OPEN LETTER REQUEST
Ohsweken, April 05, 2023
TO: SENATORS and PARLIAMENTARIANS BY REGISTERED LETTER, EMAIL or FAX
Senate and Parliament of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada, K1A 0A4
_______________________________________________________________
Dear Senators and Parliamentarians,
We, the Canadian Peoples' Union NFP (C.P.U.) – represent Canadian citizens and Indigenous Peoples throughout Canada. We are requesting your help to ensure that our civil and political rights above our government, as well as yours, are properly respected. With the imminent approval of Bill C-11, the Notwithstanding Clause (article 33) as well as Province of Ontario Bill-3, these rights can, once more, go unaddressed by our governments. (BTW, what I meant by the Senators declaring Bill C-11 unconstitutional is meant to mean inside their meeting.)
With your dutiful collaboration as our representatives, we are asking you to declare Bill C-11 unconstitutional in its entirety. The government cannot deny us any of our rights as specified in the Siracusa Principles, which include non-derogation of “freedom of expression” as stated by the United Nations subcommittee of which the Canadian government and the Quebec Government are very aware of. The subcommittee further commented on the Notwithstanding Clause (article 33):
Fact: Québec Premier Bourassa passed Bill 178, which included the notwithstanding clause to restrict the use of commercial signs in languages other than French. After the new law was criticized by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Premier had the National Assembly rewrite the law so that it conforms to the Charter. The notwithstanding clause was removed.
See CCPR/C/47 /D/359/1989 and 385/1989/Rev. 1 - 5 May 1993 http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/html/v359385.htm
To continue to ignore these facts and the RULE OF LAW indicates that those who write our laws, including those who approve them without the knowledge of the Siracusa Principles, or instill them even though they are aware of them, create an injustice to all Canadians and Indigenous Peoples of Canada, especially to those worldwide who fought for these rights during and after WWII.
These are the very principles our laws and human, civil and political rights were created for. They also complete the foundation of the Rule of Law. Anything else is a rule by law, which is contradictory to the very cornerstone of this country.
The responsibility to respect International Laws and universal rights, such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 which Canada and the U.K. have signed in 1976, falls upon both the U.K. and the Canadian Parliaments. In addition, the Courts must uphold both the Constitution and the International Laws under the Rule of Law Principles (principles that protect the people from governments that create seemingly arbitrary laws that are neither based on the Rule of Law, nor on protecting the people). Instead, by not honoring the citizens’ collective rights, Canada has been ruling BY law since 1982.
A request for an official constitutional correction placing the collective people in our rightful place was addressed to the United Kingdom by the C.P.U. in March 2022; unfortunately, we received no response. On July 30, 2022, in Ottawa, the C.P.U. and its supporters stood up and activated our collective civil and political rights, which was another step in initiating a dialogue with the U.K. and the Canadian governments. Prior to 2022, the C.P.U. had also written to David Lametti and various other officials hoping to shed light on the neglected state of democracy in Canada, including the disregarded non-derogation of the rights of our peoples during the pandemic; no response was received.
The deliberate malfeasant advice given by Minister of Justice Mr. Lametti, and the legal stance of the Canadian government reflects a gross injustice perpetually committed against Canadian citizens and Indigenous Peoples, and to yourselves “our Senators and Parliamentarians,”.
It does not matter which province you are from or represent; all Canadians are equal across the provinces and territories. No provincial or municipal government has the right to have different rules under these legislatures ignoring equality rights of all its peoples. The last 3 years could have been very different if our rights had not been omitted; the World Health Organization cannot override these rights anymore than the Canadian Governance. These are serious breaches of international treaties and a complete disrespect of the peoples of our country.
It is crucial that these issues be addressed by all Parliamentarians, all Canadians, and all Indigenous Peoples of Canada. Furthermore, utilising “controlled” surveys or inviting favoured people to speak at inquiries without getting input from all sides of the situation does not and cannot show that Canadians want what the governing bodies do. More needs to be done before making such claims or applying unconstitutional laws.
You will find attached in PDF or paper format the Siracusa Principles which has been successfully used in courts of law and in Canada by our Justices when in conflict with the Canadian Government. These key principles are not included as part of the curriculum in law education in Canada. All lawyers and Canadians need to know about these principles as court challenge outcomes could have been different than what we have witnessed in the last 3 years and before; this includes the prevention of the use of the Emergency Measures by the Canadian Government, as they did, thus making the inquiry null and void.
The irony in all of this, is that Canada claims to be excellent in protecting the rights of Canadians, and our human rights agencies are there to make sure that Canada implements its obligations. From our research their statements are hypocritical.
Please refer to sections 30, 31 and 32 of the Siracusa Principles below:
30. National security cannot be invoked as a reason for imposing limitations to prevent merely local or relatively isolated threats to law and order.
31. National security cannot be used as a pretext for imposing vague or arbitrary limitations and may only be invoked when there exists adequate safeguards and effective remedies against abuse.
32. The systematic violation of human rights undermines true national security and may jeopardize international peace and security. A state responsible for such violation shall not invoke national security as a justification for measures aimed at suppressing opposition to such violation or at perpetrating repressive practices against its population.
