CANADA How The Communists Took Control
Canadian State of the Union: 2009

Friday, November 27, 2009

Two Communists & One Anarchist Demand Canada's Immediate Ouster From The Commonwealth For Its Genocidal "Carbon Footprint"

Leaders of Greenpeace may indeed support the goal of a WORLD GOVERNMENT, which is also a Soviet goal. The February 1990 issue of World Marxist Review, policy journal for the Communist Parties throughout the world, featured an interview with David McTaggart, chairman of Greenpeace International. He described his efforts as “helping to erase the borders between East and West, North and South.” He emphasized that “you can’t talk about the survival of your nation or your economic system or your way of life at the expense of the survival of the planet we live on.” When asked what he thought were the main obstacles to global environmentalist efforts, he responded, “To my mind, nationalism is the biggest enemy of global thinking.”


By Kathleen Moore, Montreal, Canada

TINY URL of this post:

Montreal, Saturday, 28 November 2009 02h50

First, let's clear the air. Climate change is a fraud to force forward a communist world government agenda. There is no anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.

Climate Researchers have been recently exposed for deliberate plans to falsify climate data to hide the fact that the earth is not heating up, and to make it look like it is heating up, in order to push a social (or is that "socialist"?) agenda:


The United Nations Climate Change Conference web site dated 27 November 2009 18h50 says:


"The World Development Movement, the Polaris Institute in Canada and Greenpeace have called for Canada to be suspended from the Commonwealth over its climate change policies, the Guardian reports."

This "proposal to exclude Canada from the Commonwealth" pushed by Greenpeace et als is part of a lead-up to the Copenhagen climate-change conference scheduled for December 7th to 18th, 2009 -- where, according to Lord Christopher Monckton (same link as above), an agreement will be signed to formally initiate a communist world government.

Who are Greenpeace, Polaris Institute and the Anarchiest World Development Movement?

1 - Here is a poster online featuring a teach-in by the Communist Party of Canada, Polaris Institute and others (Polaris is Marxist-Leninist):

Original url:

Downloaded and re-uploaded here:

2 - Here is a roundup of Greenpeace's communist, Soviet-backed activities using the environmentalist movement to push the free-market agenda which destroys nation-states:


(That whole post is more than well worth reading, with its details of Soviet backing for Greenpeace and its attempts to destroy the economies of other developed nations through environmental campaigns.)


"Greenpeace presented an article in January/February of 1989 boldly stating: “Through the 1990s, pressure groups and campaigning organizations like Greenpeace will have to take the lead in promoting the shift to a new economic order.” According to the article, free market principles would be replaced by a form of socialism in which local governments would exert “ownership and control” over the economy."



"Leaders of Greenpeace may indeed support the goal of a WORLD GOVERNMENT, which is also a Soviet goal. The February 1990 issue of World Marxist Review, policy journal for the Communist Parties throughout the world, featured an interview with David McTaggart, chairman of Greenpeace International. He described his efforts as “helping to erase the borders between East and West, North and South.” He emphasized that “you can’t talk about the survival of your nation or your economic system or your way of life at the expense of the survival of the planet we live on.” When asked what he thought were the main obstacles to global environmentalist efforts, he responded, “To my mind, nationalism is the biggest enemy of global thinking.”

3 - World Development Movement (Scotland) is chaired by Anarchist philosopher Alan Carter who was a founding member of the London-based Anarchist Research Group.

"Outside of academia, Carter is Chair of the World Development Movement Scotland and is on the Board of Directors of Friends of the Earth Scotland. He is a former Board Member and a former Trustee of Friends of the Earth."

Meanwhile, in a piece entitled "Scientists Target Canada Over Climate Change," the GUARDIAN.CO.UK reports:
"Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said: "If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada's membership immediately."
Thus alleging that Canada is promoting genocide and should be "suspended" from the COMMONWEALTH as if its "CARBON FOOTPRINT" were an international human rights violation. However, there is no global warming, therefore the very notion of a "carbon footprint" as a measure of global warming is a fraud, as is any reference to these "junk scientists" as "scientists".

And, when did Communists ever concern themselves with genocide—outside of the times when they, themselves were actually perpetrating it? For a breakdown of figures totalling:

169,202,000 actual deaths

by confirmed Communist government genocides in the 20th Century, see DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J. Rummel of New Brunswick, New Jersey (Transaction Publishers, 1994):


The Pol Pot is calling the Canadian Kettle CARBON black!

So communist Greenpeace, communist Polaris Institute, and anarchist-friendly World Development Movement are pushing phony climate change (debunked in the links and videos above as CLIMATEGATE) to get Greenpeace's wish of a market economy as the precursor to socialism by (amongst other things) calling for the ouster of Canada from the Commonwealth as punishment for the "carbon footprint" of its TAR SANDS which are driving North American Union (NAU) via energy integration.

However, NAU is a step on the way to the very MARKET ECONOMY Greenpeace and the Marxists want, and a phase on the way to communist world government via a world market economy.

Greenpeace et als thus would forcibly RELEASE Canada from a vital and historical international community of NATION-STATES (which Marxists and Anarchists both hate), PRECISELY to facilitate Canada's annexation (along with its TAR SANDS) into NAU (whose backers have no intention of giving up the TAR SANDS, thus the "suspension" of Canada from the Commonwealth would certainly be permanent) on the way to a communist world government, which has no need of the Commonwealth.

And they would DEMAND this in November 2009, whereas Canada is slated for merger into the USA and MEXICO by 2010. (Although they appear to be running a bit behind schedule. Still waiting for that last phony "referendum to secede" into North American Union here in Quebec.)

Meanwhile, Canada's own media, including state-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) [Canada's Pravda and regular Bilderberg (world government tank) attendee under an oath of MEDIA SILENCE] and CTV are both slamming "monarchy" after the recent November 2009 visit to Canada of Prince Charles, and are calling for Canada to "grow up" and "dump" the Crown.

But the Crown—or the Monarch, that is—is the ONE thing that stands between the demise of Canada and the Executive abuse of powers that is currently fueling the disappearance of Canada into the North American Union. In virtue of Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867 (now called the Constitution Act, 1867) The Monarch, aka the Sovereign of Canada, is personally responsible for the abuse of Executive powers:
Declaration of Executive Power in the Queen

9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Nice timing, all 'round! (For more information on THE PLANNED END OF CANADA, see my web site.)

Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

My own videos:

MY UK-IRISH Y! SITE (same vids):

* 1. Whisper (Part I):
Supporting docs:
* 1-A. Newsletter to accompany the Whisper Video:
"Pierre Trudeau: Founding Father of the Parti Québécois
1967: Trudeau's Plan to "fight" separatism: Create a separatist party, -and- Encourage separatism so radical that it becomes "shocking"
* 2. 1968 Press Conference of Rene Levesque to replace Canada:
* 3. While You Were Sleeping:
* 4. Model Parliament for North America:
* 5.
* 6. Whisper (Part II) El Terrorismo (Fidel Castro, Trudeau's best friend, captured on film just a few months after a Cuban love-in with Prime Minister Trudeau!
* 7. - Collaboration with - "Obama: The First Year in Office & The Impact on Canada's Elite"

* Recommended reading:
* The FARC's Honduran Friends -
* Hillary's Honduran Obsession -
Recommended reading: *
Recommended reading: * Report For Congress, Library of Congress: Zelaya Removal Constitutional -




HAVE A LAUGH: Communists and Theocratic Globalists want to "save Canada":
"Soviet" supporting documents for that spoof site are here:

* "1942 POSTWAR NEW WORLD MAP by Maurice-Gomberg

* *
* *

* Poems to print:
* Canadian Web Award:
* [Poems] (linked to Habeas Corpus Canada site)
* [Photography] (linked to Habeas Corpus Canada site)


* (send an e-card for Canada this coming Christmas and New Year)


Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Constitutional Law 101 (First Instalment)

What neither side quite acknowledges is that the seat of sovereign power is not to be discovered by looking at Acts of any Parliament but by looking at the courts and discovering to whom they give their obedience.
— H. W. R. Wade, "The Basis of Legal Sovereignty", [1955] Cambridge Law Journal 172, 196.

