

Everything that the government claims to have control over us with was legal and lawful for us to do and have before. Somehow the government has us believing that for example the right to get in your car and drive between point “a” and point “b” is a privilege that people have to pay for according to their legislation.

Would the governments not somehow have to get private individuals to consent to being subservient to their authority and forfeit all inalienable rights in the process? For a binding contract to exist there has to be full disclosure and consideration to both parties! What is it exactly that you were told you got for giving up the right mentioned above for the privilege received?

Did you get protection of the law? No that has existed for centuries! So what did you get?

According to charter that legislation is applicable only to the government itself. So who is it that actually is using the roads as a privilege granted and needs to pay for that use? The privilege is something that only the classes of subjects to whom that legislation can be applied needs to have, not to private individuals who already have that right.

The government uses the “Exchange of consents” to their benefit to gain our submission to their conspiracy. It is time we use the “Exchange of consents” against the governments.

The following is an example of a government attempting to work the “Exchange of consents” and how to stop it dead in its tracks! For everything except your “inalienable rights” the government can control with your consent as indicated below. They need you to submit to being a class of subject under their authority ( or a charter rights violation has happened) before they have any authority. Even the human rights legislation the government has in place only applies to classes of subjects so enumerated and not the people.

The governments are praying that we do not figure out the conspiracy and use our "right to self-determination" and to demand our inalienable rights instead of the privileges they are calling our “rights”.

I am a free Canadian, I have the right to consent to be enumerated as a “class of subject” to a democratic government or not! The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - • the right to a democratic government - From <http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1355760105725/1355760725223>

We all can agree that the Native people of the land mass claimed as Canada or in this case the States were not under a foreign government’s authority just because the foreign government said so. The government did not automatically and mysteriously become owners to all gods’ creation including all people just because they claimed it to be so! If that were true they own everything and everybody outright without paying for anything.

I don’t buy that myself, but you are free to accept that your freedom is an illusion and you are in fact a slave is true with my blessing as long as you are not forcing me to see it your way!




The question is what will you do with the information?
Government Obligation to Our Rights last revised on 2016-11-11
 
So why do governments have regulations that allows us to exercise our inalienable rights if we know how? Because they are failing miserably at their prime responsibilities!

The General Assembly, all human rights and fundamental freedoms are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and should be promoted and implemented in a fair and equitable manner, without prejudice to the implementation of each of those rights and freedoms.
Stressing that the prime responsibility and duty to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms lie with the State, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RightAndResponsibility.aspx

The obligation flows from the fact that we were born with inalienable rights and not as a created government fiction.

Your Canadian Fundamental Rights

Start with John Diefenbaker - Prime Minister of Canada quoted from 1960 when his Government brought in the Canadien Bill of Rights see tab on the left - I am a Canadian

Canadian Bill of Rights http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/page-1.html
Preamble - The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men as well as  free institutions;

Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values as well as the rule of law; [Definitions tab on the left]

Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms

1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of the rule of law; [Definitions tab on the left]

(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

(c) freedom of religion;

(d) freedom of speech;

(e) freedom of assembly and association; and

(f) freedom of the press.


The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (U.K.) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39
Section 27 - This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage and bijural societies of Canadians.
Section 31 - Nothing in this extends the legislative powers of any body or authority. (http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1355931562580/1355931640787#a31) The Charter in no way affects the sharing of responsibilities or the distribution of powers between the provinces and the federal government. The powers of each level of government are set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. (in Section 91 and 92 for the legal Federal and Provincial governments societies and the constitution itself for the common law society in bijural Canada)
Section 32 - Application of Charter states (http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1355344632007/1355344738223) - This Charter applies to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matter within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province… The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter (constitution) only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
Section 52 - Constitution Act, 1982 states that – “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.
This section of the Constitution gives the courts named in the Constitution of Canada not create by government the power to rule that a particular law is not valid if it violates the Charter, which is itself part of the Constitution. While section 52(1) is not part of the Charter, it provides courts with an important power to strike down laws that violate human rights. If only part of the law violates your private individual human rights, only that part will be ruled invalid.”

The BC Constitution Act states - Act subject to Constitution Act, 1867 in 2. Despite anything in this Act to the contrary, this Act must be construed as subject to the Constitution Act, 1867 and amending Acts applicable to British Columbia, and to the order of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria in Council for the union of British Columbia with the Dominion of Canada under the authority of that Act.
• This made very clear in Section 32 - Application of Charter states - This Charter applies to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matter within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province… The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter (constitution) only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.


Canadians are proud of the fact that Canada is home to many cultural groups. This feature of our country is officially recognized in section 27.
• Section 24 – Enforcement - Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. (a court of competent jurisdiction depends on where or not you have granted consent to be enumerated as a class of subject under civil law or are still a “private individuals, businesses or other organizations” under common law.

According to international covenants governments, corporations or not, have an obligation to allow us to exercise our inalienable imprescriptible rights!
 
Let us start with the International Covenant on civil and Political Rights, and look at article
 
2.2 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 constitutional processes and with the provisions or 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.
 
