A state of serfdom

The “disappearance” of Provincial constitutions, certainly in Nova Scotia’s case, has enabled an ever increasing number of constitutional devolvements by fiat, at multiple levels of government. The loss of Nova Scotia’s upper house in 1928 obfuscated the money bill process and altered its sovereignty for a second time, the loss of its cities in 1996 led to the loss of their separate school districts and elected boards, community health boards, the loss of the power of the purse along with their infrastructure. Checks on higher order government have been repeatedly involuntarily yielded, in opposition to previous constitutional arrangements and without any semblance of democratic impetus, even in the face of profound disapproval.

The “unique qualities” of the notwithstanding clause since 1982, in comparison to other Western constitutions, allows any constitutional unit; Federal, Provincial or “Municipal” as it now exists, to over-ride any number of basic human rights on a five year continuance, with just a simple majority (achieved with a decided minority of the vote). Without a requirement for judicial review, and with the onus on those challenging the government, a chilling effect is created helping to propel these changes into omnipotent government dictate, without the need of going through the charter step of specifying the rights to be withheld.

Any failure by a “citizen” or legal amateur to successfully challenge such an action, could add fuel to the fire, leading to an inability for further challenge, or creating precedent for future violations in other jurisdictions. Access to the legal profession in a colony of colonies masquerading as a country is an exercise in class, with some intersectionality slathered on top in order to project a kind of fake equality, that is instead a weapon to impose a return to serfdom by a caste of retrograde wokesters, intent on a return to race, sex and even language based essentialism. If one were somehow able to find legal representation that valued the rights of individuals over the crown, they’d enter a process that could take a decade or more, that could cost millions of dollars, well beyond the means of any average individual to save their city or their school board.

Canadian legal experts sometimes feign interest in constitutional affairs east of Montreal, they’ll sometmies make an occasional peep, but they rarely engage in any meaningful constitutional defense that would challenge central Canadian omnipotence over provincial affairs, or provincial omnipotence over local affairs, adhering to the crown as they do, and not people. Regardless of the show out front, the real action is happening behind the scenes in a legal system that is entirely arbitrary and political in nature.

The notwithstanding clause itself, like the Charter or the Constitution Act 1982 that contains it, was imposed by fiat by a foreign monarch and by Canadian elected officials not expressly elected for that very important, separate, constitutional role, without any kind of plebiscite or vote held nationally or sub-nationally to show consent to the changes contained within, so much like the coup that was “confederation”, all over again.

Do “Canadians” not have the right to choose the framework that governs their “country”? Is it like the EU, a collection of nations that have voluntarily and democratically entered a union? No, since there was no voluntary or democratic nature to the process. Is it like the United States, a collection of states that while more similar to each other than the EU’s nations, have been democratically and sometimes violently held together in union? No, the spirit of loyalism isn’t one that seems to tend towards any realization of the inherent danger of despotism, even if only rarely used or theoretical in nature.

Canada is instead a collection of crowns created in opposition to people, public relations forms the bulk of its purported “freedoms” and “democracy”. There are provincial crowns and a federal crown which hold the sovereignty of their respective vessels through a governor general and lieutenant governors.

Quebec’s declarations of nationhood, after so many concessions in 1867 and in 1982 that were designed to benefit Quebec at the expense of other provinces, are now being inflated with powers over official languages, we won’t get into the fact that Alaska has 17 official languages, and that Louisiana utilizes the Civil code.

Quebec’s resistance provided the only political or legal dissent to the changes installed with the Charter, yet their resistance was wrapped up in their own nationalistic, linguistic and cultural interests, not in broad constitutional provisions for all in the rest of the “country”. Today this can be seen in action during any Federal election and otherwise, where a large percentage of the seats of the House of Commons are filled with a party specific to the jurisdiction of Quebec, which doesn’t run any candidates outside of its borders, even though there’s no shortage of people who would vote for Quebec separatists.

