IF 50%+1 IS BINDING, THE "NO" WON IN 1995 !

All that changes is the name. But it all means NORTH AMERICAN UNION.

"In both 1980 and 1995, Quebec showed a willingness to negotiate ... an association or partnership agreement with Canada once it became a sovereign state so that people, goods and capital could circulate freely between the two countries."

Source: "Brace for Referendum" - Letter to 1600 world leaders by GILLES DUCEPPE, Leader of the Bloc Québécois federal political party (Ottawa, 9 June 2010) http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790f2e34849cf5b

In the Huffington Post of 27 May 2011, Liberal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Pierre Moreau is reported as saying that 50% + 1 vote is a binding outcome for the YES in a referendum for Quebec to "secede".

Layton Attempts to Clarify 50 + 1 - Quebec Referendum to Secede (Huffington 27 May 2011)

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

Moreau is no doubt referring to the "statute" linked here, which some call simply Quebec's "referendum law". It's NOT really a "referendum law," but let's pretend it is.

An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State R.S.Q., chapter E-20.2

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

Its section 4 states:

"4. When the Québec people is consulted by way of a referendum under the Referendum Act (chapter C-64.1), the winning option is the option that obtains a majority of the valid votes cast, namely 50% of the valid votes cast plus one."

If 50%+1 is binding for the YES, then obviously, fairness dictates that it's binding for the NO. If it's binding NOW, it should always have been binding -- otherwise, it wouldn't be "fair", right? It would not be fair for a sore loser to constantly change the rules to WIN, right?

Well, in 1995, the NO was 50% + 54,288 votes, not counting over 86,000 NO ballots that were maliciously spoiled by election workers. That means, that if the referendums are legal (denied), the 1995 NO is BINDING, and Canada WINS.

According to CBC archives online:

http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/federal_politics/topics/1891-12469/

"In the end, 50.58 per cent of Quebecers voted against the sovereignty question, or a total of 2,362,648 votes. The Yes side garnered 49.42 per cent, or a total of 2,308,360 votes.

• Just 1.16 per cent of the total vote - or 54,288 votes - separated the two sides. That's less than the capacity crowd for a CFL game at Montreal's Olympic Stadium."

Therefore, in 1995, the NO vote was binding and WON by NOT just the razor-thin 50% + 1, but by 50% + 54,288, which is 54,287 MORE than required by the QUEBEC referendum "law" to PUT A PERMANENT STOP TO THE ILLEGAL REFERENDUMS !!!

However, these illegal referendums are NOT about Quebec "seceding", they are about dissolving Canada for North American Union. On 30 April 2011, a few days before the May 2nd federal election, citizen-journalist ERIC GRANGER and camerawoman SOPHIE LE PAVOUX, captured GILLES DUCEPPE voluntarily admitting that what he wants for Quebec and Canada is a North American Union, based on "a good treaty" like they have in Europe:

Video: GILLES DUCEPPE WANTS A NORTH AMERICAN UNION (French with English subtitles)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-mIN7GMQdI&feature=channel_video_title

However, as we know, North American Union has been openly underway since after 9/11 under the names of "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and "Building a North American Community -- which former Ambassador to the USA Allan Gotlieb declared was the "provocative agent". Gotlieb said that prior to 9/11, nobody had "thought" of creating a North American Union. He was lying.



The Quebec referendums to "secede" have ALWAYS sought mandates to "negotiate" an EEC-EU-style UNION. René Lévesque called it "The Canadian Union" and "The Canadian Community", just as we now call it "The North American Union" and "The North American Community". The only thing that changed with Parizeau in 1995 was the NAME of the game. He called it "Sovereignty Partnership" -- which is more like the "Security and Prosperity Partnership". But they all come down to the same thing. The Quebec referendums to "secede" are a seditious and illegal scam to force Canadians to accept the EU system in place of Confederation, using a threat of Quebec "secession" as blackmail to get the job done.

When both the 1980 and 1995 phony referendums to "secede" had failed, 9/11 happened, throwing a US-controlled military perimeter around Canada, to begin the long-delayed vertical integration of Canada into the USA -- which would have begun a great deal sooner had those controlling the illegal referendums had their way. Faced with repeated failures to force Quebec to 'secede' into the EEC-EU system, it was the elites' desire for North American Union that became the "provocative agent" for 9/11.

The supranational elites and the multinational corporations have ALWAYS exploited Quebec as their intended "wrecking ball" to take down Canada for a regional continental union modeled on the EU. There are EU-style unions forming on all the continents -- conveniently spreading the same laws, the same form of government, the same trade and monetary policies, and the same non-democratic controls -- ALL IN THE SAME TINY CIRCLE OF ELITE HANDS -- all across the world.

