Updated: Feb 11
Is it illegal for the Canadian Government, the Provincial Premiers, and City Mayors to derogate from legal International Universal Human Rights Treaties even in times of emergency or war that both Canada, and the U.K. have signed?
The answer to the above question is an absolute YES, it's illegal!
You can continue reading and downloading, or watch the video explaining this blog and documents.
What would Canadian John P. Humphrey, a drafter of our Universal Human Rights 1948 and non-derogation of rights, have said to the Rouleau Commission about what has transpired in Canada since 2020?
The Government of Canada can't say they didn't know who this man was, and what he has done for the peoples of this country and worldwide.
Professor John Humphrey, McGill News Vol. 52, No. 3,
p. 1 — Photo Credit: Nick Deichmann, McGill News / McGill University Archives, PR034886
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
History of the Declaration
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, was the result of the experience of the Second World War. With the end of that war, and the creation of the United Nations, the international community vowed to never again allow atrocities like those of that conflict to happen again. World leaders decided to complement the UN Charter with a road map to guarantee the rights of every individual everywhere. The document they considered, and which would later become the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was taken up at the first session of the General Assembly in 1946.
The Commission on Human Rights was made up of 18 members from various political, cultural and religious backgrounds. Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, chaired the UDHR drafting committee. With her were René Cassin of France, who composed the first draft of the Declaration, the Committee Rapporteur Charles Malik of Lebanon, Vice-Chairman Peng Chung Chang of China, and John Humphrey of Canada, Director of the UN’s Human Rights Division, who prepared the Declaration’s blueprint. But Mrs. Roosevelt was recognized as the driving force for the Declaration’s adoption.
See the link below to read more on our rights and why they are automatically imbedded into our Constitution even, if they are not inserted into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Provincial Charters. See: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
REALITY: The International Universal Human Rights, including The International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, supersede our national and provincial Charters that were agreed to by the U.K. and Canada. Neither the World Health Organization (WHO), Health Canada, Public Health, nor any Private Corporate Policy can infringe upon these rights regarding employees or customers, even if they unknowingly signed an agreement against these rights just to be able to work.
Even though Canada was deemed an independent Country (State), the U.K. was responsible for the proper decolonization of Canada's colonial peoples. According to the U.K. Imperial Parliament, “Independence” only meant that the State itself was self-governing, not its citizens.
As the U.K. has reported "Independence does not mean Liberty", nor does "Independence mean Sovereignty". The 1982 patriation of Canada from the U.K. was meant to be about the proper self-determination and decolonization of Canadians and Indigenous Peoples.
However, Pierre E. Trudeau and the provincial premiers made certain that “We the People”, along with the Indigenous Peoples, did not collectively replace the Crown as the official shareholders, co-owners of the Crown of Canada. We were not effectively positioned above the government, thus unable to make important decisions for the betterment of this country and its citizens. This is where the theft of our Collective Rights occurred by disregarding our rights within "The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1514)", or our collective and individual rights within "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights".
More succinctly said, Pierre E. Trudeau seized our lawful collective rights for the Parliament of Canada, then appointing the government as Head of State, under the guise of a Parliamentary democracy and Parliamentary sovereignty. “We the Canadian Peoples” should have been the Collective Head of State above our government.
In 1982, the U.K. gave Canada 15 years to meet certain requirements. The government was required, in that allotted time, to consult the Peoples, which comprises of the entire population and the Indigenous Peoples, by way of referendums or other mode of consultation. These conditions were not met. Therefore the U.K. Imperial Parliament is still responsible for our proper self-determination and decolonization, which is why our Canada Act 1982 still sits in their legislature awaiting repeal forty years later.
There were two failed attempts to garner populace opinion through referendums. What did the Government and the Provinces do after that? They met behind closed doors and signed the agreements in private, without the Peoples’ consent. This type of behavior is not carried out by a specific political party. All parties follow the same code of conduct. Neither of the documents signed at that time placed the people above our government as the Collective Head of State as final decision makers, instead of the Crown, as it should lawfully have been.
The reason for this blog post is to provide the proof that all levels of Canadian Governance, Public Health, Associations, the Boards of Education and Licensing, and many Public and Private Corporations through their policies, to name a few, have derogated from respecting our Universal Human Rights, on purpose or through sheer ignorance since 1982. What Canada and the Provinces are doing to Canadians and Indigenous Peoples is atrocious.
In the instance of employees refusing the mandates, being sent for re-education, as being done with Jordan Peterson, our government is mirroring China’s mandates where crimes against humanity are being done to Muslims in re-education camps. To what levels will Canadians permit intrusion into their very existence before taking legal action, to stand up to these atrocities occurring in a country purported to be democratic
The beginning of one of the biggest atrocities that the U.K., Canadian Governments and Judiciary have done since 1960, other than what has transpired as of 2020, is to neglect the required legal education of its Peoples regarding our rights to collective self-determination and proper decolonization.
