Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Canadian Charter of Freedom and Rights

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Canadian Charter of Freedom and Rights

    This is one of the main reasons why a Canadian is proud of being a Canadian.
    Let's protect our Pride!


    Attached Files

  • #2
    Use the below link to access the Charter in PDF format.

    canadian-charter-rights-freedoms-eng.pdf
    Attached Files
    Last edited by HumanistBC; May-14-2021, 09:36 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      There is no Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While everyone thinks there is, This topic has been discussed on social media several times by myself.

      The Constitution Act is not in Force or Effect as the Subjects that were added By the Queen in her Proclamation have not been fulfilled. Subject to section 59 there of is clear as per contract law. Quebec never signed the Constitution, and are not party to the Contract, therefore the Subjects can not be legally or Lawfully Removed.

      And You all wonder why they are acting like tyrants and dictators...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MJP View Post
        There is no Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While everyone thinks there is, This topic has been discussed on social media several times by myself.

        The Constitution Act is not in Force or Effect as the Subjects that were added By the Queen in her Proclamation have not been fulfilled. Subject to section 59 there of is clear as per contract law. Quebec never signed the Constitution, and are not party to the Contract, therefore the Subjects can not be legally or Lawfully Removed.

        And You all wonder why they are acting like tyrants and dictators...
        Very interesting comment.

        As far as I know, the charter is part of the Constitution Act that was signed into law by the Queen on April 17th 1982 and as I searched I couldn't clearly find subjects to it. Would you please help me with this?

        The section you referred to says:


        Commencement of paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec
        • 59 (1) Paragraph 23(1)(a) shall come into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
        • Marginal note: Authorization of Quebec

          (2) A proclamation under subsection (1) shall be issued only where authorized by the legislative assembly or government of Quebec.
          End note(110)
        • Marginal note: Repeal of this section

          (3) This section may be repealed on the day paragraph 23(1)(a) comes into force in respect of Quebec and this Act amended and renumbered, consequentially upon the repeal of this section, by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
        To me it sounds like this is referring to Quebec. Am I missing something here?
        Last edited by Mehdi Deris Zadeh; May-26-2021, 07:57 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mehdi Deris Zadeh View Post

          Very interesting comment.

          As far as I know, the charter is part of the Constitution Act that was signed into law by the Queen on April 17th 1982 and as I searched I couldn't clearly find subjects to it. Would you please help me with this?

          The section you referred to says:


          Commencement of paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec
          • 59 (1) Paragraph 23(1)(a) shall come into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
          • Marginal note: Authorization of Quebec

            (2) A proclamation under subsection (1) shall be issued only where authorized by the legislative assembly or government of Quebec.
            End note(110)
          • Marginal note: Repeal of this section

            (3) This section may be repealed on the day paragraph 23(1)(a) comes into force in respect of Quebec and this Act amended and renumbered, consequentially upon the repeal of this section, by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
          To me it sounds like this is referring to Quebec. Am I missing something here?
          Did you read The Transcription to the proclamation of the Constitution Act 1982?

          https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discov...ranscript.aspx

          And Whereas section 58 of the Constitution Act, 1982, set out in Schedule B to the Canada Act, provides that the Constitution Act, 1982 shall, subject to section 59 thereof, come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued under the Great Seal of Canada.

          Now Know You that We, by and with the advice Our Privy Council for Canada, do by this Our Proclamation, declare that the Constitution Act, 1982 shall, subject to section 59 thereof, come into force on the seventeenth day of April in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-two.
          The Queens Proclamation is the final authority overriding the Canada Act by the House and Lords in the UK by using Order-in-Council. AKA The Queens Prerogative.

          Quebec, never Approved or Signed the Constitution Act in 1982, they still have not Approved or Signed the Constitution Act.

          Quebec is not a Party to the Constitution Act Under the auspices of Contract Law.

          This is First Year Contract Law.

