Skip navigation

Category Archives: War

I’m silencing my social media accounts for a long while to give myself a break. I feel like I’ve been at war since last year. That is, unfortunately, how I see the state of modern discourse on social media. Wartorn and diseased by viral memes spreading racism, intolerance and ignorance that I no longer wish to wade through.

I didn’t even use my Twitter account prior to last year. Had no need of it. I only started using it during a Thunderclap campaign in June of 2014 to raise awareness about an organic treatment for cancer that even the ancient Egyptians knew about. Health Canada is directly lying to the public by claiming it (DCA) is only available as a byproduct of synthetic chemical processes instead of being bioavailable in red seaweeds.

When the massacre of Gazans began, I transitioned to using Twitter to try to raise awareness of Canada’s involvement in inciting the conflict. Our Prime Minister can be seen as playing a direct role in the rhetoric that lead to a massacre of children during the war alongside their civilian parents. His part was integral for providing international support and legitimacy. Had Canada been seen as opposing the war, it would have played out very differently in the International arena. However, our Prime Minister decided that Canada would stand with Israel “through fire and water.”

This wasn’t just a war on Palestine. This was a war on the family unit. The family unit has long been thought of as the most basic sub-unit of society. It was recognized and enshrined as such by the ICCPR, which Canada ratified in 1976. Alongside basic individual human rights, the rights of families are afforded a special status as well. Families become the tribes of modern society, with extended blood relations and intermarriage creating links between different tribes that span the globe.

To attack the protected status of family is to attack the extended tribe itself. To forever change the delicate balance of power between the rights of the citizen, the citizen’s family and the state. Dangerous precedents are being set. To forever silence entire families is to extinguish unique tribes of people.

Some people ignorantly insist that the definition of genocide must involve literally millions of people. And is usually associated with Holocaust-type activities.

Why?

Why are the most important factors how big your tribe is and how much money they have for PR and legal defense?

If your tribe only includes a father, a mother and a child, isn’t that a unique genetic lineage in and of itself? Shouldn’t a tribe of three be just as protected by law as a tribe of millions?

Why does genocide immediately have to be associated with trains and death camps? Why can’t it just be negative State interference with families?

The simple answer is that our ancestors accepted a certain amount of State interference in the family unit which has expanded significantly over time.

Following World War II, there was a whole generation of people that grew with parents who smoked, including during pregnancy. Women would go to work in smoke-filed environments. This lead to a lot of low birth weight babies and the Baby Boomer generation. It also lead to increased support from the State for medical interventions necessary to save the life of a low birth weight newborn.

This lead to a backlash in the next generation who grew up with the ‘perceived evils’ of smoking and avoided exposure to cigarettes to ensure a healthy pregnancy. High birth weight babies became the goal of the state interference. The health of the mother became secondary to her breeding potential to supply the State with the next generation of wage slaves, wage slave owners, support staff bureaucrats, lawyers and soldiers to defend the State itself.

Far from the State simply supporting the family unit as a unique tribe, the State forcibly subjugated the family unit to the wishes by attacking the defined role of women and children in the family. The State redefined the family unit along State oriented lines and goals. They created mandates which gave themselves power to further interfere with the family unit.

Where throughout history, child birth was accomplished without any necessary State interference, women in modern Western societies must undergo invasive and unnatural procedures to ‘protect’ their health and the health of their newborn during the birthing process. Thousands of books are available telling expectant mothers the millions of things that can go wrong. It’s like a variation of Murphy’s Law that encompasses the nocebo effect, the opposite of the placedo effect.

Worrying about everything little thing that might go wrong, will usually cause something to go wrong.

When the State combines the fear of child birth with the fear of dying you get a hypersexualized society with grossly overly accentuated definitions of the male and female roles in society. You end up with Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber and a whole generation of music marketed at teens designed to turn them into mindless followers of trends. Sheep who only exist to follow their pop culture shepherds. Or Judas goats.

I call it ‘Death Blooming.’ I use a similar process in my plant-insect research. By exposing plants to insect breeding byproducts, a cellular response is triggered that forces rapid growth and nutrient uptake. The plants sense themselves as infested with insects and initiate a massive burst in growth, which also increases blooming and fruiting potential.

The State uses the same mentality against us with threats of terrorism and jihadists hiding under our beds. They make use think our country is ‘infested’ with our enemies who wish us harm. A similar tactic was used during the Red Scare-era of McCarthyism. Invent a threat lurking the minds of strangers that must be investigated by the State.

By using rhetoric that heightens our fears of both living and dying, the State creates a vicious circle of procreation. Fear of dying due to wars, plagues and poverty compounds our existing fears of dying of cancer or other ills of our increasingly sick society. This creates a drive towards sexualizing youth at a younger and younger age to ensure continuity of our species.

A similar process is currently occuring in Tasmania, where the Tasmanian Devils are fighting a battle with a rare parasitic form of cancer. The cancer is know as the devil facial tumor disease and affects large portions of their population. Once infected, a devil dies within 12-18 months from the condition as expanding facial tumors interfere with breathing and feeding. The cancer can also undergo metastasis and move to other organs in the body. Previously to this disease, the Tasmanian devil’s reproduction cycle didn’t commence until around the age of two. With the increase in mortality rates amongst the species, survival is being maintained as females of the species have responded by reaching sexual maturity at around a year old, half of their previous age. This can be seen as a natural species response to possible extinction.

Do humans have a similar response? Looking at Western culture, it would seem that we do. These cultures are driven by their fears and failings instead of their ideals. The fear of death, the fear of disease, the fear of poverty. The failings of racism, xenophobia and religious intolerance.