By Kathleen Moore, Montreal, Canada
To my followers in YouTube and elsewhere:

Montreal, Tuesday 24 November 2009 15h27

Re: Constitutional Law 101 -- and Stephen Harper's current political campaign to the Jewish Community

Hello, everybody. I recently sent you news of a political campaign flyer circulating in Montreal and featuring a voting ballot. I have finally been able to access a scanner and have placed the bilingual document online:


I could be wrong -- but it seems to me that this voting ballot suggests that the Harper government may be anticipating yet another federal election in the near future. Please tell me if I'm wrong, I would appreciate all views on the subject.

N.B.: I am attaching my short vid of Stephen Harper speaking French (I've added English subtitles) on the day of the "NO" to the 1995 Quebec referendum to "secede".

I would remind my viewers of a little known fact -- that STEPHEN HARPER tabled the first known draft of the Clarity Act in 1996 when he was a mere member of Parliament. The Clarity Act purports to be a statute of the Federal Parliament of Canada enacting the terms and conditions on which Canada may be terminated in the event of a YES to "secede" in Quebec.

In this particular video, HARPER declares that 'he prefers to build a NEW FEDERATION'. In other words, Stephen Harper would be entirely ready to scrap Canada. But then, so was Trudeau; and Chrétien after him.

However, under the Constitution of Canada, elected and appointed representatives have NO POWER to scrap Canada. Quebec's phony referendums to "secede" in 1980 and in 1995 were illegal, as there is no power to secede under Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 -- and here's a nice old bilingual version of the British North America Act, 1867 (the original name of the Constitution) with French and English face-to-face as well as quite rare indexes of terms in the document -- don't be afraid of the French title, open it up and there's English in there as well:


Moreover, the provincial "residual" power at Section 92(16) is limited to "local purposes" only. No province may undertake any measure, whether political or legislative, which substantially affects any other province, let alone all of Canada, as is well known throughout the entire Constitutional jurisprudence of Canada up until the traitors got their hands on our governments.

(Provincial residual power) Section 92:

16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

In the same vein, the Federal government and Parliament of Canada and the Crown of Canada have no power under the Constitution of Canada to dispense with Canada.

The Crown simply has has NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to assent to an unconstitutional law or measure.

The Constitution is a guarantee of the CONTINUANCE of Canada. The only thing DISCONTINUED are elected governments, on a regular timetable, and the continuance of this timetable is a part of the guarantee of the PERMANENCY of Canada and of the TRANSIENCY of our elected representatives, which is express in the Constitution in order to prevent the advent of a permanent self-appointed government, or a one-party system, i.e. TOTALITARIANISM.

(Guarantee of transient government) Section 50 (BNA Act, 1867)

50. EVERY House of Commons SHALL continue for FIVE Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.

As will be more clear below, this express wording EXCLUDES all prospect of ANY government making itself PERMANENT, or of making itself the LAST government by terminating Canada. The word "SHALL" is imperative, meaning it can't be side-stepped. The word FIVE means that after FIVE years at a maximum there MUST BE NEW ELECTIONS under the EXISTING Constitution. No government can TERMINATE the Constitution. It has to get out and give way to the next government and Executive.

The inability of the Federal Parliament to terminate Canada is more apparent from the well known formula for law-making at Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, which is called the "Peace, Order and Good Government" power, or "POGG" for short in the legal literature.

(Federal POGG power) Section 91:

"91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces"

The "statutory construction" of the words "FOR the Peace, Order, and good Government OF Canada" make it apparent that the Federal government and Parliament have NO POWER to legislate or to institute ANY measure or law that is NOT "FOR" the governance "OF" "Canada"; moreover, "Canada" for the purposes of the POGG power and every other power under the Constitution, is defined at Sections 3 and 4 of the BNA Act, 1867:


3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.

4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.

It was well known at the time of Confederation and throughout the history of Canada's constitutional jurisprudence up to the time of Trudeau (who with René Lévesque hijacked the Constitution) -- that "UNION" means the CONFEDERATION of Canada, and that this word being express and stipulated in the Constitution Act means that DIS-union is prohibited. This is more clear from the Long Title (legal tool) of our Constitutional statute which sets out and expressly limits the PURPOSE of the Constitution:

"An Act for the UNION of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes CONNECTED THEREWITH."

The state of "UNION" of the four founding provinces extends to the other provinces which subsequently joined the "UNION" and are bound by the same Constitutional "purposes".

It is expressly written and clear that the PURPOSE of the Constitution of Canada, that is, of the British North America Act, 1867, is the "UNION" and "PURPOSES CONNECTED" with the UNION. In constitutional and statutory construction, one of the legal tools of analysis is the Latin maxim:

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all others) i.e., items not mentioned are assumed NOT to be covered by the statute, i.e., they are assumed to be EXCLUDED, i.e. PROHIBITED.

Here's a Webster definition of "maxim":

"a general truth, fundamental principal or RULE OF CONDUCT"

In other words, it is a RULE OF CONDUCT of Judges when interpreting the EXPRESS words of legislation to EXCLUDE all that these words themselves, by definition, exclude.

The restriction of the Constitution of Canada to "PURPOSES" "CONNECTED" with the "UNION" of the Provinces is a very clear and express statement against DIS-UNION, i.e., against SECESSION. Therefore, when the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 in the Secession Reference stated at paragraph 84: "It is of course true that the Constitution is silent as to the ability of a province to secede from Confederation", they LIED. They then proceeded to DEVISE a FORMULA TO DESTROY CANADA, (which the other traitors purported to pass into LAW as the Clarity Act) thus perpetrating blatant, outright TREASON.

This is more apparent from an Australian case (their Constitution, like ours, is on the Westminster Model and is interpreted in a similar fashion — Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd. ("Engineers' case") [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129 (31 August 1920), where Justice Isaacs said:

"The non-granting of powers, the expressed qual­i­fi­ca­tions of powers granted, the expressed retention of powers, are all to be taken into account by the Court."

Again, as Lord Sankey, Lord Chancellor said, when sitting on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom during the constitutional maturation of Canada:

“Useful as decided cases are, it is always advisable to get back to the words of the Act itself and to remember the object with which it was passed.”

— Lord Sankey, Lord Chancellor, In re Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada [Privy Council] [1932] AC 54, 70

You can see that case online here at calameo:


Moreover, in considering the POWERS of the Provinces under the Constitution of Canada, Judge Cartwright of the Supreme Court of Canada (in better days) declared:

“The power of the legislature to enact such a law, if it exists, must be found in s. 92 of the British North America Act.”

— Judge Cartwright in McKay et al. v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 798, 804 (later, Chief Justice)


On glancing down the 16 "subject matters" of Section 92 of the BNA Act, 1867, it will be fully apparent to you that THERE IS NO POWER TO SECEDE; and that since 92(16) restricts all measures not specifically listed in 1-15 to PURELY LOCAL purposes. indeed there could never be a power to secede, because it would AFFECT all the other provinces, as well as Confederation itself.

Writing in the Cambridge Law Journal of 1955 at page 196, Sir H. W. R. Wade set forth a warning that all Canadians would do well to heed:

"What neither side quite acknowledges is that the seat of sovereign power is not to be discovered by looking at Acts of any Parliament but by looking at the courts and discovering to whom they give their obedience."

The Supreme Court of Canada in the 1998 Secession Reference gave its obedience NOT to the Constitution of Canada, but to our traitorous Executive who directed this phony reference to them on the pretext that they had NO IDEA SECESSION IS ILLEGAL IN CANADA.

There is no possibility of their not knowing it. The Secession Reference was a SCAM by which the Executive employed their appointed agents on the Bench to control the minds of Canadians and to alter our behaviour to MAKE US THINK that the Clarity Act was lawful; and that the destruction of Canada was lawful. And that 50 years of battering us with phony "separatism" and two fraudulent referendums to "secede" were LAWFUL. There is only one possibility, and that is COLLUSION between our High Court and our Executive to criminally and illegally destroy our nation.

