When the Constitution Act of 1982 was built a little understood heinous idea was put into the Constitution Act.

This was the Section 33, known as the not withstanding clause. What this clause does is specifically allow the government to pass a law to limit or practically revoke your rights included in section 2 and section 7-15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When you understand the depth and magnitude of this you start to understand that Canada is not a Democracy. It’s no where near a democracy. It’s an elected Dictatorship.

When your rights can be taken away with simply passing a law you have to think and question the sanity of such a thing.

I want to break down for you the reader what this means and help you understand what this could turn this country into if we keep electing the bad actors we have been electing to government.

Lets start breaking this down.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

>>They can pass a law to make it illegal practice a religion or all religion.

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

>>They can pass a law to limit or make it illegal to have freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication that does not coincide with the government dogma or laws they pass.

 (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

>>They can pass a law to limit or make it illegal to have the peaceful assembly, which could also interfere with religious gatherings, as well as the public going to meetings or groups or civic meetings.

 (d) freedom of association.

>>They can pass a law to limit or make it illegal to associate with certain types or groups of people. To make associations to associate together, and including unions and opposing political parties.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

>>This means they can pass a law to take this right of not being executed without a trial. Summary execution. This also means that you can be searched by cops just walking or driving by without any recourse.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

>>When you pass a law to take this away, this means the police and just come and take you away, no warrant, and no due process of law.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

What does this mean? This means if they pass a law you can go into an oubliette and that’s that.

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

>> Gestapo anyone?

(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and

>>No right or protection to retain a lawyer, nor the right to even be informed of that right.

(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

>> No right of habeas corpus? No right to have the validity of your detention checked by a court? The removal of habeas corpus, an underlying principle in the rule of law

11. Any person charged with an offense has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offense;

>>Being told whenever they get around to telling you what you are being charged with whenever they feel like it, in 5 years maybe??

(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

>>So you might get tried before you die rotting away in jail..

(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offense;

The ability of the government to be able to remove this where you are forced to be a witness against yourself… Let’s think about that. They torture you to get you say shit and then use it against you..

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

>>The ability to remove this by law is a police state, it’s a communist state, it socialist state and a fascist state. Just having the ability of the government to remove this right from its citizens should scare the shit out of people.

(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;

>>To be able to make bail unreasonable should alarm people.

 (f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;

>>To be able to remove the rights of military persons by passing a law would and should make any person serving this country question their rights. At that right, they might as well go with the guillotine.

(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;

>> Think about it the ability of the Judge to ignore this generally just makes me question the sanity of the framers of this Constitution Act.

 (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and

>>The ability of the government to remove Double Jeopardy. The right for them to charge you with the same crime and put you back in jail again?

Are you worried yet?

(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

>>The ability to take away the protection against adjusting criminal sentences because you decided that all crimes should have longer sentences is something that should alarm you.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

>>If you do not question this and think long and hard about this and question why this is even allowed to be suspended, to where the government can be cruel and have unusual treatment and punishments you really are not wondering how far a government could go by passing a law.

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

>So if you are a witness that gives incriminating evidence against yourself, you can’t have that used against you, but if this is taken a way, you can have everything you say used against you so the government can charge you with a crime.

14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.

>>The power to take away your right to an interpreter so you can understand any charges being levied against you, how dastardly do they have to be to force you to be charged and not understand why.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

>>The ability to take away your equality before and under the law, and equal protection of the law, and then the right of the government to discriminate against you based on your race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

 (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

>>The ability to pass a law to suspend anything the government passed to help disadvantaged people.

Now let’s understand section 33 in context so you can understand how easy it is for the government to do this. All they need to do is stand up in the house of commons or provincial legislature and suspend people’s rights for up to 4 years with the ability to renew could last indefinitely.

While what I write does sound drastic, and you think to yourself, this guy is over the top and is out to lunch, you must ask yourself this question, If the possibility is there for this type of abuse, is there a chance this could happen? You will automatically say no and tell yourself this guy is a quack.

Let us be honest, if the ability to remove people’s rights is there and you look at the successive governments of the past 5 years giving more and more power to intelligence agencies when you look at what is going on with how our government operating and passing laws that are against the interests of citizens.

You need to ask yourself, could it be possible? I submit, yes it is because when they start passing laws for intelligence agencies to spy on citizens, that means they are making records against people they deem undesirables or those likely to talk common sense to get people to wake up.

The Constitution Act took away people’s rights and freedoms they had before 1982, and this is the problem with it that no one wants to talk about. The dark secret is when it comes to rights if they are defined by law or a Constitution Act like we have with the ability of the government to suspend our rights for up to 5 years with the ability to renew it sets a very dangerous precedent when it comes a country being a Democracy.

If Canada was a Democracy, section 33 would have never been put into the Constitution Act. In essence, the country becomes an elected Dictatorship just like Nazi Germany or Communist China.

People need to know their history, but public education deliberately does not teach it. They teach about the Nazis but very little about the communists of Russia and China. They teach us the history that is written by despots and ideologues to keep the status quo.

Recently I had gone out to look at the latest and greatest and top of the line cars. One of the things that struck me is that the highest end cars have more buttons. One would think that LCD screens and touch display, and with voice-activation would be the mainstream on all models of cars. Sadly, it’s not. That type of technology is saved for the top of the line cars, and only for those that can afford the extra safety features.

With the ever of increasing distractions this technology of lane change notification and lane change prevention technology, adaptive cruise control, auto 911 accident calls, talking GPS, extensive air bags, and so many more features that have yet to be created. One would think that Governments would increasingly change the laws to require all new cars to have these safety features.

