Notes Of My Speech We Unify Conference —May 26-28, 2023–Reclaiming Canada —Victoria, BC.
A.
Is It possible to restore our democracy?? There are some who do not even believe that our democracy has ben damaged or that we are on the verge of losing it altogether.
So , first one must acknowledge we have a problem and can define it. Some of the elements of this definition are:
—-my own personal experience —denied an opportunity to speak at a public school and public university, and for my views to be deliberately ignored by media—denied my right to travel —
—-our PM breaking our conflict of interest law 5 times and still is PM and a MP—no accountability
—unconstitutional lockdowns, mandates,
—The corruption of science
—-governments controlled by law breaking big pharma,
—flawed PCR test ,known by all governments, now an historic relic—no accountability
—the lie of a false safe and effective mantra—-no accountability
—tens of thousands of covid vaccine injuries in our country and thousands of deaths , ignored by the authorities —no accountability
—-our chief Justice, and PM denigrating the truckers convoy without one shred of evidence—-no accountability
—-our Conservative leader of the opposition demeaning a freedom fighting MP from Europe and criticizing his own caucus for meeting such a democrat .
——three so called covid inquiries ,all ethically and morally wanting—-no accountability
—-NDP leader and Party supporting a corrupt administration
—-22% of Canadians 18 and over do not have a regular heath care practitioner—
—2012 second last of 11 industrialized countries on health care , below average on affordability, last in terms of performance vs spending—-
—23 in world on ease of doing business, 122 of how long it gets to get a electrical permit ,
——innovation —-US is 2nd and Canada 13–
—-debt increased 10 times in 40 years
—mainstream press in the pocket of the governments
And this is a short summary . Yes , we have a problem
B.
Dr. Charles Lugosi has presented the specific legal constitutional issues , the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being abused—-the preamble being ignored, or mangled —-section 1 of the Charter re-ordered to fit the Government narrative —-
Politically and Constitutionally it will take a huge effort!
Right now Constitutional Change is virtually impossible .
Provinces have succumbed to the federal money and violated the division of powers provisions of our constitution. This means that getting the 7 Provinces needed to make Constitutional Change is not possible. And then there is the problem if one could open the Constitution the debate over what needs to be changed , added omitted —
It’s not new but the so called pandemic has put things in focus and some of us have awakened.
Federal intrusion into areas of exclusive jurisdiction began many years ago
Note that in 1958—-The Progressive Conservative Party announced —-
JANUARY ~ The Progressive Conservative government more than doubled hospital construction grants provided through the provinces.
Hospital construction grants were also extended to two new areas-renovation of exist- ing hospital facilities and to residences for internes.
Grants were raised from $1,000 to $2,000 per bed for active treatment beds.
Grants were raised from $1,500 to $2,000 per bed for chronic, convalescent, mental and TB beds.
Grants were raised from $500 to $750 per bed in nurses’ residences.
New grants of $750 per bed were provided for internes’ residences.
New grants for renovations were provided up to one-third of total cost.
There were subsidies for the coal industry of BC and Alberta
These are areas of exclusive jurisdiction of the Provinces ‘ So the health agreements of today have a long history preventing ,now , Constitutional amendment.
C
So what I propose is a two step process for restoration of our democracy
What can be done now ——under the existing Constitution .
If that is successful this could lead to agreement of an agenda for Constitutional Change some years from now or at least have the Charter preamble and section 1 restored to their true meanings .
My first step entails the elements of my Magna Carta of last year .
But there has been no movement on this . None .
The present parties in the House of Commons seem uninterested in making their country work better and be honest.
And there is no ground swell for real change in the country at large—witness the re- election of the mainstream parties in Provinces including the two largest Provinces , where the Provincial Governments there were forced to have the Military assist in managing nursing homes and their reports were a damning indictment of health mismanagement on a grand scale.
Let me break down the main elements that could see improvement if there was a willing political class and a united ethical public organization even under the present system and move us some distance towards democracy again——
A. Honesty —Ethic—
Robert J. Kennedy Jr first point in his program to be President of the USA—Governor DeSatis has referenced honesty and ethics in his opening remarks in announcing his Presidential bid.
—-political parties publishing annual audited financial statements on their websites and at their party meetings
—-amending the conflict of interest legislation covering MP ‘s and all Provincial Legislators where any MP, MLA that contravenes the act according to the Ethics Commissioner or a Court of Law cannot serve in that Parliament.-
——law makers cannot at he same time be law breakers
B.
Parliamentary Supremacy —
—overhaul the Emergencies Act to put Parliament and parliamentary committees in control of actions taken in any emergency
—— parliamentary more power to parliamentary committees
——reduce the size and power of the PMO and PCO—
——eliminate the use of omnibus bills
——reduce time for private members bills to be voted upon
——De-centralize the Federal Government bureaucracy —2016–Federal Government Ministries—24 of 30 chiefs of staff from Ontario or Quebec —
——2016 —41% of Public Service of Canada worked out of National Capital Region —45 years earlier —25%
——Central agencies of Government versus Parliamentary Agencies -more power to Parliamentary Agencies and Parliamentary Officers alike The Auditor General, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Privacy Commissioner, Ethics and Conflict Interest Commissioner
——Lobbyists —over 8000 in Ottawa——-many of whom represent powerful corporate interests, and special interest groups—-their power must be eliminated .
—public service is like a ‘huge whale that cannot swim —quote from Donals Savoie ‘s book ‘Democracy In Canada’ —the Disintegration of Our Institutions
C.
Judiciary —
—have become policy makers, the sole role under the constitution of the legislators—they have usurped our parliamentary, representative, responsible democracy —the judicialization of or system.
—Hon. Romeo Le Blanc , former trudeau sr Cabinet Minister and former Governor General told Donald Savoie , author of ‘Democracy In Canada’ —-‘Lawyers are the only people in the world who can regain their virginity: all you have to do is appoint them judges.”
Judiciary in 2008 ruled on Education Policy in New Brunswick , then later in the same Province on Health Policy and in 2012 on education policy in British Columbia
—-Now denying our rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982.
—-candidates for superior court positions across Canada must appear before Parliament for questioning and be approved by Parliament—secrecy has to stop.
D. Education —-
— Many of our present legislators have never read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
—few Canadians know how our county is governed
—-all public schools in Canada and other schools approved and supported by Governments must be mandated to have a Civics subject in Grade 8 and in every higher grade beyond that grade until graduation.
D. Sovereignty
—-Canada must remain a sovereign nation
—special legislation to reject any power, authority, by any international organization including the World Economic Forum over any aspect of Canada’s jurisdiction as a sovereign nation .
—all international trade agreements or treaties will only be agreed to by Canada if the country ‘s full sovereignty is maintained.
E. Balanced Budgets—-
——Federal Per Capita Net debt in 1986-7 was $10,000—20121-2 -over $30,000.
——New Legislation to make deficit financing illegal unless in a given year there is a parliamentary led study demonstrating an emergency exists that demands a one year deficit.
All of this can be done now——no Meech Lake Accord—no Charlotte Accord —-no separatist referendum ——
Just plain old ‘using the system we have’——and a citizenry willing to come together to do it—-
Why do we seek things that are impossible ——now .
Why do we reject things that are possible, probable —can be done under existing laws?? NOW.
We don’t have to criticize anyone, just get together to see that who ever is in power Federally and Provincial , that we come together as a people, voters , citizens and demand peacefully these changes .
Simultaneously , we can agitate for the longer term —with having Judges faithful to the Constitution —-interpret —not legislating —-
this is perhaps the greatest violation of our constitution——by the very people who are suppose to be last bastion to protect it ——
And then Constitutional Change if demonstrably necessary ——but remember if present trends are allowed to continue whatever the wording it would not matter—-given how the present wording has been ignored, misrepresented , and mangled.
So our challenge is to take action on the important things that we have the power to change —now.
If we are unable to grasp this and do it under the existing Constitution what chance is there to change the Constitution later, something far more problematic??
Trying to do the impossible now is a fantasy —-and leaves us a helpless democratic cripple——
One is almost tempted to pose the question :
What or who is behind this inaction to do what’s possible now ?
Two books recommended:
A. ‘Turtles All The Way Down ‘—Vaccine Science and Myth—Edited by Mary Holland and Zoey O’ Toole
B. ‘ Surveillance Capitalism ‘ , The Fight For A Human Future At The New Frontier Of Power, by Shoshana Zuboff
1. Section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes Canada’s unwritten Constitution. In Saumur v. City of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299 Justice Rand of the Supreme Court acknowledged fundamental original freedoms that are arguably absolute: “…freedom of speech, religion and the inviolability of the person, are original freedoms which are at once the necessary attributes and modes of selfexpression of human beings and the primary conditions of their community life within a legal order.”
2. I contend that an original freedom is a natural law truth that all human beings are free by nature and equal in their inherent God given rights, including those life, liberty, conscience, thought, belief, opinion, religion, and speech. I further contend that these rights and freedoms are the lifeblood of a free and democratic society. The example that I will focus on in this discussion are the original freedoms of speech and expression, without which a free and democratic society cannot exist.
3. What is a free society? In the Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 SCR 295, at para. 94-95, Chief Justice Dickson attempted to give a definition:
“A truly free society is one which can accommodate a wide variety of beliefs, diversity of tastes and pursuits, customs and codes of conduct. A free society is one which aims at equality with respect to the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms … Freedom must surely be founded in respect for the inherent dignity and the inviolable rights of the human person. … Freedom can primarily be characterized by the absence of coercion or constraint. … Coercion includes not only such blatant forms of compulsion as direct commands to act or refrain from acting on pain of sanction, coercion includes indirect forms of control which determine or limit alternative courses of conduct available to others. Freedom in a broad sense embraces both the absence of coercion and constraint, and the right to manifest beliefs and practices.”