If Quebec is a nation, a state, what does that mean for the “Provinces of Canada”? Do Quebec and Ontario still operate constitutionally as the Province of Canada, a unicameral ramfest created by British officials because of their constant revolts and squabbles, with language as racial issue, the “race” of the English and the “race” of the French, that became central to and forever entrenched in this joke of a constitution called “the Charter”?

Are provinces just colonies of this “province of Canada”, or of the federal crown? We know from Nova Scotia’s experience, its lack of a written constitution, the never ending constitutional rot that is employed in order to reduce any iota of accountability that once existed, it’s not a state. Provinces and Territories are carried along like ticks, forced to feed off the blood of the mother organism, “Canada”, which will stop at nothing to enforce a continually increasing state of dependency on its Central Canadian ideology of forever serfdom. There’s no citizens, only subjects.

Disconnecting previously long-held constitutional rights seems to be the goal, rights held by a relative few at first to be sure, but in ever growing classes throughout time. Essential constitutional protections are watered down to the point of ridicule — such as a vote, such as property rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, to trial by jury, to mobility rights and other basic human rights — this is all that individuals have to guard against future outbreaks of past horrors — like slavery, like serfdom, like communism and fascism, the majority of human history that has been a pool of pain and suffering for the vast majority of people.

The constitutional outcome of every decision in this colony of colonies masquerading as a country, regardless of what funding announcement and program policy is introduced alongside it, is a reduction in accountability and another layer of deferral. A program or policy that has no constitutional protections, being predicated on the standard of a simple majority override, from a decided minority vote, at any level of government, on a five year continuance; imposed by this “Charter”.

From plain reading, from the powers afforded by the constitution, any number of horrible consequences can be easily discerned from this document imposed by fiat, constantly lauded for being the opposite of what it is. Harbinger of rights and freedoms? In fact, a cheese grater of dis-allowance, except for what “a crown” specifically allows, except for when “a crown” decides it disallows it.

Dragging everyone back to a time before the Magna Carta, constitutionally. Unending bureaucracy and obfuscation of responsibilities; appointments, installations and monopolies. On the surface it provides a welfare state that can make various claims utilizing any number of unique metrics chosen for their ability to paint a rosy picture, yet below the surface, there’s no real accountability mechanisms or whistle-blower protections. Canada operates to satisfy its own needs as corporation, as an omnipotent colonial vessel with specific constitutionally defined areas of responsibility, composed of other, smaller yet equally omnipotent colonial corporations, within their own, separate, specific constitutionally defined areas of responsibility. Crowns under a crown.

The “unique qualities” of Canada’s federal constitution are compounded by the “unique qualities” of provincial unicameral ram-fest legislatures, there’s no Provincial Senate to provide sober second thought on any constitutional changes. The “unique qualities” of a federalism bereft of a sub-national written constitution prevents checks on higher-order government and protections for lower order governments, everything is a constitutional issue and at the same time nothing is a constitutional issue; so many concepts that are central tenants of Federalism in free countries are missing here, by design.

Some will proclaim that Nova Scotia’s constitution is to be found in the BNA, as mediated by the Statute of Westminster and the Charter. The BNA specifies in chapter 92 that it is up to the Legislature of Nova Scotia, notwithstanding anything in the Act, except as regards the Office of Lieutenant Governor, to amend the constitution of the province. In Chapter 88 it states that the Constitution of the Legislature of Nova Scotia shall, subject to the Provisions of the Act, continue as it exists at the Union until altered under the Authority of the Act.

Where can one find a copy of this constitution? It exists in the body of current law, in royal directive, but in no one specific place; Nova Scotia’s Provincial constitution is unwritten, much more like a sandbar than a foundation made of stone. Constantly buffeted by wave after wave of partisan, corporate, or even inter-provincial and federal interference, Nova Scotia’s central institutional implements are always up for grabs to improve “efficiency”, or any other number of euphemisms for corrupt intervention.

“In the case of Nova Scotia, the 1749 Instructions to Edward Cornwallis, the colony’s first British governor, established a legislative and judicial framework that are considered foundations of the province’s constitution.” 

