Community Notice Board

Moving Towards Self-Governance?

Know Your Rights!

 

Planet earth and all its bounties belong to all its inhabitants equally.

None of us can exert more ownership that the rest of us.

And as living entities,

We all have been granted freewill.

While we impress on all to honor our freewill,

We respect and honor the freewill of others.

 

There is no way to become self-governing if you are unaware of your rights and liberties. Self-governance suggests that you have the space and freedom to make conscious choices that will affect your life. When you are unaware of your rights and liberties you can be stripped of them without you knowing. The objective of this [Excerpt] is to bring to your awareness your natural rights and liberties and how you may utilize them.

 

 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.

                                                      (Section 7 of Constitution Act, 1982. Canada)

 

How is Section 7 Applied

NOTE: If you are not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, kindly consult the Charter of Rights and Freedom for your country and compare with what is provided here.

Section 7 of the Constitution Act, 1982, applies to “everyone”. This includes all people within Canada, including non-citizens. But it does not apply to corporations.

According to Section 7, rights can also be violated by the conduct of a party other than a Canadian government body. If the government was a participant or complicit in the conduct threatening the right, the violation must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the government actions.

Section 7 has not been interpreted to convey positive rights nor has it been interpreted to impose any positive obligations upon the government. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has not ruled out these alternatives. (A positive right is an obligation by others to provide some benefit to the rights holder. A right is a correlative of a wrong, so if one has a right to something it means that it is wrong or unlawful for others to negate that right or to not provide some benefit. Examples of positive rights are the rights to free schooling, free healthcare, a job, and a minimum wage. In these cases mentioned, the rights holder is receiving something.

A negative right is an obligation by others to not interfere in some actions and properties of the rights holders. For example, the right to practice one’s religion is a negative right. A negative right only obliges others to avoid interfering with someone’s liberty.

Global justice clearly requires basic negative rights such as the right to not be restricted in the peaceful and honest practice of religion. The extent to which global justice requires positive or negative rights depends on one’s theory of moral rights. < https://link.springer.com/ >)

 

The right to life simply means that everyone has the right to be alive.

 

The right to liberty protects your freedom to act without physical restraint (i.e., imprisonment would be inconsistent with liberty unless it is consistent with fundamental justice). The right to liberty has been extended to include the power to make important personal choices. ‘The court described it as “[touching] the core of what it means to be an autonomous human being blessed with dignity and independence in matters that can be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal”. (R v Clay, 2003) That is, the concept extends beyond physical restraint by the government as it goes to the core of the human experience.’

The right to choose is probably an individual right only, as opposed to also being a family right or a union right.  The rights are between you and the government and not between you and a member of your family.

There are some liberties that are not included in section 7 right such as religious liberty and liberty of speech. These are more specifically guaranteed under section 2. The liberty to vote is addressed in section 3. And the liberty to move within, leave and enter Canada is addressed in section 6.

 

The right to security of the individual consists of rights to privacy of the body and its health and of the right to protect the “psychological integrity” of an individual. ‘That is, the right protects against significant government-inflicted harm (stress) to the mental state of the individual. (Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000)’

Some people believe economic rights should be included in the security of the person, as well as section 15 equality rights. This would make the Charter like the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. ‘The rationale is that economic rights can relate to a decent standard of living and can help the civil rights flourish in a livable environment.[10] There has also been discussion within the Supreme Court and among academics as to whether security of the person guarantees some economic rights.’

‘Theoretically, security of the person would be breached if the government limits a person’s ability to make an income, by denying welfare, taking away property essential to one’s profession, or denying licenses. However, section 7 is primarily concerned with legal rights, so this reading of economic rights is questionable. Many economic issues could also be political questions.[14]’

(Prepared with the help of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_7_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms )

 

 

The Difference Between Mandatory and Compulsory

In this section we look at the difference between mandatory and compulsory. It is important that the two be understood. A mandate is not compulsory. You are mandated to do so but if you choose not to. If you choose not to, there may be limitations. For example, you may not be allowed to go some places, hold certain positions etc.