Both the U.K and Canada stayed silent with regard to our right to Decolonization and Self-determination from the U.K. It didn't matter that we were self-governing, we were, and are, still considered, through strict Constitutional Law, to be a colony of the U.K. 1982 proves it!
Section 9 of the Constitution 1867-1982 where Section B, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms resides, and within this Charter #3 stipulates the democratic rights of citizens, this is where the downfall of Canadians began. The theft of our Civil and Political rights (Section 1 of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights) occurred through the exclusion of our collective rights.
Since the creation of the 1982 Charter and its acceptance, without first educating the citizens and Indigenous Peoples, Pierre E. Trudeau, all other Prime Ministers and Provincial Premiers have, to this day, played a fundamental role in the corruption and deceit against its populace. Through the proper implementation of the "Rule of Law", this maneuver would constitute a treasonous act by omission and oppression of our collective and individual rights, stipulated within "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights".
Canada purporting to be a democratic country means that it is a country ruled by the "Rule of Law". As quoted by the United Nations Security Council - "Laws which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards".
UNSC: The "rule of law" is a concept at the very heart of the Organization's mission. It refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.
Download the PDF
For many years, our governments have purposely neglected the "Rule of Law" which is entrenched into our Universal Human Rights, which was furthermore automatically entrenched into our Constitution as a consequence of the International Treaties, signed by Canada and the U.K., whether our government has made laws for them or not. No person can ignore the fact that our heads of the Canadian Government, Judiciary, Military, CSIS, RCMP, and Police knew what they were doing against the citizens and Indigenous Peoples since 1982. Canadian Governance has been, and maintains, a "Rule by Law" stealth authoritarianism against Canadians and Indigenous Peoples. This has to end.
How can we end their treasonous acts against us?
We can begin by looking here:
Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 – The supremacy clause
52.(1) 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.
The Constitution contains three provisions that are relied upon to provide an appropriate remedy to findings of inconsistency with the Charter: section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that a law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect; section 24(1) provides remedies against unconstitutional government action; and section 24(2) provides for the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Charter.
The Canadian Bill of Rights does not include an identical provision, although section 2 is somewhat analogous. Similar provisions may be found in the following international instruments binding on Canada: article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; article 2(1)c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; article 2(f) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and article 4(1)b) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
See also the following international, regional and comparative law instruments that are not legally binding on Canada but include similar provisions: section 2 and section 172(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America; article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Note, byway of contrast, section 4 of the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act (a non-constitutional document) in terms of the effects of a “declaration of incompatibility” with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The first mistake we make, including Lawyers and Jurists in Canada, is to fail to notice the omissions in the statements made on the Department of Justice website Sec. 52 (1) supremacy clause. They have only mentioned: "Similar provisions may be found in the following international instruments binding on Canada". For instance, they deliberately omitted from the Charter, most of the International United Nations Treaties to which the U.K. and Canada have legally signed. This includes the non-derogation of our rights, even in times of Emergency or War, to which they must initially justify before such derogations (suspension of law). Only certain aspects of our rights can be derogated from, and only for very short periods of time.
Quote by Lord Carswell re: Chagos decolonization from the U.K. "It is the function of the courts, however, to adjudicate upon legal rights, and no matter how sympathetic they may be to a party who has been badly treated in the past, they are required to apply the law in the present and apply it properly and impartially".
The precise non-derogations clauses can be read in the "Siracusa Principles" document, written by Jurists from many countries including John. P. Humphrey from Canada.
Therefore, this clearly means that the "Rule of Law" and non-derogation of our rights in Canada is being purposely ignored, according to the Constitution Act 1867-1982 and Provincial Constitutions as they are inconsistent with International Treaty laws and … this fact makes the U.K., Canada, the Provinces, the Judiciary, Public health, etc., in breach of these International Treaty laws.
It also means that they are also guilty of treason by ignoring most parts of:
The "Rule of Law Principles" in a democratic society
Our collective rights within The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1514)
Our collective and individual rights within The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The "Siracusa Principles" Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by The American Association for the International Commission of Jurists
Now, take a closer look, you can see the deception for yourself below:
The Canadian Bill of Rights does not include an identical provision, although section 2 is somewhat analogous. Similar provisions may be found in the following international instruments binding on Canada: article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; article 2(1)c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; article 2(f) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and article 4(1)b) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Lie and Oppression by Omission
There is a lot more binding Canada and the U.K. to the signed treaties than article 2 (personal rights) of the Covenant, especially with collective self-determination and decolonization of its people, required in 1982 when we would have determined: how we would have governed ourselves, and what responsibilities the government would have.
To add insult to injury most people, lawyers and jurists included, etc., will regurgitate the words of the government, without being cognizant that Canada and the Provinces had, since 1960 and 1966, 10 years to implement the rights to the decolonization and self-determination of its people, which was made official at the International level, and still remained so in the Treaties of 1976, since these rights are automatically part of our constitutions. Considering that Canada and the provinces have excluded some of our rights, and even if we take the date of ratification 1976, then they still cannot use any excuse for not having created the laws required. 47 years later and one would submit that their actions were deliberate, treasonous, justifying their own agendas.
