Posted on Thursday, March 1, 2018 | last revised on 20190528
The question we all should be asking our so-called elected Government officials of the federal, provincial and municipal governments is for proof of authority and jurisdiction over all the people. How did we become a person yoked to these government racketeers instead of free as we were born!Why are these government human right commissions not protecting our inalienable and imprescriptible human rights and fundamental freedoms as mandated?
Easy answer they can only hear matters involving citizens who have prescribed rights under their jurisdiction and authority. The racketeers simple do not make that clear! That way it is hoped that we never figure out what we could use to hold them accountable because of their fraud!
Notice the Canadian Human Rights Commission violates human rights
1. Is it not true that, in Canada, human rights are protected by federal, provincial and territorial laws? [http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/human-rights-in-canada] A fraudulent misrepresentation of what the law that brings the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into Canadian law actually says.
2. Section 26 - The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
Canadians have rights under laws other than the Charter. For example, rights may also be created under federal, provincial and international law.
The purpose of section 26 is to make clear that Parliament and the legislatures are free to create rights beyond those that are in the Charter. By entrenching basic or minimum rights, the Charter does not restrict the creation or enjoyment of other rights.
3. Is it not true that the Canadian Human Rights Commission upholds the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was passed in 1977 in the parliament of Canada? According to the Commission’s website their mandate is to protect only the core principle of equal opportunity for the enumerated classes of subjects and promote the illusion | vision of an inclusive bijural society free from discrimination. Misses that mandate when only enumerated classes of subjects and only a few human rights are protected, doesn’t it.
4. Is it not true that inalienable human rights and fundamental freedoms cannot be prescribed? Only civil rights can be prescribed!
5. Is it not true that, the indigenous people of Canada are outside of the jurisdiction and authority of all governments created because of s91 and s92 of the BNA act 1867? Making any civil law Canadian Human Rights Commission inferior to international law and null and void from the get go according to charter s52.
6. Is it not true that, the indigenous people of Canada are not controlled or proscribed by any government document, created because of s91 and s92 of the BNA act 1867? This would also apply in the area of inalienable human rights and fundamental freedoms would it not.
7. Is it not true that, if I can name the human right, I can claim the inalienable human right, freedom, and no one can trespass on that right!
8. Is it not true that, the purpose of this Canadian Human Rights Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of enumerated classes of subjects coming within the legislative authority of Parliament found in the BNA Act 1867 only? All indigenous individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations to the rule of law. Without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by any trespass on rights by any Canadian government or Human Rights Commission.
9. Is it not true that, the Canadian Human Rights Act R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 “13 [Repealed, 2013, c. 37, s. 2]” indicates civil law under a civil law government and only applicable to enumerated classes of subjects who do not have human rights because of their fictional status.
10. Is it not true that, this commission is in fact the Canadian Civil Rights Commission not the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which means the commission, is not fulfilling the governments’ primary mandate to protect the human rights of all Canadians?
11. Is it not true that, there is no “Canadian Human Rights Commission” that protects the rights of the people who actually have human rights?
12. Is it not true that it is very easy for the government to violate the human rights of the indigenous people because of the state of the judicial system at least that is the opinion the minister responsible recently expressed.
13. Is it not true that enumerated classes of subjects only can legally file the prescribed form of the Canadian Civil Rights Commission so this indigenous man was forced under duress to fraudulently submit false information just to get the complaint filed against the government? Are enumerated classes of subjects even capable of filing a complaint? Would enumerated classes of subjects ever have a human right?
14. Is it not true that being indigenous and with the right to self-determination I chose other on the form and this was immediately rejected for not being in Canada legally. Human rights violations!
15. Is it not true that I stated this human rights violation was ongoing and had been for a number of years and that was immediately rejected because this discriminatory event happened more than 12 months ago? Last week was irrelevant!
16. Is it not true that I had to surrender my human rights just to file a complaint as an enumerated class of subject with the Canadian Human Rights Commission just to get to file?
17. Is it not true that I am not required by law to have a phone and I am definitely not required to provide such private information? Human rights violations
18. Is it not true that I as the only one with human rights am the only one who can choose the communication method that is used?
19. Is it not true that the information in this Complaint Form is true to the best of my knowledge and belief? Really, human beings have to fraudulently submit false information just to get the complaint filed.
20. As agreed, Prete v. Ontario (Attorney-General), 1993 - The reasons Of Lamer J standing alone, are strongly persuasive that a statutory enactment cannot stand in the way of a constitutional entitlement of the people to exercising their human rights.