How Partisan Violation of Our Laws Strips Away Critical Daily Debate in Issues Like Global Warming, etc.

A BURDEN OF AWARENESS

Our Duty to Awaken an International Burden of Awareness
Into the Law-abiding Burden of Responsibility

Updated by Don MacAlpine
on October 31, 2018

‘The Burden of Awareness’.

I had heard this phrase used many moons ago, I remember not where. It was re-awakened in my conscience through a recent conversation with a distant writer.

I posted an October 12, 2018 essay at this page using the story of that lady to reveal how I was reconnected to this phrase and its deeper meaning to our society.

Some irony in that I wrote the original version of this post, still retained on my computer’s memory and mine, about a month before Canada will order its citizens to “Remember!” the very reasons behind those killing chambers in Bavaria. That lovely lady had occasion to visit that sad state of human history short days after I had structured this page, originally. She was researching real events in that nation for what is becoming too popular in my notion: fictionalized writing set in events related to history.

Some irony that, barely two weeks before that November 11 day we are told to mark on Canadian calendars as ‘Remembrance Day!’, I was asked to remove references to her personal journey which had awakened me to the significance of that ‘burden of awareness’ phrase.

Evidently, I had provided too many details. The lady suggested that there were too many ‘inaccuracies’ but, most importantly, she did not want to be identifiable in my writing. This apparent fear arose despite the fact that I had never used her name nor exposed her actual place of residence in ‘this post’.

I can and will gladly accede to any request to change parts to correct them or to make them ‘more accurate’. After all, I was writing about what I had heard over a phone. What concerned me was the deeper insistence that I should remove all reference to her being the person who re-awakened me to the phrase: burden of awareness.

Apparently, there is much more danger in getting the truth out, discussing what our ‘burden of awareness’ should be in 2018. I cannot, however, adopt and submit to yet another wish that I silence my side of any story.

I refuse to. I will remove inaccuracies, when and where requested. But I will not submit to anyone telling me that my side of any story should be silenced by any person connected to me, friend or foe.

This was another person with letters of ‘higher learning’. This was a person who discussed some other person’s critique of a person’s character. The fair lady referenced the fact that her training in human ethics should allow her to understand what ethics really is no matter what others say.

Apparently, the strings of learned letters which the promoted gain in our societies justify nations which fill with citizens who allow fear to rule over our responsibilities to protect the truth in all places.

That Burden of Awareness which we gained from the lessons to 1945 imbue us all with a Burden of Responsibility which we seem too keen to forget. Even to the point of insisting that another’s record of life around us be censored.

Our human history to 1945? And thereafter?

Surely the lessons of our human history have built a Bridge of Awareness to how the irresponsibility of citizens from our past should not be repeated into 2018? So, why do we ignore the Burden of Responsibility which our Burden of Awareness should awaken us to?

Why do we abdicate OUR OWN duty to KNOW our, and others’, rights under international law? Why do we allow silence, to make others comfortable in their own day, to suppress discussion of our duties under international law? Why should the censoring of a story of reawakening to the phrase ‘burden of awareness’ be allowed to return our international community to the same situation which began in 1929?

Anne Frank’s father, and his ‘book committee’, suppressed the parts of Anne’s diary which described her anger with her mother. Her own words about her own sexual development as a child growing into a woman inside an attic were suppressed by her father until his death.

I can accept challenge of what ‘facts’ I might present. I will correct them where they bear merit. But I cannot allow the silencing of stories relevant to our world which come via observations from my own world.

We repeat the ignorance of human responsibility when we insist on silence or fall silent to the pressures from others. WE fall silent to our responsibility to know and understand the laws which are intended to not just protect ourselves but also the ‘oppressed others’.

Instead, once again we assign, irresponsibly, power to the partisan judges and ‘legal professionals’ around the world so that they might make new rules which empower them more and more while our rights, under the original laws, disappear.