          You can not have someone subject a Contract they never signed and since they are not a Party to the Contract the subjects can not be legally removed.

          Therefore because Quebec is not a party to the Contract, there is no Constitution Act, even though it was approved by 9 out of 10 Provinces. It required Quebec to sign the dotted line.

          When you purchase a house, it says in the purchase contract, subject to financing, If you can not get the financing the Subject can not be removed, and you don't get the house.

          Contract Law is the supreme Law of all Laws.

          When you made your post you forget section 58

          Commencement

          58 Subject to section 59, this Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.

          Commencement of paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec

          59 (1) Paragraph 23(1)(a) shall come into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.

          Authorization of Quebec

          (2) A proclamation under subsection (1) shall be issued only where authorized by the legislative assembly or government of Quebec.

          Repeal of this section

          (3) This section may be repealed on the day paragraph 23(1)(a) comes into force in respect of Quebec and this Act amended and renumbered, consequentially upon the repeal of this section, by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
          When you put it all together it is clear and concise exactly what was done by the Queen when she issued her Proclamation. She wanted to ensure there would be total agreement, and there was not.
          Last edited by MJP; May-26-2021, 08:56 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            I am not a lawyer and I understand that you may be one. Perhaps this is one reason why you are not very eager to be here with your full name.
            It is not very straight forward, I have to admit. I think it is possible that different Judges may have different opinions on it. It is also possible that the government website note is just a personal opinion?

            You are right that Section 58 says "Subject to Section 59" and I had seen it. But Section 59 is talking about Commencement of paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec" and ends with "(109)".

            Commencement

            58 Subject to section 59, this Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
            End note(109)

            Looking at End note(109) it says:
            (109) The Act, with the exception of paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec, came into force on April 17, 1982 by proclamation issued by the Queen (see SI/82-97).
            I am still not sure if the whole thing is still not a law. As the government website says, it is in force with exception of Paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec. To the best of my knowledge, that paragraph is talking about native languages and is in respect of Quebec while the End note on the government website clearly says the rest of the Act is in force.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mehdi Deris Zadeh View Post
              I am not a lawyer and I understand that you may be one. Perhaps this is one reason why you are not very eager to be here with your full name.
              It is not very straight forward, I have to admit. I think it is possible that different Judges may have different opinions on it. It is also possible that the government website note is just a personal opinion?

              You are right that Section 58 says "Subject to Section 59" and I had seen it. But Section 59 is talking about Commencement of paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec" and ends with "(109)".

              Commencement

              58 Subject to section 59, this Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
              End note(109)

              Looking at End note(109) it says:
              (109) The Act, with the exception of paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec, came into force on April 17, 1982 by proclamation issued by the Queen (see SI/82-97).
              I am still not sure if the whole thing is still not a law. As the government website says, it is in force with exception of Paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec. To the best of my knowledge, that paragraph is talking about native languages and is in respect of Quebec while the End note on the government website clearly says the rest of the Act is in force.
              I'm not a lawyer, I have studied the law, and studied contracts due to employment contracts, and other business contracts I have been involved with. As for my Name that is my initials and I needed to secure a username. Why do I need to use my real name, is it a requirement here?

              t is important to understand how the law works and not just leave your fate to a lawyer to tell you. Lawyers and the Bar do not work for the people or in the best interests of the people.

              Why would the government tell you the truth when as Pierre Elliot Trudeau said governments are only interested in power and acquiring more power. Lying to the people is about power and control.

              The government will say it's in force elsewhere, but how can it be when the subject has not been removed as per the Queen's Own Words in her Proclamation.

              You clearly read the two sentences from the proclamation but do not actually understand them. They are written in legalese and not in common English.

              And Whereas section 58 of the Constitution Act, 1982, set out in Schedule B to the Canada Act, provides that the Constitution Act, 1982 shall, subject to section 59 thereof, come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued under the Great Seal of Canada.

