August 16, 2023

Many write , call me , asking me to explain to them in simple terms why I keep saying the Governments and the Courts have been violating The Charter of Rights and Freedoms , an important part of the written part of our Constitution, the Constitution Act 1982.

Reason One

The opening words of Part 1 of our Charter says this:


Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:’

These are the very first words of the Charter —and note at the end there is the punctuation mark —-a colon !

This means to anticipate what comes next , especially with the first word being the word ‘whereas.’

Therefore, phrases ‘ supremacy of God ‘and ‘the rule of law ‘were meant to give a framework in which the other following parts of the Charter were to be considered.

What has happened is that Government mandates and lockdowns, through public health orders and other similar means   have ignored considering this in any of their decisions , boldly saying these actions follow the Charter, conform with the provisions of the Charter.

The courts have followed this Government behaviour in confirming these deliberate acts of omission , saying the Governments’ actions are within the Constitution .

But they could only say this because they performed a trick—-they left out the FRAMEWORK CONCEPTS  through which the rest of the Charter was to be considered.

There is nothing in the constitution that says the Governments or Courts could ignore the opening words of Part 1 of the Charter!!

So we have a violation of the charter . This is an act of omission.

Governments or the Courts are not at liberty to select what parts of the Constitution they will use to set public policy or render a judgement .

If that were true we all could select what laws we want to follow. We all know there would be no civilized society , no rule of law, if that were to happen .

Governments are obligated to see to it that any new policy or program meets all of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Courts must do the same when rendering judgements based on the Charter.

In one court case back in 1983 a Provincial Court Judge in Alberta  named Stevenson addressed the opening words of the Charter saying it still shows that

‘ the Charter does not recognize any particular denomination, and (noticeable by its absence) it does not refer to a Christian God.’

This is what apparently other courts have relied on as we see in a recent court decision in Alberta that references this !

But the first Ministers who approved this wording of just the word God were all Christians —-we believed it to be self evident .

We only knew a Judaeo Christian God!!!!!!

Do you remember the words of the US Declaration of Independence ——

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–

So one Judge tells me AND NINE OTHER FIRST MINISTERS  WHO WERE ALL CHRISTIANS what God WE WERE referring to in 1981 when WE signed the Charter. ?


Reason Two

Even if one could get past this———and let’s for argument sake say we can —there is the issue of intent —what did the authors of the Charter intend when they approved Section 1 of the Charter :

1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Many try and say this gives Governments and Courts the latitude to take away rights and freedoms with mandates and lockdowns in an alleged health emergency.

The intent of the authors was this could only be used if the country’s  existence was in peril, war, insurrection. There was no such situation in the last three years with this manufactured pandemic.

How do I know that?

Because I was there.  My signature  is on the Charter.

And look at Section 4 (2) in ——-

‘(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.

That’s how we were thinking.

Reason Three

Now if you can get past these two reasons and still be sane —-well , let’s ‘for argument sake ‘ say you can —-you then have the Governments and Courts to prove that the policies , programs , mandates and lockdowns must be ‘demonstrably justified ‘ and ‘in a free and democratic society’ to satisfy this Section 1.

Have any of  Governments produced a report showing that what they were doing was ‘demonstrably justified’ like a cost benefit analysis?

No! Not one!!!

Would not ‘free and democratic society ‘ mean that the Parliaments of Canada , all fourteen, be involved  where the Constitutional rights and freedoms of their voters , citizens were being proposed to be taken away? The Parliaments were rubber stamps —-not engaged through Parliamentary Committees etc.

And the  Governments could have referred ( they all had the power) their proposed  policies directly to their highest court to check and see if what they were doing was constitutional . Not one did. I wrote all of them recommending this.

Then there is the SCIENCE

Many experts like Professor Douglas Allan of Simon Fraser University have shown that there were facts coming out as early as August , 2020 that what Governments were doing would involve more harm than good.

There was lots of independent good science from the Great Barrington Declaration to scientific studies by Canada’s own Covid Care Alliance to the experiences and study of Dr. Charles Hoffe, Dr. Stev Pelich , Dr. Roger Hodkinson , Dr. Francis Christian, Dr. Byram Bridle , Dr. Jordan Peterson and many more.

There were many international studies carried by Doctors for Covid Ethics , the World Council of Health, the British Hart Group, Panda, the Brownstone Institute and leading researchers like Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik of FLCCC , Edward Dowd , and Dr. Peter Cole , Stev Kirsh, Alex Berenson, and Robert Kennedy Jr. and the Children Health Defence professionals. Then there is the great work of Naomi Wolf on the Pfizer documents. Even US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has commented and citing Aristotle , noted that ‘ even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.’