This is the article that binds Canada and brings forth the responsibility of Canada and the provinces to take the necessary steps to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant for all the people living in Canada.
 
Further to this let us look at article 5:
 
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.
 
This one is pretty much self-explanatory, under no condition can anyone engage in any activity aimed at the limitation, removal of Rights provided for the present Covenant.
 
Together these articles of law produce the obligation on the executive powers of Canada and British Columbia.
 
The exercise of these rights must be allowed and no one anywhere can limit these rights.
 
Turning to article 3 of the covenant we find that – The State party to the present covenant undertakes to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and Political Rights set forth in the present covenant.
 
Combining these articles of law together clearly brings forth the domestic application of what must be done. Men and women under no circumstance can be denied the enjoyment of the civil and Political Rights found in this covenant.
 
All these articles working together show how the principal of justice works regarding men and women.

 
Now let us see what the federal government itself has to say about this by turning to the Canada Emergencies Act
 
Emergencies Act
R.S.C., 1985, c. 22 (4th Supp.)
 
An Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof
 
[This is one of those strange federal government enactments seeing it was actually assented to – 1988, c. 29, assented to 21st July, 1988]
 
Preamble (having been assented to it has to have that preamble attached to it. According to the interpretation Act the preamble is part of the act)
 
WHEREAS the safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government;
 
AND WHEREAS the fulfilment of those obligations in Canada may be seriously threatened by a national emergency and, in order to ensure safety and security during such an emergency, the Governor in Council should be authorized, subject to the supervision of Parliament, to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times;
 
AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;
 
In the previous statement we have learned that men and women have fundamental rights and freedoms that can never be limited or bridged by the corporate federal government even in a state of emergency. So what chance is there that the following rights can be violated any other time?
 
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
 
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 I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

You will find the remaining articles here

 
John Diefenbaker

John Diefenbaker – John George Diefenbaker PC CH QC was the 13th Prime Minister of Canada, serving from June 21, 1957, to April 22, 1963. Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Diefenbaker>

The Prime Minister of Canada stated our human rights and fundamental freedoms as clearly as the webmaster has ever heard or read!

I am a Canadian,


“I am a Canadian,
a free Canadian,
free to speak without fear,
free to worship in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong,
or
free to choose those
who shall govern my country.

This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”
From <http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/discover/quotes.asp> 2015-11-05

Most government websites and government officials that refer to this important quote, given when Prime Minister of Canada John Diefenbaker introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights deliberately misquote what is stated by removing the "or" from the quote. The "or" in the quote discloses the conspiracy!
The whistleblower

BY RODERICK MACDONELL NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2013
http://www.nationalmagazine.ca/Articles/November/The-whistleblower.aspx

Edgar Schmidt sued his own ministry over its process for vetting legislation, exposing the ethical conundrums that government lawyers face.
Last December [2012], Edgar Schmidt, the general counsel in the Legislative Services Branch of the federal Department of Justice, personally served the Office of the Attorney-General with a statement of claim, alleging that his own ministry had acted unlawfully by failing to properly review the constitutionality of draft legislation.

"There is a valuable role for the state but I think citizens need to be vigilant and be aware that the institutions that they create, particularly the state institutions that they create, sometimes abuse the powers that are entrusted to them."EDGAR SCHMIDT, VAL-DES-MONTS, QUÉBEC"

This was not the first time that Schmidt had expressed concerns about the vetting process. He had raised the issue over a 10-year period with higher-ups, including the deputy minister of justice and the chief legislative counsel. His duties included doing an initial assessment of proposed legislation for inconsistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights pursuant to the statutory examination provisions adopted by the Department of Justice.

He filed a lawsuit in Federal Court on Dec. 14, 2012, seeking declarations on the correct interpretation of statutory provisions used to assess whether proposed legislation complies with the Charter or Bill of Rights.

Since 1993, his statement of claim says, those provisions have been interpreted to mean that proposed legislation must be “manifestly” inconsistent with the Charter or Bill of Rights in order to be declared not constitutionally compliant.  If, in the opinion of counsel, a provision is “likely or even almost certainly” inconsistent with the Charter — even if the likelihood is 95 per cent or more — but an argument can be made that it is consistent — even if that argument has a less than five per cent chance of success — then there is no duty to inform the House of Commons that there is a potential Charter issue (unless the minister forms a different opinion.)

Schmidt believes this issue is important because the departmental standard of vetting bills “has the effect of shifting the burden of disciplining state law-making virtually entirely to the citizen."

“Instead of the state of self-restraint that Parliament has intended by putting in place these pre-enactment examinations, the current approach … means that it will virtually always be up to the citizen to discover and challenge legislation that does not conform to the Bill of Rights or the Charter or regulations that are not authorize,” he said in his court filing.

As it turned out, the lawsuit raised other thorny issues: the nature of solicitor-client privilege for public sector lawyers and their ethical duty to provide valid legal opinions.