This is world government forming, and they will not stop hammering on Quebec because they need Quebec to trigger the political dismantling of Canada, and thus of North America, to complete the structural integration that began with Free Trade and NAFTA, which were BOTH responses to the FAILED referendum to "secede" of 1980. In other words, when the referendums fail to integrate the EEC-EU horizontally across Canada at a single blow, VERTICAL, continental integration proceeds via fake accords like Free Trade and NAFTA, pending a final referendum to "secede" in order to complete the continental union.

That union, sought since well before 1980, and planned since well before the Treaty of Rome was signed in Europe in 1957 -- see the 1941 Gomberg map of world unions (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=116430275057791&topic=219) was fast-tracked by the SPP on the pretext of 9/11.

Quebec secession + 9/11 = North American Union . . .

. . .and WORLD GOVERNMENT.

In the Brussels Journal of 27 February 2006, former Soviet dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky, pointed out that member nations of Europe had been forced to vote repeatedly for the Maastricht treaty. He said, "The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting." Said Bukovsky of the referendums, "It is a trick for idiots."

(Brussels Journal, 27 February 2006)

Vladimir Bukovsky on EU Referendums: "It's a trick for idiots" (Brussels Journal, 27 February 2006)

Publish at Calaméo or browse others.

Well, now. If YES means "Quebec is a country" and then we stop voting, the NO has to mean "Canada is a country" and we also stop the voting.

I am hereby serving notice on the Quebec referendum riggers: WE ARE NOT IDIOTS.

The NO has won twice in illegal plebiscites in 1980 and 1995 to convert Canada by "treaty" into the basis of a North American Union. The NO is final. BOTH TIMES. Not because it's "democratic," but because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL and high treason by parties attempting to use the public to cover their own acts of disloyalty and treachery.

Nor will NDP's Jack Layton trick us into "amending" the Constitution à la Charlottetown to get the same thing: "associate state" status to eradicate the Canadian provinces for the Marxist North American Union of the Rockefellers, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Soros, the Trilaterals, Bilderberg, and the Rhodes network including Power Corporation, the CFR, the CIC and the Queen-sanctioned RIIA in London, all working so hard for a one-world government. Kiss it goodbye, folks!

Canadians are onto the scam, and Habeas Corpus Canada is waiting for you.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Main blog: http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

FACEBOOK . CALAMEO . BLOGSPOT . YOUTUBE - CRAZYFORCANADA
.

NAFTA, NORTH AMERCAN UNION & THE "NEW EUROPEAN SOVIET" -- VILIUS BRAZENAS, September 6, 2004

Blogger's Note: I have altered the title a bit to attract the reader who might otherwise pass by.



_______________

The "New European Soviet": the European Union is rapidly descending into totalitarianism. Under NAFTA and the proposed FTAA, U.S. policymakers have adopted the same socialist EU program

by Vilius Brazenas | Sept 6, 2004 | The New American

I am going to tell you a story about Europe and America. It is a true story about tyranny and freedom, about hope, folly, deception and betrayal. It is also a warning about grave danger. Alarmed at the trends I see, I feel obliged to tell this story. Now in my 91st year, I am one of the few living souls who have experienced the major events of the last century. Being both European and American, I have witnessed and studied these events from opposite sides of the Atlantic.

I am Lithuanian by birth and saw my small country suffer under both Nazi and Communist brands of totalitarianism. My family was trapped in Russia when the Bolshevik Revolution brought the Communists to power. As a young boy in Moscow, in 1922, I was forced to march with my classmates in the Communist May Day parade in front of Vladimir Lenin himself.

Vilius Bražėnas - Kad tiek kovų nenueitų veltui (1-ma dalis)

VideoLife Uzerinden Izle
[If anyone can understand... I presume this is Lithuanian he's speaking... this is the man, Mr. Vilius Brazenas. There are a number of other videos of him at this source page: http://www.videolife.tk/video/z9r64XbiUm8/Vilius-Bra%C5%BE%C4%97nas-Kad-tiek-kov%C5%B3-nenueit%C5%B3-veltui-1-ma-dalis.html]

Like much of Europe, Lithuania was overrun in the 1940s by the Soviet Red Army, then by the Nazis, and then again by the Soviets. In 1944, as the Soviet Red Army was reinvading Lithuania, and after facing Soviet tanks, I was able to escape with my wife and daughter. In 1949, we were able to come to America and, later, thank God, to become U.S. citizens.

In January 2003 I came back to live in Lithuania. As an author, speaker and newspaper columnist, I am attempting to use my talents and opportunities in the time that I have left to warn my countrymen--both American and Lithuanian--about the very real and present danger to freedom posed by the evolving European Union (EU) and the very similar project proposed for North and South America called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Most Americans have only a very hazy understanding about what the EU is and an even foggier notion of how it came about. Unfortunately, most Europeans also have a very poor understanding of these things. They have only recently begun to recognize how blind they have been to the very real threats that the growing centralization of power in the EU poses to their national independence and their freedoms.