4. Significantly, the Supreme Court approved limitations even on guaranteed freedoms: “Freedom means that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience.”
5. What are the characteristics of a democratic society? Dickson CJC discussed this in 1986 in the Big M case:
“… an emphasis on individual conscience and individual judgment also lies at the heart of our democratic political tradition. The ability of each citizen to make free and informed decisions is the absolute prerequisite for the legitimacy, acceptability, and efficacy of our system of selfgovernment. It is because of the centrality of the rights associated with freedom of individual conscience both to basic beliefs about human worth and dignity and to a free and democratic political system that … in my view underlies their designation in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as “fundamental”.”
6. A genuine democracy is evaluated by how it treats its minorities. A political system that enacts legislation and issues executive orders to the detriment of those who do not hold political power threatens democracy. A democracy thrives when it is served by a strong and vibrant Constitution that embodies the values and morals of its society. The Constitution acts as a check and balance against the power of those who are elected to public office, for it serves as a shield against the tyranny of the majority.
7. In a democracy, freedom of expression must be unrestrained when it comes to exposing and proclaiming the truth.
8. In Cusson v. Quon, 87 O.R. (3rd) 241 (2007), the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized a public interest defense to responsible journalism. Justice Sharpe stated at para. 125:
“Democracy depends upon the free and open debate of public issues and the freedom to criticize the rich, the powerful and those, such as police officers, who exercise power and authority in our society. Freedom of expression extends beyond political debate to embrace the “core values” of “self-fulfilment”, “the communal exchange of ideas”, “human dignity and the right to think and reflect freely on one’s circumstances and condition … Debate on matters of public interest will often be heated and criticism will often carry a sting, and yet open discussion is the lifeblood of our democracy. This court recognized … that “[i]f these exchanges are stifled, democratic government itself is threatened”.
9. McLachlin CJC and Major, J., dissenting in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, recognized freedom of speech and expression as an inalienable original freedom that is integral to a free and democratic society:
“… liberal democracy demands the free expression of political opinion, and affirmed that political speech lies at the core of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantee of free expression. [para. 1]
… Political speech, the type of speech here at issue, is the single most important and protected type of expression. It lies at the core of the guarantee of free expression; [para. 11] …
The right of the people to discuss and debate ideas forms the very foundation of democracy; see Reference re Alberta Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100, at pp. 145-46. … As Dickson C.J. stated in R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, at p. 764, “[t]he state therefore cannot act to hinder or condemn a political view without to some extent harming the openness of Canadian democracy and its associated tenet of equality for all.” [para. 12] …
… Permitting an effective voice for unpopular and minority views — views political parties may not embrace — is essential to deliberative democracy. … Free speech in the public square may not be curtailed merely because one might find the message unappetizing or the messenger distasteful … [para. 14]
… The ability to engage in effective speech in the public square means nothing if it does not include the ability to attempt to persuade one’s fellow citizens through debate and discussion. This is the kernel from which reasoned political discourse emerges. [para. 16] … Members of the public — as viewers, listeners and readers — have a right to information on public governance, absent which they cannot cast an informed vote; … Thus the Charter protects listeners as well as speakers; [para. 17]
10. In Switzman v. Elbling and A.G. of Quebec, [1957] SCR 285, Abbott J. suggested at p. 328 that the freedoms of speech and expression were absolute:
“… neither a provincial legislature nor Parliament itself can ‘abrogate this right of discussion and debate.’”
11. How is it that freedom of speech, religion and the inviolability of the person, which are all part of the lifeblood of a free and democratic society, has become limited in the era of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
12. I contend that the limitation by the Charter in Section 1 of absolute rights and freedoms is incompatible with a free and democratic society. A free and democratic society in the Western tradition is known by its absolute freedoms of speech, religion and the inviolability of the person, which are all original freedoms recognized in Canada’s unwritten Constitution. The inviolability of the person includes, without limitation, the right to life, and the freedoms of conscience, thought, belief, opinion and expression. To this list I would add the absolute right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly, for the limitation of these freedoms is not compatible with a free and democratic society.
13. The text of other various provisions of the Charter identifies substantive rights that cannot be limited by the government. Those rights include the right of every citizen to vote, the right of every citizen to enter, remain in and leave Canada, the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, and the right not to be subject to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
14. Some substantive rights are qualified, subject to internal limits in the written text, and are not absolute. Examples include the continuation of elected governments beyond five years in times of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, limitations upon equality and mobility rights by affirmative action laws, search and seizure that is determined by a court to be reasonable, and whether the principles of fundamental justice permit the depravation of an individual’s right to life, liberty and security of the person.
15. The principles of fundamental justice are understood to include the principles at the foundation of natural justice, such as impartiality, fairness, and the opportunity to present one’s case. In the Charter era, those principles include the genuine rule of law (as I define it – see Addendum), equality, and the presumption of innocence.
16. Legislation or executive action that weaken or abolish any of the principles of fundamental justice, in my view, cannot be saved or justified in any circumstances by s. 1 of the Charter, and must be declared to be no force and effect, contrary to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. [See Appendix]
17. My views diverge from decades of established jurisprudence that has used the text of section 1 of the Charter as a “one size fits all” test to save or justify legislation or executive action that limits the rights and freedoms of people. The Supreme Court has decided that there are no absolute Charter rights and freedoms, even though the text of the Charter identifies which specific rights and freedoms are guaranteed.
18. To determine whether any particular right or freedom may be subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, the Court since 1986 has applied what is known today as the Oakes test. That test was created in the context of a criminal case where the defense successfully argued that putting the onus of proof upon a defendant on trial for a narcotics criminal allegation to prove innocence violated the defendant’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
19. To establish that a limit to a constitutional right or freedom is justified, a court must be satisfied that the limit is “reasonable” and “demonstrably justified” in a “free and democratic society.” Is the objective of the limitation of sufficient importance to override a constitutional right or freedom? Is the objective related to concerns that are pressing and substantial to warrant importance? If yes, then are the chosen means proportional, in that the measures to limit constitutional rights and freedoms are both reasonable and demonstrably justified?Proportionality depends on the circumstances, and requires a balancing test between the interests of society and the interests of individuals and groups. The measures taken to limit constitutional rights and freedoms must be carefully designed, and not be arbitrary, unfair, or based on irrational considerations, and be rationally connected to the government’s objective to limit rights and freedoms. The measures taken must impair as little as possible the right or freedom at stake. Above all, the measures imposing limits must be proportional. The greater the effects of the measures are, the greater the importance of the objective must be, in order to be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
20. In Oakes, the Court recognized that the objective of combating drug trafficking was a worthy objective, but its measures were not proportional in its effects, for the reverse onus law in s. 8 of the Narcotics Control Act could result in the wrongful conviction of someone who was guilty only of possession, but not of trafficking.
21. What emerges from a careful reading of the Oakes case, is the Court’s awareness of the need to be very careful in its application of section 1 to ensure the preservation of Canada’s free and democratic society. The governing principle is that legislation may not intrude upon rights and freedoms when there is an adverse impact upon life in a free and democratic society that abides by the Rule of law and the Supremacy of God. The goal of the Court was to see that people who may be innocent are not wrongfully convicted. This is consistent with biblical law, and the Rule of Law, that only the guilty are punished.
22. The Oakes test began to be used universally in Charter litigation. The original test became eroded, with the result that the careful nuances and hierarchy of rights envisioned by Chief Justice Dickson has been varied in favor of a diluted simplified version of the original test. Scholars and practitioners, including Christopher Bredt and Brian Bird, have advocated for a rights-specific approach to a section 1 analysis.
23. Today, the Court has abandoned the stringent standard of justification and weakened the evidentiary threshold required to support a section 1 justification. An example of this is found in the Court’s decisions about freedom of expression in public places, for the method or location of the expression may be regulated and limited. The effect of the Court’s resort to definitional balancing is to shift the evidentiary burden from the government to the Charter claimants and is coupled with the weakening of the government’s evidentiary burden at the section 1 stage of analysis.
24. The loss of constitutional rights and freedoms also occurs when the Court reduces the value of the Charter right or freedom at stake, depending on the context of the alleged breach. One needs only to remember the examples of the truckers protest in Ottawa and the enactment of bubble zone laws to ban disagreement or disapproval with government objectives to understand the severely diminished value of the right to assemble and to express peaceful political protest. When the federal Liberal government used its executive power to unilaterally activate the Emergencies Act, without meeting the pre-conditions stipulated in that legislation, to crush a perceived political threat to its power. This act violated the Rule of Law and demonstrates that the guarantee of rights and freedoms in the Constitution is worthless in a society that is no longer free or democratic.
25. A new element has been introduced into the section 1 test: deference to the government’s reasonable apprehension of harm test, which presumably extends to any political threat to the ruling political party.
26. In 2023, the government of Canada passed a new censorship law, the Online Streaming Act that limits freedom of speech and expression on the internet, in social media and in broadcasting. This legislation is incompatible with a free and democratic society. The Canadian Radio and Television Commission has been vested with the authority to prevent the dissemination of content that may be truthful but categorized as “disinformation.” The CRTC must ensure that the information that is allowed be accessed by the people of Canada “reflects” Canadian “attitudes, opinions, ideas, and values.” Who decides what these attitudes, opinions, ideas and values are? The government in power, of course!
27. Now the programming available to the people of Canada must “serve the needs and interests” of “racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages — and reflect their circumstances and aspirations, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of Indigenous peoples and languages within that society.” The result is that Canadians no longer have a free and open internet, and that Canadian content really means a propaganda platform to advocate for the political agendas of special interest groups such as LGBTQ activists.
28.The “nanny” state wants to control the thoughts, views, opinions and attitudes of Canadians who deserve to have access to all information so that they can have access to the entire marketplace of ideas in order to be able to discern the truth. Unfortunately, the task of the government appointed panel of 9 commissioners on the CRTC is to decide what information must be purged and blocked from public access. In this way, the CRTC can shape public opinion and eliminate opposing viewpoints that do not serve the interests of the ruling political party.
29. In its decision of 2022-68 the CRTC banned Russia Today (RT). In doing so, the CRTC stated:
“… non-Canadian services do not have a right to be distributed in Canada … the Commission can de-authorize services where it is of the view that the distribution of a service … is no longer consistent with the policy objectives and, therefore, no longer serves the public interest.
In the case of Canadian television services, section 5 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987 provides that:
5 (1) A licensee shall not broadcast …
(b) any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability; …
(d) any false or misleading news.
… In addition to concerns about the programming targeting Ukrainians, the record of this proceeding also indicated that the programming on RT has also historically targeted the LGBTQ2+ communities. … [and] clearly constitute abusive comment in that they tended to or were likely to expose gay men to hatred or contempt on the basis of their sexual orientation. … [and] negatively impact the public perception of Ukrainians, the Commission considers that that too would constitute abusive comment.”
30. It is only a matter of time before Fox News gets cancelled from Canadian broadcasting. Canadians were unaware that the child killer at the Nashville Covenant Christian School was transgender until this information was broadcast by Fox News on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Canadian media withheld this information because this news might tend to or is likely to expose the transgender community to hatred or contempt on the basis sexual orientation.
31. A censorship decision by the CRTC is an administrative action that is subject to judicial review governed by administrative law principles. In Canada v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 SCR 653, the merits of an administrative tribunal’s decision will not be overruled if it is reasonable. At para. 10, the Court stated: “The analysis begins with a presumption that reasonableness is the applicable standard in all cases.” At para. 15, the Court added:
“… the court conducting a reasonableness review must focus on the decision the administrative decision maker actually made, including the justification offered for it, and not on the conclusion the court itself would have reached in the administrative decision maker’s place.”
32. There are only two exceptions to a presumptive reasonableness review. At para. 10, the Court stated: “Reviewing courts should derogate from this presumption only where required by a clear indication of legislative intent or by the rule of law.”
33. What’s wrong with knowing all the facts? Would the minds of Canadians be poisoned by knowing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Has Canada become a nation of snowflakes? Can the people of Canada handle the truth?
34. In the 1950’s, legislation was passed to protect Canadians from the evil ideas of communists. The Supreme Court ruled that this law was wrong. In Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] SCR 285 (SCC), Rand, J. stated:
“Apart from sedition, obscene writings and criminal libels, the public law leaves the literary, discursive and polemic use of language, in the broadest sense, free. The object of the legislation here … is admittedly to prevent the propagation of communism … The aim of the statute is … to prevent what is considered a poisoning of men’s minds, to shield the individual from exposure to dangerous ideas, to protect him, in short, from his own thinking propensities.
… But public opinion, in order to meet such a responsibility, demands the condition of a virtually unobstructed access to and diffusion of ideas. Parliamentary government postulates a capacity in men, acting freely and under self-restraints, to govern themselves; and that advance is best served in the degree achieved of individual liberation from subjective as well as objective shackles.
… Liberty in this is little less vital to man’s mind and spirit than breathing is to his physical existence.”
35. So long as section 1 is wrongly interpreted to limit constitutional original freedoms, like freedom of speech and expression, Canada can never be a free and democratic society.
36.The universal use of a “reasonable” or “reasonable limit” test to curtail original guaranteed constitutional freedoms is dangerous, for it has the effect of eliminating truth and enables social engineering. The BC human rights decision of Oger v. Whatcott (No. 7) 2019 BCHRT 58 is a prime example of how political speech, which is supposed to be the single most important freedom in democracy, is no longer protected in Canada.
37. Oger was a candidate in a provincial general election and was the target in a Flyer distributed door to door by Whatcott. He asserted that Oger was unfit to hold public office because Oger was dishonest for self-identifying as a woman. Whatcott exposed the truth that Oger was born a biological male and that it was impossible for Oger’s DNA to change from male to female. Whatcott contended it was a lie for Oger to pretend to be a mature female of the human race. Whatcott quoted from the Bible as authority to justify his religious and moral belief that they were only two genders, male and female. Whatcott argued that his message was truthful and the message in his Flyer was constitutionally protected.
38. Oger complained that Whatcott’s political and religious expression offended both s. 7(1) of the BC Human Rights Code that forbids any publication that “indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate” and in s. 7(2), a publication that “is likely to expose a person or a group or a class of persons to hatred or contempt.”
38. The Tribunal engaged in a balance and proportionality analysis and determined that the objectives of the human rights legislation justified limitations upon Whatcott’s freedoms of political expression and religion. The Tribunal relied upon the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Comm.) v. Whatcott, [2013] 1 SCR 467, which utilized the Oakes test. The Tribunal ruled that it must apply only an objective test, the perspective of an imaginary reasonable person, as envisioned by the Tribunal, to decide if Whatcott violated s. 7(1)(a) or (b) of the Code or both. [para. 25]
39. The Tribunal ruled that freedom of expression is not absolute, for this freedom may be limited if the values expressed in the ideas are judged to detract from values held by a reasonable person’s vision of a free and democratic society. [para. 107] In other words, the reasonable person envisioned by the Tribunal will accept that some expression has greater equal than other expression. In other words, politically correct woke speech is encouraged and valued; truthful speech that is unpopular and offensive is not valued and suppressed.
40. The Tribunal refused to accept that Whatcott’s message in his Flyer was constitutionally protected political speech. It ruled that Whatcott’s Flyer undermined democracy and was unlawfully discriminatory, for it challenged the legislated imposed human right of transgender ideology:
“This framework of deceiver/pretender is at the heart of the ideas that Mr. Whatcott puts forth in the Flyer. By calling Ms. Oger’s identity a “falsehood” and an “impossibility”, she is cast as deceptive and therefore unworthy of public office …
The Flyer … seeks to exclude a group of already marginalized persons from political life. In Mr. Whatcott’s own words, he sought to disinvest Ms. Oger “of all political power” because she is a transgender woman. This speech does not enrich Canada’s democracy — it undermines it.
[See para. 105-127]
41.Whatcott’s attempt to impugn a political candidate’s moral integrity and fitness to hold public interest office and to persuade voters to vote for other candidates in other political parties was determined by the Tribunal not to be a “legitimate public interest.” His conduct demonstrated an intention to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. Accordingly, the Flyer violated s. 7(1)(a) of the Code. [para. 135-136]
42. It did not matter that Whatcott spoke the truth. There is no defense of truth in defending an allegation of hate speech in human rights proceedings. Evidence of truth is inadmissible and not relevant in human rights cases:
“… Truthful statements can be … presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech.” [para. 149]
43. The Tribunal concluded that Whatcott’s expression was not political speech but hate speech, prohibited by the Code:
“A reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the Flyer as likely to expose Ms. Oger and transgender people to detestation and vilification based on their gender identity. This is a violation of s. 7(1)(b) of the Code.” [para. 176]
44. Do you consider yourself to be a reasonable person? I invite you to read two examples from Whatcott’s Flyer that were identified by the Tribunal as likely to expose Oger and transgender people to hatred and contempt.
Example One
Ronan Oger (picture left) is a biological male who has renamed himself “Morgane Oger” after he embraced a transvestite lifestyle. Ronan is running for the NDP in the Vancouver-False Creek riding and B.C.’s media and the NDP are promoting a false narrative that Ronan is a woman born into a male body … The truth is there are only two genders, male and female and they are God given and unchangeable. Ronan may have government ID that refers to him by the French female name ‘Morgane’ and the media, NDP and everyone in the riding might try to pretend Morgan is a woman. But the truth is Ronan’s DNA will always be male, he will never have a uterus, and no amount of cosmetic surgery, fake hormones, or media propaganda is going to be able to change these facts.“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them”. Genesis 1:27Because gender is God given and immutable, “transgenderism” is an impossibility. A male cannot “transition” into a female, nor can a female “transition” into a male. One can only cross dress and disfigure themselves with surgery and hormones to look like the gender they are not. This practice is harmful and displeasing to God … [para. 155]
Example Two
In addition to the physical and social consequences of adopting a false sexual and gender identity, there are spiritual consequences too. Our God is a God of truth. Those who promote falsehoods like the NDP and B.C.’s major media and say it is ok to indulge in homosexuality or embrace a transvestite lifestyle do so to their eternal peril. Liars and the sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, nor will cowards. The truth is many B.C. residents know that promoting homosexuality and transvestitism is wrong, but are too cowardly or morally corrupt to speak up and defend what is true:“As for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death”. Revelation 2:8 [para. 162]
45. If you believe in the Bible, and are a devout Christian, you will believe that Whatcott’s thoughts are not hateful at all, but acknowledges the supremacy of God and obeys the moral authority of the Bible. His political message is an application of his sincere religious beliefs. As a reasonable person will find that Whatcott’s message was not hateful but truthful, lawful and constitutionally protected.
46. If you reject the supremacy of God, and the moral authority of the Bible, you will detest and vilify Whatcott for offending your view of reality. You will believe that gender fluidity is real and must be respected in a society that promotes and caters to self-identification, self-delusion, hedonism, immorality and narcissism. You will view yourself as reasonable, tolerant and accepting, and will oppose offensive expression that opposes inclusion, equity and diversity. As a reasonable person, you will find Whatcott’s expression to be hateful and discriminatory.
47. These extreme opposite views of what is objectively reasonable, illustrate why the section 1 Oakes test, when diluted into a simplified objective test of reasonableness, in reality imposes the personal views of the judges. The reasonable person does not exist and is just a legal fiction. This fiction allows rights and freedoms to be limited as the judges see fit. This defeats the intention of the authors of the Charter of Rights and Freedom, who wanted to guarantee certain absolute fundamental rights and freedoms that needed to sustain a free and democratic society.
48. The Oger case marks the death of political free speech and indirectly labels the Bible as hate literature. Anyone who quotes from the Bible, and tries to make Biblical morality relevant to contemporary political and cultural issues in modern day society, risks being prosecuted, thanks to the decision in Oger.
49. Resort to the latest reasonableness version of the Oakes test to limit original guaranteed rights and freedoms was never the intent of those Provincial Premiers who signed on to the final version of the Charter, according to the last living signatory to that document, Brian Peckford:
“The intent of section 1 was to be operable in a war, insurrection, or a threat to the very existence of the state.” The courts have mangled the concepts of demonstrably justified and free and democratic society, and have saved unconstitutional legislation and executive orders by just emphasizing a reasonable test. “Reasonable” has come to mean whatever the Supreme Court thinks is “reasonable.” This is wrong. Values and morality just become tradeable goods in a dark and unprincipled blob of jurisprudence.”
50. It is time to reclaim the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to restore it to its original vision, for the Constitution of Canada is all that guards this nation from its slide into tyranny. The judiciary must cast aside their assumptions, political bias and personal values and properly defend the Constitution of Canada with courage, by upholding the Supremacy of God, the authentic Rule of Law, and enforce the guarantee of all rights and freedoms, some of which are original, inalienable and absolute, found in in both the written and unwritten Constitution of Canada.
Addendum
I define the “Rule of Law” as life in a society governed by inherently just moral laws sourced from the Law given by God, where the people are submissive and obedient to the Supremacy of God. Life under the “Rule of Law” means to live in a free and democratic society that honors God’s Commandments, abiding by absolute standards of right and wrong, in a society characterized by willful obedience to truth, justice and righteousness. Constitutional limits are placed on the power of government, to permanently guarantee and protect the freedoms of conscience, religion, and morality from infringement. The authentic Rule of Law ensures equality, for no one individual or faction is above the law. All human beings, at all stages of life, from conception to natural death, have equal absolute inalienable rights to life, liberty and security of the person. The powers of the government are limited. All branches of government, whether executive, legislative, or judicial, are under the law, and accountable to moral and constitutional scrutiny to ensure conformity with the authentic Rule of Law. Justice, truth, freedom and democracy are the hallmarks of the Rule of Law.
Constitution Act, 1982
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
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.
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
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.
Fundamental Freedoms
2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
Greek Prime Minister and leader of New Democracy conservative party , Kyriakos Mitsotakis
That silence you heard last weekend was Europe not staging a freakout over an election in Greece. What a change from only eight years ago, when voting in the Aegean country triggered panic in Berlin, Paris and Brussels. The difference—although conventional wisdom is loath to admit it—is supply-side economic policies.
Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis slightly increased the vote share of his center-right New Democracy party compared to 2019 with nearly 41%. The far-left party Syriza, led by former Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, saw its vote share fall by about 11 points, to 20%.
A complex proportional-representation system means Mr. Mitsotakis fell short of a majority in parliament despite the widest margin of victory in a Greek election in decades, so he plans to call a new poll in June to gain a majority.
Voters credited Mr. Mitsotakis for Greece’s economic gains in the four years since he took office. The economy has returned to its size in 2010, the year its protracted crisis began, and unemployment has fallen sharply. This offered political inoculation against a corruption scandal New Democracy’s rivals tried to exploit. Whatever voters thought of those allegations, they decided they trust Mr. Mitsotakis more on the economy.
Greece was at the epicenter of the eurozone sovereign-debt crisis that started in 2010. Two bailouts followed, in 2010 and 2012, funded by European governments, the European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund. These came with punishing conditions, including steep tax increases, spending cuts Athens barely implemented and economic deregulation Athens mostly ignored. The result was an economic contraction of roughly 25%.
The fiasco culminated in 2015 with Mr. Tsipras’s election. He promised voters a better deal with less onerous terms. Instead he triggered a new crisis that required a third bailout. All the while, prominent economists in the U.S. and Europe said Greece should leave the euro, using a restored drachma to devalue the country back to prosperity while keeping the government-spending gushers open. But Greeks like the euro precisely because it had halted Athens’s many devaluations in the past.
Mr. Mitsotakis changed tack after his election in 2019 with reforms to spur private investment.
He cut the top corporate tax rate to 22% from 29%. Although the top rate of 44% on personal incomes is high even by European standards, taxes on capital gains (15%) and dividends (5%) are low to encourage investment. A pension reform that includes a defined-contribution component will ease the heavy burden of pensions on the budget.
Economic growth, tax reform and spending restraint allowed Greece to repay its IMF bailout loans early, and Athens is on the cusp of securing an investment-grade credit rating for the first time in 13 years.
The IMF and others fret that the tax cuts are too generous, or that Athens won’t have enough money to spend on “investment”—by which they mean public works and government services such as education.
But Mr. Mitsotakis is right that Greece needs more private entrepreneurship and investment. Voters appear to agree.
A struggling economy turning itself around by ignoring Keynesian prescriptions and focusing on the supply side? Imagine that.
And a party of the right winning big by delivering economic opportunity rather than imitating the left on spending? Imagine that too.
Here’s a first look at the results of my parent survey of 10,000 kids. It shows that the vaccines are pretty much a disaster. Birth defects were the control group.
Preliminary analysis of the results of my 10,000 child survey show that Andrew Wakefield was right: vaccines cause autism. There is simply no other way to explain these results.
Survey result data. This is the record level data for everyone to see. This is what public health departments should be doing themselves and making publicly available but nobody is for some reason. Why aren’t they collecting data like I asked for in my survey and making it publicly available
My initial odds ratio analysis. This looks at the odds ratio compared to the fully unvaccinated kids (no K shot, no vaccine) based on the number of vaccines given. Look at the About tab for explanation of the data. It should be self-explanatory.
Brigg’s analysis is the graph below. Adverse events are dose dependent: the more doses, the more adverse events.
Key chart from Matt Briggs’ third party analysis of my data. It shows that the more vaccines you give your child, the more likely they are to develop serious chronic disease.
But he lacked the background in autism to determine whether this correlation was actually causal. So he said that there was a correlation, but didn’t know enough to opine on causality.
Once you add that missing info (which he didn’t have at the time he wrote his analysis and I will explain in my next article), the data we have meets all the causality criteria.
How do you know it is the vaccines and not office visits?
In this 1998 paper in Pediatrics, you can see that in this study, only the measles vaccinecaused autism cases, not the mumps or rubella vaccines.
So it is vaccine-type dependent.
How do you explain that? The paper has been out for 25 years and never been retracted. Uh oh!
They can’t explain it. It’s been in public view for 25 years and NOBODY can explain it.
Summary
We’ve known for over 25 years that vaccines can trigger autism. Scientists have been denying it to protect their funding and their reputations.
Their reputations are now tarnished. This survey, combined with other evidence I’ve assembled, makes it crystal clear to anyone with a working brain that we’ve been gaslighted and lied to.
Parents were right. Andrew Wakefield was right. And my next article will reveal just how corrupt the “autism link deniers” are.
More in my next article which presents evidence supporting the claim that vaccines are the MAJOR cause of autism.
For many Texas Republicans these days, renewable power is about as welcome as a porcupine at a nudist colony.
In the state capitol in Austin, Republicans are targeting wind and solar power with a slate of bills that would clamp down on renewable projects by, among other things, adding additional environmental requirements and excluding them from a state tax break.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who effectively controls the legislative agenda, has vowed that lawmakers won’t leave Austin this month without approving legislation that would spur the construction and maintenance of conventional power plants, calling renewable energy a “luxury.”
Just 13 years ago, as he touted diversifying electricity supplies, then-Gov. Rick Perry compared wind projects to Spindletop, the oil gusher that launched the state’s petroleum era in 1901.
“Thanks to a new generation of hardworking visionaries, Texas is again leading the way on the renewable-energy front,” Mr. Perry said in 2010.
Wind and solar have grown to provide 31% of the electricity in Texas, closing in on natural gas at 43%. Several coal plants have closed, unable to compete against natural gas or the plummeting cost of building renewables, fueling more green investment.
But the success of wind and solar has provoked powerful enemies.
Many well-heeled, conservation-minded landowners across the state don’t want renewable projects near their ranches or recreational properties and have supported creating a state-permitting and siting process for clean energy.
Meanwhile, a battle for control of Texas’ vast power market is under way as lobbying groups for drillers and owners of gas- and coal-fired power plants back some of the bills under consideration. Many state Republicans are arguing for measures to prop up conventional power sources, saying they are necessary to maintain the reliability of the electric grid following its near collapse during a freak winter storm in February 2021.
The increasingly adversarial national politics of energy have crept in, too, as many Republicans bristle at President Biden’s climate policies.
Renewables have “become a four-letter word,” said James King, a landowner along the Pecos River in Val Verde County, where wealthy residents are pitted in battle against a planned wind farm.
King, a descendant of the founder of the King Ranch in South Texas, the country’s largest, supports renewables but thinks they should be out of bounds in the state’s most scenic and wild areas.
He is placing his own property along the Pecos River into a conservation easement, permanently limiting the way the land can be used.
Texas has more renewable energy projects on the grid and under development than any other state, according to the American Clean Power Association. More than a third of all U.S. clean-power installations last year were in Texas.
Renewable project developers say bills introduced during the current legislative session, which ends Monday, stand to dramatically overhaul the state’s electricity market in a way that would severely disadvantage wind and solar. Consulting firm Customized Energy Solutions at one point tracked 171 bills affecting the state’s electricity market, many of them anti-renewables.
One bill being negotiated between the state Senate and House could require wind and solar projects to effectively pay fees that would mostly benefit fossil-fuel plants. Another would have built new natural-gas-fueled power plants for emergency use only, though it stalled. A newer measure would offer low-cost loans for building or upgrading natural gas-fired generation, pending voter approval in November.
Texas developers have long benefited from being able to build sprawling wind and solar farms relatively easily, often in the expanses of West Texas. They doubled down on expansion plans as project costs plummeted.
More recently, projects pushed into new areas with entrenched interests. In many parts of the state, the fight over renewables is pitting neighbors against each other.
Alpin Sun, a European company, came to Texas in 2016, focusing on building solar farms in the relatively untapped northern part of the state, said CEO Bogdan Micu. It fanned out, wooing large landholders.
One such target was a 1,700-acre ranch southwest of Fort Worth owned by Kyle Bass, a hedge-fund multimillionaire famous for betting on the collapse of the U.S. housing market 15 years ago.
The area’s rolling grasslands are dotted with estates of wealthy Dallas-Fort Worth landowners and longtime farmers.
Alpin Sun offered an annual fee of $1,000 per acre to lease land for 30 years, Bass said. He refused: An avid conservationist, Bass said he doesn’t need the money and doesn’t approve of renewables development so close to valuable farmland or forests.
He also owns a ranch in the same area of Val Verde County as James King, and opposes that wind project.
If you can see a wind farm from your property, the value of your land drops, Bass said, while multi-acre solar farms look “like absolute crap.”
But the family to his west took Alpin Sun up on its offer to install solar panels across thousands of acres of farmland, according to Bass. Bass said that although he sympathizes with farming families’ need to make more money off their land, “we should put solar panels in the desert where all there is is sand and wind and sun.”
In Franklin County, 100 miles east of Dallas, attorney B.F. Hicks’ land includes more than 900 acres of native tallgrass prairie and woodlands that have been in his family since the 1800s, which he placed into a conservation easement a decade ago. “This is one of these virgin, unplowed original Texas prairies,” Hicks said, pointing to primrose, wild carrot, and Indian paintbrush.
Renewables projects often zigzag around landowners who don’t lease, and a planned 230-megawatt solar project by a unit of Italian energy company Enel would abut three sides of Hicks’ property. “It changes the drainage pattern of the land, it changes the flow of wildlife,” Hicks said. “It’s spreading rapidly. We just feel like we’re under assault.”
When Alpin Sun knocked on Tim Fuller’s door in Hopkins County in late 2018, the 64-year-old landowner said he jumped at the chance to lease his 85 acres for 30 years for a solar farm. In this case, it was being built by French energy company Engie. Fuller had retired from a job at a local utility a few years before and was trying to make extra income by growing hay and raising a few dozen cow
Ranching was hard work, he says, with meager profits that went up and down. Now, Fuller says he can earn “way over” 40% more by leasing his land to a solar farm than by rearing cows—and he doesn’t have to do anything.
“Solar panels are so much better. You don’t have to feed them.
They just sit out there and get all the money,” said Fuller, who lives in town. “It’s just an absolute godsend to me.”
A few miles east of Fuller, a grandson of oil mogul T. Boone Pickens is leading the fight against Engie’s project, which is near his mother’s 284-acre property. Michael Pickens says he opposes the project because of concerns that include its large size, the removal of trees, soil erosion and potential changes to water drainage.
Pickens worries that a big solar-power project would remove trees, cause soil erosion and potentially affect water drainage, including at this small pond on his mother’s property.
His late grandfather once attempted to build the largest wind project in the Texas panhandle. Ironically, the project was doomed by a lack of transmission lines, the exact thing that makes Michael Pickens’ mother’s ranch attractive for building new solar projects. “
“That’s what these guys are really after,” Pickens said, standing beneath the high-powered lines.
Some local opposition is natural for large projects such as theirs, said Julie Vitek, a vice president of government and regulatory affairs at Engie North America.
Fuller says he doesn’t take kindly to some of his neighbors’ anti-renewable proclivities.
“I have a big problem with you telling me what I can do with my piece of property,” he said.
What will it mean if Texas turns against renewable energy? Join the conversation below.
The Texas Real Estate Advocacy and Defense Coalition, a landowner group, is pushing a measure to require state permits for renewables that would call for environmental assessments, notification of county officials within 25 miles and public meetings. The bill stalled, but a version was amended onto another measure being debated in the session’s waning days. “
“Some of these projects are five to ten thousand acres and they have zero permitting,” said Jessica Karlsruher, the group’s executive director.
Wind and solar developers are also butting heads with conventional power producers as the groups compete for one the county’s largest electricity markets.
The renewable-energy boom in Texas was shaped by some of the characteristics that define the state itself—wide-open spaces, regulatory permissiveness and a fiercely competitive electricity market unlike any other in the country. An overhaul of the state’s power market approved in 1999 under then-Gov. George W. Bush set the stage for the renewable frenzy. Deregulation broke up the functions of monopoly utilities and introduced competitive auctions for wholesale power. Part of the plan included adding at least 2,000 megawatts of renewable generating capacity by 2009. Texas blew past that goal, set another and surpassed it too.
The federal production tax credit for wind producers, first passed in 1992 and extended and modified over time, meant wind generators could make money even at times when electricity prices fell to zero or went negative. Texas developers also tapped a popular state property tax break, used by everything from auto plants to data centers and LNG export facilities, that expired at the end of 2022.
Money is a sticking point in climate-change negotiations around the world. As economists warn that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius will cost many more trillions than anticipated, WSJ looks at how the funds could be spent, and who would pay. Illustration: Preston Jessee/WSJ
The combination of federal and state incentives helped make renewable projects among the cheapest and most competitive forms of power generation within the Texas market, which rewards those that can produce electricity at the lowest cost. Such projects now supply substantial amounts of electricity, especially on hot days when demand is high, leaving fewer days throughout the year when pricier coal- and gas-fired plants are needed.
The devastating winter storm in 2021 that left millions of residents freezing in the dark revealed tensions that had been simmering for years. Wind farms and gas- and coal-fired plants, as well as a nuclear plant, froze and failed. Both gas production and power generation from gas dropped by about a third. During the blackouts Gov. Greg Abbott pinned blame on wind and solar, which he said had “thrust Texas into a situation where it was lacking power on a statewide basis.”
The storm also called into question the viability of Texas’ “energy-only” market, long a fierce point of pride for lawmakers and regulators.
In Texas, power producers are paid only for the electricity they generate. All other competitive electricity markets in the U.S. offer producers some form of compensation for being ready to come online when needed, meant to maintain backup resources for emergencies.
Texas lawmakers, spurred on by conventional power-plant owners, continue debating incentives for power sources that can fire up on demand. Renewable-energy developers, whose projects only generate electricity when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, argue that unfairly favors fuel-fired power plants.
Large industrial power users and consumer and environmental groups have also raised concerns that the proposed incentives could result in substantially higher electricity costs and have fought for a cap.
The state’s largest gas plant owners, including Vistra and NRG Energy, have pushed for an expansive version of a credit that would pay power plants for their availability during times of need.
NRG last month pledged to build more gas-fired power plants in Texas if that were approved, and Vistra is considering doing the same.
Vistra CEO Jim Burke said he sees the credit as necessary to keep gas plants online to backstop renewables as the build-out continues.
‘It’s not anti-renewables,” he said. “It’s about how to ensure reliability as these plants likely run less.”
Mona Tierney-Lloyd, head of U.S. public policy for Enel, one of the largest renewable energy developers in Texas, said the company would consider scaling back development plans if lawmakers passed bills that made projects more difficult or expensive to build.
‘I would call it an interventionist approach to the market, as opposed to what Texas has historically prided itself on—an open market with competition driving the development of new resources,” she said.
The country’s most charismatic math teacher was standing in a middle school on a Friday night with a message for students and their anxious parents about the only subjects more stressful than algebra and calculus: AI and ChatGPT.
It had been a long day for Po-Shen Loh, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University and Team USA’s coach for the International Mathematical Olympiad, who is traveling to 65 cities and giving 124 lectures before the next school year like he’s on a personal mission to meet every single American math geek.
He started that morning at a Brooklyn middle school with a large percentage of low-income students before driving to a top-ranked high school on Long Island that afternoon and coming back to Queens in the evening. But the scholar had the energy of a fourth-grader on Skittles as he delivered a talk called “How to Survive the ChatGPT Invasion.” And his simple, practical advice applied to everyone in the auditorium.
“Think about what makes humans human,” Loh said, “and lean into that as hard as possible.”
He says the key to survival is knowing how to solve problems—and knowing which problems to solve. He urges math nerds to focus on creativity, emotion and the stuff that distinguishes man from machine and won’t go obsolete. As artificial intelligence gets smarter, the premium on ingenuity will become greater. This is what he wants to drill into their impressionable young minds: Being human will only be more important as AI becomes more powerful.
It’s not just students who should be paying attention to Po-Shen Loh. The lesson that he’s evangelizing in schools is useful for any business that might be wondering how it’s going to be warped by the existential threat of artificial intelligence. Which is every business.
Think about what makes humans human,’ Loh said, ‘and lean into that as hard as possible.’
But the people who will inherit the economy reshaped by the AI boom are students today. The tech they’re already using to cheat on their homeworkwill look primitive by the time they’re in college. Or high school. They belong to the first generation that will have grown up with AI, just as Gen Z came of age with the iPhone and millennials barely remember a time before they were online. These children and teens of the ChatGPT era will have a better intuitive understanding of this disruptive force than adults because they will have never really experienced life without it.
In the meantime, they have Loh. On the night I listened to him in New York, where a janitor shooed the crowd outside and Loh held court in the darkness, he slept in his rental car at a rest stop in New Jersey before his 6 a.m. flight to his next destination.
He was off to a math contest in Chicago, followed by a math competition in Orlando. He made a quick stop at home in Pittsburgh and then headed to Detroit, Chicago again, Toronto and back to New York, where I met the ebullient professor again in a Manhattan school for gifted and talented students.
What he sees when he looks at AI is the kind of challenge that made him curious about math when he was in middle school and began to view the world as a collection of problems waiting to be solved. He realized he liked solving them and doing things his own way.
The most interesting problems to do in the world are the ones where nobody has told you how to do them,” he told students.
“And the problem I’ve been thinking about recently is how to help people flourish in a world with ChatGPT. Do you guys know what that is?”
Every hand in the auditorium shot up.
After his talk, I asked how his message to a room full of fifth-graders applies to someone in an office, and he replied faster than ChatGPT. “The future of jobs is figuring out how to find pain points,” he said. “And a pain point is a human pain.” Loh would tell anyone what he told the students and what he tells his own three children. It’s his theorem of success. “You need to be able to create value,” he said. “People who make value will always have opportunities.”
He is living proof. Born in California and raised in Wisconsin, the 40-year-old Loh was a child prodigy who attended the California Institute of Technology, where he met his wife on the first day of freshman orientation and got married on the day before graduation.
After earning his graduate math degrees from Cambridge University and Princeton University, he joined the faculty of Carnegie Mellon in 2010. He was named coach of the U.S. team in 2013. American teenagers hadn’t won the International Mathematical Olympiad in nearly two decades. They have since won four times.
He’s soon returning home and moving into dorms to start training for this summer’s world championship in Japan with his team of the nation’s top six high-school students. But first he’s barnstorming across the country on a tour so exhausting that I got tired just typing out his itinerary.
He visits schools of all kinds. He transforms outdoor pavilions in public parks into makeshift classrooms. He gets a workout by schlepping four heavy bags with 170 pounds of speakers, cords and equipment wherever he goes, which is basically everywhere.
He’s currently traveling to 32 cities in 35 days for 50 lectures, and the second leg of his tour will take him to 46 cities for 62 more talks. U.S. math scores have plummeted since the pandemic, but he’s working as hard as humanly possible to turn those numbers around.
The professor’s national adventure began two years ago, when Loh was eager to hit the road after being stuck at home, and he liked spreading his excitement about math so much that he decided to do it again last year.
This year, he’s talking about ChatGPT, since that’s what everyone seems to be talking about.
“When I was young, if you had asked me why I like math, the answer I would have given is that the questions and answers are precise and the logic is clear,” Loh says. “Now we have AI. We have robots. And what kinds of problems are the easiest for AI and robots to target? The logically precise ones.”
Loh was aware of the hype around AI, but the first time he was floored by its potential was March 14, also known as Pi Day, when he started experimenting with the most viral product in Silicon Valley’s history.
When OpenAI released its most recent large language model, GPT-4, he paid a $20 monthly fee and gave ChatGPT Plus a tricky math-contest question: find the prime factorization of 899. He didn’t instruct the chatbot to use the difference of two squares. He didn’t have to. ChatGPT calculated the answer and showed its work. It was not only accurate but elegant.
“This machine is the world’s most powerful tool at repeating things that have been done many times before,” he tells students.
“But now I want to show you something it cannot do.”
Loh asked ChatGPT to find the largest fraction less than ½ with a numerator and denominator that are positive integers less than or equal to 10,000. It was a question that it almost certainly hadn’t seen before—and it flubbed the answer. (It’s 4,999/9,999.) This might sound familiar to anyone who has spent enough time with a chatbot that has a nasty habit of being confidently wrong: It made up a bunch of nonsense and apologized for its errors.
“This is a preview of your life in the future when you ask ChatGPT for something and it starts blabbing about stuff it doesn’t know,” Loh says.
“Let’s dig a little more into this. The role of the GPT is to always say the most obvious next word. But what is invention? What is creativity and innovation? Is it to say the most obvious thing? No. It might be to say a non-obvious thing.”
Loh is a big fan of non-obvious things. At a university known for computer science, he teaches with a piece of chalk. To improve his public speaking, he spent a year taking improv-comedy classes. He’s even paying for the tour’s roughly $50,000 cost with the profits from his latest non-obvious idea: an online math school that he founded.
Parents who suffered through remote learning might want to smash a computer when they hear the words “online math school.” Loh feels the same way.
“Math on Zoom was terrible,” he tells students. “Math on Zoom taught kids how to press alt-tab really fast when they heard footsteps.”
He didn’t need to explain that alt-tab is a keyboard shortcut to switch between computer windows. The kids roared their approval.
He wants to spread his enthusiasm to the masses, which he feels is one of his responsibilities as the U.S. national coach, but that’s not his only reason for traveling around the country and talking about math. He’s also marketing his company.
Teaching math the Po-Shen Loh way meant rethinking the way math is taught. The precocious middle-schoolers in his program take live extracurricular classes from exceptional high-schoolers, but there’s another person lurking in the virtual classrooms: a drama coach.
Loh pays comedians, actors and theater majors to provide real-time feedback on the teachers’ performance, with the aim of making combinatorics as entertaining as YouTube, Twitch and whatever the students were escaping Zoom to watch.
He found a pain point, followed his own advice and leveraged his innate advantage over AI: He’s a human.
“
“Is there going to be a great human-versus-robots war? The answer is, unfortunately, yes,” Loh said. “My goal is to make sure the humans win.”
‘The role of the GPT is to always say the most obvious next word.
But what is invention?’ Loh said. ‘It might be to say a non-obvious thing.’
Dr. Crystal Luchkiw of Barrie, Ont., is facing the potential loss of her license for her criticism of Ontario’s COVID-19 public health measures. (Courtesy of Michael Alexander)
A disciplinary tribunal is set to make a decision that could have wide-reaching implications for many doctors being investigated after opposing COVID-19 health measures, says attorney Michael Alexander.
The tribunal, which hears disciplinary cases within the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), has reserved its decision on the case of Dr. Crystal Luchkiw while weighing the arguments presented at a May 19 hearing.
It was the final hearing in a series of hearings that has explored the limits of doctors’ freedoms of speech and practice, and the limits of the CPSO’s powers over the profession.
Alexander, Luchkiw’s attorney, has argued all along that the CPSO’s rules for doctors on COVID health measures are “mere guidelines” or “recommendations” and don’t have the power of law.
Those rules included that doctors were not to speak publicly against official health recommendations, they were not to issue vaccine exemptions except in extreme cases, and they were not to prescribe alternative medications for treating COVID-19.
Luchkiw’s alleged breach of conduct relates to a vaccine exemption one of her patients received (though it hasn’t been proven she issued that exemption herself), and to public comments she made that were critical of official health recommendations.
A suspected breach of the CPSO’s guidelines does not warrant the suspension of Luchkiw’s license and an investigation into her conduct, Alexander says, and he calls for an immediate halt to the CPSO’s actions against his client.
“If the tribunal were to decide that the college can’t prosecute people because they have acted contrary to ‘suggestions and recommendations,’ that would invalidate all the investigation orders they have written for all the doctors who are currently being investigated or prosecuted around COVID-19,” Alexander told The Epoch Times following an earlier tribunal hearing on Nov. 23. “All of those would come to an end.”
‘Obligation to Cooperate’ With Investigations
The CPSO’s counsel, Elisabeth Widner, argued on May 19 that Luchkiw has breached the rules for professional conduct by refusing to cooperate with the investigation by the CPSO’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).
“Even if Dr. Luchkiw believes that the investigation is unlawful, she is under a positive obligation to cooperate,” Widner said. She cited the Regulated Health Professions Act, legislation that outlines the CPSO’s powers to regulate the profession. Section 76 (3.1) states that “a member shall cooperate fully with an investigator.”
“Dr. Luchkiw refused to cooperate because her view was, and still is, that the college’s investigation orders … failed to disclose reasonable and probable grounds for investigation,” Alexander said. “The orders do not make reference to actual events, that is, an act of professional misconduct as defined under the regulation.”
The investigation order against Luchkiw said that the investigators are to look at “whether Dr. Luchkiw in her family medicine practice and also in her conduct, including in relation to a completion of medical exemptions for COVID-19 vaccines, has engaged in professional misconduct or is incompetent.”
Alexander said at a March 10 hearing if you remove the part about vaccines (since it’s only a “guideline” and not a point of professional misconduct), “It is now a description of nothing.” He said it doesn’t meet the standard of a “brief description” of evidence required to start a disciplinary investigation.