Compulsory means you MUST. The court may order that you be bind hands and feet to get whatever needs to be accomplished, accomplished.

For example, if you choose not to take a compulsory vaccine, you will be taken to court. The court may (there is a difference between shall and may) insist that this be done by force.

 

The following are highlights from https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html

 

 

In A Nutshell

Section 7 of the Charter requires that laws or state actions that interfere with life, liberty and security of the person be upheld. But these must conform to the principles of fundamental justice.  (Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1 SCR 350 at paragraph 19) The fundamental principles of justice must be a legal principle about which there is sufficient societal consensus.  (R v Malmo-Levine, 2003)

All three rights may be compromised in the cases where the infringing law is in “accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”. That is, there are core values within the justice system that must prevail over these rights for the greater good of society.

 

 

Understanding Principles of Fundamental Justice

 

In Canadian fundamental justice is the fairness that governs the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command “significant societal consensus” as “fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate”, per R v Malmo-Levine.[1] These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state (e.g., the rule against unclear or vague laws). The degree of protection dictated by these standards and procedural rights vary in accordance with the precise context, involving a contextual analysis of the affected person’s interests. In other words, the more a person’s rights or interests are adversely affected, the more procedural or substantive protections must be afforded to that person in order to respect the principles of fundamental justice.[2] A legislative or administrative framework that respects the principles of fundamental justice, as such, must be fundamentally fair to the person affected, but does not necessarily have to strike the “right balance” between individual and societal interests in general.[3]

(Taken From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_justice )

 

Register For Zoom Conference Here

Principles of Fundamental Justice

 

The following are some of the well-established Principles of Fundamental Justice.

 

Arbitrariness

This principle states that laws cannot be arbitrary. That is, the state may not limit an individual’s rights where “it bears no relation to, or is inconsistent with, the objective that lies behind [it]”. (Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG))

Vagueness

This Principle states that laws must be clear and understandable to properly define the rule or offence.

Overbreadth

This Principle states that the means used to achieve a societal purpose or objective must be reasonably necessary.

‘If the State, in pursuing a legitimate objective, uses means which are broader than is necessary to accomplish that objective, the principles of fundamental justice will be violated because the individual’s rights will have been limited for no reason.” (R v Heywood at para 49)

Gross disproportionality

This principle states that the state actions or legislative responses to a problem should not be extreme as to be disproportionate to any legitimate government interest (R v Malmo-Levine at para 143)

 

Requirement of mens rea

(i.e. the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.)

‘The principles of fundamental justice require that criminal offences that have sentences involving prison must have a mens rea element. (Re BC Motor Vehicle Act, R v Vaillancourt) For more serious crimes such as murder that impose a stigma as part of the conviction, the mental element must be proven on a “subjective” level. (R v Martineau)’

Shocks the conscience

In Canada, the government’s decisions to extradite people are bound by section 7. Moreover, it is possible that a potential punishment in the receiving country “shocks the conscience” to the extent that the Canadian government would breach fundamental justice if they extradited people there, and thus put them at risk of something shocking. In determining what would shock the conscience, the Court said some elements of fundamental justice in Canada, such as the presumption of innocence, could be seen as “finicky” and thus irrelevant to extradition. In contrast, the possibility of torture would be shocking.

Right to make full answer and defence

This principle states that anyone accused of a criminal charge has the right to know the case against them and put forward a defence. In addition to being a principle of fundamental justice, this right is also protected by the right to a fair trial under section 11(d) of the Charter.

“Full answer and defence” encompasses a number of things, including the right to counsel (also see section 10), the right to examine witnesses, and most importantly, the right to full disclosure by the Crown (see R v Stinchcombe, 1991).

Right to silence

‘In R v Hebert the court held that the right to silence was a principle of fundamental justice. Statements of the accused may not be achieved through police trickery and silence may not be used to make any inference of guilt.’

Moral culpability for youths

In R v DB, 2008 SCC 25,[16] the Court held that “young people are entitled to a presumption of diminished moral culpability“[17] and so the Youth Criminal Justice Act may not create a presumption of an adult sentence upon youths.