However, it must be said that the main reason why Europeans and Americans both have such foggy notions about the EU is that the EU architects and promoters have purposely kept the real origins and objectives of the EU shrouded in deception. They had to do this, in order to foist this scheme on the peoples of Europe. If they had openly proclaimed their true objective--to end national sovereignty and create an unaccountable, socialist suprastate--the entire scheme would have been rejected overwhelmingly, right from the start.

When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as "the new European Soviet." He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a "common European home" stretching "from the Atlantic to the Urals," as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist overlord who has steadfastly refused to renounce Communism.

In fact, he defiantly remains a Communist. On December 23, 1989, Gorbachev declared to his fellow Soviets, "I am a communist. For some that may be a fantasy. But for me it is my main goal." On February 26, 1991, Gorbachev said, "I am not ashamed to say that I am a communist and adhere to the communist idea, and with this I will leave for the other world." He has repeated these sentiments many times. In his book he also stated: "I frankly admit that we are glad that the idea of a 'common European home' finds understanding among prominent political and public figures of not only Eastern, but also Western Europe...."

It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a "common European home" and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model. After all, hadn't the Soviet model collapsed and died? But Mr. Gorbachev was, at least in this instance, telling the truth; the EU has been, and is now, moving steadily toward Soviet-style tyranny.

The European Parliament, the European Commission and other EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt and The Hague are dominated by radical socialists and dedicated one-worlders who are bent on smashing the individual, once-independent nation states of Europe into Soviet-style conformity with the oppressive dictates of the new EU Politburo.

A Revolutionary Coup d'Etat

In their powerful expose, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union (2003), British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, formerly a researcher inside the EU bureaucracy, aptly describe the EU as "a slow-motion coup d'etat: the most spectacular coup d'etat in history." In what remains of this article, I will attempt to explain why that description by Mr. Booker and Dr. North is no exaggeration and how this spectacular coup has come about. It is also my intent to show how the deceptive NAFTA-FTAA process is directly related to the EU and patterned after it to achieve the same kind of coup d'etat in the Americas.

The "European project," as the EU designers refer to their ongoing revolution, was launched with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The Common Market was born the following December when Italy became the sixth nation to ratify the treaty (joining France, Belgium, West Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). It was sold to the peoples of Europe as a "free trade" agreement that would bring prosperity by removing barriers to the movement of people, goods, services and capital across borders.

In fact, it was a program for national suicide, for gradual, "slow-motion" political and economic merger of the member nations. Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as "Mr. Socialist," was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that "the most effective way to disguise their project's political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a 'common market.'"

The Treaty of Rome was, in truth, a constitution for a new government disguised as a treaty. Traditionally, a treaty is an agreement between sovereign states, concerning borders, military alliances, trade relations, extradition, etc. The parties to the treaty remain sovereign states; their form of government is not altered and their citizens are not directly bound with new laws or obligations. The Treaty of Rome, however, created a new, overarching "community" independent of its member states and claiming the power to create laws that are binding not only on the member nations but on their individual citizens as well.

This was not noticed by the people at first, because the EU founders were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.

The original Treaty of Rome has been repeatedly modified by subsequent treaties and legislation, all of which have greatly enhanced the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the central EU government. The European Communities Act (1972), the Single European Act (1986), the Schengen Agreement (1990), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1998), and the Treaty of Nice (2000) are some of the most important benchmarks that have transferred vast powers piecemeal to Brussels, where the EU is headquartered.

The eurofederalists cloak this destructive, revolutionary process under such code words as "integration," "harmonization," and "convergence." In 1991, the Single European Act was coming into force and beginning to show the very ugly teeth that had been built into it. At that time, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne of the Sunday Telegraph, one of Britain's major newspapers, expressed in a column the sense of betrayal and outrage felt by many in Europe. "Twenty years ago, when the process began," he wrote, "there was no question of losing sovereignty. That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation."

It was actually a multitude of lies. The EU founders and their successors have been carrying forward nothing less than a brazen scheme of treason dressed up as economic trade policy. And treason is not too harsh a word, for many of the key leaders of this operation are government officials who are betraying a sacred trust and have been lying outright to their constituents. As Sir Worsthorne pointed out, for decades the EU advocates had explicitly lied, insisting that the developing EU would not affect national sovereignty, and that EU laws and regulations would not override national laws and constitutions. These were wild, paranoid fantasies, they said.

Warnings about the true nature of the EU were routinely smothered by the globalist controlled, pro-EU press--which includes nearly all the major media organs. Now that the project is entering its final stages, however, the eurofederalists are dropping all pretenses and admitting openly what they previously denied. They can hardly help it now, since the EU established a constitutional convention in 2002 to draw up a formal constitution for a United States of Europe. At nearly 300 pages, the document is an open-ended power grab, with none of the checks and balances and means of accountability that we enjoy in our U.S. Constitution.