WE need to, collectively, understand that real democracy is NOT about the simplistic notion that, if we have a vote, and exercise it, we are credible and responsible citizens of ‘democracy’. NO! WE need to awaken to the FACT that Hitler first gained in prominence because of ‘the vote’. HOWEVER, he then solidified his personal agenda via courts which he filled, after 1930, with loyalists to his partisan organization.

It was a collective sense that communications of the wrong genre deserved to be silenced which led to empowering through irresponsible presentation of the world in 1930 and thereafter.

I am not here to write my own version of propaganda. But neither am I here to be just another compliant, and pliant, writer, bending to the whim of another, any other.

Our burden of awareness should build from our own daily circle of living. What we see around us should build into an understanding of the deeper issues here.

Oh, we might tend to point to the current fiasco in the United States of America (USA) when it comes to a Republican tyrant like Donald Trump appointing a Republican man of no modern ethics, Brett Kavanaugh, to a seat on the Supreme Court in the good old USA. Many ‘tut, tut!’ about the decay of the USA. I suggest, however, that YOU, the supposed ‘individual citizen of moral character’, do some navel gazing upon history.

I suggest that you use these web pages to review the current laws being broken in more nations than ‘just America!’ I hope that you will consider my personal experiences, observations, as presented here, in relation to my own case history.

Mine, I have learned, is a ‘case history’ which applies to too many others. That should be a wake up call for all nations claiming to be ‘democratic’ in 2018.

By 2007, I knew that I had personally experienced a life which gave me a Burden of Awareness which forced me into a Burden of Responsibility which I wish I did not have to bear. However, it is indeed the lessons of our past and the sad irresponsibility to international law, which remain in positions of high places, which lead me to know that I can only hope. I hope that these web pages become an opportunity for real citizens of democracy to educate themselves to why THEY must join together to PEACEFULLY use the law to force sexist racists out of the highest positions of governance in our societies.

I weep that the daily examples build around me, via more and more exposures of the behaviour of persons like Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh. However, these are predictable behaviours. What is happening should solidify the understanding of the general populace about how they can stop such events in their tracks by taking THE LAW into their own hands and making it a PEACEFUL avenue for returning principled democracy to our nations.

That is the purpose of this specific web page, The Law. It is intended to educate the general citizen to: how we, ourselves, without submission to ANY partisan-conflicted ‘legal professional’, use our processes of justice to boot these criminals out of the same positions of society which partisans of 1929 used to lead to the same decay we see being spread internationally in 2018.

Please use this page, and this entire web site, to educate yourself to why cynicism is justified but silence is irresponsible. Begin to learn here what we can do, collectively, about all of this illegal behaviour by partisans inside our institutions of ‘justice’. These partisans act in ignorance of the law. These partisans ignore the Burden of Awareness which history compels under the law.

These miscreants refuse to be made accountable to international law in 2018 as Hitler refused to be made by 1939.

Eventually I hope that you join me in a legally grounded battle to strip these criminals out of our institutions of governance and justice.

Starting in 2018.

I hope that we do so with vigour against the patriarchal parts of our societies because there are women in our societies whom I admire because they dared to stand up against the highest criminals in our land. Because they had courage in recent weeks, there is indeed hope.

However, hope will not change into positive achievement of real democracy until we recognize that Brett Kavanaugh and Donald Trump became the epitome of immoral people gaining dangerous positions of power simply because they will deny, deny and deny while claiming that ‘justice’ is a ‘presumption of innocence’.

No! Real justice is the exposure of and the protection of the truth.

So, yes, I use my own experiences to try to educate our nations to why our collective silence to men like Trump and Kavanaugh is a dangerous thing. However, I also intend all of this as a salute to the bravery of some women who have stepped forward with courage to present the truth. Despite an international history of the high and mighty then deliberately attacking these victims of sexual predation, they did come forward.

Responsible behaviour is not born out of silence.

Neither is it born out of fear.

I hope that there are more brave people in our world who are willing to take on the real Burden of Responsibility to ensure that our courts are indeed protectorates of the truth instead of these criminals who gain positions in our societies.

