|
|
Sixty-one years later, Canada is still declared
to be at 'war' under the auspices of the Emergenies
Act formerly known as of the WAR MEASURES ACT. In true
Orwellian double speak war is reclassified to now mean any kind
of 'war-emergency' and the possibility of being at 'war-emergency'
is for PERPETUITY. When
King declared war in WW2, the government at the end of WW2,
NEVER declared the war to be OVER. The proclamation ending WW2 was
supposed to be published in the Canada Gazette but it is yet to
be found.
The
Toronto Telegram, 02/09/1945, Refusal To Recognize Supremacy of
Parliament:
Quote: "Acts of Parliament are sometimes fearfully and wonderfully made. The War Measures Act of 1914, which is in force today, is an example in point. Realizing the NECESSITY for quick executive action in time of war, Parliament, by this measure, surrendered much of its jurisdiction to the cabinet. Having surrendered its supremacy, Parliament made no provision whereby it could recover it. All that is necessary at any time to bring the Act into force is a proclamation issued by the government through the Governor - General stating that a state o f war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists.
Having thus provided for a dictatorship over a considerable section of the country's life, Parliament saw that it might be necessary to place some safeguard in the enactment to prevent a cabinet, which had enjoyed these extraordinary powers, hanging on to them indefinitely after the war had come to an end.
It therefore solemnly declared that these
powers should be exercised only "during war, invasion or insurrection,
real or apprehended. "With that provision snugly included
in the bill, Parliament felt that democratic rights had been fully
protected. Events show that confidence to have been misplaced. War
Measures Act was brought into force at the beginning o f the recent
war.
But though there is no longer any "war, invasion or
insurrection, real or apprehended, the close of the war brought
no automatic release from the controls imposed under the
War Measures Act, and the cabinet still operates under this
measure independent of parliamentary action, the solemn declaration
of Parliament to the contrary notwithstanding that the Act should
be in force only during a state of war. Parliament's obvious intention
has been frustrated by Its own carelessness in providing elsewhere
in the Act that a cabinet order, issued through the Governor - General,
is all that is necessary to establish that a state of war exists,
and that a state of war continues 'until by the Issue of a further
proclamation it is declared that the war, invasion or insurrection
no longer exists."
The defense of the King government of the retention of powers under the War Measures Act is that the law expressly provides that the government's failure to issue a further proclamation declaring the war to be at an end is conclusive evidence that the `war still continues.’ This it tries to excuse by the evasive suggestion that though the conflict has ceased, the effects of the war are not yet over. Since the effects of the war may continue indefinitely, this excuse would seem to include the possibility of the War Measures Act being retained in force in perpetuity.
If any meaning is to be given to Parliament's
direction that the powers granted to the cabinet by the Act shall
be exercised only during war, invasion or insurrection, real or
apprehended, it is that the Act should have become inoperative when
Japan submitted. That direction can be interpreted only by an order
to the cabinet of the day to issue the necessary proclamation when
the conflict ends. That order from Parliament the cabinet is apparently
not prepared to obey. Full democracy is to be restored as, when
and is the cabinet is ready to do so.Unquote
As war with Japan has been finito for sixty one years now, the question
to be asked is, WHO, exactly is the government at Canada
at WAR with? There is no easy answer to this. Is it the
people? Is this a silent mixed war, in which the government has
declared that the people are the enemy? Or, have they declared war
against the, juridical PERSON-ality? Whomever
or whatever, the cabinet is in war against, it cannot be denied
that there is an eternal state of war as the cabinet refuses to
give up the extraordinary powers that were granted to them by Parliament.
Anyone who has eyes to see and ears to listen, it is but a well-established
fact that full democracy has not been restored and, the cabinet
is ruling by military dictatorship ... Having thus provided
for a dictatorship over a considerable section of the country's
life. War-emergency
is not only an act, but a STATE or CONDITION, for nations are
said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as
to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any
matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which
they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared
publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide
it.