Taking the full measure of what has happened since 1960 and especially 1982, if our rights would have been legally recognized in the Charter and Section 9 of our Constitution, “We the Collective People” would have had the authority to hold government to account.
"We the People" had the right to decide if and how we would choose to hold government to account so that they are fully accountable to us. The following is the difference between article 1 (collective rights) of the International Covenant and Article 2 (individual rights) Canada’s interpretation of Article 1:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
Now, compare Article 2 that Canada says it recognizes:
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
The documents provided in this blog along with the 3 previous blog posts will prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the objective of Siracusa’s International Commission of Jurists was to incite the signatory countries of the Covenant to uphold and implement the "Rule of Law", even in times or Emergency or War.
There is NO true justification for our governments, no matter the level, to have implemented totalitarian actions by imposing unlawfully created laws on purpose. The strategy of divide and conquer has also been implemented against the Canadian citizens and Indigenous Peoples, keeping us from seeing the sleight of hand performed by our governments, judiciaries and private corporations, to remain in a position of totalitarian power over the populace, all without our informed consent.
When Governments and Judiciaries no longer follow the "Rule of Law", it is up to the people of this country to end the corruption lawfully. We must learn to defend the "Rule of Law" the proper way. That can only happen through knowledge by becoming more educated and vigilant in our actions, by knowing our rights as Canadians and Indigenous Peoples, and by coming together, united for the sake of this country, ourselves and future generations.
Who is or was John P. Humphrey?
Humphrey made important contributions to the advancement of international law and human rights; "Government of Canada recognizes John P. Humphrey as a person of national historic significance"
From: Parks Canada
News release November 17, 2022 Gatineau, Quebec
John P. Humphrey - Inaugurated in September 2000 and located at Pierre Elliott Trudeau Park, the Côte Saint-Luc Human Rights Walkway is dedicated to those men and women who, by their steadfast commitment to humankind, have held high the torch of human rights and let it light the world.
“Canadians have been strong voices for the protection of human rights, but few individuals have contributed as much to advance the efforts as John P. Humphrey. His work contributed to the adoption of human rights initiatives around the world. John P. Humphrey has a noteworthy place in the history of Canada and is befitting of recognition as a person of national historic significance.” The Honourable Steven Guilbeault Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Minister responsible for Parks Canada
“As a Canadian lawyer, scholar, and human rights activists, John P. Humphrey was instrumental in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1947, which has served as a basis for drafting Canadian federal, provincial, and territorial laws that protect human rights. We are proud to honour Mr. Humphrey as a person of national historic significance for his prominent role in promoting human rights globally, as well as for being an integral part of Canada's constructive engagement in the world.” The Honourable Mélanie Joly Minister of Foreign Affairs
“John Humphrey believed strongly in the importance of human rights for all and the power of educating people about their rights. His commitment and vision have been foundational to the work of Equitas and continues to guide us today as we support human rights defenders across the world and with them, work towards greater social justice for all. We are thrilled that his contribution to Canadian history is being recognized and will act a reminder that defending human rights is the responsibility of all of us.” Odette McCarthy Executive Director, Equitas
John P. Humphrey was also a jurist who, along with others from many countries, explained the absolute NON-DEROGATION of Human Rights, even in time of war, by any country against its people clearly stated within the "Siracusa Principles". These jurists made certain that their motives behind the principles were not to be misinterpreted. They wanted to ensure that there was no room for error by justices.
Why were the "Siracusa Principles” so important during the Emergency Measure Act which was illegally enforced by Canada and the provinces?
A study was made in regard to countries derogating from Human Rights. Here are the document findings and recommendations, or download the PDF below: Human rights in pandemics: criminal and punitive approaches to COVID-19
Increasing attention to human rights and to evidence-based approaches has resulted in decreased use of criminal and punitive sanctions in public health policies and interventions, except in times of infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics.
Countries’ human rights obligations continue to apply in public health emergencies and should align with the Siracusa Principles, namely, that any limitation of, or derogation from, rights obligations must be lawful, pursue a legitimate aim, be strictly necessary and proportionate, be non-discriminatory, of limited duration and subject to review.
An analysis of COVID-19 emergency orders found that approximately half of all orders included criminal sanctions related to violations of lockdowns while few orders applied multiple elements of the Siracusa Principles.
In the context of public health emergencies, criminalisation and other punitive measures may heighten stigma, undermine trust and disproportionately impact marginalised populations.
As countries revise their strategies to address public health emergencies, they should align their laws, policies and practices to facilitate more supportive, rights-compliant responses, including critical analysis of whether criminal law has any role to play in public health emergencies.
See: SIRACUSA PRINCIPLES, Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by American Association for the International Commission of Jurists.