By Dick Field
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
In a previous article, I briefly mentioned Canada's racist laws. Some people were confused. This article is much too long but frankly it would require a book to fully detail the harm done to Canada by our misguided governments over the last 45 years.
Therefore, let's keep this as easy to understand as possible. Until 1963-68, the years the Pearson/Trudeau era began, and particularly after the charismatic Pierre Elliot Trudeau swept the Canadian public off their collective feet and became the Prime Minister of Canada, we operated under an English Common-Law system of criminal and civil law. Under that system we had the right to do anything not specifically forbidden by law.
Our laws were established by common consent through our Parliaments, Federal and Provincial, and by our courts reviewing prior court decisions on similar cases and rarely straying too far from the reasoning leading to those decisions. These prior decisions were called precedents, some reaching back hundreds of years. Our laws changed as times changed and the circumstances of each case varied. Quebec followed the same common law system for criminal cases but for civil law, used the French Napoleonic Code.
Our courts still follow the same practice of precedent but since the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the courts also decide cases on the basis of their personal views of what they think the Charter seems to mean in cases that have had few or perhaps no precedents set by prior court cases. Provincial judges and the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada have therefore become social activists by frequently overriding the democratic decisions of our Provincial and Federal governments, and thus the will of the people, as expressed though their elected MPPs, MLA's and MPs.
More importantly, another set of fundamental "Principles" underlie our laws. Also known as "Rights," these stem from numerous battles won by the people, or commoners, against the absolute power exercised by the King and other autocratic authorities throughout the thousand years or so of our English-speaking history.
The concept of each person having specific "rights" reaches back thousands of years, probably to tribal societies. People cannot live peacefully together without rules. The ancient Greek and Roman states were examples of early advanced societies that experimented with open debate, elections and formal legal structures.
Unfortunately, societies seem to implode over time as their citizens and leaders forget the very principles and duties that made their societies successful. The best of these ideals tend to live in men's minds though, and are never quite forgotten. Eventually they are resurrected and once more find themselves at the core of new, strong, viable democracies of free men.
A parliament of the leading people existed in Britain at least from the time of the early Saxon kingdom. Called a Wittan (assembly of wise men), it debated all necessary issues affecting the kingdom. However, while the parliament's principle duty was to advise the King and formulate laws for the King's approval, the King could make his own laws, and accept or reject parliament's laws or recommendations. The King ruled absolutely.
It is generally recognized that for our English-based law, the great Magna Carta issued by King John on the field of Runnymede in 1215 AD was the beginning of the limitation of the power of the King to rule as he saw fit, and the foundation of our Laws and Rights.
At Runnymede an armed group of Barons from the North of England forced King John to meet with them and to agree to the terms of a very carefully written and detailed Charter (Magna Carta). The King was forced to agree that he could no longer arbitrarily seize and sell their property to pay taxes, hold a citizen in prison indefinitely without trial, and a whole array of other abuses that the Barons were no longer prepared to tolerate.
The very extensive rights outlined in Magna Carta caused generation after generation of all classes of people to fight to secure their own rights by reference to the Magna Carta. It took many revolts, wars (civil, religious and otherwise), and the progress of time to confirm this beginning of our "Rights" history.
Parliamentary freedom took a great leap forward with the beheading in 1649 of King Charles 1st of England by the verdict of the High Court of the Parliament of England under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell. The King's death signified the Supremacy of Parliament as the supreme lawmaker and ruling authority, although again, as in the case of Magna Carta, many generations of struggle ensued before parliament's final supremacy was established.
Our present day Constitutional Monarchy whereby the King (Queen) is subject to the direction of the Parliament of the people (in our case the Governor General representing the Queen in Canada) is a direct result of that turning point of history. The securing of our rights and freedoms is therefore the distillation of almost 800 years of sacrifice, blood, sweat and tears. It is the reason so many of our Canadian citizens instinctively resist the elimination our Constitutional Monarchy.
The Parliament of Canada represents our collective will as a people, as expressed through our elected representatives. We expect them to govern in a responsible manner. We expect them to know our deeply held belief in our fundamental rights and freedoms and to uphold them. Unfortunately, as the years and generations go by, they forget and we the people forget, and in doing so we stand in great danger of going the way of so many other, seemingly advanced, ancient societies.
