The Canadian Bill of Rights vs. Charter of RIghts
This section will be updated based on the most recent drafts of the ammendments to the WHO Treaty and International Health Regulations. See https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/red-herrings to ensure that your messaging aligns with the latest availabie information. The new health regulations that violate our rights no longer require a declaration of emergency nor the claim of anything like a worldwide emergency pandemic; they only have to say the public health doctor thinks there ‘may be a risk”. Then they can make the police use force by court order. This newfound power can be used to force treatment, remove you or children or your home to hospitals or other facilities etc. But don’t worry we can still defeat this diabolical plan with common law rights and other rights codified in law like the Canadian Bill of Rights.
One of many organizations of Concerned Candians have written more on this topic here.
THE BILL
The Canadian Bill of Rights and Freedoms opening statement:
“An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”
This statement indicates that the state is recognizing human rights and fundamentalfreedoms you already have i.e. God-given by virtue of being a human and the state is committing to protect these rights. Note this Act obligates the state including the Queen and puts no obligations on the human beings in Canada.
Preamble to the Bill:
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 and free institutions;
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;
And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a Bill of Rights which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority, and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada:
The Bill protects rights to equality before the law and ensures protection of the law. It protects the right to life, liberty, security of person and enjoyment of property and the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, and of assembly and association. It also guarantees legal rights such as the rights to counsel and a fair hearing.
PART I of the Bill
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 law;
Section 1(a) has the protection that you cannot be deprived except by due process of law which means common law or judicial decision. Then in Section 2 of the Bill there would also have to be an Act of Parliament. This is an extremely strong legal provision. And in the view of the author the judicial decision should have to be made by a jury as only a jury can be impartial and independent of the state, not a judge.
Other provisions of Section 1.
(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.
Construction of law
2 Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared,
The bottom line is that section 1(a) cannot be abridged unless there is a judicial decision calling for it and an Act of Federal Parliament to pass the reduction of right into law. This is very difficult and unlikely to happen. This is unlike with the Charter where they can just bang out bylaws that violate all your rights under section 1 and leave it up to you to go to court and challenge the reasonableness of the violations. We will discuss this later in the article.
The best thing about the Bill is you can cite it anywhere the government including police or private persons are enforcing Covid-19 measures with sanctions. The Bill applies in all cases where force is used because this is federally regulated activity (Criminal Code of Canada) when they are using force. And the Bill can be cited without notice in all proceedings related to Covid-19 measures where force is used. This includes bylaw tickets, criminal charges and section 22 closures of churches or businesses.
The Bill was presented to the federal parliament in Canada by John Diefenbaker and passed into law in 1960. The Bill was an attempt to codify all your common law rights which back the Bill up when used in formal proceedings. When you use the Bill, you do not have to argue whether there was a good enough reason your rights are violated. You only have to show your rights are violated to seek a remedy.
Diefenbaker was very concerned about keeping communism out of Canada and the Bill was the tool he believed would work to do the job. Here is a famous quote by Diefenbaker he made when the Bill passed:
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship GOD 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.”
― John G. Diefenbaker
THE CHARTER
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms opening statement:
“Section 1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Right out of the gate, unlike the Bill that recognizes your God given ‘human’ rights, the Charter merely guarantees the ‘rights’ laid out in the Charter. These are government issued rights that can be and are currently being taken away easily without court or parliamentary approval under the Covid-19 bylaws. And it eliminates the preamble from the Bill that talks about free individuals and free institutions and the importance of family. This was not an accident. This omission is to help us move towards communism where humans are not free, institutions are not free, and the family has little or no importance. And it has eliminated the right to enjoy property (this is also a communist purpose as land rights interfere with their aim to control all land use) and the right to equality before the law and protection from the law (also important to establish communism).
We will start with a description of what happens in a Charter Challenge. In the Charter the rights (note not human rights) are said to be guaranteed. Look up the guarantee; it allows conditions. And that condition is the state can set limits on your rights without going to court or passing an Act through parliament. They merely have to claim, not prove, they have justifiable reason such as they have done with the Covid-19 measures, which violate all your rights. These Covid-19 measures violate all your fundamental rights. And to try and get them back you must go to court.
Problems With the Constitutional Challenge Approach of Covid-19 Measures:
Your right to life, liberty, security of persons, enjoyment of property, the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law (common law), the right to be treated equally by the law and protected equally by the law, freedom of religion, speech, assembly, association, and press are all violated with the Covid-19 measures. If you use the Charter, these are some of the problems and impediments you face in trying to get your rights back:
Constitutional Challenge:
First of all, your rights are not protected in the Charter, your right to enjoy property to protect you from lockdown and confiscation of your business if you do not mask and enforce vaccine passport requirements of your customers. And your right to be treated equally and protected equally are not in the Charter so you are not protected from vaccination passports, lockdowns, mask requirements, etc.