The Burden of Awareness gained via events to 1945 should compel us all to deal with this.

I find it disturbing that a lady, who so recently visited this history on the very ground where it began, made me feel like I should stay silent to the story which reawakened me to that phrase, a phrase which we need to deal with in 2018.

Eventually I hope that you join me in a legally grounded battle to strip these criminals out of our institutions of governance and justice.

Starting in 2018, use the law to protect the truth and the truth of the tale to protect the law.

I do invite criticism and challenge of my words. I will not accept censorship, for any reason.

OUR INTERNATIONAL BURDEN OF HYPOCRISY

Essay coming soon.

AMERICA'S BRETT KAVANAUGH VS. THE GOOD PEOPLE OF THE WORLD

Essay coming soon.

Our Courts

By positioning partisans into our courts, partisans have stripped away rights and freedoms which are now accessible only to the rich and the privileged, who are often partisan donors. (Real life examples, including how the rot is prevalent in America, etc. Structured through reference to Canadian and international law).

Essay coming soon.

Our Vote

By positioning partisan friends in places where protection of the independent voice is paramount, and commanded under international law, our vote has become a farcical hypocrisy. Independent thought, even in the realm of daily science, is suppressed in favour of the precept that money is the ultimate measure of what defines good men and women. (Real life examples, including how the rot is prevalent in America, etc. Structured through reference to Canadian and international
law).

Essay coming soon.

International Law

INDEX:

INTRO: Understanding the Law: How Partisans Are Abusing International Laws

Part I: Is The UN Declaration “International Law”?

Part II: EXTRACTS FROM THAT UN DECLARATION:
Article 1

Part III: When International Law is Superceded by Racial Superiority: How ‘Tradition’ Fails the Legal Principles of Equality, Again and Again
Article 2
Article 7
Article 8
Article 9
Article 10
Article 18
Article 19
Article 20
Article 21
Article 28
Article 29
Article 30

INTRO: Understanding the Law:
How Partisans Are Abusing International Laws

[The pages from this website are being used to construct a book: No Integrity: How The International Mass Media Failed Democracy (And what we need to do about it). (Visit: http://NoIntegrityTheBook.ca) This section about the law will be placed closer to the front of that book so that people understand the importance of reading and understanding the law instead of leaving the interpretation to partisan lawyers.]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was adopted and proclaimed by 48 members of the United Nations General Assembly on the 10th of December 1948 … http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ . At the time, there were 58 member nations in the United Nations.

The abstaining members of that international organization were: the Soviet Union’s Communist Bloc; South Africa; and Saudi Arabia.

This Declaration was ‘reaffirmed’ by Canada’s Parliament, and many more nations, in 1998.

As I have written before, the current world situation shows that there were only ten members of that international body who were honest to their citizens in 1948.

The Soviets would not sign. They were never going to allow their citizens to recognize any other partisan organization than the Communist Party. They could not accept any public document which would guarantee their citizens freedom of political association.

South Africa intended to enforce its apartheid, openly. It would never accept a legal document which forbid racism.

Saudi Arabia disagreed with the Muslims of Pakistan. The Saudis insisted that only Sharia Law should apply inside their borders. Freedom of religion would not be a condition, defined from the lessons to 1945, which they would allow their citizens.

It took threats of violence but peaceful courage from many citizens and a few brave leaders to bring down the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism inside Russia.

It took international blockades of commerce with South Africa to force that nation to finally release Nelson Mandela and remove the foundation for apartheid from that nation.

In 2018, international greed allows religious intolerance and oppression to remain inside Saudi Arabia and many other parts of this world, why?

Because 48 nations signed that agreement and then stayed silent to their nations’ already-existent, excluding definitions of racism and religious superiority, their ‘existing laws’, inside all 48 of those nations.

It is time that the citizens of all nations read the relevant excerpts of international law which compel that we stand up against those who have abused the legal promises made to us all in 1948. Power and elected position were used to continue the very things which we were promised would end because of the lessons to 1945.