Perhaps the schoolyard of an English-speaking public or Catholic school about 1938, when this writer was about 14 years old, is a good place to start the story of our personal "Rights" as a free people. Here are some common statements you might have heard if you had listened in to the schoolyard chatter;
Any young person, say 10 years old or more knew this in his or her heart and would snap back even if threatened by violence (Never knives or guns in those days, fists maybe, but a straight out fight, no boots or hitting when an opponent was down). It was inbred, known by every kid. Meaning? We had a "Right" to Free Speech, the number one principle underlying all our freedoms. Without free speech the truth can never be known. Another saying repeatedly heard;
Again, a most profound truth from the mouths of free young people, taught at their father's knee and known by all. Meaning? Hey, so long as you use words and not weapons you have a right to insult me, this is a free country (you also had a right to hit back if pushed too hard) but not with weapons. Another common saying;
To which might be added; "If can't do that, then please get the next boat back to where you came from." Meaning? Join in with us, accept our ways, stop bitching, or get out, we don't need you. In other words, blend in with our culture, respect our laws and earn your place in our society.
As we got older we learned about the right of our press to print anything not libelous or the inciting of violence. We learned of the right of Habeas Corpus, which meant we could not be held in jail without charge (Magna Carta). We learned of our right to practice any religion provided that religion did not infringe on the freedoms of others.
Every English-speaking Canadian knew by heart that if we were charged with an infringement of the law, we had the "right" to a fair trial and to be presumed innocent before the court until a judgment based on the evidence presented. We had a right to confront our accusers and in a serious case, the right to a trial by a jury of our fellow citizens (our peers).
Every English-speaking young person knew that "our home was our castle," and that no person or authority could enter without our permission or a legal warrant obtained from a judicial authority and presented at the door. Everyone had the right to his own property and while we knew it could be confiscated by government for legitimate public reasons; adequate and proper compensation was required to be paid by the confiscating authorities (Magna Carta).
These are some of the very important "Rights" or "Principles" that used to underlie all our freedoms but more importantly, they applied to all of us, as individuals, equally.
This ancient legal principle is that;
Each of us is equal before and under the law and that same laws apply to every one of us.
Most English-speaking kids knew this inherently and would shout at any overbearing schoolmate;
"Who do you think you are, the King of England!" Meaning? Even the King can't push me around because we all knew that;
"Neither Prince nor Pauper is above the law."
As a kid, as a soldier and as a citizen, I used to be a very proud Canadian because we had the finest country and legal system in the world. We were a free and equal people. To me, that is the first meaning of a being a Canadian. That is why so many of our citizens were prepared to sacrifice their health, their home life, even their lives in our past wars. Why is it then that our intelligentsia still struggles to define us as Canadians?
We are anything but American they say, not realizing that the USA of today was founded on virtually the same fundamental beliefs and English common-law as our own. The British-American colonial people, who revolted, fought for their "Rights" as Englishmen because before 1776, (the date the revolution commenced) they felt that their New England colonial parliaments (houses of representatives) were being overridden by the English Parliament under the seal of approval of the King.
The fact that other Commonwealth countries and the USA share these fundamental "Rights and Principles" does not diminish our identity; it is fundamental to being a Canadian. We are members of the largest "Band of Brothers" in the free World.
We Canadians can add all kinds of colouration to our definition of a Canadian, such as our love for our national sport of hockey; our great and beautiful land mass, our civil, military and artistic achievements and so on but we are, first and foremost, "a free people." We have been the envy of much of the non-free world and admired by the free world for the part we have always played in the fight for freedom.
Now we come to the sorry implosion of Canada that commenced when Mike Pearson became Prime Minister and established the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. His intention was reasonable because it was tasked with bringing more French-speaking Canadians into the civil service and offering more services in both languages. The problem is it worked too well! Today, over 32% of our civil service is of francophone background they are much overrepresented, being only 24% of the Canadian population. Why?
Once again, as in older societies, a laudable goal mutated into a policy requirement that all federal civil servants being fully bilingual in English and French. Thus, no English-speaking or French-speaking citizen can enter, stay or be promoted in the Federal civil service unless he or she speaks both languages fluently. Fully 95% of unilingual Canadians are therefore barred from employment (and promotion) in their own country's government. This distortion of original intent is fast becoming a horror story. Virtually the same rules apply to our military services above the rank of Major.
Our politicians and much of the pliant, politically correct mass media apparently think it is OK to force Canadian citizen's to speak both French and English fluently. Today, no unilingual Canadian can participate in the essential services of their own country, or ever hope to become a Prime Minister of Canada. How could that happen?
It happened because our leaders and some groups of citizens were prepared to break the laws and principles of this society in order to achieve what they saw as a necessary end or outcome. What law did they break?
Quite simply they broke the Official Languages Act of 1988 and its earlier version in the Canadian Constitution which simply states that there are two official languages in Canada, English and French and that "either" of these two languages may be used by any citizen in communicating with the federal government or working for it, or any of its institutions.