Court-appointed Counsel

In R v Rowbotham, 1988 CanLII 147 (ON CA), the Ontario Court of Appeal found that section 7 requires the appointment of counsel for an accused facing a serious criminal charge who is not capable of representing himself and not financially able to retain counsel.

Moral involuntariness

In R v Ruzic, 2001 SCC 24,[18] the Court held that as a principle of fundamental justice, a person may not be found guilty of a criminal offence where the person faces “perilous circumstances” and is “deprived of a realistic choice whether to break the law.” The Court affirmed moral involuntariness as a principle of fundamental justice in R v Ryan, 2013 SCC 3.

Rejected principles

Throughout the development of fundamental justice, petitioners have suggested many principles that the Courts have rejected for not being sufficiently fundamental to justice.

In R v Malmo-Levine, the Supreme Court rejected the claim that an element of “harm” was a required component of all criminal offences, which in the circumstances of the case would have removed marijuana offences from the Canadian Criminal Code.

In Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (AG), the Court rejected the claim that laws affecting children must be in their best interests.

Comparison with other human rights instruments

‘The United States Bill of Rights also contains rights to life and liberty under the Fifth Amendment and the United States Constitution guarantees those rights again under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Canada before the Charter, the Canadian Bill of Rights contained rights to life, liberty and security of the person, but all these other laws limit those rights through due process rather than fundamental justice. Fundamental justice is read more substantively.[19]

Another key difference is that the Fifth and Fourteenth US Amendments add the right to property, and the Canadian Bill adds the right to “enjoyment of property.” The fact that section 7 excludes a right contained in its sister laws is taken as significant, and thus rights to property are not even read into the rights to liberty and security of the person.[20]’

There have been calls for section 7 to protect property. In 1981 the Progressive Conservative Party suggested that section 7 be extended to protect the “enjoyment of property.”

 

Prepared with the help of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_7_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Register For Zoom Conference Here

How to Launch a Constitutional Challenge if you think your natural right have been limited or breached.

 

Example:

 

The Launch of a Constitutional Challenge Regarding Compulsory Vaccine

 

In the event a vaccine is made compulsory and if for any reason you chose not to be vaccinated, you will be taken to court. Your presence in the court is an opportunity for you to exercise your natural freedoms and liberties if you think they have been limited or breached.

Suggest to the courts that you need to contact the Attorney General because there has been a breach of your Natural Rights and Freedom. Let them know that you need to launch a Constitutional Challenge.

 

To the Attorney General

 

I __________________ (if you are spiritually awakened chances are you have another name that is not legally binding. This is the preferred name to use here), believe that my Section 7 (Check and see which Section it is for your country) Charter Rights has been abridged by this claim that has been brought against me. I am seeking a constitutional challenge that this claim be declared null and void. The fact that they are attempting to forcibly put this substance into my body is clearly a breach of my fundamental rights and freedom noted in section 7 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (for Canadians). It is an attempt that will deny me the right to choose what is best for me. The right to choose what I consider as best for me is a right that I was born with and which no law can override. In fact, these are natural rights and freedom that you are guaranteed to protect.

If others want to take the vaccine or are unable to protect themselves from your state power, I feel sorry for them. But that gives you neither the right nor the power to override my fundamental rights and freedom and to force me to do likewise. If every individual in ____________________ was vaccinated, myself being exempted, the only person I am endangering is me. And if there are other persons inside of ____________________ who made the conscious decision not to be vaccinated the only persons that are being endangered are themselves and others who have consciously chosen not to be vaccinated.

According to your own scientific data, the purpose of the vaccine is to stop the spread of the coronavirus and to protect individuals from Covid-19 infection.  Since the vaccine stops the spread of the coronavirus and protects individuals from Covid-19 infection, the only endangerment that I would be creating would be to myself and other consented individuals who have decided not to be vaccinated.