Moreover, as the Supreme Court of Canada is normally deemed the "court of last resort" whose decisions are not subject to further appeal, the traitors detaining our governments and colluding in this at both the federal and provincial levels believed they would get off scott free. However, they were and are sadly mistaken, as I will challenge the Supreme Court by lawful jurisdictional routes and THROW THEM OUT, along with their PHONY "secession" opinion.

No Judge of any Court has ANY POWER to alter the Constitution in order to destroy it. But the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 REVERSED the very PURPOSE of the Constitution of Canada by criminally and unlawfully reading into it a POWER TO SECEDE that does not exist at either Section 92 (provincial powers) or Section 91 (federal powers) and is prohibited by the PURPOSE of the Constitution FROM existing. Another word for the "purpose" of a constitution is its "grundnorm" -- meaning the PIVOT around which the entire law is built, and the OBJECT it is designed to achieve. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada GUTTED the Constitution of Canada to reverse the grundnorm, the very OBJECT of permanent unity that the Constitution was DESIGNED to achieve. That act itself by the Supreme Court in 1998 was an act of High Treason.

Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217:

This is an HTML version of the BNA Act, 1867 that you might like to look at, complete with well done annotations at


It is a principle of constitutional law that no Parliament and no Legislature may bind a future Parliament or Legislature of Canada or of the provinces. The outrageous proposition by those detaining the provincial Legislature of Quebec, and the federal Parliament of Canada that THEY have the right and power to terminate Canada (with the connivance of the Supreme Court in 1998) in order to replace Confederation with something else is an utter fabrication and outright treason.

Such an act would constitute a BINDING measure terminating even the prospect of a future Parliament or Legislature ever again convening. It would be tantamount to the permanent hijacking and disposal for all time of all political and legal powers entrusted TEMPORARILY to elected and appointed officials at the time of swearing-in after valid elections.

The foregoing points of interpretation are by no means the only ones available to prove that in 1998 the Supreme Court LIED, and that the referendums of 1980 and 1995 in Quebec are ILLEGAL. I have a couple of hundred pages of notes which I am sure you would not like to read in an email.

Thanks for your time. Have a great day.


Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

My own videos:

My new document site:

P.S. You will note that I have switched from scribd to calameo for my document storage due to various technical problems at scribd. I've got about 150 documents parked online at to complete with descriptions, tags and titles, and will let you know when they're done so you can go have a browse.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

EU Constitution author says referendums can be ignored

Future referendums will be ignored whether they are held in Ireland or elsewhere, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the European Union Constitution said.
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Published: 7:24PM BST 26 Jun 2008

The former President of France drafted the old Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago before being resurrected as the Lisbon EU Treaty, itself shunned by the Irish two weeks ago.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing told the Irish Times that Ireland's referendum rejection would not kill the Treaty, despite a legal requirement of unanimity from all the EU's 27 member states.

"We are evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing," he said.

"It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members. This time it's Ireland; the next time it will be somebody else."

"Ireland is one per cent of the EU".

Mr Giscard d'Estaing also admitted that, unlike his original Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon EU Treaty had been carefully crafted to confuse the public.

"What was done in the [Lisbon] Treaty, and deliberately, was to mix everything up. If you look for the passages on institutions, they're in different places, on different pages," he said.

"Someone who wanted to understand how the thing worked could with the Constitutional Treaty, but not with this one."

France and Germany are putting pressure on Ireland to hold a second referendum which would allow the Lisbon Treaty to come into force before European elections on June 4 2009.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing believes "there is no alternative" to a second Irish vote, a view shared by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President.

Mr Sarkozy, who takes over the EU's rotating presidency next week, will use a Brussels summit on October 15 to force Ireland to find a way out of Europe's Treaty difficulties.

"Everyone agrees it has to be sorted out by the time of European elections," he said at the weekend.

Václav Klaus, the Czech President has continued to insist that the Lisbon Treaty "cannot come into force" after the Irish vote.

"The EU cannot ignore its own rules. The Lisbon Treaty has been roundly and democratically rejected by Ireland, and it therefore cannot come into force," he told El Pais newspaper.

"Any attempt to ignore this fact and make recourse to pressure and political manipulation to move the treaty forward would have disastrous consequences."

Mark François, Conservative spokesman on Europe, also insisted that it was time that European politicians started to respect the Irish No vote.

"The Irish people gave an emphatic No to the Treaty of Lisbon on a record turnout and it would be good for politicians of all countries to respect this democratic decision," he said.

"The point is particularly clear to us here in Britain as the Irish were fortunate to be given a referendum which we were denied by our Government."

An opinion poll for the newspaper Libération has shown 44 per cent of the French want Ireland to vote again and 26 per cent want the ratification process to continue without Ireland.

But a quarter of those polled want to abandon the Treaty and 52 per cent think the Irish No vote is going to dominate Mr Sarkozy's EU presidency.



«Nos référendums ne sont pas de la démocratie directe» (Rowat)


«Sur le caractère anti-démocratique du référendum» (Lygeros)

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

"LAW OF THE FUTURE" - World Law - Being Implemented NOW

To a large extent, governance has become a concept that transcends borders. Despite all the far-reaching consequences (implicit or explicit, potential or real), of globalisation and the internationalisation of the domestic arena, however, it is important to realise that the national legal order is ultimately still of paramount importance. In the absence of a world government - and concomitantly a world legislature, executive and judiciary -- domestic courts must dispense justice at the only level that is currently feasible: the national level.

Did you know that pending the arrival of "WORLD LAW," they are harmonizing our NATIONAL LAW by group-training the judiciaries of our national HIGHEST COURTS at the supranational level?

Have you heard of the I O J T ?
"Dr. Shlomo Levin, then Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Israel, who conceived the organization, proposed that it have the following objectives: - Sharing successful methods of addressing issues of common interest regarding judicial training, and - Establishing an international mechanism to enable training institutes from one country to learn from another."
{Why, Dr. Levin, we must train our own judges, thank you!}
"On March 17 - 21, 2002, following several planning meetings in South America and Israel, the International Organization for Judicial Training (IOJT) was established in Jerusalem. Over 100 educators and judges from 25 countries and the Council of Europe assembled to create the organization. Countries creating the IOJT included Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China. Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Georgia, Ireland, Israel, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mexico, Moldova, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Togo, and the United States of America."
Source for both the above quotations:
Same file backed up at Calameo:

United Kingdom is not mentioned, but may have been implied in the word "included", as LORD BINGHAM, Senior Law Lord, United Kingdom, was a "confirmed speaker" at the HIIL in 2008 on the general topic of:

"What is the role of highest courts in maintaining legal unity in the internationalising world of today?"

The Good Lord (freudian slip) was accompanied by Canadians including a "former judge of the Supreme Court of CANADA: Michel Bastarache.

Same file backed up at Calameo:

Why, I wouldn't have thought they'd have ANY "role" at all. However, the "role" they are apparently "given" which fell from the sky, because it doesn't come from our jurisdiction under a written Constitution in Canada, and under the STATUTE purporting to establish our Supreme Court of Canada -- is tantamount to HARMONIZING DOMESTIC NATIONAL LAW world-wide to advance WORLD GOVERNMENT.

That was "Workshop #1".

Worksop #2 begins from this premise that "the changing role of highest national courts will be placed in the context of the new challenges that have resulted as a consequence of the changing global environment." Sound democratic to you?

The "highest courts" of the formerly sovereign nations around the world are now engaged in supranational TRAINING sessions tantamount to HARMONIZATION OF DOMESTIC LAW across the globe. Is that "constitutional" to you Brits?

Have you heard of the "Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law" (HIIL)?
"What is HiiL?

"HiiL was born out of the recognition that globalisation and internationalisation are affecting societies profoundly and have far-reaching consequences for how national legal systems function. In today’s world, national legal systems can no longer be described as ‘autonomous’. The world increasingly faces problems which transcend national borders and cannot be resolved by national laws alone. They require international solutions. At the same time, the national level remains the most basic level at which the law operates. How can the movement towards the international and the fact that the law must work at the local level be reconciled?

HiiL encourages, initiates, facilitates, and funds research on these issues and takes an active part in the international debate.