Official Bilingualism is thus a totally illegal and dysfunctional law that together with its dictatorial Commissioner of Official Languages and a myriad of forced language edicts that issue from that individual's office is one of the many causative factors in the ongoing implosion of our Canadian society. All the while of course, the Province of Quebec declares itself unilingual French. Quebec defies the Charter, defies the United Nations and goes its merry way with the tacit approval of our English speaking parliamentarians.
Another detonator in our fast imploding race-based society was the institution of the Canadian Multicultural Policy of 1971, later cast in stone with the passing of the Multicultural Act of Canada in 1988. This idiocy destroyed the ancient principle of the equality of each and every citizen before and under the law because it divided society by ethnic, cultural, national, colour and racial groups and promoted a system of Group law.
Simply put, it created a form of Canadian-made Apartheid. All cultural groups coming to Canada or burgeoning in Canada are now funded and promoted as being the equal of every other ethnic, cultural or racial group.
Unfortunately, the law did not contemplate our existing English-speaking Canadian culture as being anything different than that of the latest group of immigrants from wherever. A thousand years of our historical birthright of individual rights and principles went down the drain.
New immigrants are told that Canada has no culture and that it is up to them to create a Canadian culture. Our Census forms ask about the race, colour, ethnicity and culture of everyone from everywhere but do not ask if you are of an English-speaking Canadian cultural background. The Census and the Government does not recognize an English-speaking Canadian culture.
We were told by politicians and pundits, at the time the Multicultural Act was introduced, that Canada's culture was a blank slate and it was up to us to write a fresh new history. New immigrants and all Canadian citizens are today taught that Canada was always a multicultural country and it is up to us create a new society. Out with the old and in with the new!
You can be sure our leaders and pliant media dare not tell the Quebecoise that nonsense! As we have seen over a very short span of time, the Quebecoise have made sure their Francophone culture has progressed from special, to distinct, to unique, to Nation Status!
In addition to the racial recognition of different kinds and colours of Canadians, the Act provided for the generous funding of these groups to promote their old world cultures; fight racism, open credit institutions, arrange cultural festivals, print their own newspapers, retain their old languages, accommodate their sensibilities etc. Note that they are never told to be sensitive to our culture.
Often dozens of grants to the same ethnic, national or racial groups are paid out to a multiplicity of different sub-groups of the same minorities. Many grants are nothing more than pork barrel vote-grabbers for politicians at all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. If one looks closely at the billions of dollars paid out, it will demonstrate the major reason the Liberal Party have been the governing party so long.
Pity the ordinary non-ethnic Canadian that dares try to apply for a grant to promote an English-Canadian (or British-Canadian) "Rights" History Month throughout Canada. Black History month, representing some 300,000 citizens is OK, but the cultural foundation of our laws, Parliament and the freedoms of some 33,000,000 people, never! In fact, in Ontario, to teach any British or English-speaking Canadian history and hence our fundamental laws and principles, a school must obtain approval from the Ministry of Education. Are other provinces the same? Check them out.
The peculiar part of all this is that if you ask any group of so-called visible minority people or ethnic people if would they would prefer to be subject to the same laws as everyone else in Canada than live under a separate set of laws designed just for them, they will answer that they want to live under the same laws as all Canadians.
Laws that divide people by skin colour or race or ethnicity are no better than a form of Canadian-made racist Apartheid. Indeed Official Multiculturalism as a separate identity law is nothing but legal racism. Shameful!
M. Trudeau promised to build a "Just Society." What that phrase meant nobody really knew, but every citizen or group of citizens with a beef against Canada or who smoldered with some real or perceived injustice thought, "Hey, this is the man for me!" Most of us had no idea what the phrase meant but thought; "A just society, sounds great eh, who can argue with that?"
What we didn't understand was that the phrase "just society," meant the opposite of equal opportunity. It means the forcing of equal outcomes (results) by law, plan, program or financial means. One of the first results of that concept was the passing of federal and provincial affirmative action laws (known as Employment Equity laws in Canada) for so-called disadvantaged or discriminated against groups or persons.
The problem was that right away 50% of the population is included as permanently disadvantaged or discriminated against i.e. "women." All visible minorities were and are considered permanently and forever, disadvantaged. All disabled persons are the same. All homosexuals are forever to be considered disadvantaged and discriminated against. Many more groups are included in the "victim" (another term used) groups and more can come along at any time. No "Sunset Laws" here (Laws that terminate after a specific period of time)!
Which group is left out of the above list? You got it! That privileged "White" male group that gets all the jobs without any effort, was born in Canada, and under these new laws will be discriminated against forever because of their skin colour and sex etc. Racist laws, you bet!
As a Visible Minority person once said at a hearing into the passing of the first Employment Equity Bill in Ontario in 1993; "We know Canadians (they know who we are even if our government does not) are fair-minded and generous and we know they will support this Bill, but the law is no good without teeth." So the NDP passed the Bill and then set up gangs of minority officials to run around enforcing the Act upon thousands of employers. Visible minorities thus legally took precedence over every white person forever. We got rid of the law in Ontario but the practice remains.