              Now Know You that We, by and with the advice Our Privy Council for Canada, do by this Our Proclamation, declare that the Constitution Act, 1982 shall, subject to section 59 thereof, come into force on the seventeenth day of April in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-two.
              The problem still stems from the fact that the "subject to section 59 thereof" is a legal term used to state that this subject must be removed before it can come into force on this date.

              You can not have a contract come into force without the subject removed. I already explained subject in simplicity.

              The addendum they state that you quote does not properly clarify that the subject has not been removed, nor can it be removed as Quebec never signed the Constitution Act.

              The problem is most people do not understand the law, and do not understand that the words that are used in laws are not in plain and simple common English.

              All Laws are written in Legalese no matter where they are from.

              Comment


              • #8
                You are right that registering with full name is not a requirement here. I just know many lawyers, doctors and other professionals who speak out against the Corona theater but are very cautious and don't do it openly and publicly because they are worried about losing their job, permit, ... and they have every reason to be worried about it. I thought you might be one of them. My apologies if what I said sounded not very friendly or something. I didn't mean to.

                As a financial broker that I used to be for more than a decade and a Financial Compliance certified person (a requirement in an exchange brokerage directorship role), I am quite familiar with reading contracts and understand legalese. I have also been involved with other types of contracts such as employment, import/export, real estate and more. From my point of view, that subject relates to Quebec only. This itself (the charter being not in force in Quebec) is quite new to me and I appreciate that you brought it to our attention. I would also add that your doubt is not odd because the proclamation has created ambiguity and asking questions about it is a valid thing to do. However, after reading it again, I still don't see that Section 59 is a subject that stops the validity of the Constitution from being in force in other parts of Canada. The Constitution not being in force anywhere in Canada is a matter of serious doubt for me. Even from the Common Law point of view, if the Constitution is not in force, then all other judgments based on it cant be enforced. I don't say you don't have any point here. All I say is that, it is not so clear and straight forward to say for a fact that the Constitution of Canada is not in force because of this ambiguity. If government wants to claim this, many other government powers will face the same issue.

                One thing is for sure, it has always been known that the British usually use this policy 'to plants uncertainties in laws and contracts' that can be interpreted in different ways in the future. This one is a really big one. The whole country of Canada depends on how to read this proclamation. Perhaps this is why nobody is that excited on Quebec signing this or becoming independent? 😉

                I wish we could invite some lawyers who dare to speak and ask their opinions. I further agree with you that lawyers are not always working in the best interest of people but I certainly hope that there are some lawyers out there who understand how fundamentally important it is for themselves and their children that we resist the Corona theater thus will help the situation for the sake of themselves at least.

                I will try to bring this to the attention of a couple of them that I know. Perhaps you would do the same?
                Last edited by Mehdi Deris Zadeh; May-27-2021, 07:23 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mehdi Deris Zadeh View Post
                  You are right that registering with full name is not a requirement here. I just know many lawyers, doctors and other professionals who speak out against the Corona theater but are very cautious and don't do it openly and publicly because they are worried about losing their job, permit, ... and they have every reason to be worried about it. I thought you might be one of them. My apologies if what I said sounded not very friendly or something. I didn't mean to.

                  As a financial broker that I used to be for more than a decade and a Financial Compliance certified person (a requirement in an exchange brokerage directorship role), I am quite familiar with reading contracts and understand legalese. I have also been involved with other types of contracts such as employment, import/export, real estate and more. From my point of view, that subject relates to Quebec only. This itself (the charter being not in force in Quebec) is quite new to me and I appreciate that you brought it to our attention. I would also add that your doubt is not odd because the proclamation has created ambiguity and asking questions about it is a valid thing to do. However, after reading it again, I still don't see that Section 59 is a subject that stops the validity of the Constitution from being in force in other parts of Canada. The Constitution not being in force anywhere in Canada is a matter of serious doubt for me. Even from the Common Law point of view, if the Constitution is not in force, then all other judgments based on it cant be enforced. I don't say you don't have any point here. All I say is that, it is not so clear and straight forward to say for a fact that the Constitution of Canada is not in force because of this ambiguity. If government wants to claim this, many other government powers will face the same issue.