When the government regulated mandatory seatbelts, there was great debate over whether or not it would save lives. When they created the airbag, there were Conversation over if it would save lives or hurt or kill people.

The Idea that this technology should be allowed to be a sales feature and not mandated by law to save lives is a something that needs to be dealt with. When we look at the history of seat belts, and air bags and how that got legislated, and the automakers and lobbyists went to town to try to shoot it down, that failed.

With distracted driving having moved past drunk driving due to the number of apps and devices in people’s cars and trucks, it seems to me we need to have more of a glass cockpit.  Fewer buttons will be the wave of the future. Auto Drive or auto assist and auto breaking to prevent crashes would be standard features instead of just for those that can afford them.

Why do we have keys when you can have a proximity auto lock where your key fob has to be in proximity of the car?  Why do we have a wiper and lights buttons or sticks on the columns? Why do we need seat warmer buttons? Why do we need buttons at all when you can have two computer screens in the car. One Touch screen, and one standard LCD screen or maybe a heads up display. Voice activation to enable cooling, heating, radio, wipers, lights, and most other buttons, nobs, and levers and control arms. Is there a need to really have a gear shifter in the cars these days? That can be done by voice activation as well. The emergency break could also have that lever removed. That is one technology that has not been upgraded in most cars.

The Glass cockpit is the future. Insurance Companies should be all for having all these features being mandatory in vehicles, as that would mean they can pay out fewer claims and make money. Safety is the primary reason to take driving control away from drivers. Drunk driving would be eliminated if we had cars with an auto drive.

By making all these advances mandatory we can move people with more efficiency. Currently part of the issue with people driving cars is they make errors in judgments, causing crashes and slowing down road ways.

The biggest issues the government has right now is trying to pass common sense laws that make sense. The lack of common sense being dealt with by all federal governments is why this technology is sold as an add-on item for the rich.

The people must demand things of their law makers and demand they listen or hold them accountable. Demanding that all the safety features are put on all models of cars instead of just the elite make of that model of car or truck. Safety should not be a choice of the rich. It should be a requirement by law.

The Danger of the internet is something the political parties are not catching on to. They fail to understand the internet has created informed voters, more information to make a decision. More and more discussion is happening discussing a person’s behavior and morals and their choices in elected office, to determine if this is the candidate I want to be elected.

What political parties don’t understand is there are so many Facebook groups and pages discussing their every move and decision and being judged on it, that this has changed the power of a voter from a regular voter, to a super voter that can swing people and create pockets and groups to vote for a certain set of people.

This also amplifies further based on websites writing commentary where people discuss the commentary in the comments section and people find out more information from other people than from Candidates.

Now former classmates come forward to talk about how the candidate behaved in school, or if they got into a fight or was a bully. Or if they were a pretty academic through high school.

Facebook with almost 2 billion users, which counts in at one-quarter of the world’s population is on Facebook. The power to create a movement or swing the public’s opinion has never had such power.

Within that almost 2 billion users, there are factions and groups, but sometimes things cross all groups and make a wave.

Politics has not caught up, politicians post things to social media, but rarely do they ever interact with people. When they do it will be captured on video and you will get crucified.

With a cell phone, you become a reporter. You are able to capture that off the cuff moment where a politician talks out of turn and you can post it online to Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook and change the discussion about someone to positive or negative.

Politicians still seem to forget nowadays everything is recorded. Even from within your own group of people and staff. If you go off on someone for something, someone might record it and post it online.

Many Politicians have not been able to fully embrace the power of technology because they do not have control of it. Politicians want to control the narrative, and when they lose control and can not get it back, they lose elections.

In Alberta 2015 election the angst against the Federal Conservatives played out against the provincial Conservatives. Continuous self-serving policies were part of the issues, however, the double tap that happened to the Alberta Conservatives was the split of Conservatives running for the farther right Wild Rose Party. The Provincial Conservatives had been in power for over forty years and with migration patterns of people coming from all over Canada for oil jobs. This changed the underlying vote dynamic. Just months before the election the price of oil dropped by one-third of the price and that also played a factor in the Alberta election. Attitudes Changed towards the Conservatives, that people made a choice for change, and voted NDP.

Let’s look at the 2015 Canadian Election in brief. Stephen Harpers Conservatives entered into the longest election, figuring they could try a US style election with a massive war chest of over 30 Million Dollars. They looked at it as an issue of where the other parties did not have the war chest to fight it out for over a seventy-seven-day election, whereas the minimum required days is twenty-eight.

The fatal mistake that Stephen Harper made was when he went into the election he had already lost the narrative over twelve months ago.

Now here we are in the 2017 British Columbia Election where this plays out again where coming into the election the narrative has already been against Christie Clarke for over 12 months. Problems with Site C Dam, that it has been said we don’t need and is an environmental and financial disaster in the making. Children dying in foster care again and again. The HST was a big disaster that made it difficult for the BC Liberals to continue to do as they please.  Time and again over the past several years the BC Liberals have been hit with scandals, illegalities, and criminal investigations. The BC Liberals are Set to lose the election. At the time of this writing, we are calculating they will be left with 30 seats.

The Power of the Internet to change the course of an election is absolute. Just look at the 2016 US Presidential Election. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, all played a powerful position in sculpting the outcome of that election.

Welcome to the revolution.

In a dark seedy world of people using illegal drugs, where they are breaking the law to get their fix, we have to explore the possibility that having drugs illegal is part of the problem.

As a former user, I have my own experiences of how things are dealt with at the gang level. You watch and see.

You see, with illegal drugs, creates crimes, such as gang wars, murder, mayhem, and chaos breaks out over who should control what territory and so forth.

read more…