Justice Centre fights Travel Ban: “Canada is the only country in the developed world that bans unvaccinated citizens from air travel”


Https://www.jccf.ca/court Facing Compelling Testimony From Charter Signatory Brian Peckford As Action Proceeds To Strike Down Vaccine Travel Ban/

Source:  https://www.jccf.ca/court-facing-compelling-testimony-from-charter-signatory-brian-peckford-as-action-proceeds-to-strike-down-vaccine-travel-ban/

2 thoughts on “Justice Centre fights Travel Ban: “Canada is the only country in the developed world that bans unvaccinated citizens from air travel””

  1. These types of actions appear to be necessary, but the financial resources and time involved are a drain. The injustice in the legal system is prohibitive of and not conducive to liberty. The issues presented are not handled quickly enough. There doesn’t seem to be any other realistic recourse. How can peaceful and patient people win against tyrants with power and nearly unlimited resources (taken from the people who are seeking justice)?

    1. Good news. Tyrants are illegal in Canada. That comes from the vast part of our Constitution, the BNA Act of 1867, unknown to the “Charter warriors” as I call then, and the civil litigators. The Preamble of the Constitution of 1867 says:

      “Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:”

      Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/30-31/3/introduction

      “Similar in principle” means that Canada’s Constitution is identical to the British Constitution as it stood in 1867 when the BNA Act came into force, with one exception. Ours is a quasi-federal state with a division of powers between the Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures. In 1867, United Kingdom was not a tyranny. Therefore Canada is, constitutionally speaking, permanently not a tyranny. The Preamble importing the UK Constitution into Canada can be used to challenge and put down a tyranny.

      All the great documents of the British Constitution are ours, through that Preamble, which “imports” them, including Magna Carta.

      Magna Carta says:

      “XXIX Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.

      NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [X1condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

      Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/XXIX

      Most people miss the &c (etcetera) after the word “imprisonment”. Magna Carta is about far more than freedom from imprisonment without charge and a jury trial.

      We have that Preamble because Sir John A. Macdonald couldn’t figure out how to reduce the whole British Constitution to writing. So it’s “imported” via the Preamble, giving us wonderful things like Magna Carta that actually protects us from being stripped of our property (freehold), liberties, or exiled or “in any other wise” “destroyed”. The lawyers don’t know about it any more, the people don’t know about it. But it’s ours, we just don’t use it.

      Canada also has a doctrine of delegation that prohibits Parliament from abdicating its powers to others (such as health tyrants); a principle of independence of the Member of parliament or of a provincial legislature, which prevents them being owned and controlled by financial interests like Klaus Schwab and friends. That principle was discussed at length by Lord Shaw in the House of Lords in 1910. Lord Shaw said so many good things, I can hardly choose which to quote him for while explaining that a political party or a member of Parliament cannot be owned by outside interests:

      “For the people having reserved to themselves the choice of their representatives, as the fence to their properties, could do it for no other end but that they might always be freely chosen, and so chosen freely act and advise, as the necessity of the commonwealth and the public good should upon examination and mature debate be judged to require.”

      If it happened that outside interests owned our Members, it would “cut up the Government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security”.

      https://downwithhate.wordpress.com/statement-of-lord-shaw-of-dunfermline-in-amalgamated-society-of-railway-servants-v-osborne-1910-ac-87/

      We have lots of great things in our Constitution, its time to revive it and use it. The prerogative writ of Quo Warranto allows a challenge to the authority of anyone exercising power for purposes contrary to the Constitution, and is used to throw them out, and wipe their votes off the statute books.

      The remedies are all there; it’s just the lawyers that aren’t there, or can’t see it, because they were never taught about it. They know nothing but the charter, so they have no tools to fight real tyranny.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.