Many Americans, no doubt, tend to consider the Common Market and the EU as positive steps toward greater freedom. After all, it certainly is more convenient to have only one currency, the euro, when touring the continent. But whatever conveniences it may offer are offset by far more important concerns. Consider:

* Regulatory nightmare. British grocers have been arrested and fined for continuing to sell bananas and other produce by the pound instead of by the EU's newly mandated metric weights. Similarly, the EU dictates on the shape and size of cucumbers, the consistency of marmalade, the texture and taste of chocolate, and thousands of other consumer items.

* Acquis communautaire. The EU already operates under the doctrine of acquis communautaire, which holds that all members must adopt EU law in its entirety, and further, that once the EU usurps the right to legislate in a new area, its authority in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity. Thus, power is guaranteed to flow in one direction--from the member states to the central government.

* Corpus juris. The corpus juris is the new legal code initiated by the Amsterdam Treaty that will, among other things, set up a European Public Prosecutor with overriding criminal law jurisdiction throughout Europe. Habeas corpus, trial by jury and other important protections will be swept away.

* Unlimited migration. Signatory countries of the EU Schengen Agreement have given up their right to police their borders, thus allowing illegal aliens--including terrorists--to travel freely between countries. With Russia and other former Soviet states, along with Turkey, scheduled for membership, we will soon have millions of new migrants, including many Communists and militant Muslims migrating at will throughout Europe--much like what could happen to the U.S. if the FTAA is implemented.

* Economic control. With the establishment of the euro currency and the European Central Bank, the EU countries have lost control of their fiscal and monetary policy as well as their currencies.

* Destroying agriculture. The EU's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) has taken control of nearly all agriculture and has nearly destroyed British agriculture.

* Power to tax. The EU already claims the authority to dictate indirect tax policies such as the VAT (value added tax) on clothes, food, public transport, fuel, construction, homes, etc. The Treaty of European Union declares that EU decisions to "impose pecuniary obligation on persons other than States shall be enforceable." That means direct taxes on individuals.

* Coercive military and police power. If the Eurocrats have their way, they will soon have European military and police forces to enforce their increasingly dictatorial edicts.

The architects of NAFTA and the FTAA openly cite the EU as the model for their proposed regional "common market" for the Western Hemisphere. For example, Mexican President Vicente Fox acknowledged on May 16, 2002: "Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish ... an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union." At the time Fox was referring specifically to the three NAFTA countries (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico); the proposed FTAA would further develop the "ensemble of connections" while extending them throughout the Americas.

President Bush, President Fox and the "new world order" Power Elite at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Council of the Americas have all adopted the deceptive terminology of the EU--"integration," "harmonization," "convergence"--to describe their "American project." They have adopted an aggressive schedule, intending to do in a few years what it has taken the eurocrats decades to accomplish.

We can and must stop this treasonous plan--or Mr. Gorbachev and his ilk will soon be able to gloat about the "new American Soviet."

________________

________________


Originally published: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/4826-the-qnew-european-sovietq

Re-published: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_18_20/ai_n25095870/

UPDATE ON THE AUTHOR:

Few other human beings were eye witnesses to, and participants in, events of the 20th Century as was Vilius Brazenas. A survivor of wars, revolution, plague, famine, foreign military occupations and forced deportations, he became a tireless champion of freedom and unyielding foe of totalitarianism in all its forms. Mr. Brazenas passed away at the age of 97, in a hospital in Vilnius, Lithuania, on October 3 following complications from a recent fall.

"Vilius Brazenas: Lithuanian-American Freedom Fighter Extraordinaire"
The New American, Friday, 08 October 2010 18:00
Written by William F. Jasper

Url: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/4823-vilius-brazenas-lithuanian-american-freedom-fighter-extraordinaire

________________


A light has gone out, but his flame still burns bright in our darkness.
Thank you, Mr. Brazenas.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Faire sécession vers l'Union nord-Américain

Les sentiments des Québécois français sont impitoyablement exploités afin de créer une fausse association de «l'indépendance» à la question référendaire trompeuse qui demande en realite qu'un « mandat de négocier souveraineté-association.»

« Souveraineté-association » (1980) à savoir « souveraineté-partenariat » (1995) n'est pas l'indépendance, c'est le système de gouvernement de l'Union européenne, et il supprime la souveraineté par degrés, en ne laissant rien à l'État-membre.

Ce système conduit à l'érosion de la démocratie, et à la perte complète de la souveraineté nationale.

Le but du système est de transférer progressivement la souveraineté nationale à un niveau supranational.

A ce niveau supranational, les décisions sont prises et des lois sont adoptées sans aucune préoccupation de l'opinion du peuple.