HiiL is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. Particular events organised by HiiL have been sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Dutch Ministry of Justice, and the Maison Descartes in the Netherlands."
Same file backed up at Calameo:

TRANSLATION: "no longer be described as ‘autonomous’" = NO LONGER DERIVE THEIR JURISDICTIONS FROM THEIR CONSTITUTIONS! How extraordinary!
"The world increasingly faces problems which transcend national borders and cannot be resolved by national laws alone. They require international solutions" = the same nonsense they are flogging re Energy, Resources, Technology, and Climate Change has somehow magically descended upon our NATIONAL DOMESTIC "HIGHEST COURTS" to force our Judges to adopt HARMONIZED LAW across the planet. Did we vote for that?
"movement towards the international" = euphemism for World Government

In fact, the HIIL "inventory" document [] (@ Calameo) says, at page 14 of 121:
"To a large extent, governance has become a concept that transcends borders. Despite all the far-reaching consequences (implicit or explicit, potential or real), of globalisation and the internationalisation of the domestic arena, however, it is important to realise that the national legal order is ultimately still of paramount importance. In the absence of a world government - and concomitantly a world legislature, executive and judiciary -- domestic courts must dispense justice at the only level that is currently feasible: the national level. Indeed, the continuing relevance of national legal orders within an internationalised environment is the reason that HiiL exists. Nation-states continue to bear ultimate responsibility for 'delivering the goods' to citizens. The national legal orders in which they operate retain pride of place. Both complicating factors - the decreasing autonomy of nation-states and the continuing relevance of the national legal order - lie at the heart of the HiiL research programme.[FN 4: HiiL Research Programme National Law in a Global Society (Section 3)] Despite the continued relevance of national legal orders, however, the consequences of globalisation are [italics sic] far-reaching, and this fact complicates the CORE JUDICIAL TASK of reaching decisions on concrete contentious issues before the courts."
"Complicates"? How "complicated" is it to look to your national Constitution to fulfill your "CORE JUDICIAL TASK"? There is, after all, NO OTHER SOURCE OF JURISDICTION for national domestic litigation.

"world legislature, executive and judiciary" -- why, you can just see why some of these people are ambitious. Lord Bingham, for example. How old is he? Will he live long enough for a post on the "world judiciary"? I bet some of our hoary old Canadian judges are lining up for kidney transplants to improve their chances! Who wants to be a dowdy old Canadian judge when you can have real prestige and be a World Judge!

Lord Bingham, here's the old boy:,_Baron_Bingham_of_Cornhill

Born 1933. He might still have a couple of good years in him.

In other words, the HIGHEST COURTS of our (formerly) sovereign nations are to be USED FOR NOW, pending WORLD JUDICIARY, and WORLD GOVERNMENT, to dispense WORLD LAW at the domestic level, and thanks to the unheard-of function of dispensing international law at the domestic level, our own courts are therefore still (if grudgingly) "relevant".


Same file backed up at Calameo:
Lord Bingham participating !

And a former Supreme Court of Canada Judge participating.

Apparently, our High Court no longer takes its "role" from our Constitution.

The I O J T was established in Jerusalem. "Jerusalem"! do you get the impression we are all being ZIONIZED?

There is the distinct ring about this of a statement by David Ben Gurion, quoted in Look Magazine in 1962:

"In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind." (Duke 2002).

Have you heard of the HIIL - Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law?

Same file backed up at Calameo:

"What is HiiL?

"HiiL was born out of the recognition that globalisation and internationalisation are affecting societies profoundly and have far-reaching consequences for how national legal systems function. In today’s world, national legal systems can no longer be described as ‘autonomous’. The world increasingly faces problems which transcend national borders and cannot be resolved by national laws alone. They require international solutions. At the same time, the national level remains the most basic level at which the law operates. How can the movement towards the international and the fact that the law must work at the local level be reconciled?

HiiL encourages, initiates, facilitates, and funds research on these issues and takes an active part in the international debate.

HiiL is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. Particular events organised by HiiL have been sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Dutch Ministry of Justice, and the Maison Descartes in the Netherlands."
According to Niki F. Raapana and Nordica M. Friedrich, authors of THE ANTI COMMUNITARIAN MANIFESTO (December 19, 2003), we are all having Communist Zionist "law" shoved down our throats through the United Nations:
Say Raapana & Friedrich: "As for the future, not only are American law schools teaching communitarian law (Harvard 2000) and Talmudic Law (Zacariah 2002) to American lawyers and judges, Chinese communitarian courts and the United Nations export local regulations as blueprints for overruling national laws (Miethe 2003; Veon 1998-2003). Global to local Zionist-communitarian law prevails (Wald 1998), and unnatural evolution guides us into holistic subservience to a superior, master empire.
Source: The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking, PART TWO

And here is CANADA "collaborating": the "Law Commission of Canada", was created in 2007 (if the statute is valid! Ha!) has a four-fold "mandate" which includes:
1. to "focus on": "New Concepts of Law: The Commission was to work towards the development of new concepts of law and new approaches to law."

2. Efficiency and Accessibility: The Commission was to consider measures to make the legal system more efficient, economical and accessible.

3. Stimulating Critical Debate: The Commission was charged with stimulating critical debate about the law and how it operates in Canadian society. It was encouraged to forge productive networks with academic and other communities to ensure cooperation and coordination in law reform initiatives.
[Note: these would have to be those "international law reform initiatives" already established for us out of JERUSALEM, Ben Gurion's "seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind"]
4. Eliminating Obsolescence and Anomalies: The Commission was to work towards the elimination of obsolescence and anomalies in the current law.
"Obsolescence and Anomalies" = god forbid (I mean the real Good Lord) that our Judiciary, in the normal course of adjudication, should be allowed to pursue this traditional role of adjusting domestic law to suit the current state of domestic society. We now have a specialized commission RELIEVING them of this unwieldy element of their CORE JURISDICTION. Thus suggesting that those we have been so unfortunate as to elect have already abolished our Courts.

In fact, I know they have.

Same file backed up in Calameo:

I am betting our so-called "Law Commission" is working to ELIMINATE anything Canadian, that is, "democratic," and thus aid the "harmonization" of formerly Canadian law with international COMMUNIST, TALMUDIC, ZIONIST LAW.

The Law Commission of Canada Act can be found on the Justice Canada's web site at: [It's 2h20 a.m., I haven't had a chance to look at that.]

In the course of its annual Report of its activities, bottom of that same page, the Law Commission states its Priority #3:
"Collaborate with the Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law on work related to Globalization and Law"
In other words, they are "collaborating" with ISRAEL in the elimination of Canadian law, to replace it with WORLD LAW.

Let's see what the Supreme Court of Canada thinks its "role" is:

"Role of the Court
The Court's Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's final court of appeal, the last judicial resort for all litigants, whether individuals or governments. Its jurisdiction embraces both the civil law of the province of Quebec and the common law of the other provinces and territories.

Rule of the Court

The Supreme Court of Canada stands at the apex of the Canadian judicial system. The Canadian courts may be seen as a pyramid, with a broad base formed by the provincial and territorial courts whose judges are appointed by the provincial and territorial governments. At the next level, there are the provinces' and territories' superior courts whose judges are appointed by the federal government."


Apparently no, it stands at the icicle-pick end of dripping globalism accelerated by phoney "climate change".

Nothing on that page suggests a supranational role for the Supreme Court of Canada in creating World Government.

In any event, Michel Bastarache was not a Judge when he spoke to the HiiL Conference.

He had already retired from the Supreme Court of Canada Bench on 24 June 2008; a "role" he took up on 30 September 1997, the one-year anniversary of the Chrétien government's Order-in-Council of 30 September 1996 directing the "Secession" Reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Hey, what a coincidence! That was the same date noted legal scholar, the Honourable Mr. Justice Gérard Vincent La Forest, resigned (possibly in disgust). Judge Bastarache replaced the Honourable Mr. Justice John Sopinka, who died suddenly of a rare "blood disease" shortly before "hearings" were to begin on the "Reference re the Phoney Secession of Quebec" -- a scam to break up Canada for North American Union on the way to World Government.