The enormous cost to humanity which our world witnessed by 1945 came from racial, religious, sexist, social and other intolerances. New laws, designed by partisans in power, and old laws, saw as righteous by the partisans in power, allowed some people to be marked for disappearance from this planet by 1945.

What too many individual citizens forget in 2018 is that very few of the citizens of the world of 1930 and thereafter asked the lawyers of the land to actually allow the citizen to read the laws made for citizens of the world.

Morality could be preached at the citizen from a pulpit. The citizen might heed the preacher’s declaration that the citizen should read the ‘holy book’ being referenced to ‘truly understand’ the ‘rules of morality’.

No one read about what laws, new or old, their nations might be completely ignoring. The citizens allowed the positioned to read the law to them. The citizens of 1940 did not protest, nor explore if their own rights were disappearing under the new laws being devised by those in positions of power.

In 2018, we have that lesson behind us. It is time that we, the citizens, start to read the laws which were made as an international promise that ‘never again!’ would we see racial, religious, sexual, geographic, social or any other narrow definition made by men to remove our rights to life and liberty.

We need to start with that promise of 1948 which was to set the standard of behaviour for any nation declaring itself as a democratic, or even just a ‘moral’, leader on this planet.

On this page, I will post extractions of relevant parts of International Law which we need to start to think about. The sections of the law will be presented in italics. I will be interjecting summary commentary from my personal experiences and observations for each section.

Primarily, this page will become the link for this web site to bring the reader rapidly to the sections of law which are being referenced on the web pages of this web site. The advantage here is that you will not need to thumb back to the index of a hard-copy book to find the page where these legal references will be provided.

Part I:
Is The UN Declaration “International Law”?

Given that lesson to 1945, is it the duty of THE CITIZEN to wait until murderous anger and revenge overrides ANY democracy OR is it THE DUTY of THE CITIZEN, when the media AND the ‘elected official’ is incompetent to understanding ‘the law’, to refuse to allow abuse of human rights?

I dare to rise out of the fog on the Canadian prairie of democratic incompetence to challenge ‘democratic’ citizenry, AND ELECTED OFFICIALS, about THE LEGALITY of our ‘democracies’ in 2018.

First, for the benefit of the elected and the conscientious citizen (I have raised this issue, again and again with the incompetent, self-serving ‘mass media’, hence my contempt for them). DO NOT seek ‘expert advice’ on whether this UN Declaration is ‘binding inside Canada’ (and other nations) WITHOUT asking WHAT PARTISAN, ‘slash’, political relationships, are in their personal history.

In the early months of 2011, I dropped a draft book off to many which drew in this issue of partisan oversight in the wrong places. I dropped copies of that being re-written ‘book’ in the offices of Canadian University professors, even ‘of law’.

Why? Because I knew that many of these ’eminent educators’ were loud and loyal members of select partisan organizations.

Why be concerned about this when it comes ‘to even our vote’?

That draft book contained a badly written summary of my personal experiences inside Canada’s courts after 1982. To 2002, I had abdicated my rights under law to the counsel of ‘legal counsel’. Even as a ‘professional forester scientist’ inside Ontario government for 15 years, I had become a submissive servant to racism because I heeded the orders of the government ‘lawyers’. I was to ‘know only forestry laws!, your jurisdiction!’ By 1996, I had left government, sensing that Canada’s First Nations had every right to be crying out about the racism inside government offices. In 2002, I finally was given a Treaty by the First Nation I had begun to work for and KNEW that our government offices had breached the original promises of equality made to them.

Ironically, two months after I had read that Treaty, I entered a situation where I was forced to start to read volumes of Canadian law to defend my own human rights. Ironically, after my arrest in February 2004, directed by highly positioned, elected partisan lawyers, I read that UN Declaration. I then KNEW that my nation, including its electoral systems, IS BLATANTLY in violation of international law.

