Foundational Law is the primary law. It is an expression of natural rights, Human rights. It is controlled by the Rule of law.
|
The rule of law is very simple to understand. It teaches us that we all have rights that are absolute. These rights can not ever be taken from us, these rights can never be limited. The government also creates law but these laws are not the rule of law or primary law. Those rules that the government create are statutory laws. The government is not allowed to create statutory laws that limit your natural rights. When they do this they are breaking the Rule of law. Statutory law is not what you might think, if it limits and abridges your fundamental right then it has no force or effect against you.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J47nRBeJq-k |
This is a conversation I had with the artificial intelligence Chat GPT. We were talking about natural rights, human rights and the fact that they are absolute rights. Which means that they are rights which can never be limited. At first the artificial intelligence would not admit or say that human rights are absolute but as the conversation went on it had no choice but to admit that yes indeed certain human rights are absolute and the government has no legal operation of law to place a limitation against them. This artificial intelligence also understands that one of the ABSOLUTE, human rights we possess is that we can not be forced to contribute, to pay taxes based upon the principal of mutual benefit. Click the link to see the video.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgIfmw-6Ew0 |
|
As we have come to learn, contained within the Charter of rights and freedoms there is natural law and natural rights being expressed. It is not the whole charter that is dealing with our natural human rights, but specific sections of the charter only. The charter represents foundational law, that is why it must express the rule of law. That is why certain sections of the charter express natural rights.
|
I know this will sound different to say the least but you need to know that working to gain your own living is a human right. It was not something that you were to be forced to do but something that you would have chosen to do. The government set up statutory laws to force you to use this right to work and in doing so the broke the Rule of Law. Just reading what I wrote here will, I know will produce many questions in your mind about how can work be a choice. Listen to this video and you will better understand what personally transpired with your right to work. How the government forced you to exercise that right contrary to the principals of justice.
|
|
By forcing you to use your right to work, the government also lost the accountability to provide you with your right to a living. These operations of law begin to deal with your patrimony, your birth certificate and your right to access the natural wealth and resources of the land mass designated Canada. Why did the government of Canada force you to use your right to work in order to lay hold upon your security. How would you know what is transpiring, they never taught you about your fundamental human rights. If they limit and abridge something you are unaware of then what danger does that create for them, minimal to none.
|
As you have seen the government has forced you to exercise your right to work, they did so through a specific operation of law. However in doing so they broke the rule of law by limiting a fundamental right that was never to be limited. After forcing you to use your right to work the government then had the responsibility to educate you. The education that you were to receive was under the intention that they were to ensure that you could use your right to work. The education they would provide you would prepare you to enter the workforce and earn your own living. That was the purpose to their education centers.
|
|
The education that you received from the government was to be primarily be directed at teaching you about human rights and freedoms to which they failed tremendously. Secondarily it was to teach you and prepare you to operate as a statutory creature the worker to earn and gain your own living. This education was to be free. They had already laid hold of your security, once they forced you to work the least they could have done is paid for the education. Well under human rights law education was to be free at all levels. It has been nearly forty-nine years and (students) are still paying for an education. If you have paid for an education you have the right to demand this back from the government body.
|
The charter of rights and freedoms is the Supreme law of Canada. The charter of rights and freedoms expresses natural rights and natural law and this is the supreme law of Canada. A little differently said but very truthful. The charter maybe the supreme law of Canada, but the rule of law this the supreme rule over all including Canada. Where do we find this rule of law operating, well within the Charter itself and in international law.
|
Fundamental law- The organic law that establishes the governing principles of a nation or state; esp" CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, - Also termed organic law; ground law, Cf. NATURAL LAW.
When we are talking about laws we come to the Governing principal of all laws that being fundamental laws. These laws are universally recognized and they cannot be removed or limited. These fundamental laws produce or enforce fundamental rights and freedoms, natural rights and freedoms.
These fundamental laws or fundamental rights are universally recognized and are a conception of human nature, the experiences of men and women growing in knowledge over the generations. They exist apart from statutes, enactments which is legislative laws.
Natural law- A physical law of nature <gravitation is a natural law>. 2. A philosophical system of legal and moral principles purportedly deriving from a universalized conception of human nature or divine justice rather than from legislative or judicial action; moral law embodied in principles of right and wrong
These fundamental laws which produce fundamental rights and freedoms are in 2013 universally recognized. These rights are inalienable and they exist apart from any rights that the government creates.