They are and have for decades been using "Quebec independence" as blackmail to impose the EU system of world federalism on all of Canada, but disguised as "Sovereignty Association".

For more on that, read my other Blog, Habeas Corpus Canada Comments:


Given the Balfour Declaration of 1917, who do you think is behind this travesty? Anyone with the last name "Rothschild"? And then, of course, there's the 1941-42 GOMBERG MAP, with "HEBREWLAND" in the midst of a great COMMUNIST world federation that arguably resembles precisely what they are doing to us right now:

Overview of the Map:


Note: for the BEST zoom quality, please download the PDF file in the Overview.

If you have received my links before, just to let you know, I am shifting all my documents over to "calaméo" out of scribd. This is a new Map link; I have 125 other documents to re-upload that will be back online in the next couple of days.

My best regards to one and all! Sleep tight, children, in Referendumland.

Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union


Sunday, May 17, 2009

Nos référendums ne sont pas de la démocratie directe - Don Rowat

 Bien que l'on dise souvent que le référendum tel qu'il est employé au Canada est un exercice de démocratie directe, ce n'est pas le cas en raison de l'usage confus que l'on fait du terme « référendum ».  Aux États-Unis, ce terme signifie le renvoi d'une proposition législative à un vote populaire à l'instigation des citoyens. Le résultat de ce vote est exécutoire. Autrement dit, les électeurs adoptent directement des lois, sans passer par l'assemblée législative, ce qui explique que l'on parle en pareil cas de démocratie directe.

Les référendums sont l'application à de vastes populations de la pratique de démocratie directe en usage dans les réunions de cantons suisses ou les assemblées publiques d'électeurs de la Nouvelle-Angleterre, où des lois sont encore adoptées et des impôts levés directement par les électeurs. Ce genre de référendum est un exercice de démocratie directe, en ce sens que les électeurs adoptent véritablement une loi s'ils approuvent la proposition qui leur est presentée.

L'autre signification du terme, celle qui est maintenant adoptée au Canada, est le renvoi d'une question à un vote populaire dont l'issue n'est pas exécutoire pour le gouvernement ou l'assemblée législative de qui elle émane. Un gouvernement ou une assemblée législative peut faire fi de son résultat et cela s'est souvent produit. Par conséquent, un référendum non exécutoire n*est simplement qu"un sondage d'opinion publique coûteux. On peut faire valoir que les sondages sont meilleurs, car ils sont menés aupres d'un échantillon scientifique de l'ensemble de la population adulte, alors que, dans un référendum à la canadienne, il est possible que très peu de gens votent. Par conséquent, il pourrait arriver facilement qu'un vote majoritaire ne reflète pas l'opinion majoritaire de l'ensemble de l'électorat. II serait plus juste d'appeler ce genre de référendum un plébiscite. Mais, bien souvent, ces termes sont utilisés de façon interchangeable au Canada. Par exemple, Patrick Boyer a intitulé son ouvrage de 1992 « La démocratie directe au Canada: L' histoire et l'avenir des référendums », même s'il portait surtout sur ce type de référendum. À mon avis, son titre est trompeur parce que la plupart des votes directs menés au Canada ont été de nature non exécutoire, qu'on les ait appelés référendums ou plébiscites. Par conséquent, ils ne constituent pas vraiment une forme de démocratie directe.
Il faut se rappeler qu'un plébiscite ou un référendum consultatif n'est pas un exercice de démocratie directe car c'est l'assemblée législative qui prend la décision finale.
Malheureusement, on suscite la confusion lorsqu'on emploie le même terme pour les référendums exécutoires et non exécutoires et qu'on dit dans les deux cas qu'il s'agit de « démocratie directe », car ils sont fondamentalement très différents. Dans nos discussions, nous aurions intérêt à préciser de quel type de référendum nous parlons en employant, le cas echéant, l'adjectif « non exécutoire » ou en parlant simplement de plébiscite ou de référendum consultatif, car il s'agit d'une simple consultation auprès de l'électorat.

Le genre de référendum prévu dans le projet de loi récemment soumis par le gouvernement Harris de l'Ontano ne saurait, à strictement parler, être considéré comme un mécanisme de démocratie directe. Même s'll exige du gouvernement qu'il tienne des référendums sur des changements constitutionnels ou des augmentations d'impôt et qu'il permette aux électeurs de prendre l'initiative dans d'autres dossiers, le résultat ne lie ni le gouvernement ni l'assemblée législative. Souvenez-vous que, à l'occasion d'un référendum consultatif au sujet du Toronto métropolitain, la population s'est prononcée par une forte majonté contre la fusion des municipalités, mais le gouvernement Harris a fait fi du vote et imposé la fusion de toute façon. Toute initiative des citoyens exigera qu'une pétition en vue de la tenue d'un référendum soit signée par 700 000 personnes représentant 10 p 100 des électeurs dans chacun des neuf districts judiciaires de l'Ontano. Selon les détracteurs de la formule, ces exigences sont beaucoup trop limitatives pour que les citoyens puissent s'en prévaloir fréquemment, si tant est qu'ils le puissent, pour réclamer un référendum. Ainsi, une pétition réclamant la tenue d'un référendum sur le gouvernement de Toronto exigerait l'appui de l'ensemble de la province, y compns 10 p 100 des électeurs dans un district du Nord de l'Ontano et, à l'occasion du référendum proprement dit, au moins 50p 100 des électeurs doivent voter. Par conséquent, le référendum pourrait passer avec une majonté de 25 p 100 plus un seulement des électeurs de l'Ontano.

Si nous utilisons aujourd'hui au Canada le terme référendum pour décrire surtout une consultation non obligatoire, c'est que, au début du siècle. les provinces de l'Ouest ont fait l'expérience du référendum obligatoire. La formule a été abandonnée, car la loi du Manitoba sur le sujet a été déclarée anticonstitutionnelle en 1919, principalement au motif qu'elle usurpait le pouvoir du Lieutenant-gouverneur d'opposer son véto à la loi à titre de représentant de la Couronne. Elle portait également atteinte au pouvoir du gouvernement fédéral de nommer les Lieutenants-gouverneurs et de leur donner des instructions.

Les provinces de l'Ouest avaient été influencées par l'évolution de la démocratie directe dans les États de l'Ouest des États-Unis, qui mettait habituellement en cause l'initiative des citoyens, le référendum et la révocation. Dans un quart des États environ, les citoyens pouvaient formuler une proposition et la soumettre directement à l'électorat, outrepassant ainsi complètement les assemblées législatives, dont bon nombre avaient d'ailleurs mauvaise réputation. Comme on peut le constater, l'initiative était étroitement liée au référendum obligatoire et à la révocation. Elle permettait à un petit pourcentage d'électeurs 1) de forcer l'assemblée législative à agir au sujet d'une proposition, 2) d'exiger un référendum sur une loi proposée par un ou des électeurs ou 3) de réclamer un vote sur la révocation d'un membre de l'assemblée législative. Par exemple, le projet de loi présenté en Saskatchewan en 1913 exigeait que 5 p 100 des électeurs signent une petition pour pouvoir obtenir la tenue d' un référendum. Cependant, ce projet de loi n'a pas obtenu le taux exigé de 30 p 100 d'approbation de l'ensemble de l'électorat. On peut donc dire qu'il a été rejété sur la base de son propre principe : la démocratie directe. Un projet de loi analogue a été adopté en Colombie-Britannique en 1919. mais n'a jamais été proclamé, sans doute en raison de la décision rendue par tribunal au sujet de la loi du Manitoba la même année. La loi albertaine de 1913 a contourné le problème constitutionnel en n'exigeant pas que l'issue du référendum soit obligatoire. Le résultat c'est que l'obstacle constitutionnel à la démocratie directe qui existait en 1919 existe toujours, sans qu'on puisse espérer une modification de la Constitution.

