We, as supporters of the work of John Robson & Brigette Pellerin, are very pleased to announce that the documentary on "The Magna Carta" is ready for your viewing pleasure. This documentary was produced by backers (such as we are) of Freedom from oppressive governments. The documentary takes 2 hours; so, pour yourself a nice mug of coffee, find a comfortable chair and enjoy!!!
Hello again backers,
Today we are releasing our documentary to the public, via YouTube. Here is the link to share with your friends, family, and social networks:
The whole movie is available for free on YouTube. Folks can also purchase DVDs via our main website for $20. High-resolution, ad-free digital downloads backers already received will be available shortly for public purchase, at a price of $5.
Thank you again for your generous and ongoing support throughout this project.
John & Brigitte
We, at Canadians for Language Fairness, have based our movement on the fact that NO laws should be passed restricting the use of any particular language i.e. the principles of FREEDOM - the founding principle of the Magna Carta. The language of the majority should be the language used in government, with concessions made to the use of other languages if their numbers warrant - this is logical and sensible.
Our fight against the Official Languages Act, entrenched into our 1982 Constitution, is precisely because a minority language (French) has been forced upon the English-speaking majority, making it the language that has to be protected, preserved and promoted. This has been done for over 40 years, without any of the benefits that it was supposed to have i.e. greater unity. Adherence to that policy has resulted in widespread injustice as unilingual English-speakers are relegated to 2nd class status and French-speakers are effectively elevated to1st class citizens with unequal, unfair access to jobs in the public & private sector.
How is the Magna Carta related to our battle for freedom from unnecessary language legislation by the government?
To answer that question, let us examine the Charter of Rights & Freedoms (so called) inserted into the seriously flawed 1982 Constitution. According to Ernest Semple, founding member of CIT-CAN (www.citcan.ca):
The elimination of the Magna Carta in the 1982 constitutional amendments as a Canadian constitutional authority can be attributed directly to the three authors of the 1982 Charter: Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau and André Ouellet.
The 1982 constitutional revision made by the then Liberal governmen, seized with the exaggerated possibility that Quebec could break up Canada, contains flaws not in the original 1867 document.
These flaws are based on the mythical idea of group or "collective" rights, as opposed to individual rights inherent in the British Parliamentary legacy of Common Law, based on precedent, history, acquired rights, and privileges only of individuals, not of groups.
Privileges based on membership in a group have been expunged by the Magna Carta.
The ancient Magna Carta is a principal basis of British Common Law recognized by over one quarter of the world in many Parliamentary forms of government, and through its accompanying rule of law.
Another one of our prominent supporters is Ret. Col. Ron Coleman:
His collection of books are available on our web site: www.languagefairness.ca where he referred to the historical circumstances that have led to the disturbing changes P.E. Trudeau made to what was a well-ordered country, based on the Magna Carta. This famous, historical document spelt out so clearly that our traditional freedoms were won at sword point by the English people in 1215 from their ruling classes and is part of our inalienable legacy shared by all members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Ron's essay on Trudeau's charter is well worth reading - please ask for a copy.
Has the Charter that was entrenched in the 1982 Constitution allowed the Courts to become "activist"?
The following are excerpts taken from an article on the eve of the signing of the 1982 Constitution by Frédéric Bastien, National Post · Apr. 17, 2012:
Trudeau's strongest argument in favour of including a Charter in a repatriated constitution was that Canadians would regain their freedoms. How would this be achieved? By virtue of the fact that judges would now be able to interpret the general provisions of the Charter and, in the name of fundamental rights, strike down statutes enacted by the people's elected representatives.
Margaret Thatcher believed that this approach was wrong. In one of her first speeches as prime minister, she explained that her government was determined "to return to one of the first principles which have traditionally governed our political life - the paramountcy of parliament for the protection of fundamental rights." By that, the Iron Lady meant two things. First, rights are not absolute in a democracy. For example, a man cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre in the absence of a blaze and then justify his action in the name of freedom of speech. There is always a limit to individual rights. Thatcher thought it essential that elected politicians should have the power to draw the line, not judges. Second, she was convinced that parliamentarians were better at defining and protecting rights through vigorous debates, arguments and counterarguments, while letting the people decide, at election time, which party is the best defender of their liberties.
Hence Thatcher correctly foresaw that the Charter would fail to improve respect for human rights in Canada. Others were skeptical too, including John Ford, the British high commissioner, whose sister and brother had adopted Canada as their country. Upon leaving Ottawa in 1981, he sent a warning to London about the dangers of the Charter in his final dispatch. "If enacted, Trudeau's constitution seems bound to lead to an endless and divisive litigation." For him, Canada was among "the most over-governed communities in the world," and he thought there was a sense of distance between Ottawa and ordinary Canadians. To solve the problem, he said, Trudeau was unfortunately proposing "a legal framework for unity, with courts to enforce it and a federal government strong enough to impose unifying policies." This approach suited "the bureaucrats of Ottawa, who have a vested interest in the aggrandisement of federal power." It also appealed "to the minds of academia and media, and, particularly, to the anglo-francophones of Montreal, who see themselves as the real elite," but it was detrimental to the interest of Canadians in general. "The realization of the Trudeau dream," Ford predicted, "could become the creation of a divisive and unacceptable procrustean bed to alienate them still further from the Ottawan bureaucracy; and multiculturalism rather than biculturalism has already become a vogue word of the government."
Ford's predictions were well received in London and, three decades later, events confirmed the accuracy of his analysis. Fuelled by advocacy groups often funded with public money, the Canadian courts have launched a vast enterprise of social re-engineering. Thanks to affirmative action and multiculturalism, our traditions have been eroded and privileges given to politically correct lobbies at the expense of the equality of all under the law.