I consider this position I have taken, an exercising of my rights to the privacy of my body and its health; and my right to “psychological integrity” I also consider my position to be an exercising of my right to liberty. My right to liberty includes me exercising the power to make important personal choices.  I consider not taking the vaccine an important informed personal decision/choice of mine. I have taken the position to preserve my health and my psychological integrity.

Those who have taken the vaccine will not suffer any repercussions from my actions. All vaccinated individuals are protected from me if I am carrying the virus.

Since this important personal choice of mine does not infringe on the greater good of society nor does it endanger others; my natural rights and liberties are for you to uphold and respect.

(This document was put together with the help of ‘Eternally Aware’)

 

Register For Zoom Conference Here

Self-Governing Exercise
  1. Give a definition for ‘principles of fundamental justice’.
  2. Outline Five ways in which your rights may be violated.
  3. What is the difference between a positive right and a negative right?
  4. Explain in your own words:
    1. Right to Life
    2. Right to Liberty
    3. Right to Security
  5. Legally speaking, what is the difference between mandatory and compulsory?
  6. Legally speaking, what is the difference between shall and may?
  7. Select three principles of fundamental justice. Give true to life examples of the ones you have selected.
  8. Surface five answers to complete the following sentence. ‘What I have learnt from doing this exercise is…’
  9. Surface five answers to complete the following sentence. ‘This course has allowed me to take the following actions…’

 

 

Project C

As preparation is being made  to role out the mandated substance, I have used two information sent to me, along with some research I have done,  to put this document together. I think everyone should take a copy with them when they go to receive the substance. Kindly ask your doctor to fill out the form so you can have it for further reference.

How dangerous is the disease for which I am about to receive the substance? _____________________

What are the chances the disease will kill me? ____________________________________________

What are the chances that the disease will cripple me? ________________________________________

What are the side effects of the Substance to be administered? _________________________________

Yes               No

____           ____     Does the substance contain MRC-5 (aborted fetal cells and other DNA)?

____          ____      Is there a possibility of Latrogenic reaction (adverse reaction caused by multiple compounds or drugs                                  interacting with each other)?

____         ____      Is there a guarantee that the substance will protect me?

____         ____      Is there a guarantee that the substance will not harm me?

____        ____       Is the substance essential?

 

Declaration: I Doctor ________________ declares that the substance __________________is essential and safe for my client ________________. I consider my client healthy enough to receive the said substance. I therefore take full legal responsibility for any physical, psychological, physiological and/or mental adverse effect that my client may experience, to the administration of the said substance. I have researched the risk and the benefits of the said substance, and truthfully declare that the benefit outweighs the risk by a ratio of benefit:risk of _____________ .  I am prepared to take legal  responsibility for any adverse effect.

Doctor’s signature _____________________________

Substance Name: ____________________________

Batch number: _______________________________

Date of administration: _________________________

Time of administration: _________________________

Clinic/medical office address: ____________________

 

Declaration:   I Doctor ___________________, will not take legal responsibility for administering substance _________________ to my client _______________________.

Declaration: I _______________________ did visit my physician for the substance __________________ to be administered to me. I refuse to accept the said substance on the following grounds.________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Date of visit: _________________________________________

Clinic/medical office name: _____________________________________

Address of medical office: ______________________________________

Proof of visit: 

Dr’s signature or stamp: ________________________________________

 

Note: It is very important to have either one of the declarations signed by your doctor or at least get official stamp that you paid a visit to receive the substance. If you decide not to take the substance because your doctor will not declare legal responsibility kindly ask him to sign to that effect. If you are not satisfied with the information given to you regarding your safety kindly sign that you visited and get the medical office to stamp the form. You may need this in a court of law.

 

 

Project B

 

The Death of small businesses is your death!

 

Over the years large businesses are being treated more favorable than small businesses have been. To be even more specific, large businesses are given more tax breaks and incentives than small businesses. That is why it is much easier for small and medium sized businesses to go under. There are many reasons why this is done. The reason that stands out most is the fact that large businesses provides jobs in excess of 500 persons while small and medium size businesses do not. And we all appreciate this fact.  Were we short-sighted? Did we ever think that such a move could crush the small businesses to death? Did we even think that large businesses could become huge monsters that…not only wants to sell us their products…but exercise total control over our being?