The "funny" part is that even white women report being told; "Sorry Ms. Smith but I have to tell you that while you are eminently well qualified for the position, (leaning closer and whispering) you have the wrong colour eyes."
This racist, sexist, ethnic, implosion of our most fundamental principle and right to be equal of every other person before and under the law is thus replaced by a pernicious and ultimately deadly "Group Rights" legality, totally alien to our historic, inherent legal principles.
Enforcement of the Human Rights Act of Canada and the Human Rights Codes of the provinces has led to the establishment of Human Rights Commissions. They administer the HR Acts and Codes. They try to decide if claims should be brought before a Human Rights Tribunal, for which they also appoint and are responsible for these same judges.
Human Rights Tribunals break every right and principle established over hundreds of years of our legal heritage. These courts are vindictive, biased and an affront to all the fundamental beliefs of our English-speaking and even our French speaking citizens.
Human Rights Tribunals are Racist and an abomination and have no place in our once-free Society.
First, these tribunals are the only tribunals in any of the British Commonwealth nations to presume to have the right to punish non-criminal behaviour. They are separate and apart from our regular court system, although appeals from their judgments may be made to the regular courts (even though many of the so-called crimes have no basis in law). Further, the very concept of "tribunals" in our ancient common law legal system is a totally alien except in a military setting. They are an anathema to free people.
Second, the judge presiding over these tribunals is just one person, not three as the word "tribunal" would suggest. Third, the judge is almost always a Visible Minority person or a Homosexual person while the person charged is always a member of the majority. As such, the judge is always in a conflict of interest situation. Fourth, there are no rules of evidence; anybody can say anything or produce any evidence, verifiable or not. Fifth, there is no right to confront the accuser (the Complainant). Sixth, the person charged (the Respondent) is presumed guilty and forced to prove his or her innocence, the reverse of our most ancient legal right.
Seventh, all investigation and legal costs incurred by the Complainant are paid by the Human Rights Commission. Win or lose, there is no expense to the Complainant.
Eighth, the Respondent, win or lose, pays all his own costs, legal or otherwise.
Ninth, if the respondent loses, he is normally subject to a fine of up to $10,000 (this can be much more and new recommendations are calling for "no limit").
Tenth, and most unfair, if the Respondent (the person or Corporation accused) has to pay a penalty, the money is not a fine going to the State as in a regular court, but is a penalty paid directly to the Complainant. A Win-Win proposition for the Complainant! No wonder the Human Rights Tribunals in Ontario are years behind in dealing with a huge backlog of these cases.
The majority of cases brought to the Tribunals have been cases of discrimination brought by visible minorities. It is therefore, largely, a one-way race-based anti-white mechanism. It is a racist behavioural tribunal which means that Canada has broken our fundamental law of equality before the law. How far has this implosion of our society gone? It is now against the Human Rights Act of Canada (and many Provincial HR Codes) to cause a minority group member to suffer "Mental Anguish" ("Hurt Feelings").
Shades of kids in the schoolyard? "Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me." Well, the adjunct to that saying was, "Listen buddy, if you want to live in a free country, you better have a thick skin!" Apparently, our current crop of lawyers and politicos don't know or don't give a damn about the principles, rights or freedoms of today's ill-informed Canadian citizens.
When M. Trudeau patriated the Canadian Constitution in 1982 along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he thus cast in stone all of the affronts to our freedoms mentioned in this article. It is unfortunate that 95% of our Canadian citizens have not read or understood the Charter. Even if they had, how would they know the evil it represents if they do not know the history of our English-Common Law based freedoms, rights and principles?
How often one hears an innocent citizen declares, "Aren't we so lucky, we have our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that gives us all our freedoms."
No, my poor deceived, sold-out fellow citizen, Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms destroys your individual rights and freedoms. Your right to be the equal of every other citizen before and under the same set of laws is gone. Your "rights" now depend on the racial, colour, ethnic, sexual or other Group to which your country assigns you. Racist laws define Canada today. Apartheid Canadian-style reigns supreme!
Get used to it or change it! Canada's civilization is imploding whether the majority of us, or our governments, or our elitists, or the courts realize it. As always, if we are not to go the way of the ancient societies of Greece and Rome or so many other once-great civilizations, we had better get off our proverbial behinds and start fighting for the return of our hard won, inherited, English-speaking Canadian Rights and Freedoms.
We have a pen, we have voice, we have a brain and individually or collectively we have the right to say to anyone, at any time:
"I don't give a damn, this is a free country and I'll say what I want!"
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2018 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2018 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement