Unilateral Declaration Of Independence
When in the course of human affairs it becomes necessary to dissolve the allegiances of government which no longer support the betterment of a people, there is no cause more just than upholding the right to self-determination. The recent 43rd Federal Election has fundamentally demonstrated that this right is not honoured by the current government administration in this country. Under this administration, our constitutional right to assemble peacefully and freely express our policies to the voting public during the most recent election has not been permitted. This denial of service has been ubiquitous and consistent both during and leading up to the general election. As such, it is fair to state that Canada has failed to uphold its democratic mandate. Our ability as a political movement to choose our own destiny and determine our own fate does not exist under these conditions. We therefore, in good faith, can no longer allow this authority, in any capacity, to exercise jurisdiction over our constituency and do, in the name of remedial self-determination, hereby declare our independence.
Self-determination is an innate, fundamental prerogative of any government – especially as it pertains to the availability of a country’s democratic proceedings. This declaration is both necessary and justified in that our self-determination under the Government of Canada is actively suppressed.
Since our federal political party came into existence in 2017, our constitutional rights to assemble peacefully and communicate our policies to Canadian voters has been violated – including after the drop of the writ in the most recent general election. It is essentially impossible to make any attempt at democratic reform when the public commons are inaccessible. There exists not a single exception where our request to host a public event has been fulfilled.
The ability for a federally-sanctioned political party to peacefully assemble and freely express their policies to the voting public during an election is absolutely fundamental to a “free and democratic” society. Yet, our organization has been denied space at publicly-funded institutions as well as permits to host on government property open without charge to members of the public. This is both contradictory to our democracy and contrary to the legal code. To not honour the request of a federal political party to be permitted peaceful assembly and free expression of policies to voters during a general election is contrary to the public interest. Failing to permit our organization to perform such an act represents a violation of the constitutional obligations of our government under the Canadian Charter Of Rights & Freedoms, the Canada Elections Act, the Canadian Bill Of Rights, the Charter of the United Nations, as well as general principles of Common Law.
We have appealed to the necessary agencies (including Her Majesty The Queen) to acknowledge these grievances. At the time of this writing, we have received no effective response or recourse. This administration has demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are not willing to uphold our self-determination as a unique nationality. Any government which fails to operate in accordance with its own constitution is a government without merit. As is our Divine Right when the existing authority has proven itself incapable of upholding its self-anointed ‘Supreme Law’, our compliance is null and void.
In accordance with Article 61 of our Magna Carta, we choose not to follow any government down a path which leads to desolation.
We choose to uphold the principle of justice in the lands we were born.
We reserve our right to defend ourselves and our property.
We reserve our right to establish a money system free from the practices of usury.
We will continue to uphold our self-determination by disbanding the chains of obedience toward the existing authority.
We invite all those who identify with our political vein of thought to join us.
We declare the creation of a New State, whose basis of authority be derived from the consent of the governed, operating under the provisions embodied in our constitution.
In appealing to the Supreme World Council for the righteousness of our intentions, and according to the Will of the Creator, we await, with unwavering faith, the ratification of this declaration in its fullest expression.
In accordance with the inalienable right to self-determination, and the assurance that our actions have justly demonstrated unlawful subjugation of our constituency, we, the Canadian Nationalist Party, for the salvation of our nation, hereby declare our independence!
Mr. Travis M. Patron
Leader of the Canadian Nationalist Party
Bitcoin Timestamp Information:
Network Confirmation Time: 2020-02-29 at 21:27:36 (UTC)
SHA256 Hash: 0b6ad36020490eb5c23239772f1606fbc4ae69dca6eb86251d22fa9ffb58c63e
Block Number: 619572 / BlockHash:0000000000000000000da0afae5bbc93193485da75881650263c11a8efed224e
Transaction ID: 6896f96c9d9028e219de4868f61b45e4067dd40cea5afe683e7bf05069e7911e
Constitutional Law – Charter of Rights – Fundamental Freedoms (Section 2) – Right to freedom of peaceful assembly
Constitutional Law – Charter of Rights – Fundamental Freedoms (Section 2) – Right to freedom of expression
6:03 MEANING OF “FREE AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY”
R. v. Oakes,  1 S.C.R. 103, D:0017, at p. 136, Dickson C.J., for the Court, stated that the phrase “free and democratic society”
… refers the Court to the very purpose for which the Charter was originally entrenched in the Constitution: Canadian society is to be free and democratic. The Court must be guided by the values and principles essential to a free and democratic society which I believe embody, to name but a few, respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.
Since Section 1 constitutionally guarantees the rights and freedoms which follow in the Charter, “any s. 1 inquiry must be premised on an understanding that the impugned limit violates constitutional rights and freedoms – rights and freedoms which are part of the supreme law of Canada”: R. v. Oakes,  1 S.C.R. 103, D:0017, at p. 135.
The phrase “free and democratic society” is significant – “the underlying values and principles of a free and democratic society are the genesis of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter and the ultimate standard against which a limit on a right or freedom must be shown, despite its effect, to be reasonable and demonstrably justified”: R. v. Oakes, at p. 136.
The Supreme Court of Canada set out its basic test for determining whether a legislative provision is justified in R. v. Oakes. According to the Court, s. 1 imposes a “stringent standard of justification”. A stringent standard of justification must be adopted because of the meaning of “free and democratic society” (see para. 6:03) and because the justification analysis is being undertaken after the Court has found that constitutionally guaranteed rights have been violated. The test adopted by the majority of the Court in Oakes is as follows:
(1) the objective, which the legislation in issue is designed to advance, must be “of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom”; and
(2) a three-fold proportionality test must be satisfied:
(a) the legislation must be rationally connected to the achievement of the objective in question – it must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations;
(b) the legislation should impair as little as possible the right or freedom in question; and
(c) there must be a proportionality between the effects of the legislation which is responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom and the objective which has been identified as having sufficient importance. (Oakes, at pp. 138-40)
The issue of justification is to be assessed “objectively” and not from the standpoint of the legislators.
The onus of proving that a limit on a right or freedom is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society rests upon the party seeking to uphold the limitation: Hunter v. Southam Inc.,  2 S.C.R. 145, D:0003, at p. 169; R. v. Oakes,  1 S.C.R. 103, D:0017, at pp. 136-7. In Oakes, Dickson C.J. referred to a “presumption” that the rights and freedoms are guaranteed unless the party invoking s. 1 can bring itself within the “exceptional” criteria which justify their being limited.
In Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Taylor,  3 S.C.R. 892, D:0154, McLachlin J., held that the deleterious effects of the impugned provision outweighed the importance of the objective. She stated (at pp. 968-9):
“The significance of the infringement of the right at issue in this case is most serious. The limitation touches expression which may be relevant to social and political issues. Free expression on such matters has long been regarded as fundamental to the working of a free democracy and to the maintenance and preservation of our most fundamental freedoms. The right to express oneself freely on such matters is not lightly to be trammeled; a limitation on such expression must be proportionate to the evil and sensitive to the need to preserve as much freedom of expression as may be compatible with suppressing that evil.”
In McKinney v. University of Guelph,  3 S.C.R. 229, D:0147, La Forest J. Stated: (at pp. 280-1):
“The matter must, as earlier cases have held, involve a test of proportionality. In cases of this kind, the test must be approached in a flexible manner. The analysis should be functional, focusing on the character of the classification in question, the constitutional and societal importance of the interests adversely affected, the relative importance to the individuals affected of the benefit of which they are deprived, and the importance of the state interest.”
Tam downplays Chinese origins of the coronavirus, instead attempting to silence those who link the virus to China, and...