This Charter Challenge is a complex process and until the constitutional challenge process is complete and unless it is successful the government continues to violate your rights with huge fines, criminal charges, and business closures. And if you lose because of Section 1 (reasonable limits allowed in the Charter) they will continue to override your rights.
A charter challenge is an expensive process because you must challenge the public health narrative by bringing in doctors, virologists, scientists etc., to testify against the narrative. It is estimated that the cost of just this part of the challenge would be $500,000, and then there are the legal fees and other costs. And this is not likely to be successful because the court will rely on the position of the appointed officials, in this case public health officials.
Time consuming process can take as much as 10 years, or more.
The outcome is uncertain because the decision is based on the discretion of a biased judge (a judge is appointed and paid by the government and therefore not impartial).
With Covid-19 access to the courts has been limited making the wait time even longer than normal.
Enforcement of law that violates your rights such as Covid-19 measures. If we only had the Charter the police would have to enforce these rinky-dinky Covid-19 bylaws unless the Court in a Constitutional Challenge deems them unconstitutional. But thank God we do have common law rights set by judicial precedent. And these rights are codified in such laws as the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Criminal Code of Canada which the police can use to refuse to enforce rinky dink bylaws that violate our rights. And in Ontario all the Regional Police are protecting our rights by refusing to shut your gatherings under bylaws and refusing to stop you at the side of the road and demand ID and where you're going and fine you if you are not going to a place considered essential. I thank God for the Ontario Regional Police and their stance taken against this move to eliminate our rights which opens the door to full on communism. And thank God also that we have a host of rights protected outside the Charter.
The Charter is full of loopholes.
Charter design and loopholes:
Section 1 Loopholes:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The biggest loophole in the Charter is found in Section 1. This is literally where Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, a card carrying communist/globalist trained by the Jesuits created this gaping opening for your rights to be eliminated so the communists/globalists can step in.
Some of the problems with Section 1.
This section guarantees your rights “the rights set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms” unless the government claims they have a good enough reason to override your rights with a “demonstrably justified reason”. And the rights they refer to in this section are your government issued rights “the rights and freedoms set out in it” not your God given human rights as described in the ‘Canadian Bill of Rights‘, an Act for the ‘Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
Section 7 Loopholes:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Under Section 7 the judge in Charter Challenge will analyze the violation using the principles of fundamental justice to see if the violation of your rights are justified under Section 1 of the charter.
PLEASE NOTE: If you have a right under common law the right is not to be infringed at any time for any reason other than when you violate another person or their property. And we even have an extensive process of legal rights, which allows due process when we are accused of violating someone's rights. No other limits to your rights are allowed.
Section 24 (1) Loophole:
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms:
24 (1) 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.
This is the section that you must use to invoke the Charter. There are several problems with this section in terms of undermining your common law/Bill rights.
With the Charter you cannot just cite it when your rights are being violated by the government or in a formal proceeding as you can with the Bill. You must file an application under this Section to argue that your rights are being violated without a justified reason by invoking the Charter under Section 24(1).
Secondly when you use Section 24(1) you are initiating a court proceeding where you cannot have a jury. A court of “competent jurisdiction” is only a judge because a jury is independent of the court. This is a huge problem because a judge cannot be impartial when it comes to deciding a case on whether the government is unjustly violating your rights because judges are appointed, and their salary is paid by the government. In other words, it is a clear conflict of interest. You need a jury to adjudicate matters of violations of rights by the government. A jury is independent of the court and other than a small pittance for jury duty they are not paid for by the government.
Then “to obtain such a remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.” This means the judge has discretion. They do not have to consider common law or even laws, only their own assessment of the fundamental justice under Section 7 to see if the violations of rights are justified under Section 1. This is what the court has to say about fundamental justice from Charterpedia – Section 7:
“The principles of fundamental justice must be approached with a careful consideration of context and will vary according to the context in which they are raised (Chiarelli, supra, at 732-33; Cunningham, supra, at 152; United States of America v. Cobb, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 587 at paragraph 32; Suresh, supra, at paragraph 45). While achieving the “right balance” between individual and societal interests is not in and of itself a principle of fundamental justice (Demers, supra, at paragraph 45; Malmo-Levine, supra at paragraphs 96-97), determining the content and scope of the principles of fundamental justice that apply in a given context to set the boundaries of the rights in question involves the balancing of individual rights and societal interests (R. v. Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668 at paragraphs 61-68; Malmo-Levine, supra, at paragraphs 98-99; Demers, supra, at paragraph 45;”
As you can see the so called “competent court” described in Section 24 (1), when you invoke the Charter, the judge does not have to rely on common law or the law, they simply have to analyse Section 7 based on the principles of fundamental justice to see if the violation that occurred was justified under Section 1. The problem with this is that this is to use unfettered discretion, which is subject to the judge’s opinions, biases and allegiance to the state and their interpretation of the public opinion in general. They do not have to provide any empirical proof of what the public wants. You can appeal this decision of the judge but good luck proving the judge really did not hold the opinion they based their decision on. This cannot be done. They make their own analysis of the situation and the fundamental justice they use as a guide is subjective including what they think the public wants.