Par conséquent, les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux ont adopté des lois autorisant la tenue d'exercices qui sont essentiellement des plébiscites mais qui, dans la plupart des cas, ont tout de même été appelés référendums. Toutes les provinces, à l'exception de la Nouvelle-Écosse et de l'Ontano, disposent maintenant d'une telle loi, et on a eu fréquemment recours à ce type de référendum au Canada depuis la Conféderation. Dans son ouvrage, M Boyer dresse la liste de 60 référendums fédéraux ou provinciaux tenus avant 1992, la Colombie-Bntannique venant au premier rang avec 11. Les provinces ont également des lois prévoyant des référendums municipaux, et il y en a eu bien davantage à ce palier.

Les mécanismes de destitution des membres de l'assemblée législative n'ont pas été aussi populaires au Canada qu'aux États-Unis, peut-être parce que, au Canada, on estimait que le référendum exécutoire constituait un mécanisme suffisant de contrôle de l'assemblée législative. L'Alberta a été la seule province à prévoir la destitution, et encore, pas avant 1936. Cependant, cette initiative s'était soldée par l'embarras du premier ministre Aberhart et de son gouvernement. En effet, la seule tentative de révocation visait le premier ministre lui-même, dans sa propre circonscnption. Son gouvernement a doné précipitamment abrogé la loi sur la révocation en octobre 1937.
Les régimes autoritaires ont souvent eu recours au référendum consultatif pour faire étalage de l'approbation populaire d'une mesure arbitraire. Ces régimes truquent le vote pour être sûrs d'obtenir une écrasante majorité favorable.
Cependant, l'intérêt pour le processus de destitution a été ravivé récemment, particulièrement par le Parti réformiste. La Colombie-Bntannique en est un bon exemple. À l'occasion d'un référendum consultatif tenu en 1991, 74 p 100 des électeurs ont appuyé l'idée d'une loi sur la révocation. Le gouvernement a ensuite adopté sa Recall and Initiative Act en 1995. Cette mesure prévoit un vote de destitution exécutoire après dix-huit mois si 40 p. 100 des électeurs d'une circonscription signent une pétition en ce sens. Le mécanisme a été rapidement mis à l'essai en octobre 1997 contre deux députés de l'assemblée législative provinciale, l'un d'eux un ex-ministre du gouvernement Clark. Cependant, on n'a pas réussi à obtenir le taux de 40 p. 100 d'approbation nécessaire. L'autre tentative a pris la forme d'une pétition visant la révocation du député provincial Paul Reitsma. Le processus a été amorcé en avril 1998 après qu'il fut révélé qu'il avait écrit dans les journaux des lettres louangeuses à son endroit, qu'il avait signées d'un faux nom. M. Reitsma a démissionné par la suite. Dans l'intervalle, la B.C. Civil Liberties Association a contesté la constitutionnalité de la loi devant les tribunaux, invoquant essentiellement les mêmes raisons que dans l'affaire de 1919 concernant le référendum obligatoire.

Referendums Around The World, disponible sur Amazon.caMême si on ne peut affirmer qu'un référendum consultatif est un exercice de démocratie directe, on y a eu recours fréquemment au cours du siècle tant dans des pays démocratiques que non démocratiques, et sa popularité a augmenté. On trouve un excellent examen de la situation dans un ouvrage rédigé en 1994 par David Butler et Austin Ranney, sous le titre Referendums Around the World. On y trouve des renseignements au sujet d'environ 550 référendums importants, à l'exception de ceux tenus en Suisse et aux États-Unis, foyers de la démocratie directe, où ont eu lieu autant de référendums que dans tous les autres pays réunis. Ces cas importants sont répartis en deux catégories, les référendums nationaux et les référendums menés dans 140 territoires subordonnés, y compris ceux portant sur l'indépendance et la séparation, comme ceux du Québec. Ainsi, les lecteurs qu'intéresse le concept du « neverendum referendum » au Québec peuvent facilement s'informer sur cette situation en particulier. Dans chaque cas, la liste précise le pays, l'année, l'objet—ce qui est fort utile—le résultat du vote ainsi que la participation au scrutin. Cela est particulièrement intéressant étant donné que la participation electorale revêt beaucoup d'importance pour obtenir un vote majoritaire auprès de l'ensemble de l'électorat.

L'étude Butler-Ranney révèle que le référendum consultatif n'est pas nécessairement un outil démocratique. Comme nous l'avons mentionné, le problème tient au fait que la majorité exprimée dans un référendum peut être loin de la majorité de l'électorat. Toutefois, ce qui est plus grave, c'est que la démocratie se fonde non seulement sur la régie de la majorité, mais également sur le compromis et la protection des droits des minorités. Par consequent, un vote majoritaire peut supplanter ces droits, et c'est ce qu'on appelle souvent « la tyrannie de la majorité ».

Source: Don Rowat, Nos référendums ne sont pas de la démocratie directe, 26 Revue Parlementaire Canadienne, Vol. 21, No 3, Automne 1998

Same article in English: Don Rowat, Our Referendums are not Direct Democracy, 26 Canadian Parliamentary Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, Autumn 1998

Au moment de rédiger cet article, Don Rowat était professeur émérite de sciences politiques à l'Université Carleton, d'Ottawa. Il était ex-président du Groupe canadien des études des questions parlementaires. Le présent article est la version révisée d'une communication présentée lors de la conférence printanière du Groupe.

Professeur Donald Rowat, qui a enseigné des sciences politiques à l'Université de Carleton pour plus de 40 ans, était l'expert académique de référence le plus réputé au Canada sur les médiateurs et la surveillance d'agences publiques. Il s'éteint à l'âge de 87 ans à l'hôpital à Ottawa le 2 décembre 2008 après une carrière longue et prolifique.

Remerciements : Le texte de base de cet article pour fins de ce blog a été obtenu en soumettant le fichier pdf au processus OCR* en ligne, service gratuit proposé par Il est à noter que j'avais à relire le texte et à y ajouter les accents. Pour cette fin, je m'en suis servie de

* OCR = Optical character recognition, à savoir « logiciel de reconnaissance optique de caractères »

Sur le caractère anti-démocratique du référendum - N. Lygeros

 En réalité, le référendum après la massification de la démocratie, représente une procédure qui permet au système d'utiliser la masse de la population pour valider une décision qui a déjà été prise. Sans la connaissance profonde du sujet la masse est manipulée via des moyens médiologiques pour aller dans le sens du système tout en étant persuadée d'avoir eu le dernier mot dans le choix.

Dans les états qui connaissent un tant soit peu la notion de démocratie, le référendum est considéré comme l'outil démocratique par excellence. Dans cet article, à l'encontre de cette idée dominante, nous allons montrer qu'il n'en est rien et que le référendum est un processus aliéné par la massification de la démocratie.

A l'origine, le référendum qui provient de l'expression latine "ad referendum", est une demande de consultation. Dans son sens premier i.e. vote de l'ensemble des citoyens pour approuver ou rejeter une mesure proposée par le pouvoir exécutif, il est semblable au terme plébiscite, ce qui est compatible avec son équivalent grec plus ancien dont le sens est le vote du dème. Et c'est dans ce cadre qu'il prend pleinement son sens politique. En effet, dans une démocratie de type athénien, l'assemblée du dème est un représentant de la population citoyenne. Le rapport est effectivement très faible. Nous pouvons considérer un exemple plus actuel comme le cas suisse puisque le référendum est une pratique courante dans ce pays, alors qu'il n'apparaît dans aucune des constitutions de la France avant 1946. Dans tous ces cas, l'idée essentielle est que la population est relativement faible et donc que la partie votante représente une partie essentielle de celle-ci. Cela représente le cadre idéal du référendum. Les problèmes surgissent lorsque le pouvoir exécutif fait appel au référendum dans un pays dont la population est importante et surtout dans lequel le pouvoir représente une minorité très faible.

Cette fois, le référendum est manipulable beaucoup plus facilement pour le pouvoir qui agit sur la masse et du coup perd son sens originel. Car la base de la validité d'un vote, c'est la connaissance de sa nature. Pour voter, il faut savoir. Seulement dans une démocratie de masse, très peu de personnes sont au courant de toutes les ficelles du pouvoir et des répercussions d'un choix. Car la politique, en raison de la masse, est devenue de manière essentielle l'affaire de processus et de spécialistes. Pour un individu normal, le manque de temps et la taille du nombre de documents à traiter engendrent la nécessité de choisir : soit il se retrouve à plein temps dans la politique et il appartient, selon son niveau, dans cette échelle aux hommes qui prennent les décisions, soit il appartient aux autres. Cette dichotomie de facto a une autre conséquence qui concerne l'information.

