In My Canada, A free Canadian. History of the Conspiracy - canadian government conspiracies

Go to content

In My Canada, A free Canadian. History of the Conspiracy

Government
In My Canada

Revised 2017-07-10 - See the "Recent Activity" page for a complete list of changes

If “YOU” do not give any statutory creation your consent, they have no “JURISDICTION” over “YOU”!

If “YOU” do not make it very clear you do not consent the statutory creations will assume you consent granting them “JURISDICTION” over “YOU”!

We have the right to know, seek, obtain, receive and hold information about all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including having access to information as to how those rights and freedoms are given effect in domestic legislative, judicial or administrative systems. But if you do not ask the right question of the right people your questions will go unanswered.

The Federal and Provincial governments are not the right people to ask the right questions to.

The Federal and Provincial governments have no authority over people.

People do not receive human rights from the the Federal and Provincial governments!

Fictional entities called persons are under the authority of the Federal and Provincial governments!

Fictional entities called persons receive privileges from the Federal and Provincial governments not human rights!

Privleges the Federal and Provincial governments have made to look like human rights but unlike human rights privleges are under the control of the Federal and Provincial governments

With regards to human beings the Federal and Provincial governments make no law!



A free Canadian

 
How has your juristic unit given effect to the human rights of the people in your domestic legislative, judicial or administrative systems that you have the prime duty and responsibility to protect? Answer by addressing the following:
 
1.    “the affiant is a free Canadian;
 
2.  a free Canadian, living under the 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;
 
3.  a free Canadian with 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 law as long as the affiant is not violating the same human rights of others;
 
4.  the affiant has the freedom of expression without fear as long as the affiant doesn’t trespass on the rights of others;
 
5.  the affiant has the right to self-determination and is free to associate with whomever;
 
6.  the affiant has the right to freedom of expression and is free to worship in the affiants own way;
 
7.  the affiant is free to stand for what the affiant thinks is right;
 
8.  the affiant is free to oppose what the affiant believes is wrong;
 
9.  the affiant is free to choose to be an enumerated class of subject or not;
 
10.    in the affiant’s Canada the prime responsibility and duty of the rule of law [state] is the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms;
 
11.The affiant is not enumerated as a class of subject in any juristic government. Any assumption, presumption, intimidation or forced compliance lacks consent and is a human rights violation;
 
12.    The affiant is one of the people, you are public servants of the affiants! The affiant is not in servitude to the affiant’s servants and therefore does not answer to your juristic units or any class of subject of yours;
 
13.    In the affiant’s Canada men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;
 
14.    To no one can your juristic units sell your services to , except your own classes of subjects;
 
15.    To no one can your juristic units refuse or delay, right or justice, except your own classes of subjects;
 
16.    Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living:
 
The right to an adequate standard of living requires, at a minimum, that everyone shall enjoy the necessary subsistence rights: adequate food and nutrition, clothing, housing and the necessary conditions of care when required. The essential point is that everyone shall be able, without shame and without unreasonable obstacles, to be a full participant in ordinary, everyday interaction with other people. Thus, people should be able to enjoy their basic needs in conditions of dignity. No one should have to live in conditions whereby the only way to satisfy their needs is by degrading themselves or depriving themselves of their basic necessities or freedoms.
 
In purely material terms, an adequate standard of living implies living above the poverty line of the society concerned, which according to the World Bank includes two elements: ‘The expenditure necessary to buy a minimum standard of nutrition and other basic necessities and a further amount that varies from country to country, reflecting the cost of participating in the everyday life of society.’ ICESCR General Comment 12 finds that what is ‘adequate’ ‘is to a large extent determined by prevailing social, economic, cultural, climatic, ecological and other conditions’.
 
Even though economic, social and cultural rights instruments establish the principle of progressive realisation, this principle does not exclude immediate; steps towards this goal must be taken immediately. In addition, the prohibition of discrimination of any kind with regard to access to adequate food, clothing and housing, on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, age, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, with the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the equal enjoyment or exercise of this right, is an immediate obligation for states parties to major human rights treaties. ICELANDIC HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE
 
17.    Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living Standards:
 
According to Article 25(1) UDHR, ‘everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family’. This provision sets out some of the elements of this right: a) food; b) clothing; c) housing; d) medical care; and e) necessary social services.
 
Under Article 11 ICESCR, everyone has the right to ‘an adequate standard of living for himself and his family’. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has issued several General Comments explaining the components of this right including the right to adequate housing (General Comments 4 and 7), the right to food (General Comment 12), the right to water (General Comment 15) as well as the right to social security (General Comment 19). Through these General Comments, the Committee elaborates on which criteria are to be met to fulfil the rights to housing, food and water and provides the single most comprehensive interpretation of these rights under international law.  
 