Even in this relatively comprehensive account of Nova Scotia’s provincial constitution, in that it admits it exists; Nova Scotia’s constitutional foundations previous to 1749 have been ignored, or are unknown to the author, though by no means is the author alone in being unaware. There is a long lineage of revisionist scholarship, Beck included, that peg the constitutional beginnings at 1749 with Cornwallis, but they are much older, and murkier, in nature.

Nova Scotia as defined by the Charter of Massachusetts Bay in 1725, by Gov. Phillips’ instructions in 1719 that formed the basis of our Supreme Court and Council of 12, Nova Scotia as defined by the Charter of Massachusetts Bay in 1691, Nova Scotia as proprietary colony and baronetcy in 1621 and 1625 on behalf of Sir William Alexander under James I, Nova Scotia as claimed under Virginia’s Charter of 1606; Nova Scotia’s constitutional lineage even when dealing with just the English colonial, is much older and deeper than anyone seems to want to admit. There seems to be a constitutional house of Cards predicated on ignoring the facts in order create central Canadian constitutional primacy.

A written sub-national constitution allows the protection of important rights and institutions, especially under a regime with clearly defined sub-national constitutional powers. Can residents of a jurisdiction be considered citizens, can their system of government be considered a democracy, if the standard of action in cases of constitutional questions is bereft of even the most basic mechanisms of democratic intent? Is there no requirement to show popular support for a particular course of action, even if that reform makes a previously elected body appointed, even if it means dissolution of said body?

Is this the spirit of democracy that people wish to see as a standard around the world? Is this the spirit of democracy that others wish for their own jurisdictions? I await the adoption of these measures by those who hold up a colony of colonies masquerading as a country as an example of democracy to emulate.

Will States to our south have their Senates dissolved, will they dissolve their cities and strip citizens of powers over local institutions, will they dissolve those same local institutions, all by fiat? Will they give up their written constitutions for nebulous decrees and guarantees by “the honorable” that history shows to be completely perfidious and meaningless?

Our “Constitutional” monarchy will forever be at odds with its former namesake, it is designed for a full return to the latter, as soon as possible.

The concept of majority rule should be central to constitutional questions. The ability to encode basic rights and privileges for all, that apply to all parties, that stand as testament to shared facts and values moving forward, should be a basic political right and a basic human right, even in sub-national jurisdictions. Basic human rights shouldn’t be perpetually at risk from ex-post facto laws and reorganizations under guise of “efficiency” that routinely deliver obfuscation over improvements.

Canada stands in opposition to this standard, to every standard, predicated on tyranny as it is, utilizing the concept of exception at every turn as it does, seemingly in order to destroy the very concept of rule of law. With what’s happened to what were once other British colonies such as Hong Kong, where the bottom has fallen out of their illusions of representative democracy, perhaps the actions taken in Nova Scotia have served as a constitutional template? Or perhaps we are next?

Nova Scotia’s role seems to be that of a Normal School for tyranny, not a balanced democracy. Its constitutional primacy has been obfuscated and perverted to allow for layer after layer of skimming operations masquerading as constitutional units, to enforce top-down fiefdoms instead of local self government. What will this lead to in 20 years, in 50 years, to other unfortunates in “constitutional” monarchies around the world?

Canada, as a colony of colonies masquerading as a country, operates as a skimming operation of skimming operations, like a trolling operation against the very idea of the United States. How “free” would Canada be if it weren’t for the fact that the most powerful nation on Earth is next door? What if something happened to their constitutional framework, would it lead to a furtherance of the degradation experienced here, who will come to our rescue if the worst excesses possible under our constitution suits a future political purpose? Will it be too late to do anything about it?

Canada was created to propagandize monarchical government, while obfuscating any honest comparison to the only nation on earth founded on the opposite idea, a nation founded against monarchical rule and for self rule, against ex-post-facto and bills of attainder and for rule of law, against the nebulous and arbitrary and on a written constitution and bill of rights. Don’t let anyone tell you that Canada serves as a model, that it’s free, or that it’s democratic.