There are many who have not heard of the book ‘Turtles All The Way Down ‘ Vaccine Science and Myth ——-there are others  who have heard of it but are afraid to read it, including medical people. Anyone interested or involved in medical science needs to read this book with its 1200 references.

And then there is the ultimate test —Common Sense

An experimental new substance for a vaccine , the makers of which had ‘immunity’ from litigation if the product failed and Drug Companies and Government at the same time saying such was safe and effective when they had negative information they were hiding. Drug Companies peddling a vaccine that had already been found  guilty of wrong doing in their medical research .

The law of common sense was violated .

Perhaps you know now why the courts don’t want to hear from me , why schools and universities refuse a chance for me to speak  and why the mainstream press are so hostile.

Summary :

  1. Governments and Courts ignored parts of our Charter , tried to tell me what I meant by God in the Charter, ignored the intent of the Charter’s authors in Section 1 ,  and did not meet the tests of Section 1 of the Charter.
  2. Independent Credible Science was and is blatantly ignored and abused .
  3. Common sense has disappeared.

I will also attach Modern Canadian Constitutional Myths , an article that I wrote some time ago that is also relevant to this discussion.

My best seller book of 2012 ‘Some Day The Sun Will Shine And Have Not Will Be No More ‘ has more information ( pages173 to 177 and pages 251 to 288) including copies of the original documents produced at the Constitutional Conference that created the Charter.  The book is still available electronically from Amazon.

Modern Canadian Constitutional Myths

A. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is Pierre Eliot Trudeau ‘s Charter

The Charter , part of the Patriation Agreement, was approved( signed) by 9 Premiers and the Prime Minister, Pierre Eliot Trudeau, on November 5, 1981. It is the authorizing document making possible The Constitution Act 1982 . It belongs to all Canadians. A unilateral action by Mr. Trudeau and his Government which included a Charter was rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada as unconstitutional in a decision on September 28 1981.

‘The court wrote: ‘We have reached the conclusion that the agreement of the provinces of Canada, no views being expressed as to its quantification, is constitutional­ly required for the passing of the “Proposed Reso­lution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada” and that the passing of this Resolution without such agreement would be unconstitutional in the con­ventional sense.’

B. The British Monarchy can still change our Constitution.

Accompanying the Constitution Act of 1982 is the Canada Act with the following statement :

‘No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law.’ In order for the U K Monarchy to exert power on Canada now one would have to see the Crown over rule the UK Parliament and violate the Constitution.

C. In 1981 The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was negotiated as a stand alone document.

In 1981 a package of proposals was negotiated which included the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was called the Patriation Agreement .The next year when legislated and  Proclaimed it became known as  the Constitution Act of 1982 containing  61 sections, 34 being The Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Other items include Aboriginal Rights, Equalization and Minority Language Rights, and non renewable natural resources

D. The Bill of Rights of 1960 was sufficient . Canada did not need the Constitution Act 1982/Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Bill of Rights of 1960 was a Federal Act covering just Federal Jurisdiction .  Section 5(3) says ‘The provisions of Part I shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.’ Furthermore, this Act could be changed any time by a majority of MP’s in the Federal Parliament.

The Constitution Act of 1982 /Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a National Document for all the nation , covering both Federal and Provincial jurisdiction. As Section 52 says : ‘The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. ‘Furthermore, to change the Constitution would take the agreement of 7 Provinces and their legislatures and the Federal Government and the Federal Parliament representing  50% of the Population.

E. Section 1 of The Charter allows The Governments’ mandates /lockdowns  that have and are occurring during the so called ‘pandemic. ‘

The intent of Section 1 was for it to apply only when the country’s existence was in peril—war , insurrection. The so called ‘pandemic ‘ did not meet this threshold . The idea of impending peril to permit override is right in the Charter . In Section 4 of the Charter reference is made to ‘real or apprehended war ,invasion or insurrection ‘ to extend the Parliament beyond the mandatory five years’.

Even if Section 1 did apply the tests of ‘demonstrably justify ‘ and ‘free and democratic society’  in that Section were not met by any of the Governments in imposing their mandates/lockdowns.

F. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a secular document .

Part 1 of the Charter states : ‘Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:’

In other words the Charter is to be understood in the context of these two principles, one being religious, non-secular.

Honourable A. Brian Peckford P.C.

Only Living First Minister Who Helped Craft The Constitution Act /Charter of Rights and Freedoms