I was arrested, why? Because I had started to call Ontario Conservative Premier, a lawyer by the name of Ernie Eves, and Canada’s highest elected Liberal lawyer in our land, Paul Martin, criminals under our Canadian Criminal Code. Why? Because I appeared before two ‘judges’, one a lawyer who had given to the Conservative faction, Helen Pierce, and, in my appeal of Pierce’s ‘verdict’ against my civil complaint, a ‘Paddy’ Smith, who was a lawyer donating to the Liberal faction.

I had appeared before these two ‘judges’ by December 2003. I had placed the name of Ontario Premier Ernie Eves as the leading name in my civil suit against Ontario partisans in the legal documents which I had placed in Ontario’s civil courts. I sent loud, legal warnings to the height of Mr. Martin, whose cohorts in Ottawa then sent cops to arrest me. Why? Because I dared to point to Canadian Criminal Code law which FORBIDS the exercise of influence inside our courts and voting institutions.

‘Lawyers’ Mr. Smith and Ms. Pierce had both needed to apply to Conservative lawyer Eves before their nominations to become ‘Superior Court judges’ would be passed on up to Mr. Martin for final approval. I uncovered that both of these ‘legal professionals’ had slipped a donation to their ‘party of choice’ short weeks before their applications were to be considered by ‘the right partisan in the right position’.

Why was I arrested in February 2004? Because I wrote scathing letters to Mr. Martin et al, loudly warning that the ‘legal profession’ is into an incipient, and long, history of breaking the Canadian Criminal code sections which forbid these Breaches of Trust and Exercises of Influence. I did not gain justice in the end. I did save myself from jail ‘as my own lawyer’. But one never wins justice inside a nation where the institutions of ‘justice’ have become the property of the partisan.

So, ‘voting public of the world’, instead of making any consideration of using ‘the vote’ or asking for ‘electoral reform’, consider this first.

Why my contempt for our mass media? Why my contempt for ANY elected official who does NOT fulfill their INDIVIDUAL obligation to KNOW THE LAW and protect our rights under it?

So, let us get that out of the way, first.

The partisan ‘legal professional’ will tell you that the UN Declaration is ‘non-binding’ because, why? Because, to get it signed, the lawyers (and, yes, Canada brags that their lawyer was the major drafter of this ‘promise’) advised Eleanor Roosevelt to tell the 48 nations who did eventually sign that it was ‘only a pledge, not legally binding on any nation’.

So, puffed-up, proud ‘patriots’ of the world, ask your legal professionals to explain this to you: if they believe that a public document, presented to the people in Canada in 1948, loudly reiterated inside Canada in 1998 and then being loudly hailed inside Canada again as December 10, 2018 draws nigh, has ‘no legal bearing’, what about this?

IF anyone stands in front of a multitude of people and makes a loud promise as to their intentions, does the groom then get to walk out the door of the cathedral of democracy and start humping the first willing female to come along on the church’s steps? Does the miscreant not face any consequences for breaching the loud public declarations of ‘marriage to the promise!’? Or does the church of democracy hog tie the miscreant and toss them into jail for violation of the public promise made, to handmaiden or otherwise?

Citizens of democracy! You have allowed yourselves to be had by the partisan ‘legal professionals’ who prostitute themselves to the premise that it matters not what promise is made or written. They can change the intent of the law with a ‘new law!’ or simply declare that the loud promise, publicly made, was only ‘a non-binding pledge!’

Oh, really?

If the ‘expert’  whom you, citizen of BC or any other citizen of any other democratic nation,  consult turns to you and declares that the UN Declaration is ‘non-binding’, then ask them about ‘the other ten’ members of that 58 member UN of 1948.

Canada and 47 other nations signed the document. Canada declared its intent proudly to this nation on December 10, 1948.

IF it was not to be considered to have ‘any legally binding qualities!’, according to the partisan lawyers of the day, then why…?

Why did South Africa not sign? They had laws applying apartheid which would have become illegal under that declaration. However, this would apply only if ‘the declaration’ was seen as binding or seen as a public promise to the oppressed of that nation. South Africa did not sign. Why, if it was ‘non-binding’?