This is not how our rights were established and maintained through the courts for centuries in common law countries such as Canada. And this Charter process is inconsistent with the notion of God given natural rights. The process of common law obligates the courts to issue a remedy for violations of rights by the state rather than this Charter abomination of justice where your rights are subject to the opinion of one judge that is not confined by common law or the law. They simply have to fashion “such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances” (reference 24 (1).
Luckily this is not how the court must proceed when you cite the Canadian Bill of Rights. You first establish that your rights are violated then the court is bound by the dictates of the common law decisions to uphold your rights and fashion a remedy. As well under the Bill you can have a jury in matters where your rights are violated unlike the Charter where you must have a judge under Section 24(1), the necessary section to invoke the Charter.
So, by invoking the Charter you are agreeing to no jury. And you are agreeing to the conflict of interest involved in giving discretion to the court with the power to supersede common law and the law. This is to limit your chance for justice greatly because there is a huge conflict of interest where a judge is adjudicating a matter of whether the government justifiably overrode your rights. The great conflict lies in the fact that the judge is appointed by, and paid by the government i.e., not impartial. The jury is independent and other than a very low compensation for their short time spent on the jury they are not paid for by the government. Members of the jury are our peers, and their decisions directly affect them as members of the public. We will discuss the Bill in more detail shortly.
Our saving grace is that the Charter has absolutely no power unless we invoke it with notice of a Constitutional Challenge. Therefore when you try to use it in the situation where your rights are violated by the Covid-19 bylaws police, bylaw or public health will say “section 1 reasonable limits”. It only has power if you serve notice of Constitutional Challenge. So it cannot do us direct harm if we do not invoke. However, it can do us harm if case law is set under it when someone else invokes it and unleashes its power to create the states right to override your rights contrary to common law/Bill rights such as been done in the case of the Church of God (Henry Hildebrandt).
We can challenge the Charter because Canada is still a Commonwealth country that has a government including a court system that is bound to obey common law. The Queen is not supposed to give Royal Assent to any laws that do not respect common law. The Charter because of section 1, 7 and 24 (1) does not have to regard common law or codified rights such as are found in the Bill. For whatever reason you do not see the statement which signifies Royal Assent in the Charter: “Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:…”
Check these links:
Link to the UK declaration that Canada is free to establish and maintain its own constitution.
Link to the Constitution Act 1867 - 1982:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/
Link to the Canada Act 1982:
Notice when the queen signed this proclamation the Canada Act became UK law, however it never passed into Canadian law. The Canada Act, i.e. the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is UK law only. The original statement was that this UK Canada Act was never passed into Canadian Law because of section 59. This has been corrected, this is not why it did not pass into Canada Law. We do not have a definitive answer as to why it was never passed into Canadian Law. For all Canadian federal statutes go here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/ and look for Constitution Act 1867 - 1982 or Canada Act or Charter of Rights and Freedoms. None of these are found. Then for UK statutes go to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/and search Canada Act and you will find the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms here. What this means, is that the Bill of Rights still reigns - thank the Lord.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
Q, Has the Bill and the Charter both had Royal Assent in Canada?
A. No, only the Bill has had Royal Assent in Canada. The Charter was passed into UK law, it was never passed into Canadian Law.
Q. Does the government have to apply to the court for approval to override our rights pursuant to section 1 of Charter before they enact laws that violate our rights?
A. No!!!! The Charter does not require nor does it allow for the court to make such a consideration in advance of imposing the offending law. The only time the Court can be charged with the judicial responsibility to determine whether something the government does is justified under section 1 of the Charter is after they have already rolled out an offensive law and started violating rights. To confirm this check the wording of section 1 it does not require a pre approval of the court to override your rights. And look at section 24 (1) the only time the court can consider a Charter matter is if we apply to the court after our rights have been violated.
Q. Is the Bill too restrictive to help protect our rights regarding COVID-19 measures because it only applies to federal matters?
A. No!!! Although the Bill only applies to federal matters all COVID-19 measures involving law enforcement and use of force are regulated by Section 25 of the Criminal Code of Canada CCC and therefore the enforcement falls under the provisions of the Bill. This includes when a private citizen is enforcing law as in the case of masks and vaccine passports. This case law R. v. Asante-Mensah, 2003 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2003] 2 SCR 3demonstrates that the CCC regulations apply to the use of force including those used by private citizens