The right to an adequate standard of living is included in several other human rights treaties. Under Article 27 CRC, ‘States Parties recognise the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development’. Under Article 14 CEDAW, ‘States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in rural areas [...] to ensure [...] the right [...] to enjoy adequate living conditions, particularly in relation to housing, sanitation, electricity and water supply, transport and communications [....]’. The CERD recognises the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to enjoy, inter alia, the right to housing, and the right to social security and social services. Article 28 CRPD sets out the right to an adequate standard of living and social protection. ICELANDIC HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE
 
18. The people you serve have the right to know if they are living on an adequate standard of living that is above the poverty line. Your juristic units do not reveal what “an adequate standard of living that is above the poverty line actually is“ so people do not know whether or not their human rights are being met;
 
19. In 2009, half of Canadians were living on less than $25,400. In 2009, the low income cut-offs (LICOs) – also known as the poverty line – for after tax incomes for one person was $18,421.
 
20.B.C.’s minimum wage was 8.75$ per hour in 2009 – 2080 hours a year at 8.75$; 18200$ annually before taxes. A human rights violation;
 
21. CANADA WITHOUT POVERTY, 2015 –
 
a.       British Columbia has had one of the highest rates of poverty in Canada for the past thirteen years. B.C. is the only province in Canada without a poverty reduction plan. A human rights violation;
 
b.       Poverty in B.C. is a struggle of low wages and stagnant welfare rates despite soaring housing and food costs. In 2014 nearly 100,000 people (or almost 45,500 households) visited a food bank in a typical month, 30.8% of which were children. A human rights violation;
 
c.       B.C. still has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada. A human rights violation;
 
d.       B.C. welfare rates have remained frozen since 2007. A human rights violation;
 
e.       In 2014 The Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, was introduced to the legislature in B.C.; however, it did not receive a second reading despite strong support. A human rights violation;
 
22.B.C. offers many subsidies to residents not the people. Subsidies that would not be needed if human rights regarding an adequate standard of living were being met;
 
23.The federal juristic units record with its responsibility to provide the required “adequate standard of living” is just as bad;
History of the Conspiracy

British North America Act, 1867, 30-31 Vict., c. 3 (U.K.)

An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith. [29th March 1867]

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:From <http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/constitution/lawreg-loireg/p1t11.html>

The British North America Act 1867, laid the ground work 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 named 4 common law courts in all area and the government agents provided for and named to run those common law governments and protect human rights in those common law courts.

The British North America Act 1867 grants no government authority over the “private individuals, private businesses or other private organizations”. This statement is the bases of the Canadian Government conspiracies because the governments themselves claim no authority over “private individuals, private businesses or other private organizations” either!  They depend on their conspiracy to keep the people ignorant of those facts.

Both Parliament and provincial legislatures have a limited power under section 33 to pass laws that are exempt from certain Charter provisions <http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1355344632007/1355344738223> – those concerning fundamental freedoms and legal and equality rights. None are exempt from Charter sections 26, 27, 31, 32 and 52

This was made very clear again in Section 32 - Application of Charter states <http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1355344632007/1355344738223> - This Charter applies to the Parliament as well as the 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 31 - Nothing in this Charter/Constitution 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 strictly set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. (in Section 91 and Section 92 for the legal Federal and Provincial governments societies and the constitution itself for the common law society in bijural Canada)

Here in British Columbia Sections 31 and 32 mentioned above are addressed in one single section of code and the rights violations left in the hands of the Ministers who consented to be responsible for the ministry implementing the legislation to do the actual violating with provincial tribunals to protect all of them from being sued for damages.

The provincial section of code that implies that there are people in the province that are not classes of subjects under provincial control s92 states: “"person" includes a corporation, partnership or party, and the personal or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law;” – section 29 INTERPRETATION ACT [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 238<http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96238_01#section29>

The situation at the federal level is handled a bit better than the provincial but the effect is the same.

Both the common law | and the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized sources of the law | of common law property which include inalienable rights | property and civil rights in Canada and, unless otherwise provided by the rule of law.

Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21) < http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-21/page-3.html#h-10 >

Property and Civil Rights - 8.1 Both the common law and the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada and, unless otherwise provided by law, if in interpreting an enactment it is necessary to refer to a province’s rules, principles or concepts forming part of the law of property and civil rights, reference must be made to the rules, principles and concepts in force in the province at the time the enactment is being applied. See equality!

The webmaster knows of at least two federal acts that acknowledge “classes of subjects”/bijural private individuals not under their authority; one is in the bank act and the other income tax.

The onus at both levels of government is on the private individual knowing they are not “classes of subjects” without their consent in bijural Canada. What their rights are and how to protect them!

Both levels of governments have gone to extreme measures to prevent people from putting everything together and doing exactly that!

Your Canadian Fundamental Rights

John Diefenbaker - Prime Minister of Canada stated them as clearly as the webmaster has ever heard or read!

“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 goverment officials that refer to this importamt quote deliberarely misquote what the Prime Minister of Canada stated by removing the "or" from the quote. The "or" in the quote discloses rhe conspiracy!
Copyright 2015-2019 - all Human Rights Reserved
Blog
Site Map
Back to content