Dans son autobiographie écrite en 1985 et publié en 1986, René Lévesque a admis qu'il était un fédéraliste mondial. Un mondialiste.

Les mondialistes soutiennent l'idée d'un gouvernement mondial qui dicte toutes les valeurs et qui contrôle toutes les ressources.

Dans son autobiographie rédigée en 1985 René Lévesque a dit, «Je suis fédéraliste» et «l'État-nation a fait son temps». Par conséquent, il faut se demander ce qu'il a vraiment essayer de créer avec son référendum de 1980. Car il essayait de créer la «souveraineté-association» -- le système de l'Union européenne qui prive les peuples de leur contrôle et conduit à un gouvernement mondial.

Afin de transférer le contrôle des ressources au niveau supranational, il doit y avoir «un peuple» à qui seul appartiennent ces ressources, ainsi qu'une « nation » reconnue en droit international public capable de diriger ses propres affaires internationales afin de transférer légalement le plein contrôle de ses ressources par voie de traité.

Il n'y a rien de poétique ou romantique d'être dépouillé de ses ressources par des Joueurs de flûte de Hamelin qui nous vendent notre souveraineté sur leurs propres conditions et stratégies. Ils formulent la question afin de recevoir la réponse dont ils ont besoin.

Dire «OUI» au «mandat de négocier» est de nous faites voler de botre souveraineté et de nos ressources par la force.

Va-t-on tomber pour cela ?

* * *

Lors du spectacle de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste de 1975 sur le Mont-Royal, Gilles Vigneault met temporairement un terme à une période sabbatique en créant la chanson «Gens du pays» qui deviendra l'une de ses plus célèbres compositions.

Cette chanson, dont chacun connaît l'air et le refrain, est chantée lors des anniversaires québécois sous sa version «Mon cher ____, c'est à ton tour». Elle est devenue l'hymne non-officiel du Québec.

-- Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
La Contestation Judiciaire Officielle
à l'Union nord-Américaine
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Billet : « PAULINE MAROIS soutient l'Union nord-Américaine »
http://espace.canoe.ca/habeascorpuscda/blog/view/38581

Billet : « Sarkozy Scamming Quebec's Hoodwinked Separatists »
http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

SECEDING INTO NORTH AMERICAN UNION

The sentiments of French Quebecers are being mercilessly exploited to create a false association of 'independence' with the misleading referendum question seeking a 'mandate to negotiate sovereignty association'. "Sovereignty Association" (1980) is not independence, nor is "Sovereignty Partnership" (1995); it is the system of government of the European Union, and it removes sovereignty by degrees, leaving the member state with nothing.

This system is leading to the erosion of democracy, and the full loss of sovereignty.

The purpose of the system is to gradually transfer national sovereignty to a supranational level.

At this supranational level, decisions are made and laws are enacted without any concern for the views of the people.

In his autobiography written in 1985 and published in 1986, RL admitted he was a world federalist. A globalist.

Globalists support the idea of a one-world government which dictates all values and controls all the resources.

In his autobiography, René Lévesque said, "I am a federalist" and "the nation-state has seen its day". Therefore, ask yourself, what was he really trying to create with his 1980 referendum? He was trying to create "sovereignty-association" -- the European Union system which deprives nations of their control and leads to a one-world government.

In order to transfer control of resources to the supranational level, there must be a 'people' to whom alone these resources belong, and a 'nation' capable of international affairs (at international public law) to legally hand control over by way of treaty.

There is nothing poetic or romantic about being robbed of your resources by Pied pipers selling you your sovereignty in order to take it from you. They formulate the question in order to get from you the answer they need.

Saying "YES" to a "mandate to negotiate" is agreeing to be robbed of our sovereignty and of our resources by force.

Are we going to fall for it?

* * *

When performing at the Saint-Jean-Baptiste celebrations of 1975 on Mount Royal in Montreal, Gilles Vigneault put a temporary end to his sabbatical in order to create the song "Gens du pays" (people of the nation) which became one of his most famous compositions.

This song, to which everyone knows the tune and the refrain is even sung at birthday parties in Quebec as the version 'Dear ____, it's your turn'. "Gens du paus" has become the unofficial anthem of Quebec.

-- Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Blog : "Sarkozy Scamming Quebec's Hoodwinked Separatists"
http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

Blog : « PAULINE MAROIS soutient l'Union nord-Américaine »
http://espace.canoe.ca/habeascorpuscda/blog/view/38581 (in French)

"PLOTTING A MAP IF QUEBEC SECEDES" (CFR 1996)

PLOTTING A MAP IF QUEBEC SECEDES (CFR 1996)

"But is the thesis of continuing Canadian fragmentation after Quebec's secession plausible? Could North America unravel? The United States must take the possibility seriously enough to draw up plans for a form of supranational affiliation with the remnants of Canada. ... ... This new form of affiliation should be aimed midway between the fragility of a treaty and the rigidity of statehood."