Bien qu'il soit implicite, le rôle de l'information est fondamental pour le sens du référendum. Car comment voter sans savoir ? Pour pallier à cela, le système gère lui-même l'information créant ainsi une dyssymétrie dans le fonctionnement. C'est ainsi qu'apparaît un phénomène trichotomique : il y a les non-informés, les informés, et les informés qui informent. Bien sûr, par définition, l'ensemble de cette population vote au même titre. Cependant quelle est la valeur de ce vote ? En a-t-il simplement une ? Quel est le vote d'une personne normale qui n'a qu'une information partielle et partiale de l'objet du vote ? Quelle est sa part de responsabilité dans le temps ?

En réalité, le référendum après la massification de la démocratie, représente une procédure qui permet au système d'utiliser la masse de la population pour valider une décision qui a déjà été prise. Sans la connaissance profonde du sujet la masse est manipulée via des moyens médiologiques pour aller dans le sens du système tout en étant persuadée d'avoir eu le dernier mot dans le choix. Ce dernier point, n'est qu'un moyen supplémentaire pour le système de se couvrir auprès de la population qui ne peut pas le rendre coupable de sa réponse finale. Seulement nous savons bien que la réponse n'est qu'un détail dans l'art de la question. L'important ce n'est pas de répondre directement à une question mais comment la poser pour obtenir la réponse désirée. Tel est le nouveau sens du référendum et c'est en cela qu'il est anti-démocratique.

La source originale de cet article: N. Lygeros



C'est exactement la situation au Québec. Les référendums en Europe et au Canada sont un outil pour employer l'électorat tout simplement afin de valider une «décision déja prise» il y a les décennies, bien avant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, bien avant la Première Guerre mondiale, de créer un gouvernement mondial au profit et sous le contrôle total des plus riches du monde. Ce gouvernement mondial ne peut pas se réaliser sans préalablement détruire les nations existantes et leurs systèmes existants par divers moyens. Par exemple, engendrer des victimes afin d'exploiter le pouvoir de la victime, car, certes, la victime par définition ne peut rien faire par lui-même. Donc, son créateur lui donne l'illusion de faire quelque chose en instituant un processus menant à un résultat pré-ordonné.

Les référendums de 1980 et de 1995 au Québec étaient tous les deux de pures prétextes pour imposer sur tout le Canada—non seulement sur le Québec—une nouvelle forme de gouvernement, celle de l'Union Européenne. Donc, la majorité de 32 millions de la population au Canada seraient soumise au même résultat planifié sans participer à l'illusion du «vote». Et on appelle ça la démocratie? Non, on appelle ça l'exercice du pouvoir illusoire de la victime de créer une classe de personnes possédant ironiquement plus de droits que tous les autres. Étant spéciale à cause de sa nature inhérente de victime elle arrivent à avoir le droit de supprimer les droits de tout le monde. Et cela c'est complètement contraire au règle de droit, ça c'est le système éternel des tyrans.

Quelle contradiction! La victime impuissante, à cause de son impuissance, a en fait plus de pouvoir que tout le monde! C'est la magie de la chimie politique! Mais cette victime n'arrive pas dans un vide. Il est créé par des tyrans et des brigands impuissants qui, souhaitant renverser la loi qui les empêche d'agir, et n'ayant pas le mandat, créent une population de victimes conçues pour leur en donner un.

Cette forme de gouvernement (de l'Union Européenne) est soviétique en son origine. Il fait partie du plan soviétique-sioniste de concert avec les traîtres de l'Ouest, d'imposer un gouvernement mondial au modèle soviétique-fasciste. Les gens sont dupés par les joueurs de flûte de Hamelin de la sécession en faux et de la souveraineté en faux afin de les forcer à se détruire.


Wednesday, April 22, 2009

HABEAS CORPUS CANADA - Some of the Grounds

PDF online at:



View the overview page & Download the PDF:

Sunday, April 19, 2009

The Real Pierre Trudeau:


Sunday, 22 February 2009 stu 15h20

Re: The Real Pierre Trudeau: Father of Canada's Permissive Society


On 3 October 2000, managing director of, Steve Jalsevac, referred to Canada's federal Charter of Wrongs, observing that "Thanks to Pierre Trudeau our Canadian democracy has been crippled by this ball and chain that will be very difficult to remove."

In that regard, I am pleased to report the following news. Mr. Trudeau's Charter is an illegal amendment to the British North America Act, 1867. It is therefore null and void. Its illegality consists in part in the fact that it alters the lawful Constitution, originally called the British North America Act, 1867, by amongst other things limiting the powers of Parliament and of the Legislatures.

Point #1: In 1931, the Statute of Westminster legally conferred independence, that is, national sovereignty, upon Canada. All that remained was for Canadians to find an amending formula to slightly adjust the Constitution from time to time.

Point #2: In 1931, the Statute of Westminster also expressly protected the Constitution of Canada, by prescribing as follows:

7. (1) Nothing in this Act [the Statute of Westminster] shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.

Point #3: As a result, neither Mr. Trudeau nor Canadian Parliament had any authority or power even to ask the United Kingdom to add the Charter, which very markedly repeals, amends and alters the powers of Canadian Parliament and of the Legislatures, prescribed by the British North America Act, 1867 and therefore damages Canadian Constitutional democracy.

Point #4: In 1981, under Mr. Trudeau, the Governor in Council directed a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada known as the "Patriation reference". The questions dictated by the Trudeau government and imposed upon the Supreme Court in a political and advisory capacity having no connection with the functions of a real court, did not include the fundamental question: "Has Canada the authority and power to repeal, amend and alter the British North America Act, 1867 by adding to it this federal Charter?"

Absent this question, all other questions, including those self-servingly asked by the Trudeau government, were and are irrelevant, and the Supreme Court in answering, did nothing to legalize what is fundamentally illegal, notwithstanding the unsubstantiated assertion of a majority that the Charter, as imposed by the Canada Act, was in fact legal. Moreover, under the statutory terms of the reference, the Supreme Court, so-called, has no power to put its own questions. Therefore, that particular majority had no power to purport to answer a question that had not been asked, regardless that it should have been asked -- and that, only if the Reference jurisdiction were valid to begin with.

Point #5: The Supreme Court of Canada, when it sits on a reference, does not "rule" or "decide". It does not hand down a "judgment". It issues a non-binding opinion. The opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1982 Patriation reference is therefore not law; it is not a part of our Constitutional law. The voluntary adherence of government or anyone else to these mere opinions does not make them law.

The legality or illegality of the Charter as an amendment to the British North America Act, 1867 therefore remains to be determined by a competent court regularly seized of the question, accompanied by the full panoply of procedural safeguards, and subject to genuine appeal to a real appellate court.

Point #6: The reference jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada is an illegal jurisdiction not authorized anywhere in the British North America Act, 1867, which in fact prohibits it. This discovery was made but concealed from the public in the context of a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1910 on the legality of the reference jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court's non-binding opinion in 1910 was then sent ludicrously for yet another non-binding view to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom in 1912.

The Judicial Committee itself had no jurisdiction, as its enabling statutes did not authorize it to hear appeals from Canadian-created references, and Canadian Parliament had no power under the BNA Act, 1867 to give jurisdiction to a board of another country, albeit that of the United Kingdom.

In 1910 and again in 1912, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could find nothing in the British North America Act, 1867 which authorized Canadian Parliament to legislate into existence a judicial-ministerial board instead of the general court of appeal specifically authorized at s. 101 of the British North America Act, 1867.

The Supreme Court of Canada, despite its name, is therefore not a Court; it is a thing of a very different character combining inseverably both judicial and ministerial functions in one board. In effect, the 'general court of appeal' for Canada which s. 101 of 1867 authorized to be set up, and which is a pure court, not more, not less, has indeed never been set up.