Natural right- A right that is conceived as part of natural law and that is therefore thought to exist independently of rights created by government or society, such as the right to life, liberty, and property. See NATURAL LAW.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights, 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
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,
Some fundamental rights that flow from natural law are as followed.
No one can force you to serve them this is part of natural law and this expression this organic law is recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 8
1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
2. No one shall be held in servitude.
These articles of law find their origins in natural law, in fundamental law. It is or should be a well known fact that no one can force use to serve them.
Another Natural right that flows from natural law which produces your fundamental rights and freedoms,
Article 16
Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
No one can force you to play a role or to take recognition as something other than you naturally are, a Human Being. This is only reasonable when you think about it you are born into this world just as you are who has the right to change your capacity to change your designation, with or without your consent, to do so is against the very laws of nature. I cannot force my dog who is naturally an animal to be something other than he is, I cannot force him to be a cat and even if by some odd way I can this is unnatural.
Again we are seeing our natural fundamental rights and freedoms being enumerated and secured in these covenants.
As we know the state parties to these covenants have an obligation to natural law, to organic laws. The rights and freedoms afforded to us under that capacity must be expressed in the state parties constitution act.
Organic law- The body of laws (as in a constitution) that define and establish a government; FUNDAMENTAL LAW
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 2
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
The international covenants are twofold in nature they bring forth Natural law and fundamental rights and freedoms but they also bring forth laws that pertain to.
Divine right of king -The political theory that the sovereign is a direct representative of God and has the right to rule absolutely by virtue of royal birth.
Monarchy is a government in which a single person rules, with powers varying from absolute dictatorship to the merely ceremonial.
Limited monarchy is a monarchical form of government in which the monarch's power is subject to constitutional or other restraints it is also termed constitutional monarchy.
As you begin to understand organic law and the rights and freedoms that flow from this standing, you will see that this law is superior to all law that is why it is designated foundation law. The rights and freedoms which come forth from this natural law cannot be limited nor removed.
When we are talking about laws we come to the Governing principal of all laws that being fundamental laws. These laws are universally recognized and they cannot be removed or limited. These fundamental laws produce or enforce fundamental rights and freedoms, natural rights and freedoms.
These fundamental laws or fundamental rights are universally recognized and are a conception of human nature, the experiences of men and women growing in knowledge over the generations. They exist apart from statutes, enactments which is legislative laws.
Natural law- A physical law of nature <gravitation is a natural law>. 2. A philosophical system of legal and moral principles purportedly deriving from a universalized conception of human nature or divine justice rather than from legislative or judicial action; moral law embodied in principles of right and wrong
These fundamental laws which produce fundamental rights and freedoms are in 2013 universally recognized. These rights are inalienable and they exist apart from any rights that the government creates.
Natural right- A right that is conceived as part of natural law and that is therefore thought to exist independently of rights created by government or society, such as the right to life, liberty, and property. See NATURAL LAW.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights, 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
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,
Some fundamental rights that flow from natural law are as followed.
No one can force you to serve them this is part of natural law and this expression this organic law is recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 8
1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
2. No one shall be held in servitude.
These articles of law find their origins in natural law, in fundamental law. It is or should be a well known fact that no one can force use to serve them.
Another Natural right that flows from natural law which produces your fundamental rights and freedoms,
Article 16
Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
No one can force you to play a role or to take recognition as something other than you naturally are, a Human Being. This is only reasonable when you think about it you are born into this world just as you are who has the right to change your capacity to change your designation, with or without your consent, to do so is against the very laws of nature. I cannot force my dog who is naturally an animal to be something other than he is, I cannot force him to be a cat and even if by some odd way I can this is unnatural.
Again we are seeing our natural fundamental rights and freedoms being enumerated and secured in these covenants.
As we know the state parties to these covenants have an obligation to natural law, to organic laws. The rights and freedoms afforded to us under that capacity must be expressed in the state parties constitution act.
Organic law- The body of laws (as in a constitution) that define and establish a government; FUNDAMENTAL LAW
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 2
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
The international covenants are twofold in nature they bring forth Natural law and fundamental rights and freedoms but they also bring forth laws that pertain to.
Divine right of king -The political theory that the sovereign is a direct representative of God and has the right to rule absolutely by virtue of royal birth.
Monarchy is a government in which a single person rules, with powers varying from absolute dictatorship to the merely ceremonial.
Limited monarchy is a monarchical form of government in which the monarch's power is subject to constitutional or other restraints it is also termed constitutional monarchy.
As you begin to understand organic law and the rights and freedoms that flow from this standing, you will see that this law is superior to all law that is why it is designated foundation law. The rights and freedoms which come forth from this natural law cannot be limited nor removed.
The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11
Life, liberty and security of person
Article 7 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.
The rights brought forth in article 7 of the Charter are available only to individuals standing under their full capacity, only to human beings.
SCC Thomson newspapers ltd. v. Canada at p. 1004 everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person" serves to underline the human element involved; only human beings can enjoy these rights. "Everyone" then, must be read in light of the rest of the section and defined to exclude corporations and other artificial entities incapable of enjoying life, liberty or security of the person, and include only human beings
Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
While individuals as a rule have full legal capacity by the operation of law alone, artificial persons are creatures of the state and enjoy civil rights and powers only upon the approval of statutory authorities.
The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
Article 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.
Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
S. 24(2) OF THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
`HON. GERARD MITCHELL
JANUARY 2014
The Administration of Justice
[30] In Therens, Le Dain J. stated: “The central concern of 24 would appear to be the maintenance of respect and confidence in the administration of justice, as that may be affected by the violation of constitutional rights and freedoms.”[57] According to Grant, the term “administration of justice” in s24 concerns maintaining the rule of law and its processes, and includes upholding charter rights in the justice system as a whole.
In Re Michie Estate and City of Toronto et al., at pp. 268-9, 66 D.L.R. (2d) 213 at pp. 215-6, Stark, J., after considering the relevant provisions of the Judicature Act and the authorities, said:
It appears clear that the Supreme Court has broad universal jurisdiction over all matters of substantive law…The rule of law relating to the jurisdiction of superior Courts was laid down at least as early as 1667 in the case of Peacock v. Bell and Kendall (1667), 1 Wms. Saund. 73 at p. 74, 85 E.R. 84:
General
Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
Article 26 The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
In Board v. Board (1919), 48 D.L.R. 13 at pp. 17-8, [1919] A.C. 956, [1919] 2 W.W.R. 940,
Viscount Haldane for the Privy Council in dealing with the question of the nature of jurisdiction of a superior Court said: If the right exists, the presumption is that there is a Court which can enforce it, for if no other mode of enforcing is prescribed, that alone is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the King's Courts of justice. In order to oust jurisdiction, it is necessary, in the absence of a special law excluding it altogether, to plead that jurisdiction exists in some other Court
Suresh v. Canada
The inquiry into the principles of fundamental justice is informed not only by Canadian experience and jurisprudence, but also by international law, including jus cogens. This takes into account Canada’s international obligations and values as expressed in “[t]he various sources of international human rights law — declarations, covenants,
Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157:
22-Canada’s international obligations and relevant principles of international law are also instructive in defining the right:
The content of Canada’s international human rights obligations is, in my view, an Important indicia of the meaning of “the full benefit of the Charter ’s protection”. I believe that the Charter should generally be presumed to provide protection at least as great as that afforded by similar provisions in international human rights documents
Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391, McLachlin C.J. and LeBel J. confirmed that, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified” (para. 70).
R. v. Hape, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292, that in interpreting the Charter , the Court “has sought to ensure consistency between its interpretation of the Charter , on the one hand, and Canada’s international obligations and the relevant principles of international law, on the other”: para. 55. And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”.
Application of Charter
Article 32.(1)This Charter applies
(a)to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b)to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 SCR 844, 1997 CanLII 335 (SCC)
Per La Forest, L’Heureux‑Dubé and McLachlin JJ.: The ambit of s. 32 of the Canadian Charter is wide enough to include all entities that are essentially governmental in nature and is not restricted merely to those that are formally part of the structure of the federal or provincial governments. As well, under s. 32, particular entities will be subject to Charter scrutiny in respect of certain governmental activities they perform, even if the entities themselves cannot accurately be described as “governmental”per se.
PART VII
GENERAL
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
Article 52(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Constitution of Canada
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a)the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
(b)the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c)any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
Canada (Attorney General) v. Sam Lévy et Associés Inc., 2005 FC 171 (CanLII)
First, and most importantly, the Constitution is, under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, "the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect". The invalidity of a legislative provision inconsistent with the Charter does not arise from the fact of its being declared unconstitutional by a court, but from the operation of s. 52(1). Thus, in principle, such a provision is invalid from the moment it is enacted, and a judicial declaration to this effect is but one remedy amongst others to protect those whom it adversely affects
Life, liberty and security of person
Article 7 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.
The rights brought forth in article 7 of the Charter are available only to individuals standing under their full capacity, only to human beings.
SCC Thomson newspapers ltd. v. Canada at p. 1004 everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person" serves to underline the human element involved; only human beings can enjoy these rights. "Everyone" then, must be read in light of the rest of the section and defined to exclude corporations and other artificial entities incapable of enjoying life, liberty or security of the person, and include only human beings
Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
While individuals as a rule have full legal capacity by the operation of law alone, artificial persons are creatures of the state and enjoy civil rights and powers only upon the approval of statutory authorities.
The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
Article 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.
Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
S. 24(2) OF THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
`HON. GERARD MITCHELL
JANUARY 2014
The Administration of Justice
[30] In Therens, Le Dain J. stated: “The central concern of 24 would appear to be the maintenance of respect and confidence in the administration of justice, as that may be affected by the violation of constitutional rights and freedoms.”[57] According to Grant, the term “administration of justice” in s24 concerns maintaining the rule of law and its processes, and includes upholding charter rights in the justice system as a whole.
In Re Michie Estate and City of Toronto et al., at pp. 268-9, 66 D.L.R. (2d) 213 at pp. 215-6, Stark, J., after considering the relevant provisions of the Judicature Act and the authorities, said:
It appears clear that the Supreme Court has broad universal jurisdiction over all matters of substantive law…The rule of law relating to the jurisdiction of superior Courts was laid down at least as early as 1667 in the case of Peacock v. Bell and Kendall (1667), 1 Wms. Saund. 73 at p. 74, 85 E.R. 84:
General
Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
Article 26 The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
In Board v. Board (1919), 48 D.L.R. 13 at pp. 17-8, [1919] A.C. 956, [1919] 2 W.W.R. 940,
Viscount Haldane for the Privy Council in dealing with the question of the nature of jurisdiction of a superior Court said: If the right exists, the presumption is that there is a Court which can enforce it, for if no other mode of enforcing is prescribed, that alone is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the King's Courts of justice. In order to oust jurisdiction, it is necessary, in the absence of a special law excluding it altogether, to plead that jurisdiction exists in some other Court
Suresh v. Canada
The inquiry into the principles of fundamental justice is informed not only by Canadian experience and jurisprudence, but also by international law, including jus cogens. This takes into account Canada’s international obligations and values as expressed in “[t]he various sources of international human rights law — declarations, covenants,
Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157:
22-Canada’s international obligations and relevant principles of international law are also instructive in defining the right:
The content of Canada’s international human rights obligations is, in my view, an Important indicia of the meaning of “the full benefit of the Charter ’s protection”. I believe that the Charter should generally be presumed to provide protection at least as great as that afforded by similar provisions in international human rights documents
Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391, McLachlin C.J. and LeBel J. confirmed that, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified” (para. 70).
R. v. Hape, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292, that in interpreting the Charter , the Court “has sought to ensure consistency between its interpretation of the Charter , on the one hand, and Canada’s international obligations and the relevant principles of international law, on the other”: para. 55. And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”.
Application of Charter
Article 32.(1)This Charter applies
(a)to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b)to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 SCR 844, 1997 CanLII 335 (SCC)
Per La Forest, L’Heureux‑Dubé and McLachlin JJ.: The ambit of s. 32 of the Canadian Charter is wide enough to include all entities that are essentially governmental in nature and is not restricted merely to those that are formally part of the structure of the federal or provincial governments. As well, under s. 32, particular entities will be subject to Charter scrutiny in respect of certain governmental activities they perform, even if the entities themselves cannot accurately be described as “governmental”per se.
PART VII
GENERAL
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
Article 52(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Constitution of Canada
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a)the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
(b)the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c)any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
Canada (Attorney General) v. Sam Lévy et Associés Inc., 2005 FC 171 (CanLII)
First, and most importantly, the Constitution is, under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, "the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect". The invalidity of a legislative provision inconsistent with the Charter does not arise from the fact of its being declared unconstitutional by a court, but from the operation of s. 52(1). Thus, in principle, such a provision is invalid from the moment it is enacted, and a judicial declaration to this effect is but one remedy amongst others to protect those whom it adversely affects