Why did Russia force the Soviet bloc nations to not sign in 1948? They had laws making the Communist Party the only allowed political organization inside their nations. If the UN ‘declaration’ was only ‘a pledge’, then what compelled the Soviet Bloc to refrain from signing a document which would be seen as a public promise to the citizens whom they intended to oppress inside their nations?

Why did Islamic Saudi Arabia not sign while Pakistan did? Saudi Arabia intended to continue to ban any religion or any law other than Sharia Law from inside their borders. If the UN ‘declaration’ was only ‘a pledge’, what then compelled Saudi Arabia to refuse to sign a document which would imply that they would allow freedom of religion inside their borders?

When do the ‘democratic citizens’ of our world awaken to what their legal rights and responsibilities are when it comes to a corrupted vote protected by corrupted institutions of democracy?

Canada signed that UN Declaration.

Germany had signed an international convention which got their partisans hanged by 1946, for violation of it.

When it comes to ‘the vote’, why is the complicated math, about what any vote in our farcical ‘democracies’ means, made while the simple math of injustice is ignored?

That is what this web site is intended to awaken citizens of democratic conscience to. So, I hope that you do read the long pages at this web site to begin to educate yourself to where the problem really began: in violation of International Promises, LAW, made to us all in 1948.

Part II: EXTRACTS FROM THAT UN DECLARATION:

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

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,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Part III:
When International Law is Superceded by Racial Superiority:
How ‘Tradition’ Fails the Legal Principles of Equality, Again and Again

whole UN Declaration not presented here…

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. …

It is clear that history established that these freedoms are not limitless for individuals. We cannot impose restrictions on others to maximize our own freedoms, for example as ‘freedom of religion’. Even if we believe that our perfect world would be persons aligned in one belief in one human spirit, this becomes an illegal restriction for others, if we remove their rights simply on the basis of our narrowed beliefs. The same holds true for other classes or groups such as political groups. There are no democracies on our planet which show any respect for this legal condition set for planetary ‘democracies’ in 1948. We are, instead, told to subvert the use of our vote to elect leaders to the unprincipled theory of partisans that the vote becomes the legal authority for partisans to reward their friends and punish the non-believers as the partisan so wills (e.g.- reward the ‘blue’ (conservative) areas after an election with special programs and deny the same programs to the ‘red’ (liberal) areas who dared to not ‘vote blue!’).

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. …

This implies that no person of colour should ever be subjected to the verdict of an all-white jury or a judge or policing official who has connections to supremacist groups like the Nazis or the KKK. It also, therefore, forbids any citizen from facing a ‘judge’ who has clear links to the partisan group or groups that the citizen may lay a complaint against. Show me a ‘democratic’ institution anywhere on this planet in 2015 that has adopted a judicial system that forbids ‘legal professionals’ from being members of partisan organizations, so that the partisan is forced to appoint completely independent people into our courts. In North America, the complete opposite exists. ‘Legal professionals’ who register their allegiance to specific partisan groups are then promoted as ‘judicial officials’ by the very partisans that the ‘legal professional’ has registered an allegiance with. Think about this when you come to Canada’s Criminal Code sections. The Criminal Code of Canada, of 1989, made this a breach of trust to the promises of this section of international law. Such manipulation of our courts became a deliberate intent to exercise influence to retain power, It also became, therefore, a deliberate intent to obstruct the legal requirement to completely impartial institutions of justice. Not only this section of international law establishes that right. You can later read a section of Canada’s constitution of 1982 which guaranteed Canadians courts that are equally accessible to us all, regardless of social status, etc. Failing to meet and protect these conditions became a deliberate obstruction of justice by partisans who were in control of the taxation, redirected national wealth that was legally required to make accessible and impartial justice available to all citizens.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. …

Article 18..

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

 

 

 

Canadian Criminal Code

Essay coming soon.

Canada's Illegal Constitution

Essay coming soon.

Generating Real Democracy: How our ‘democracies’, ‘the vote’ and our institutions of ‘justice’ have been made irrelevant by partisan entrenchment. What we need to do about it.