The Charter was supposed to give us a new sense of nationhood and pride. Instead, it added a whole range of new divisive issues to the ones that already existed. Canada was transformed into a collection of bitterly opposed, self-interested groups. The Constitution was used to transform their political objectives into rights in order to achieve gains at everyone else's expense. This result is diametrically opposed to the stated objective. The British prophesy has come true.
The complete article is available upon request.
Not only has the Charter been used in numerous cases against Freedom of Speech, it has also been used to misinterpret "Freedom of Religion". Excerpts are taken from the following articles with links for you to read the entire article if you wish:
By Mike Blanchfield The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - A Federal Court of Appeal panel has dismissed a government appeal over a ban on face coverings at citizenship ceremonies in what amounts to a major policy rebuke of the Harper government.
The three justices ruled from the bench, saying they wanted to proceed quickly so that Zunera Ishaq, the woman who initially challenged the ban, can obtain her citizenship in time to vote in the Oct. 19 federal election.
Ishaq, a 29-year-old woman with devout Muslim beliefs who came to Ontario from Pakistan in 2008, refused to take part in a citizenship ceremony because she would have to show her face.
Raheel Raza, Guest Columnist
As a Muslim mother who never saw a niqab when I was growing up in Karachi, Pakistan, I am astonished to see Canada’s judiciary caving in to Islamists who have nothing but contempt for Canada’s values of gender equality.
I write this as a Muslim Canadian who does not have any specific political leanings.
But in the 25 years I have called Canada home, I have seen a steady rise of Muslim women being strangled in the pernicious black tent that is passed off to naïve and guilt-ridden white, mainstream Canadians as an essential Islamic practice. The niqab and burka have nothing to do with Islam. They’re the political flags of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, the Taliban, al-Qaida and Saudi Arabia.
Fortunately for us, ALL the political parties agree that this is a misinterpretation of "Freedom of Religion" - mainly because the niqab is not a requirement of Islam. It is a personal choice although why any woman would want to go round with her face covered except for slits for her eyes is anybody's guess. Zunera Ishaq, 29, probably wants to take the opportunity to get her pretty eyes in the news.
“What initially comes across as being politically insensitive, is actually politically expedient,” said Ipsos Reid Vice President Sean Simpson.
“One thing that I think is particularly interesting to note, is that the prime minister’s comments could be seen, on the face of it, as being politically incorrect,” he told Global News. “But when we look at the results among voters for each of the parties in Canada, we found that a majority of voters support the prime minister’s position.”
While respondents who indicated they vote for the Conservatives were overwhelmingly supportive of the prime minister’s positions - 96 per cent said they agreed with Harper - supporters of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois were also in agreement with the requirement that faces should not be covered during the oath.
How do supporters of Canada’s major political parties feel about the requirement to show faces at while taking the citizenship oath?
96 per cent of Conservative supporters85 per cent of Liberal supporters83 per cent of NDP supporters81 per cent of Bloc Quebecois supporters
How do political party supporters feel about allowing Muslim women to wear a niqab or burka while taking the citizenship oath?
78 per cent of Conservative supporters disagree with allowing Muslim women being allowed to wear a niqab or burka when being sworn in as Canadians76 per cent of Bloc Quebecois supporters66 per cent of NDP supporters60 per cent of Liberal supporters
Percentage of political party supporters who feel the burka and niqab are symbols of oppression rooted in a culture that is anti-women.
86 per cent of Bloc Quebecois supporters84 per cent of Conservative supporters70 per cent of NDP supporters66 percent of Liberal supporters
Kudos to NDP candidate - Jean-Francois Delisle initially supported opening the constitution to correct this issue......but he changed his mind!!! What a pity!!!
Melanie Marquis, THE CANADIAN PRESS
"The freedom of religion that was, in the 1980s -- the one that was put in place (in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) by the legislators of the day -- is not necessarily the same freedom of religion we have today," he said.
He said radical movements have become more commonplace and it would be a shame if these types of groups were granted greater freedom than the majority.
The Conservative government is not backing down on this one - when it is returned to power (hopefully with a healthy majority), it will take the case to the Superior Court. Hopefully, the SCC will make a more sensible decision than the Appeals Court. Trudeau is in a quandary on this one - his Quebec base is not going to go along with him should he cave to his Muslim advisers on this issue.
MESSAGE FROM JASON KENNEY
As Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in December 2011, I learned that some applicants for citizenship were taking the oath of citizenship with their faces covered. I immediately acted by establishing a policy requiring that those taking the public oath of citizenship do so publicly, with their faces uncovered.
Earlier this year, a public opinion poll indicated that nearly 90% of Canadians support the “requirement that people show their faces during Canadian citizenship ceremonies.”
The citizenship oath is by definition a public declaration of loyalty made before a judge and one’s fellow citizens in a Citizenship Court. It is obvious to me, and to the vast majority of Canadians, that such a public declaration cannot be made while hiding one’s face.
Unfortunately, on a technicality, the Federal Court of Appeal has overturned the policy that I established.
The Conservative Party is committed to doing what is necessary to maintain this common sense policy. We will appeal this court decision, and, if necessary, bring in an amendment to the Citizenship Act reinforcing the public nature of the citizenship ceremony.
If you agree, please sign this online petition.
You may also be interested in reading my thoughts on this issue from an interview that I conducted with Maclean’s Magazine earlier this year.
As always, feel free to share this message with friends and family.
Hon. Jason Kenney
The various opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily shared by everyone whose photo is displayed.
This website has been visited 206497 times.