While small businesses have been on the decline for roughly close to two decades, the scenario mentioned in Project A has caused an increase in their demise. Will this affect us considerably? You bet it will! The large businesses cannot provide jobs for everyone on the planet… neither do they intend to. What are the major businesses interested in? Transform yourself in an objective analysis of Project A and you will find the answers within you.

But the death of small businesses is the death of you and your community! It is therefore your responsibility to protect the small businesses in your community. It is an action that you must take. There are many economists who believe that small businesses cannot be protected from the grass roots. Government would have to pass some law to protect them. Will the government do ant such? Your answer to this is as good as mine.

Many small businesses have succumbed to giants, settling for the morsel that these giants extends to them. We call it convenience when it all started and we smiled. We welcomed self-serve as well. And many other ‘inspired’ ventures. And when our children graduated from school and could not get a job, we were so lacking in awareness that we were unable to connect the dots. They knew we were lacking in awareness…and so they smiled a crafty smile and pushed the sleeping ‘sheeple‘ a little further.

The death of small businesses is the death of your community. The death of your community will affect your life directly or indirectly. The death of small business will have psychological, emotional, spiritual, economical and physical repercussions.   We are all interconnected. I would like for you to sit in reflection and try to connect the dots. Try to come up with the specific adverse effects that will be facing you with the total demise of small businesses.

We are going to have to prove to the economists that we are large enough to take action. We need to begin to lobby for the health and wealth of small businesses in our community.  We will have to choose sacrifice over convenience and join those lines that came about because of Project A to lend our support. Become an advocate for small businesses by sharing this information.

Here are some links you may need to check as well.

If you are in the US  https://paysimple.com/blog/5-small-business-groups-advocating-for-you/

Advice to everyone https://smallbusiness.chron.com/business-ideas-lobbying-35168.html

If you are in Canada https://www.cfib-fcei.ca/en

I am not aware of any such assistance in Jamaica or the UK at this time. If any one is aware of advocacy in this regard kindly let me know and I will include it in our next community notice board release.

 

Project A

I consider myself somewhat qualified to speak on Project A by reason of my experience. For years I have been diagnosed as having a very poor immune system. Gaining an understanding of the needs of my body has allowed me to resist the common cold and seasonal flu. I am much healthier than I was as a child and during early adulthood. It is on this ground that Project A is undertaken. As you will realize, project A does carry codes.

Project A becomes necessary as we make preparation for the 2nd W of C# that is anticipated by many.  C# and other entities like itself cannot be prevented from entering the human body. The two main reason for this are size and the fact that it is airborne. All measures implemented so far is to reduce the probability of contact. No measures taken can completely eliminate the possibility of contact.

While in all cases like C#, measures taken to reduce the possibility of contact should be considered.  We have realized  that most measures taken to do so impacts the immune system adversely. What this means is that if the individual actually comes in contact with C#, chances of them contracting the disease is highly likely due to a ‘poor’ immune system. Bear in mind that coming in contact with and the manifestation of a disease are not the same. We also recognize that since C# has been ‘discovered’, any promotion regarding boosting one’s immune system is not at all encouraged. So here is the scenario we are faced with…there are at least four measures taken to reduce the probability of contact  with C# that affect  immunity adversely; while no attempt is being made to boost immunity. This is what is very concerning. It means that the prediction of a worse 2nd W (if it occur) than the first, is like a prophecy that will come to pass. We believe that boosting one’s immunity may prevent the manifestation of the disease caused by C# or make the symptoms less severe. Project A seeks to address the issue of boosting one’s immune system.

  • Most place in the west should be experiencing summer. Get outside and get some fresh air.
  • Clean window mesh, open your window and allow for air circulation in your home.
  • As much as is possible, avoid prolonged stay in areas that mandates the ‘upper covering’. We are created to breathe in oxygen, not carbon dioxide.
  • Organize a small interactive group that will allow you the contact necessary to maintain mental and emotional health.