-- Will Canada Unravel ? Plotting a map if Quebec secedes, Charles F. Doran, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1996, Volume 75 . Number 5

* * *

Six years before the events of September 11th in the USA, CFR member and author Charles F. Doran wrote these words in the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs:

Plotting A Map if Quebec Secedes

"But is the thesis of continuing Canadian fragmentation after Quebec's secession plausible? Could North America unravel? The United States must take the possibility seriously enough to draw up plans for a form of supranational affiliation with the remnants of Canada. ... ... This new form of affiliation should be aimed midway between the fragility of a treaty and the rigidity of statehood."

Doran was writing at a time when the second attempt to force Quebec to "secede" into an EU-style "supranational affiliation" with the "rest of Canada" in 1995 had recently failed. In proposing a "remedy" in the event of a future success, Doran appears to be attempting to fast-track the North American Union that had been planned decades ago, in embryo, as the "Canadian Community" or the "Canadian Union", which René Lévesque used to call it. For, the phony "secession of Quebec" is and always was a scam to impose the EU system on this continent.

The 1995 attempt having failed, the clever CFR immediately proposes the very same thing as the "remedy" for its future occurrence, but applies the secretly looked for "supranational affiliation" of Rest-of-Canada-Quebec to ALL of North America.

In order to get this fast-track done the next time around, Doran "predicts" that not just the USA, but "North America" could "unravel" if Quebec "secedes". Therefore, so as to stabilize the continent, it must ALL be merged under the very supranational institutions Trudeau and Lévesque failed to impose on Quebec and "the rest of Canada" in 1980.

Had they not failed then, and again in 1995, Canada would now be long gone, and NAFTA would have linked the USA and Mexico into the "Canadian Union"... on the way to full-scale North American Union, which is emerging now through a series of other measures.

While Europe had been put through its paces at a steady gait with the advancement of European integration by successive treaties modifying and intensifying the initial treaty of association, the CFR's North America was flailing sovereignly in the grand European wake... a continent still yet to be "harmonized" with Europe.

Plans for global continental integration and world government have evidently been slightly delayed. However, South America was "harmonized" successfully on 3 May 2008, and CAFTA-ALBA is attempting to bring in Central America to link up the western hemisphere with the Johnny-come-lately merger of North America.

Interestingly enough, 9/11 seems to have sped the CFR's plans up. For, the system being imposed now via the CFR's "Building A North American Community" plan of May 2005, which adds flesh to the bones of the March 2005 Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) agreed among Vicente Fox, George Bush of 9/11 fame and Prime Minister Paul Martin, was always intended to emerge as a result of Quebec's phony "secession" into the EEC system. Instead, it is now being done on a fast-track under the auspices of 9/11 as the pretext. And this, without any independent inquiry in Canada into the "freefall" events of September 11th.

If 9/11 was an inside job, and "security" is removed from the SPP and the Building A North American Community blueprint of the CFR, is it reasonable to imagine any self-respecting stable and independently wealthy sovereign nation willingly annexing itself to one or two other states on the mere pretext of "trade" or staunching the flow of illegal aliens?

In effect, 9/11 is doing to North America what the phony "secession" of Quebec has not been able to get done. According to my research, however, the secession of Quebec will be attempted once again... at which point, Charles F. Doran may pen yet another self-serving update for the CFR and Foreign Affairs.... on how "lucky" North America was to have been "secured" and "integrated" in advance of Quebec "secession", so as to prevent the continent from... "unravelling".

With North America under "deep integration", what's the purpose now of Quebec "secession"? Why, to cover up decades of treason, and to make Canadians believe they were fortunate to have fallen by chance into NAU as a "remedy" against post-secession Balkanization.

Last month, Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Quebecois, which is planted illegally in the federal Parliament of Canada, toured Canada urging all the provinces to "secede". Meanwhile, the Americans have a 10th Amendment movement, which is urging all the US States to do the same thing. Could these two parallel movements be a coincidence? Or, are they evidence of superlative timing and counter-planning by the infamous CFR?

See my Gilles Duceppe FB group: Canada Tour 2010 - Treason Rally (still in development):
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=117511084929452&ref=ts

You can read the whole Doran article here:

"Will Canada Unravel? Plotting a Map if Quebec Secedes". Charles F. Doran · September/October Foreign Affairs (CFR) 1996

* http://www.calameo.com/books/0001117903f34af45c741

For a better view of the "plan" back in 1979, read Lévesque's "white paper" on his desire to replace the Confederation of Canada with a Treaty of Association similar to that of the EEC as it then was:

Québec-Canada: A New Deal. The Québec Government Proposal for a New Partnership Between Equals: Sovereignty-Association

* http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790dfe2654ed468

For more discussion of the scam, as I unravel it, see my blog:

http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

NB: Must see my VIDEOS in this FB group "Habeas Corpus Canada".