States parties should not derogate from Covenant rights or rely on a derogation made when they are able to attain their public health or other public policy objectives by invoking the possibility to restrict certain rights, such as article 12 (freedom of movement), article 19 (freedom of expression) or article 21 (right to peaceful assembly), in conformity with the provisions for such restrictions set out in the Covenant, or by invoking the possibility of introducing reasonable limitations on certain rights, such as article 9 (right to personal liberty) and article 17 (right to privacy), in accordance with their provisions;
(d)
States parties may not resort to emergency powers or implement derogating measures in a manner that is discriminatory, or that violates other obligations that they have undertaken under international law, including under other international human rights treaties from which no derogation is allowed. Nor can States parties deviate from the non-derogable provisions of the Covenant – article 6 (right to life), article 7 (prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or of medical or scientific experimentation without consent), article 8, paragraphs 1 and 2 (prohibition of slavery, the slave trade and servitude), article 11 (prohibition of imprisonment because of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation), article 15 (principle of legality in the field of criminal law), article 16 (recognition of everyone as a person before the law) and article 18 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) – or from other rights that are essential for upholding the non derogable rights found in the aforementioned provisions and for ensuring respect for the rule of law and the principle of legality even in times of public emergency, including the right of access to court, due process guarantees and the right of victims to obtain an effective remedy; see the attached pdf below.
Furthermore, as stated by the Human Rights Committee, our rights are also protected online. No government can use laws to regulate our online access under freedom of expression. Nothing in law states that the government has the right to rule over the people. The government does not have this right, even if it thinks it does through the election process.
The Canadian Governments and Parliamentarians need their votes to reflect the conscience of the people when laws being passed affect them directly. This is why parliamentarians should not be allowed to vote as partisans on statutes and Acts but rather should vote their conscience in consideration of their fiduciary obligations to the people. It is obvious that during parliamentary votes, parliamentarians do not reflect taking into consideration the right of conscience of all Canadians since they must act according to their party’s orders on how to vote. Bill C-11 and other bills like it, should not get drafted in the first place.
Our livelihood is in peril due to our governing bodies’ decisions. Where is the justice in all of this? If we can’t depend on our Senators and Parliamentarians to provide a “Sobering Second Thought” with the ability to veto what is unconstitutional, who can we depend on when so many breaches are being orchestrated?
Looking at the big picture of what Canada has become since 1982 given the RULE OF LAW and the concealment of the Siracusa Principles from lawyers and observing the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal along with the provincial agencies fraught with abuse and negligence of all of our rights; it is never too late to take positive action. You can all help make a huge difference by eliminating Bill C-11 and to further assist us in disallowing unconstitutional laws that derogate from our rights, and yours.
Appended is an excerpt of the forgotten Universal Declaration of Human Rights which are automatically embedded in our constitution under international Instruments that Pierre Elliot Trudeau and all Prime Ministers and Premiers since, have hidden from public knowledge. As well, the Siracusa Principles are attached for your perusal so that the Canadian Government, Parliament, Provincial and Municipal legislatures can no longer ignore it.
We would be honored if you would schedule a meeting with us at your convenience. If you would like more information, please do not hesitate to contact us as time is of the essence before Canada is irreparably ruptured by those who want to destroy our country and its peoples. Please see the Appendix on pg. 7.
Without Prejudice,
Respectfully and warmest regards,
Nicole Lebrasseur
The Canadian Peoples' Union NFP
Activating our Collective Civil and Political rights
nicole@canadianpeoplesunion.com
Tel: (226) 777-5580
______________________________________________________________
APPENDIX:
1. Universal Human Rights:
ARTICLE 5
1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.
2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
Part 1
ARTICLE 1
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.
PART II
ARTICLE 2
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 legislative 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.
ARTICLE 3
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.
ARTICLE 4
1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States ·Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other
obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.
2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.
3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.
See the attached PDF.
2. Rights Committee General comment No. 37 (2020) on the right of peaceful assembly (article 21)*
Section III
Obligation of States parties regarding the right of peaceful assembly
States must leave it to the participants to determine freely the purpose or any expressive content of an assembly. The approach of the authorities to peaceful assemblies and any restrictions imposed must thus in principle be content neutral, 21 and must not be based on the identity of the participants or their relationship with the authorities. Moreover, while the time, place and manner of assemblies may under some circumstances be the subject of legitimate restrictions under article 21, given the typically expressive nature of assemblies, participants must as far as possible be enabled to conduct assemblies within sight and sound of their target audience.22 See the attached PDF.
Read more here: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G20/232/15/PDF/G2023215.pdf?OpenElement
3. Guidelines for lawyers in support of peaceful assemblies
Lawyers and legal practitioners play a crucial role in helping to ensure full respect for the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and access to justice. They do so by supporting organizations’ and individuals’ ability to comply with any procedures required by law for the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; by working to ensure that individuals and groups are protected against violations and abuses in the context of peaceful assemblies; by holding those responsible for violations to account; by pursuing remedies for those whose human rights have been violated in the context of peaceful assemblies; and by promoting structural changes oriented towards the reform of systems which may lead to violations of the rights to freedom of assembly and association. See the attached PDF.
Read more here: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G21/166/18/PDF/G2116618.pdf?OpenElement
You can download the PDF version of this letter here:
Other sent documents to the Senators
Easier to read document.
Original Byllantyne U.N. Document
Principles on Indigenous and other Customary or Traditional Justice Systems, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law