No ‘Harm’ Done?
The CPSO has argued that it had reasonable cause to start an investigation because Luchkiw’s patients were at risk of harm, that they may be harmed by not following official COVID health measures.
Widner cited in her final arguments section 25.4 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, which says the ICRC may suspend a practitioner’s license “if it is of the opinion that the conduct of the member exposes or is likely to expose the member’s patients to harm or injury.”
Alexander told the tribunal it must decide if the investigation orders meet the legal definition of “reasonable and probable grounds—whether the orders, as written, conform to that definition.” He said this is a matter of “logical interpretation” and “pure reason, so to speak” rather than a requirement that they look at all the evidence regarding Luchkiw’s actions.
Alexander also contests the idea that Luchkiw might have caused “harm” her patients by not following the COVID health policies.
“What harm has she caused?” he said in an email to The Epoch Times. “The college has yet to find even a shred of evidence indicating that Dr. Luchkiw has caused harm to even one patient.”
He said it is the CPSO that has caused harm by depriving her patients of her care. “When Dr. Luchkiw was suspended, 1,700 patients lost their primary access to medical care in a system that is chronically underserved.”
About 20 percent of her practice was devoted to palliative care. “Hundreds of patients at the end of life suddenly found themselves without medical care and support,” he said.
Alexander has also made arguments that the CPSO’s guidelines violate the Charter rights to free speech and informed consent, which ensures individuals can make free choices about their medical care. The CPSO has argued that Charter freedoms have limits when exercising them can cause harm to others.
If the tribunal decides against Luchkiw, the CPSO will be allowed to continue its investigation of her conduct and proceed with another round of hearings—this time focused on her actions themselves (whereas the current hearings have examined whether an investigation should even be underway in the first place).
This decision on whether the CPSO has the right to investigate Luchkiw is more significant than any ruling on Luchkiw’s specific actions might be, Alexander said. This decision could impact whether the CPSO proceeds with similar cases against other doctors, whereas decisions on Luchkiw’s specific actions have a more limited impact, albeit significant to her personally.
I never thought I would have to pose such a question!
But I think it is an important one to pose.
The Chief Justice of this land was not really complimentary last spring when he inappropriately opined about the legitimate civil disobedience of Tamara Lich and the truckers. How does such views affect the judge who will hear these cases? Add to that the divisive views of the law breaking Prime Minister , the absence of the now Conservative leader when the trucker were in Ottawa , and the flawed, failed Rouleau Inquiry. And no Premier has come to the defence of the Truckers ‘ movement.
Of course, how could any of the political leadership support the truckers when they implemented unconstitutional mandates and lockdowns and were irrational in their use of real science. And remember Tamara was put in shackles by the authorities when first arraigned before a Judge who we later discovered to be a Liberal Government sympathizer and then later to be hunted down like a serial rapist or murderer .
We will witness no doubt the continued abuse of our system as the state continues its assault on our rights and freedoms.
Here is press coverage as described by Life Site News:
‘OTTAWA (LifeSiteNews) – Canadian Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber will be facing a four-week criminal trial in September in an Ottawa court for their roles in organizing the 2022 protests that fought draconian government COVID dictates.
The trial, as revealed by True North’s Andrew Lawton yesterday, will begin September 5 and go until September 22, at which time there will be a short break.
The trial will resume from October 11 to 13 after which time it will conclude.
Lich was first arrested on February 17, 2022, only two days after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau enacted the Emergencies Act (EA), which he claimed was needed to deal with the Freedom Convoy protesters, who were demanding an end to all COVID mandates.
Lich and Barber were charged with multiple offenses in 2022 such as mischief and obstructing police for taking part in and organizing the Freedom Convoy.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Lich was then jailed for weeks on non-violent mischief charges related to her role in organizing the Freedom Convoy protest in early 2022.
She was last set free from jail immediately after Ontario Superior Court Justice Andrew Goodman granted her bail last August. The judge, in his decision, criticized her earlier detainment as invalid.
Despite being released on bail, Lich is still obligated to uphold certain conditions of release, which include not “verbally, in writing, financially, or by any other means support[ing] anything related to the Freedom Convoy.”
She is also mandated to reside in her home province of Alberta and cannot use social media.
Support for Lich is high in her home province of Alberta.
In March, she was given a warm round of applause by many, but not all, Conservative Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) after being introduced in the Alberta provincial legislature in Edmonton.’
PREPARED FOR PRESENTATION AT THE RECLAIM CANADA CONFERENCE MAY 26-28 , 2023, VICTORIA , BC —FIRST OF TWO ESSAYS .
1 This gathering is a congress of the people who choose to reclaim the original founding goals of this nation.
2 What we have in common is a passion for liberty, equality and justice, and to live in a society and nation where no one is above the law.
3 We have boldly and courageously proclaimed the truth, in a society that prefers lies that panders to political agendas that rewards those who conform to the goals of those in power and oppresses those who value truth, moral integrity and love for one another.
4 The values that bind us together are all derived from the Judeo-Christian faith that is at the root of the common law and the constitutional law upon which Canada was founded upon. In Saumur v. City of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299 at 329, Justice Rand noted how the Christian religion is “embodied in the highest level of the constitutionalism of Great Britain,” and by virtue of the “similar in principle” clause of the Constitution Act, 1867, Canada.
Justice Rand recognized that Canada was a Christian nation, which worshipped the God of the Bible:
‘The Christian religion, its practices and profession, exhibiting in Europe and America an organic continuity, stands in the first rank of social, political and juristic importance. … the untrammeled affirmations of religious belief and its propagation, personal or institutional, remain as of the greatest constitutional significance throughout the Dominion is unquestionable.” [p. 328]
5 This country was established as a Christian nation. The source of the common law is found in the Christian religion, and voluntary submission to the Supremacy of God. It was God who gave His Law, beginning with the Ten Commandments, to first, the people of Israel, and then later, to everyone in the world. Following those Commandments brings blessings, peace, prosperity, joy and an ordered civilized society. Not following those commandments brings tyranny, destruction and sorrow.
6 God’s Law is religious and moral. Morality is inseparable from the Law. The Law reveals, establishes and declares what is moral, just and right, applying equally to all people in society. No one is above the Law. The Law discriminates between what is moral and immoral; right from wrong; good from bad; and, truth from lies.
7 Any transgression of the Law is an offense against God and against society. The Law is an absolute unchanging moral order to which people must conform. It is not negotiable. As a whole, the Law has coherent integrity and consistency. People must conform to the Law. Law must not conform to the sinful desires of people. God’s word is truth, and the Law is truth.
8 In 1982, the Constitution Act, 1982 became part of the Constitution of Canada. Included in this Act, was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the supreme law of Canada, the Preamble to the Charter provides the lens of judicial interpretation through which the courts are compelled to assess and evaluate the constitutionality of legislation and government behavior. The Preamble declares,
“… Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”
Brian Peckford, the last living Premier who participated in the negotiations, drafting and signing of the Charter, states,
“At the time of the Charter creation, it was self-evident to those formulating the provision that God referred to the Judeo Christian God. We knew no other.”
9 Canada’s source of constitutional authority is the Supremacy of God, which ordains and establishes the Rule of Law. The substantive provisions that follow the Preamble grant powers, confer rights and limit government power.
What is crucial to understand is that the content of the Preamble is the only legitimate lens to understand, interpret and apply all the substantive and procedural provisions of the Constitution, so that it is interpreted and applied in a manner faithful to the principles set out in the Preamble.
Canada’s entire Constitution mandates that for a law to be declared constitutional, it must conform to the Supremacy of God, and be just, which is more than being simply legal. Law is only recognized as just, when it is fair, inherently moral and grounded in truth. It must also reflect natural law, values that benefit our common good and are instinctively known to all people.
10 Brian Peckford states,
‘Where does the idea come from that the first words of the Charter may not carry the force of law? The First Ministers involved in the Charter’s creation would be shocked to hear such words being spoken. It was clearly understood by all the First Ministers of the time that all the words of the Charter had the force of law and that the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law was the lens through which the Charter would be interpreted.”
11 Early in the Charter era, the Supreme Court deviated from the intent of the First Ministers and created its own way to interpret the Constitution, which is now engrained in its jurisprudence. This is how it happened.
12 From 1984-1985, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to establish a framework of constitutional interpretation through the lens of the Preamble.
Not one member of the Court in R. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, which struck down provincial Sunday observance legislation, referred to the Preamble in their legal analysis. The only reference to the Preamble occurred at para. 17 when Chief Justice Dickson repeated without commentary an extract from the judgment of the trial judge who stated:
“ Bearing in mind that the preamble may not carry the force of law, 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. The preamble surely is intended to reflect the multicultural and multidenominational makeup of Canada.”
The Court indirectly approved this incorrect interpretation at para. 99 and para. 148 by overriding the intent of the First Ministers and applied s. 27 of the Charter, the multicultural heritage clause, to recognize the worship of other deities. The Court choose freedom from the commandment of the Christian God to honor the Sabbath and defied the Supremacy of the Judeo-Christian God.
13 Rather than use the Preamble as the lens to interpret the Constitution, the Court invented its own doctrine. At para. 115-117, the Court stated,
“… the Charter is intended to set a standard upon which present as well as future legislation is to be tested. Therefore the meaning of the concept of freedom of conscience and religion is not to be determined solely by the degree to which that right was enjoyed by Canadians prior to the proclamation of the Charter. We must look, rather, to the distinctive principles of constitutional interpretation appropriate to expounding the supreme law of Canada … In Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, this Court expressed the view that the proper approach to the definition of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter was a purposive one.
The meaning of a right or freedom guaranteed by the Charter was to be ascertained by an analysis of the purpose of such a guarantee; it was to be understood, in other words, in the light of the interests it was meant to protect. … In my view this analysis is to be undertaken, and the purpose of the right or freedom in question is to be sought by reference to the character and the larger objects of the Charter itself, to the language chosen to articulate the specific right or freedom, to the historical origins of the concepts enshrined, and where applicable, to the meaning and purpose of the other specific rights and freedoms with which it is associated within the text of the Charter.
The interpretation should be … a generous rather than a legalistic one, aimed at fulfilling the purpose of the guarantee and securing for individuals the full benefit of the Charter‘s protection. At the same time it is important not to overshoot the actual purpose of the right or freedom in question, but to recall that the Charter was not enacted in a vacuum …”
Unfortunately, the Court acted in a vacuum, failing to apply, let alone acknowledge, the Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1982.
14 By discarding the Supremacy of the Judeo-Christian God, the way was paved for the Court to rebel against the Supremacy of God.
By elevating the multicultural society clause above the Supremacy of God, the Court laid down the foundation for a secular, tyrannical atheistic state hostile to Christianity, in which what biblical Christians believe is good is treated by law as evil, resulting in the repeal of laws banning abortion, adultery, buggery, blasphemy, working on the Sabbath day of rest, and euthanasia, and what biblical Christians believe to be evil becomes popularly viewed as good and legalized.
15 Constitutional interpretation without using the lens of the Preamble has resulted in the moral decline of Canada and the legalization of immoral conduct that is tolerated and aggressively promoted in the name of human rights, diversity, inclusion and equity.
16 Without the Supremacy of God, there developed over time a serious misunderstanding of the other pillar of interpretation, the Rule of Law.
17 When informed by the Supremacy of God, the “Rule of Law” is defined as life in a society governed by inherently just moral laws sourced from the Law given by God, where the people are submissive and obedient to the Supremacy of God.
Life under the “Rule of Law” means to live in a free and democratic society that honors God’s Commandments, abiding by absolute standards of right and wrong, in a society characterized by willful obedience to truth, justice and righteousness. Constitutional limits are placed on the power of government, to permanently guarantee and protect the freedoms of conscience, religion, and morality from infringement.
The authentic Rule of Law ensures equality, for no one individual or faction is above the law. All human beings, at all stages of life, from conception to natural death, have equal absolute inalienable rights to life, liberty and security of the person. The powers of the government are limited. All branches of government, whether executive, legislative, or judicial, are under the law, and accountable to moral and constitutional scrutiny to ensure conformity with the authentic Rule of Law. Justice, truth, freedom and democracy are the hallmarks of the Rule of Law.
18 Without the Supremacy of God, the “Rule of Law” evolved into a “Rule by Law” society that is governed by legalism. The source of authority for Rule by Law in today’s Western society is human reasoning divorced from morality that advances political goals that evolve with changing secular values.
The laws of this society reflect a humanistic cluster of beliefs that breeds totalitarianism, oppresses minorities, creates class and racial division, imposes identity politics, fosters intolerance and promotes idolatrous self-love. These collective beliefs are incompatible with freedom and democracy. In this society, there are no absolute standards of right and wrong, but moral relativism and prejudice.
This secular regime is empowered by positive law and social conditioning through propaganda. Society is characterized by coerced deferential obedience to legalism falsely labelled as the Rule of Law.
Christian morality is ridiculed and purged from law. Inequality pervades society. Legal fiction replaces truth, so people live by lies. God is no longer the source of law. Extremist ideology that embraces Marxist, immoral, hedonistic and woke ideology is the driving force for social, political and legal changes.
The Supremacy of God is mocked, ignored and dishonored. The Preamble to Canada’s Constitution is viewed as meaningless rhetorical nonsense. Injustice, immorality, corruption, coercion, social division, oppression of political opponents, a police state, social control through invasive surveillance and the suppression of truth are common characteristics of this kind of regime.
19 The main distinguishing difference between the two regimes is the presence or the absence of humble deference to the Supremacy of God, and whether or not all the branches of government obey and enforce the authentic Rule of Law.
20 Canada has degenerated into a Rule by Law society. God’s laws that were once embedded in the common law and in jurisprudence have become relics, or fossils, replaced by laws and judicial decisions derived solely from human philosophy and rational reasoning.
Canadian court decisions now legitimize immoral conduct such as adultery, murder of unborn children, homosexuality that were forbidden by the Law of God. The current government’s naked hostility to God and Judeo-Christian values and its adoption of an intolerant woke secular culture results in the persecution of Christians, the silencing and oppression of dissidents, the loss of fundamental freedoms and the corrupt interpretation of the Constitution of Canada.
The reality is that the Canadian government is at its heart atheistic, for the constitutional principles set out in the Preamble are disregarded, replaced by a Rule by Law society, where humanism prevails and God, truth and justice are purged.
21 Lord Alfred Denning, considered by many to be one of the greatest English jurist in the past century, predicted in 1952, in his book, The Changing Law, of the inevitable disintegration of the authentic Rule of Law when God, truth and Christian morals are expunged from society:
“Religion concerns the spirit in man whereby he is able to recognize what is truth and what is justice; whereas law is only the application, however imperfectly, of truth and justice in our everyday affairs. If religion perishes in the land, truth and justice will also [p. 122] … [A]lthough religion, law and morals can be separated, they are nevertheless still very much dependent on each other. Without religion there can be no morality: and without morality there can be no law. [p. 99]”
22 This year, without consultation or debate, the government of Justin Trudeau secretly redesigned the Canadian Royal Crown that sits on top of the Canada Coat of Arms. The Christian Cross that honors the Christian faith and the Supremacy of God has been replaced by a snowflake at the top of the Crown. Ironically the snowflake aptly symbolizes those who oppose the Christian faith.
In today’s culture, a “snowflake” is understood in common parlance to be a person who has an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or is overly emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions.
The other religious symbol, the fleur-de-lis, was also removed and replaced by maple leafs. The fleur-delis, is understood to represent the purity of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Trinity. The maple leaf, which grows on maple trees in Ontario and Quebec, illustrate the importance of central Canada, and honors indirectly a hockey team, the Toronto Maple Leafs, that is long overdue for a Stanley Cup victory.
23 How did Canada become a nation of snowflakes?
It was the job of the Supreme Court of Canada to give force to the Preamble and to uphold the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Rule. After all, the Supreme Court since Confederation has faithfully given the Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, the force of law. The beginning of that Preamble states:
“Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:”
Given this historical legal precedent, it was properly assumed by the First Ministers that the Supreme Court would also faithfully uphold the Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1982, that mandates submission to the Supremacy of God and conformity to the authentic Rule of Law.
But what the First Ministers did not foresee is the Court’s selective enforcement of one constitutional Preamble but not the other.
24 It is regrettable that the people of Canada have failed to learn from history. Before his 1946 execution as a war criminal at Nuremburg, German Nazi politician Hans Frank eloquently warned future generations not to turn away from God:
“… Even now … we still bear a tremendous spiritual responsibility. At the beginning of our way we did not suspect that our turning away from God could have such disastrous deadly consequences … by turning away from God, we were overthrown and had to perish … I beg of our people not to continue in this direction, be it even a single step, because Hitler’s road was the way without God, the way of turning from Christ, and, in the last analysis, the way of political foolishness … return from this road which according to the law and justice of God, had to lead us and our system into disaster and which will lead everyone to disaster who tries to walk on it.” https://www.tracesofwar.com/articles/4541/Final-statement-Hans-Frank.htm
25 Those among us who are not religious or do not believe in God may wonder why the preservation of the supremacy of God in our society and the restoration of the authentic Rule of Law is paramount to guaranteeing our freedoms and to end Canada’s steady slide into tyranny.
The answer is simple. Freedom, equality, truth and justice are foundational values found in the Bible. But for Christianity, there would be rampant racism, slavery, discrimination, loss of freedoms and rule by coercive laws. Christianity was the bedrock of Western civilization. Christian teachings and morals introduced the sanctity of human life, criminal laws against behavior that transgressed God’s Commandments, and protected marriage and all members of families from harm.
The influence of Christianity is embedded in art, music, literature, architecture, the calendar, the public holidays, taking a day of rest from work, the practice of swearing upon a Bible to tell the truth, the establishment of hospitals, charities, universities and schools to care for the sick, the poor and the young.
The moral values and virtues of Christianity has made this world a better place. Yet in Canada, hundreds of churches have been burned down, preachers jailed for opening their churches and preaching the gospel during Covid, and Christian students denied summer job funding because their potential employers were denied government grants just because they refused to support abortion.
Christians are now targeted for oppression and regarded by many as political enemies. Don’t think that once Christians have been rendered powerless that the government won’t come after you, for there will always be a next group to silence and purge.
26 Many Canadians intuitively know that something is very wrong with their political and legal system and have struggled to articulate the reason why.
The answer is found in the way an activist Supreme Court has chosen to wrongfully interpret the Constitution, by abandoning the interpretive lens of the Preamble by ignoring the Supremacy of God and its substitution of the Rule by Law for the authentic Rule of Law.
27 It is time to stop politicians from appointing judges who will impose their own vision of society for the vision of those elected First Ministers who signed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Vote only for the candidates who share your beliefs and values. Stop voting strategically for a political party only because you think it has the best chance to defeat the ruling party.
Vote for the party that will fight for what you believe in. Vote according to your conscience, and be true to your moral principles.
peckford42 