In 1910 and again in 1912, judicial and political embarrassment were avoided when the Supreme Court of Canada (so-called) and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 'upheld' (by non-binding opinion) the non-existent Canadian invention of a judicial-ministerial, unelected and therefore non-responsible and undemocratic quasi-ministerial jurisdiction.

The Judges then blithely continued to exercise a non-existent jurisdiction under a void statute in which they had been indulging since shortly after its attempted enactment by Canadian Parliament in 1875.

Neither the 1910 nor the 1912 'opinion' was a legal ruling, judgment or decision. And, neither was the 1998 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference in any way a final legal determination of the constitutionality and thus of the legality of the Supreme Court's reference jurisdiction, which, once again, the Supreme Court itself presumed to legalize by self-pronouncement in a mere non-binding opinion in the context of its own void jurisdiction.

The legality of the reference jurisdiction still remains to be decided by a real court regularly seized of the subject matter. The only court capable of determining with finality the legality of the reference jurisdiction, and thus of the statute which purports to establish the Supreme Court of Canada in 1875, is a true "Constitutional" court of Canada, as prescribed by s. 96 et seq of the British North America Act, 1867.

The foregoing is to say that:

(a) Trudeau's Patriation reference was not a judgment, ruling or decision, and the legality of the Charter has thus never been submitted to lawful adjudication in a real court of law.

(b) The 1998 Supreme Court Reference re the Secession of Quebec is another absolute nullity, which is not and never was a judgment, ruling or decision. This opinion being a nullity issued from a void jurisdiction, the Clarity Act which purports to give legal effect to that opinion, as a tool to facilitate multiple secessions and the end of Canada, is itself a fraud, a lie, and an absolute nullity perpetrated by enemies of Canada detaining our governments.

And, moreover, notice: we would not need a Clarity Act to "give" legal effect, if the reference opinion itself already had legal effect.

Personal Rule of Pierre Trudeau and the Reference Board

Mr. Trudeau and others before him and after him have been undemocratically governing Canada by way of personal rule with the Supreme Court reference board for many decades, exhorting Canadians to obey these opinions, dictated by government, that is, by those detaining government and controlling the questions.

By evading direct questions that are fundamental, such as "Is the Charter a lawful amendment to the British North America Act, 1967?" And "Is secession legal in Canada?" they sidestep the real Constitution, thus diverting public debate away from pertinent facts into wrong channels.

In the end, by manipulating the reference bench, and avoiding the real courts, those detaining our governments are able to impose gross illegalities in the name of 'law'.

Canada's Communist Infiltrators

As for Mr. Trudeau and his friendship with Castro, please visit my web site, HABEAS CORPUS CANADA, at, in particular the GROUNDS page. In these paragraphs, and in three videos of mine and a newsletter attached to the 2008 Elections button, you will discover that:

(i) Trudeau, while Justice Minister under Lester Pearson in 1967, belonged to a secret committee of federal ministers and others, mostly from Quebec, run by Power Corporation.

(ii) That secret committee deliberately escalated radical separatism to break up Canada, and (iii) strategized the founding of the Parti Québécois by René Lévesque to consolidate the disparate separatist elements into a FRONT for imposing European-Union style institutions on Canada, disguised as Québec independence.

(iv) "Sovereignty Association" and its other euphemism under Jacques Parizeau, "Partnership" of Québec with the rest of Canada, is and always has been a scam to replace Confederation with an embryonic North American Union based on the European Union, which is a template for world government. There are currently EU-style unions (i.e., fledgling Soviet unions) in different stages of development on all the continents.

(v) The 1980 and 1995 referendums (illegal, by the way) to destroy Canada both failed.

Therefore, unlike Europeans, who have to some degree been acclimatized to what is coming, thanks to the progressively tightening rope around their necks, Canadians, and North Americans are about to be dragged cold-turkey and by force into a long-planned North American Union scheduled to be imposed between now and 2010.

Emergence of a Supranational Non-state Foreign Power

How could this be happening? Simply, Canada has had no lawful Constitutional government for decades. Our Prime Ministers have been and are the tools of supranational entities acting as a new kind of foreign power to dismantle our countries from within.

That supranational network includes but is not limited to: the Bilderberg group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations. Prime Ministers of Canada who have been involved in Bilderberg include Lester B. Pearson, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, Brian Mulroney, and Stephen Harper. And that's not counting members of all our Provincial executives, our academic and banking institutions and our press and media, all innoculated with the One-Party Policy of the self-appointed supranationals.

This is why we are getting North American Union, a step on the way to world union and communist world government. These men (and women) have been carrying out not the democratic will of their electorates, but the dictates of a supranational gang of self-appointed elites who have sown discord among us to impose what they long ago decided to impose, a one-world communist government of merged continental unions.

Trudeau and Levesque both espoused a one-world government. I will have information on that in my next web-site update.

Playing good cop/bad cop for public consumption, both men consciously abused the national sentiment of French-Canadians, and the outrage of English-speaking Canadians to drive a fatal wedge into Canada intended to destroy Confederation.

Moreover, Canada's FLQ terrorist organization was founded by Fidel Castro, to get the ball rolling on the breakup of Canada.

FLQ Assassination Ties To Model Parliament for North American

As early as 1963, an employee of Power Corporation, journalist Paul Rochon, working for La Presse newspaper, owned by Power through its affiliate Gesca, put up a $5000 bail bond to free one self-admitted FLQ terrorist, François Mario Bachand. Bachand then promptly vanished. He was executed some years later in Paris by a bullet to the head while in the close companionship of Louise Beaudoin and her husband. What Mr. Bachand did for his mentors to warrant such a brutal execution remains to be discovered.

However, Madam Beaudoin has since then had a flourishing Canadian career in both federal and provincial government, and notably sits, with her hands charmingly folded in her photograph, in the Model Parliament for North America being run and hosted by the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) currently housed in offices on the University de Montréal campus, perhaps not coincidentally the same campus of Georges Schoeters, recruited by Fidel Castro on 27 April 1959 in Montreal to set up the FLQ terrorist group to promote the breakup of Canada.

I will be updating my web site in the next few weeks, please keep tuning in. Most importantly, please send Habeas Corpus Canada to your entire address book. Few Canadians are yet aware that North American Union is happening and those who do are little aware of what is really behind it.

Quebec Government Site Reverts to Constitutional Bilingualism

Update: I wish to note that those detaining the government of Quebec have recently (no doubt self-servingly) withdrawn the Spanish-language version of the Quebec government web site that had been online since at least 2002 and which I had exposed at Habeas Corpus Canada.

They have now shifted Spanish to the Quebec government's so-called "international" section. It would be a shame if during the next phoney referendum, a Spanish Quebec government web site tipped off the otherwise duped electorate to the incoming North American Union with Mexico.

I hope that my exposé of this earmark of incoming North American Union had something to do with their decision to revert to the French-English web site.

Provincial "Internationalism"

It should be noted that under the lawful Constitution, no province has any right to carry out treaties or international agreements. Encouragement from those detaining the federal government has resulted in a Province like Quebec developing international ties which closely resemble a string of Quebec "national" consulates or embassies.

This is all part and parcel of the criminal dismantling of Canada to set up a series of phoney independent states in place of provinces, so as to re-federate these new 'states' into North American Union, and then into planetary union, a final step that will permanently eliminate all of them them, except as geographic place-names.

And, thus, another item needs to be fixed in order to get back the one, united nation of Canada prescribed by the real Constitution: no treaties and no embassies for the Provinces.

Some Conclusions

Ensuing from the foregoing, I intend to challenge the legality of the Charter, and of the Supreme Court reference jurisdiction in the context of my legal proceedings in Habeas Corpus for Canada. Both are inextricably linked to the planned take-down of Canada, as will be demonstrated in my future legal proceedings, which will commence in the Federal Court of Canada and conclude in a Section 96 Court.

Thanks very much for your time, I appreciate it. Have a great day.

Kathleen Moore
Montreal, Canada
The Official Legal Challenge
to North American Union


And also at: