EDMONTON, Alberta, Canada, August 30, 2000, by Reni Sentana-Ries.
The hallmark of the Canadian Government is one of contempt for Canada's constitution. But they are not alone in this disposition: the spineless Federal Court is frightened into upholding the reality that the Federal Government of Canada is legally constrained by no law except that superior one of the Constitution of Canada.
Hence, when a constitutional challenge is brought forward, whether by private citizens or organizations challenging an unconstitutional condition within Canada's structure or system of laws, hollow statements in defense of a Government's unconstitutional practice are made by lower as well as some higher court judges, creating the impression that the lawless situations are being upheld by sheer fright of the judges in fear of losing their salaries should they rule against their employer: the Government of Canada!
And so we have a condition of where the dividing line between the legislative and judicial jurisdictions are blurred as one seems to heavily depend on the other for saving their asses from the wrath of the people, as people unmask governmental unconstitutional behaviour and practices.
For example: The power of direct taxation of incomes is under Canada's supreme law exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Yet in the course of time since 1913 the entire tax collection system in Canada has become inverted to where the Provinces now collect taxes which were in 1867 granted to Ottawa, and Ottawa collects what is the exclusive right of provincial governments.
Furthermore, the management of Canada has constitutionally been divided between provincial responsibilities and those of the federal government. But in practice we find a pathetic duplication of bureaucratic duties: We have provincial ministers of energy and a federal one, provincial housing ministers and a federal housing minister, provincial fisheries and federal fisheries, etc. etc. etc. They call each other "counterparts" - absolutely and totally unsupportable when guaged by the mandate of Canada's constitution. I call this situation "governmental anarchy".
Having myself tasted this unholy collusion in a court challenge against the Crown over its unconstitutional taxing by means of the direct GST (Goods and Services Tax) and observed the ruthlessness with which federal court judges defend an unconstitutional situation, I am somewhat surprised that the native Mi'kmaq band of Nova Scotia obtained Supreme Court of Canada backing for their rights to fish at any time without harassment. And yet harassment is exactly what Ottawa's Fisheries Department, the DFO, is giving these people as they go about trying to make a meager living from fishing the waters of Miramichi Bay.
After 133 years of statehood the Federal Government of Canada has not yet understood that in order to rightfully label itself law abiding one must be in recognition of the rule of law which exists and which also limits Government's conduct toward the people of Canada.
And so we see the strong arm of enforcers take to the waters of Miramichi Bay and harass, and steal the lobster traps and run down the boats of native fishermen - all this under the pretext of upholding what they call "fisheries regulations" without regard to the fact that no regulation is legally enforceable where it is found in contravention of superior law: the Constitution.
In the Marshall case (September 17, 1999) the Supreme Court judges have given that fact recognition and done so in favour of the native's right to fish, but the Federal Government of Canada misuses the executive branch of Government by enforcing a regulation in contravention of a superior right belonging to the natives as upheld by Canada's Supreme Court judges.
Now Ottawa assures that inside the sovereign borders of Canada the rule of supreme (constitutional) law will never be witnessed - even if upheld by Supreme Court rulings.
The ongoings in the waters of Nova Scotia's Bay are a classic example of Canada's democracy anarchy and conspiratorial lawlessness.
Please note, that in order for you readers to find ALL of the first 10 articles under the author’s profile page, you must step into listing page 2 and then backstep into page 1. Only then will you be able to view the listing for articles 6 to 10. Page 2 lists from article 11 onward, whereas it should actually do so from article 6.