Diefenbaker
states that the BIll of Rights, is ... subject
to the security demands of war. Perhaps this explains the
wherefores and the why all of the top bureaucrats are code-named
GENERAL e.g.
attorney-general, receiver-general, governor-general. Diefenbaker,
instigated The Canadian Bill of Rights, but still inserted a condition,
... subject to the security demands of war. If
he, in 1960 as prime minister did not have the knowledge that the
cabinet was operating under extraordinary war powers, who
would? He also refers to the Bill of Rights
as a CONTRACT between the individuals of Canada
and the Government of Canada. In the Canadian
Bill of Rights Part 5 section 3, Jurisdiction
of Parliament, it states: The provisions of Part I shall be
construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative
authority of the Parliament of Canada. Are we, as men and women
the individuals ASSumed to be under the jurisdiction of parliament,
or does our implied consent to the contract Diefenbaker
proposed make it so? Or, is the contract 'null and void' under the
continued effect of implemenation of the War-Emergencies Act?
The irreftuable and conclusive evidence that the `war still
continues' is that administrative-military tribunals
aka courts exist. There has been every attempt to overlay the common
law of the land with administrative-military law but it is the common
law of the land that applies to men and women, not military law.
After 1939, every so-called "act or law" put in place
is not law, as it has been done under the guise of emergency war
powers, and is simply the rules of necessity of force/conquest,
originating from and existing in military, martial law jurisdiction.
Therefore as the cabinet of the government of Canada, is, to this
very day, operating under the extraordinary war-emergency powers
declared in WW2, there does not exist a lawful base from which to
create any valid law. The Bill of Rights, silented under martial-military
law, would then be said by the cabinet, such as Diefenbaker
in 1960, to be null and void as it is subject to the 'security demands
of war'. Perhaps this explains why the motley crew of bureaucrats
called public servants display a marked aversion for law of any
kind ... In time of war, laws are silent.
What most people don't understand is that 'statute laws' do not apply to them, as the administrative-military law of necessity is only meant for those who ' freely consent, volunteer' ... to serve as bodies politic and corporate entities also known as a juridical PERSON-ality. Military law no matter how it has come to be, is law applicable only for the corporate government, parliament and their employees, and has no force and no effect on men and women, the civilans of the land, as the majority have never choosen to serve in the military. Therefore IF a military enlistment number does not exist, we are not a bona fide member of the military, so military law per se does not apply to men and women. However, men and women are suckered into volunteering e.g. voluntary compliance, and believe that the flesh and blood living soul and the juridical PERSON-ality are one and the same. Two faces in law=one. What people fail to comprehend is that ink on a piece of paper can never authorize or represent anything, let alone a living soul. The only power that ink and paper has over anyone's private life, is the power that people CHOOSE to give IT.
= jurisdiction of war-emergency
= win/lose interactions consisting of eating or being eaten, living
or dying
= food chain
= suspension of all law other than complete freedom to act in any
manner to eat, kill, or destroy or avoid being eaten, killed, or
destroyed
= no law
= lawlessness
= complete absence of all lawful basis to create any valid law.
**The War Measures Act (enacted in August 1914)
was a Canadian statute that allowed the government to assume sweeping
emergency powers. It was patterned after the British Defence of
the Realm Act enacted about the same time. When the act was invoked,
citizens could be arrested and imprisoned without the benefit of
trial or even a stated explanation. The act was later repealed and
replaced with the Emergencies Act in 1988.The Emergencies Act, adopted
by the Canadian Parliament in 1988 in conjunction with the Emergency
Preparedness Act, replaced the War Measures Act with respect to
national emergencies. In addition to empowering the federal government
to intervene in national emergencies, the Act also specifies which
situations are deemed to be national emergencies. There are four
kinds of war-emergencies, i.e. public welfare emergencies, public
order emergencies, international emergencies, and war emergencies.