"SECEDE FOR THE VATICAN"

"SECEDE FOR THE VATICAN"

Canada apparently has many enemies, the Roman Catholic Church among them. The Vatican, that is, the Pope, was instrumental in the destruction of the sovereign nation of SFRY Yugoslavia by using the "nation-state" status of Vatican City to "internationally recognize" a rebel component of the SFRY as a state. See:

"In 1993, the Pope Openly Embraced Kosovo Secession"
http://emperors-clothes.com/medal.htm

The Church is apparently deeply involved in the phony "secession" of Quebec. During 1997 "hearings" on the "Reference re the Secession of Quebec", amicus curiae (friend of the court) Joli-Coeur, tabled public statements of Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte. Some of those statements are mentioned in Hansard.

We know that the phony secession of Quebec is and has always really been intended to impose the EEC-EU system of government on this continent, a step toward world government. Can the Vatican be unaware of this scam? Hardly. Therefore, reasonable observers would have to think that the Vatican must be abusing French Canadians, as our politicians are, using them to destroy Canada for NAU and world government.

There have apparently been "Pope sightings" on the guest list of the Bilderberg. What is the Catholic Church planning to gain in the long-term from the wrack and ruin of the international system of nation states?

Here are a few examples of the Catholic Church pushing Quebec secession:

Source: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2332761&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1

/ Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ):

/ 1035

However, Quebeckers have understood what is at stake. In the last several weeks, we have seen and heard men and women from every political background condemn the government for what it is trying to do. Since I have little time left, I will name only a few of them. Claude Ryan, chairman of the no committee during the 1980 referendum and former Leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec; Daniel Johnson, leader of the no committee in 1995 and present leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec; some senators, and among them Jean-Claude Rivest; former Conservative ministers, among them Monique Vézina; reporters who are not always on our side but who have vigorously condemned what the federal government is doing. There were also members of the church hierarchy, namely Mgr Blanchette, bishop of Rimouski; Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, who delivered the same message, namely that "It is for Quebeckers to decide their own future."

[ ... ]

/ Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ):

[...]

/ 1225

Other key figures like Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, archbishop of Montreal, and Monseigneur Bertrand Blanchette, archbishop of the diocese of Rimouski, have said that the Supreme Court should not decide the future of the Quebec people, thus echoing the position taken by the bishops of Quebec and Canada in favour of self-determination, at the centennial of Confederation in 1967.

/ Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

/ 1355

Think about Jean-Claude Rivest, Conservative senator and former special advisor to the Liberal premier, Mr. Bourassa, a federalist, who said at one point that never again would Quebec go through what it went through after Charlottetown. Think about André Tremblay, special constitutional advisor to Robert Bourassa in Charlottetown in 1992. Think about Cardinal Turcotte—and that tops it all—who, despite his very delicate functions, has had the courage to take a stand in this debate, knowing what kind of criticism he would draw because of that. Where does the Liberal Party of Canada stand in Quebec at this moment apart from the support it gets from Alliance Quebec? I would like my colleague from Beauce to respond to that.

This old Hansard, and in particular Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte's public statements supporting the illegal referendums "to secede", has inspired me to create some images on the subject.

My goal is to expose the essential hypocrisy, and cruelty of the Church urging French-Canadians to liberate themselves to destroy Canada for some blood-chilling share of power the Church may have in store for itself under a one-world government.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Blog: http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

« FAIRE SÉCÉSSION POUR LE VATICAN »

Le Canada a apparemment beaucoup d'ennemis, l'Église Catholique Romaine parmi eux. Le Vatican, c'est-à-dire, le Pape, était instrumental dans la destruction de la nation souverain de l'ex-Yougoslavie (SFRY) en utilisant le statut d'état-nation du Vatican afin de « reconnaître » internationalement un composant rebel du SFRY comme un état.

« In 1993, the Pope Openly Embraced Kosovo Secession » (« En 1993, le Paper ouvertement embrassé la sécession de Kosovo »)

http://emperors-clothes.com/medal.htm

L'Eglise est apparemment profondément impliquée dans l'escroquerie de la « sécession » de Québec. En 1997, pendant les « audiences » sur le « Renvoi relatif à la Sécession de Québec », l'amicus curiæ (« ami de la cour ») Maître André Joli-Cœur déposa devant la Cour suprême du Canada quelques déclarations publiques de Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte. Certaines de ces déclarations sont mentionnées dans Hansard.

Nous savons que le vrai but de la sécession de Québec est -- et toujours a toujours été -- d'en imposer par « traité » le système juridique et politique du CEE-UE, une étape vers un gouvernement mondial. Le Vatican peut-il nier toute connaissance de cette escroquerie ? À peine.

