Security and Individualism

What makes us FEEL secure is not so much the objective security of a Constitution, or even the justice system but rather a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves.

Today, families and individuals are threatened by many things against which we are helpless: nuclear accidents, inflation, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of one's privacy by large organizations, and nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt our desired way of life.

It is true that society is powerless against some of the things that threaten us like disease for example. But we can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one’s fault unless it is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to individuals and society or corporations by government tend to be MAN-MADE and to hell with the constitution or laws.

For example, in Canada, as per the actions of Justin Trudeau and his liberal party animated by the NDP, and propagandized by the mainstream media, protesting, or becoming angry against the government’s policies cannot be permitted unless such protesting is in support of and NOT contrary to government policies.

If voters do, then, of course, the government shall freeze your bank accounts, and arrest you and if you are not vaccinated the government then makes sure through their supporters in Big Teck, Banks, and other Corporations that one loses her/his job in many instances, as we all have witnessed these past few years.

Voters and thus citizens of Canada have become strapped down by the government’s mandated restrictions and regulations that have finally come to the surface within society and frustrated many of one’s family; personal choices and impulses that have interfered dramatically with our lives within a free and democratic so-called country.

These are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on us by other persons whose decisions society as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently, we feel frustrated, humiliated, and angry especially when we realize that governments enact legislation or laws that are Ultra Virus and no one in government or in Corporations is held accountable.

WHY? And that question WHY is NO LONGER taught in Universities or high schools let alone at grade level or group discussions?

Perhaps that is why today's so-called elected representatives of the public at all levels of government are in fact elected on average by FEWER than 10% of ALL ELIGIBLE VOTERS.

And this does NOT represent democracy, in my view.

 

Quebec's Language Bill 96 is Unconstitutional and Spits in the Face of 90 percent of Canadians

Quebec's language Bill 96 is unconstitutional and the PM must evoke the disallowance power which remains part and parcel of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.

When if ever shall the electorate have a political party and its leaders with enough sense and fortitude to stand up for Canada and its citizens by using the disallowance power under the existing Canadian Constitution i.e. Constitution Act, 1867 – the disallowance power which remains part and parcel of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982? It remains part of the Canadian constitution as protection for minority rights and from discriminatory laws passed by provincial governments i.e., Quebec’s Bill 96 and others.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that what is written in the Constitution remains in force, NO matter if such powers written within the Constitution are often used or not. They remain part of the Constitution until the Constitution is amended by the Canadian Constitution amendment procedures and NOT by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Academics can debate until the end of Global warming about whether the powers within the Constitution remain legitimate constitutional tools if they are not used from time to time or for many years as this is simply an academic theory and NOT a law or power as written within the Constitution.

Further, as the disallowance power remains in the written text of the Constitution Act, of 1867, to be of no force, it would need to have lapsed through a convention. For a convention to arise, all parties affected must consider the convention to be binding on them.

Since no Prime Minister has declared the disallowance power to be obsolete, legally it is still a legitimate part of Canada’s Constitution and can or could and should be used to ensure that all provinces respect and adhere to the Canadian Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 in my view.

Further, some debates, mainly by academics, have taken place on whether a constitutional convention can invalidate a written law. It is legally difficult to see how a lack of exercise can or could vitiate a written and legal constitutional power. Especially, since the courts upheld the appointment of eight additional senators in 1990, although the pertinent section of the Canada Act 1867, had never been previously used and was considered, by some, to be archaic.

Background: 

1. https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/TeachersInstitute/ConstitutionalConventions.pdf

2. https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/reservation-and-disallowance/?print=print-search

3.  https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-bill-96

4.  https://nationalpost.com/opinion/quebecs-latest-assault-on-the-english-language-must-not-stand

Callaghan J. Ontario High Court of Justice Decision in Favour of Peter Clarke 1981

 In 1981, Peter Clarke, through his lawyer, W. Ross Hitch, sued the Clarkson Co. Ltd and the government of Ontario (HER MAJESTY, and the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario), for illegally enacting and passing the following legislation that “was frustrating the laws of the Dominion and the provincial Legislature has no mandate to supplement federal legislation.”

“An Act respecting Certain Potential Assets of Co-operative Health Services of Ontario”

Callaghan J. Ontario High Court of Justice Decision in Favour of Clarke

The Act in assuming to protect potential estate assets and thereby directly frustrating a compromise arrangement negotiated by the liquidator under the Winding-up Act is, in my view, legislation in relation to matters falling directly within the subject of insolvency and is, accordingly, ultra vires. The declaration sought will be granted and the question of law propounded will be answered in accordance with these reasons. [27] Application granted.

 

Source:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1981/1981canlii1741/1981canlii1741.html

PS Conceivably, if there had been internet crowdfunding availability at the time, one could have continued a lawsuit against all members of the legislature, their respective political parties and leaders, for Breach of Trust, Deralection of Duty, and neglect of official duty for an improper and ultra vires purpose under criminal and civil laws. As citizens, we all unfortunately over the years continue to witness that our elected officials and their political party leaders and others in government seem never to be accountable for such actions! 

 

Toronto's Upcoming Election for Councillors

 

Who, other than the propagandists in the mainstream media, like yourselves in the Toronto Star etc., who constantly write telling the electorate what they want or why they need a progressive council at City Hall?

 Especially since that is what Toronto has been stuck with for far too long now!

 Progressive, in today’s Ontario and world politics, means progressivism that is considered part of the left-liberalism tradition. A political movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement, through big government actions at the expense of the free-market system and individual rights and freedoms.  

 For example, A progressive candidate’s philosophy is to ask, “what am I owed, “and “what must my city or country do for me” or “what has offended me today”.

 While a true Conservative candidate on the other hand has a philosophy that asks, “what can I do for myself, my family, my community and my fellow citizens”.

 Further for your political progressives, a variety of opinions and ideas are not welcomed, unless they are totally in line with the liberal socialist leftism political philosophies of big government from cradle to grave entitlements. And when it comes to choices, well, your progressive’s they attack free speech, and they also do not want “choices” to apply to any decisions on education, health care or even how and where we live out ones’ religious faith along with what one eats or drinks for that matter.

 Progressive political candidates also stipulate that one political solution (“theirs”) fits all and Conservative candidates believe that the electorate and the citizens should have” choices” made and decided by them, not governments.

 In summary, Conservative philosophy, NOT Progressive philosophy, is what Toronto City council urgently requires so that our conservative elected representatives of the electorate believe in individual rights, NOT special rights for this group or that group at the expense of the other groups, and allowing Scarborough to be Scarborough, and North York to be North York. 

As Conservative candidates strongly believe that the electorate can vote with our feet about where one wants and what laws one wants to live under as opposed to being mandated for all by your progressive government types.  

 

Cheers, 

Peter Clarke