                  One thing is for sure, it has always been known that the British usually use this policy 'to plants uncertainties in laws and contracts' that can be interpreted in different ways in the future. This one is a really big one. The whole country of Canada depends on how to read this proclamation. Perhaps this is why nobody is that excited on Quebec signing this or becoming independent? 😉

                  I wish we could invite some lawyers who dare to speak and ask their opinions. I further agree with you that lawyers are not always working in the best interest of people but I certainly hope that there are some lawyers out there who understand how fundamentally important it is for themselves and their children that we resist the Corona theater thus will help the situation for the sake of themselves at least.

                  I will try to bring this to the attention of a couple of them that I know. Perhaps you would do the same?
                  It's not section 59 that is the problem. It's the text from the proclamation that the Queen gave. That is the text that is above all other texts related to the Constitution because the Queen used an Order In Council by her own hand.

                  As you said you are familiar with all kinds of contracts. This is how the subject has been put into place. It was done in the proclamation by the Queen.

                  And Whereas section 58 of the Constitution Act, 1982, set out in Schedule B to the Canada Act, provides that the Constitution Act, 1982 shall, subject to section 59 thereof, come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued under the Great Seal of Canada.

                  Now Know You that We, by and with the advice Our Privy Council for Canada, do by this Our Proclamation, declare that the Constitution Act, 1982 shall, subject to section 59 thereof, come into force on the seventeenth day of April in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-two.
                  If you read the First Sentence carefully It says "declare that the Constitution Act, 1982 shall, SUBJECT TO SECTION 59 THEREOF, come into force....

                  The key Problem is this this, Quebec is not a signatory to the Constitution.

                  If you read this sentence carefully This would like you and someone else having a contract to purchase a car, however the contract states that this contract shall, subject to section 59 thereof, come into force and be concluded on the completion of this contract. Section 59 states that I'm the one that has to washing and waxing the the car to a nice mirror shine. But I never signed the contract, even though I my name was on the line. The Contract states that I would be washing and waxing the car to a nice mirror shine. The contract does not mention compensation.

                  How can you execute this contract?

                  Think about this in different terms outside of a constitutional issue, you can see that there is a serious flaw in this contract above.

                  The point being is contract law supersedes all other forms of law out there, as EVERYTHING is a Contract.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You may say that "there is a serious flaw". I say there is ambiguity as results of section 58 and 59 and how the Proclamation is written. It looks like you fall into a loop. But reading it again, I cant accept that the Constitution as a whole is not commenced yet.

                    My understanding is that the Proclamation can be interpreted in two ways; a) there is a subject on commencement in respect of Quebec, and b) the whole thing is subject to section 59 for commencement. I still think that the subject is in respect of Quebec and that also only related to section 23 a (1).

                    In any case, I will try to get some other people such as our MP and a couple of lawyers to comment.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mehdi Deris Zadeh View Post
                      You may say that "there is a serious flaw". I say there is ambiguity as results of section 58 and 59 and how the Proclamation is written. It looks like you fall into a loop. But reading it again, I cant accept that the Constitution as a whole is not commenced yet.

                      My understanding is that the Proclamation can be interpreted in two ways; a) there is a subject on commencement in respect of Quebec, and b) the whole thing is subject to section 59 for commencement. I still think that the subject is in respect of Quebec and that also only related to section 23 a (1).

                      In any case, I will try to get some other people such as our MP and a couple of lawyers to comment.
                      Sorry to tell you that your MP won't answer questions and lawyers are in on it.

                      In Contract Law there is only one interpretation as to the one that is written. The subject in this case can not and will not be able to be removed, you are not reading this correctly.
                      Last edited by MJP; May-30-2021, 05:00 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X