Donc, les observateurs raisonnables devraient penser que le Vatican manipule les Canadiens français, tout comme le font nos politiciens, afin de détruire le Canada au profit des élites qui poussent l'Union Nord-Américaine, étape vers un gouvernement mondial.

Les noms de quelques Papes ont été vus sur les listes d'invité de Bilderberg.

Qu'est-ce que l'Eglise catholique a l'intention de gagner à la long terme de la ruine du système international d'états-nation ?

Voici quelques exemples de l'attitude de l'Eglise catholique à l'appui de la «sécession» de Québec :

À voir : Source: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2332761&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1

/ M. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ):

/ 1035

Cependant, au Québec, on a compris l'enjeu. On a vu et entendu, au cours des dernières semaines, des hommes et des femmes de tous les horizons politiques dénoncer le geste que tente de poser le gouvernement d'en face. Je vais en nommer quelques-uns, compte tenu du temps qui m'est alloué: Claude Ryan, président du comité du non lors du référendum de 1980 et ancien chef du Parti libéral du Québec; Daniel Johnson, président du comité du non en 1995 et chef actuel du Parti libéral du Québec; des sénateurs, en autres, Jean-Claude Rivest; d'anciens ministres conservateurs comme Monique Vézina; des journalistes, qui ne sont pas toujours de notre côté, mais qui ont dénoncé vigoureusement les gestes que le fédéral est en train de poser. Il y a même des gens d'Église, dont monseigneur Blanchette, évêque de Rimouski et le cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, dont le message était unique, dont le message était le même: «C'est au peuple québécois de décider de son avenir».

[ ... ]

/ M. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ):

/ 1210

Je conclus, dans la minute qui me reste, en disant que le Bloc québécois n'est pas tout seul à dénoncer cette situation. Je n'aurai pas le temps de vous lire toutes mes citations, mais je vais vous nommer des gens qui disent la même chose que nous: le cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte; M. Claude Ryan, l'ancien chef du camp du non des fédéralistes, en 1980; M. Daniel Johnson, l'ancien chef des fédéralistes du camp du non, en 1995 et qui, jusqu'à preuve du contraire, est encore chef du Parti libéral du Québec, ce serait donc encore lui le chef des fédéralistes au Québec; M. Lucien Bouchard; M. Alain Dubuc; le député de Sherbrooke; le député de Laurier—Sainte-Marie, chef du Bloc québécois; M. Alain Pellet, président de la Commission du droit international des Nations unies; M. Gordon Wilson, conseiller constitutionnel du premier ministre de la Colombie-Britannique. Il y a beaucoup de gens. Il y a un consensus qui est même plus que québécois, qui est en train de se faire ailleurs qu'au Québec, même sur la scène internationale.


/ Mme Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ):

[...]

/ 1225
D'autres personnalités, comme le cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, archevêque de Montréal, monseigneur Bertrand Blanchette, archevêque du diocèse de Rimouski ont souligné que la Cour suprême n'a pas à décider de l'avenir du peuple québécois, reprenant en cela la prise de position des évêques du Québec et du Canada en faveur du principe de l'autodétermination lors du centenaire de la Confédération, en 1967.

/ Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

/ 1355

Quand on sait que M. Jean-Claude Rivest, sénateur conservateur et ancien conseiller spécial du premier ministre libéral, M. Bourassa, qui était un fédéraliste, s'est tenu debout et a dit, à un moment donné, que jamais plus le Québec ne vivrait ce qu'il venait de vivre au lendemain de Charlottetown, que M. André Tremblay, conseiller constitutionnaliste spécial de M. Robert Bourassa, à Charlottetown, en 1992, et que le cardinal Turcotte—c'est la cerise sur le sundae—, malgré des fonctions très délicates, on le sait, a le courage de prendre position dans le débat sachant la hargne dont il serait victime, où est le Parti libéral du Canada au Québec actuellement si ce n'est avec Alliance Québec, tout simplement, comme appui? J'aimerais connaître la réplique du député de Beauce.

* * * * *

Cet ancien Hansard, et plus notamment les déclarations publiques du Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte à l'appui des référendums illégaux m'a inspiré à créer des images sur le sujet.

Mon but est de démasquer l'hypocrisie essentielle, et la cruauté de l'Eglise qui exhorte les Canadiens-français qui ne sont carrément pas emprisonnés à «se libérer» afin de détruire le Canada pour gagner sa part du pouvoir sous un éventuel gouvernement mondial construit à partir de la fusion des unions continentales y compris l'Union nord-américaine.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
La Contestation Judiciaire Officielle
À L'Union Nord-Américaine
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Blog : http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/

Billet : « PAULINE MAROIS soutient l'Union nord-Américaine »http://espace.canoe.ca/habeascorpuscda/blog/view/38581