Why is supplementation necessary? I once listened in on a conference that compares the nutritional value of a bowl of spinach in the early 1960’s to its equivalent today. The equivalent was said to be 45 bowls of similar size. The earth is said to be depleted. What we gain from our food today may not be enough to maintain the health of some people.

Stock up on supplements and essential oils before there is the Fall rush on these items.

Here are some supplements recommended by doctors who focus on health through nutrition and supplementation. Some supplements can affect the uptake of prescribed medication. If you are on any prescribed medication please consult your doctor before taking any supplement. We all have different demands when it comes to supplements. If you are not sure as to how much of a particular supplement works for you kindly contact your physician.  If your physician does not support health by nutrition and supplementation you may have to think about what you need to do.

While the supplement may have other benefits, we will only focus on the boosting of the immune system.

Vitamin C

Vitamin C is said to both prevent and treat respiratory and systemic infections. While most articles endorse the FDA daily dose of 100 to 200 mg/day, I know that I need 1000 to 2000 mg/day. Most persons I have spoken to need at least  500 mg/day.  Side effects (when taken in very large dosage) are diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, heartburn, stomach pain, abdominal cramps, headache, insomnia and flatulence. (I have experienced stomach pain in the past. I have not experienced any side effect since I have decided to dissolve the tablets in my daily intake of water and drink gradually throughout the day.)  There are a few doctors who suggest increasing the dose of vitamin C to the point of diarrhea and then slowly reducing to the recognize when the diarrhea stops. At whatever dose the diarrhea stops, consider that to be your daily dose. One reason why dissolving Vitamin C in your daily intake of water should be considered is that vitamin c stays in your body for approximately four hours. Having it in your water would mean you are constantly replenishing it.

Zinc

This is another very important immune booster. Although the FDA gives an adult dosage of 15 to 30 mg, most tablets have 40 or 50 mg. According to FDA and some doctors, over 40 mg can cause flu-like symptoms. (I take 50 mg once or twice per week). It is worth noting that zinc can reduce the absorption of copper and may interfere with the absorption of some antibiotics. (Your doctor can test to see if you are deficient in zinc by ordering blood or urine test as well as doing a test on a strand of hair).

Selenium

Very effective. But avoid overdose at all cost. (I take one tablet (200 mcg) per week.) Overdose may cause; garlic-like smell, metallic taste in the mouth, brittle nails, mottled or decaying teeth, gastrointestinal problems, neurological abnormality, skin lesion and rashes, hair loss, kidney failure, heart failure and death. (Doctors can in fact obtain a selenium blood test to ascertain if you are deficient in selenium.)

Vitamin A

Fat soluble. Dosage according to FDA standard is as follows: RAE (Retinol Activity Equivalent).

Life Stage Recommended Amount
Birth to 6 months 400 mcg RAE
Infants 7–12 months 500 mcg RAE
Children 1–3 years 300 mcg RAE
Children 4–8 years 400 mcg RAE
Children 9–13 years 600 mcg RAE
Teen boys 14–18 years 900 mcg RAE
Teen girls 14–18 years 700 mcg RAE
Adult men 900 mcg RAE
Adult women 700 mcg RAE
Pregnant teens 750 mcg RAE
Pregnant women 770 mcg RAE
Breastfeeding teens 1,200 mcg RAE
Breastfeeding women 1,300 mcg RAE

 

The absorption of what we ingest is just as important as what we ingest. Your food and supplements must be taken up by the blood stream to be delivered to all the cells throughout your body.  Here are six food pairings that will increase your nutrient absorption.

  • VITAMIN C AND PLANT-BASED IRON.
  • TOMATOES AND OLIVE OIL.
  • TURMERIC AND BLACK PEPPER.
  • VITAMIN D AND CALCIUM.
  • BEANS OR CHICKPEAS WITH RICE.
  • FAT AND FAT-SOLUBLE VITAMINS

What supplements to buy?

While we would suggest buying from small manufacturing companies for obvious reasons. We are unable to recommend any product at this time.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This