“The Schmidt case shows [the Attorney-General’s officials’ ] unwillingness to release this information and now, as a result, they are having a serious challenge in explaining the policies and the standards on which the Attorney-General of Canada determines whether or not to report proposed legislation to Parliament as infringing the Constitution,” says Adam Dodek

Joseph Arvay, who represents Schmidt, said the case presents the court with the unique opportunity to determine how the Minister of Justice — when advising Parliament on proposed legislation — ensures   that respect for the Constitution always prevails over political or even policy considerations.

“The case also raises some fascinating questions about the nature and extent of solicitor-client privilege when a lawyer in the Department of Justice asserts that his Minister of Justice is not complying with the law,” he said in an interview.

Furthermore, as Professor Alice Woolley of University of Calgary Law School argued in a faculty blog, lawyers who actually engaged in the conduct described in Schmidt’s statement of claim would be guilty of seriously unethical conduct.

“A lawyer who opined that legislation is not inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms where that legislation has only the slightest chance of surviving a constitutional challenge (5%!) would not have engaged in good faith interpretation of what the Department of Justice Act requires of the Minister of Justice,” she wrote.

Schmidt's whistleblowing successfully brought his issue to light. In March 2012 [2013?], Federal Court Judge Simon Noël commented that there is “a higher interest at play” to assure the public that draft legislation is properly reviewed in line with what the legislation requires.

“It impacts on Parliament. It impacts on the executive. It impacts on the role of lawyers. It involves the Charter. If that’s not public importance I don’t know what is,” he said in ruling that the government should pay Schmidt’s legal costs in the interest of fairness.

"The case also raises some fascinating questions about the nature and extent of solicitor-client privilege when a lawyer in the Department of Justice asserts that his Minister of Justice is not complying with the law."JOSEPH ARVAY Arvay Finlay, Vancouver

See the Globe and Mail for more <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/lawyers-lawsuit-highlights-ottawas-court-clashes-over-charter-rights/article26449862/>

Since the Justice Department formalized its “credible argument” interpretation of the law in 1993, there has not been a single instance in which the Justice Minister has advised Parliament that a law is not consistent with the Charter. Globe and Mail article!

In other words the government thinks it can now violate international treaties requiring they protect our guaranteed rights. Do and say whatever it wants and unlawfully trespass on our guaranteed rights and we the people have to figure all this out and take the government and the legislation to court and protect ourselves from government corruption! That sounds like a conspiracy to defraud the people and waste the taxpayer’s money! If that isn’t ass backwards I don’t know what is!
Links revised 2013 11 11

British North America Act, 1867, 30-31 Vict., c. 3 (U.K.)  http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/constitution/lawreg-loireg/p1t11.html [29th March 1867]

  • The British North America Act 1867 laid the ground work for the Canadian common law federation with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom which dates back 800 years to the Magna Carta.
  • A federation that from the “get go” established in the BNA Act common law courts in all areas and the government agents are to provide for these named courts. [92.14] these courts are not under civil law rules and regulations!
  • Women and men are not mentioned in this act. No government has any authority over men and women without individual consent!

Preamble - The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men as well as  free institutions;

Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values as well as the rule of law;

Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms

1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of the rule of law;

(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

(c) freedom of religion;

(d) freedom of speech;

(e) freedom of assembly and association; and

(f) freedom of the press.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (U.K.) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 (U.K.)




When the citizens of the civil governments in Canada can have their rights limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable? Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society.


Most  of us already have an opinion of politicians which leads us to believe  that they do not do anything that isn't profitable for them while  "robbing us blind though taxes and fees"!

Preamble
Whereas  Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with  the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and  observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a  common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest  importance for the full realization of this pledge,
From <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>

Think about "Your Fundamental Rights"  the next time some front line civil servant trespasses on your human  rights in violation of international law by demanding that you pay a fee  for the privilege of exercising an inalienable right that the  government has a duty to protect.  Instead the same government has  deceived you into believing they have the right to collect fees and  fines on your inalienable rights and do so with your consent whether  expressed or tacit.







Definitions

Civil Code - A document in civil law jurisdictions that purports to be a compendium of the applicable law as it pertains to the citizen.
Civil Conspiracy - A business tort; an agreement by two persons or more to do an unlawful act or a conspiracy to injure another.
Common Law - Judge-declared law. Law which exists and applies to a group on the basis of customs and legal precedents developed over hundreds of years in Britain.
Common Nuisance - A public nuisance; an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.
Trespass - Unlawful interference with another’s person, property or rights.
Definitions from <http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/Category/TortandPersonalInjuryLawDictionary.aspx>

INTERPRETATION ACT [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 238
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA?
"Her Majesty", "His Majesty", "the Queen", "the King", "the Crown" or "the Sovereign" means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Her other realms and territories, and Head of the Commonwealth;

rule of law
the United Nations S/2004/616* Security Council Distr.: General 23 August 2004 - 6. The rule of law refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public as well as 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.

downloadable pdf - http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/8632809.51976776.html


CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 (80)
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law

The rule of law is superior to any law written by the Parliament or any legislature. The rule of law defined in Section 32 - Application of Charter states - The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter (constitution) only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations. Private individuals or their rights, private businesses or other private organizations are not found in this list!
Back to content