The fear of assault by those viewed as alien to our rigidly defined cultural viewpoints produces a false hyper-masculine image contrary to the health of the extended tribe. It creates psychotic totalitarian alpha male ideologies based on sub-segments of the species, nations or races, and allows them to become entrenched along lines that were previously occupied by religious thought. This creates the essence of Nationalism the the State devolves into. The worship of the nation or race above all else. Even God.

If you’re willing to put your nation above God, then where would you put the families of your neighbors? Certainly not higher than your own wellbeing or that of your family. What about families in other countries? They get put way down there. Dark skinned families in some place on the other side of the globe? The bottom of the pyramid that puts worship of the nation in place of God. It moves God from the position of supremacy overall in relation to the limits of State authority to the position of nothingness and powerlessness.

Biblically, this State of being is known the Abomination. Or Obamanation. Or Fordnation. Or HarperPAC. You should get the point. People using the media to set themselves up as idols to be worshiped. Demagogues. Gog and Magog. False hyper-masculine images. False father figures. ‘Father knows best.’ Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein, Netanyahu, Gaddafi, Reagan and now Harper.

Recent political decisions regarding the religious adornment of Muslim women demonstrate the evident inversion of the pyramid of values in Canada. Demanding women ‘bare their face before Canada’ in the same manner a bride might unveil at a wedding is a very obvious inversion of the values Canada is based upon. The preamble of Canada’s Charter recognizes the Supremacy of God and the rule of law, not the Supremacy of Maple Syrup as a divine religious symbol one marries upon gaining citizenship.

Not only has Canada become an abomination, it also appears we are the end-time abomination warned about in all three Abrahamic Faiths. The Book of Daniel describes ten kingdoms united under a single king. In Canada we have ten provincial crowns united under a federal crown. We also have a Prime Minister who makes a lot of proud boasts and understands dark (racist) sentences. He also went to Israel in January of 2014 and declared Canada, the nation, would stand with Israel ‘through Fire and Water’, in the same manner that God stood with Israel in the book of Isaiah. In that manner he exalts himself above God. Muslims might recognize the Leader of the Reformers (Reform Party) who are corrupting the world mentioned in Quran.

Every piece of the Abrahamic puzzle fits so well into right here and right now that there really isn’t a way to deny it except through devout atheism or deliberately ignorant misinterpretation of all three religious texts.

So while you’re firing up your BBQs this Canada Day, try to remember what you’re really celebrating.

The unholy nation that legitimized cultural genocide and the rights of the State over families and the extended tribe we are all part of.

The unholy nation that has been warned about in a series of religious texts for thousands of years.

The unholy nation that is hiding the cure for cancer and other oxidative stress disorders.

Anyone who says “These are different times.” are using the same logic the Nazis espoused.

These are times when we take issue with the differences between us.

We take issue with people who wear different religious attire. We take issue with people who go to their church on a different day. We take issue with those of different skin color or even just different financial status.

These aren’t different times. These are Intolerant Times. If that is the case, I’m all for the End Of These Times.

If it means we can move past these petty issues that have plagued mankind in its infancy…

If it means we can move from endlessly attacking diversity to endlessly celebrating diversity…

If it means we can move towards a better and brighter future for all…

Bring it on.

I’ve been holding off on discussing matters proceeding through the court, but the continuing abuse of process is becoming exceptionally disturbing.

Let’s start at the beginning. I’ve been saying for a while that the lawyer for the Hospital committed perjury. This was a mistake on my part. What he actually did is known as establishing a false pretense. He presented false information as fact and ran with it on a public record. This same lawyer also happens to be the Head Adjudicator for NL Human Rights. He’ll have to answer for his statements as they seem to violate the rules of candor a lawyer takes an oath to uphold.

Another interesting fact from my case was the layout of the court room. They positioned the screen that featured my legal aide lawyers, as well as my parents who were calling in, on the side of the defendant. From the judge’s point of view, I had no representation present and the hospital had five lawyers as well as my parents calling in one their side. How is a judge supposed to properly weigh facts in his mind if they’re all being presented as a literal one-sided argument? The screen for my lawyers and family should have been positioned on the other side of the court room. It was a kangaroo court from the first moment to the last. The audio record won’t show the discrepancy, but there were plenty of witnesses.

Moving on to the uttering threats charge, the charges were dismissed for lack of an actual threat. For those of you with an understanding of computer logic statements, it amounted to an ‘If, then’ statement. I got the idea from an old common law case. Someone had placed his hand on his sword and said something along the lines of “I’d run you through right now IF not for that fact that the justice is in town.” The conditional ‘if’ in the statement defeated the charge of uttering threats by not actually being a threat. I found this out through wikipedia while researching a similar matter I had brought before me earlier in the year. The RCMP actually realized this during their investigation prior to the search warrant being issued, but they chose to proceed anyways.

At this point, it becomes a matter of a negligent investigation by the RCMP and RNC and an abuse of process by the Crown attorney who authorized my initial week long detainment. They saw fit to press a justice for the subsequent search warrant that led to the arrest of my wife and the seizure of all my research which still hasn’t been returned.

Despite the fact that the charges have been terminated, the RCMP are continuing to detain my research devices and say they’ll continue to request detention orders until the cultivation charges are resolved, despite the devices having no immediate relevance to the matter.

On what grounds can they keep these devices and deny me access to my business and research? The search warrant that brought them into my home had no legal and lawful framework. They may have been operating on good faith, but they also have a duty to determine if a crime has actually been committed. Otherwise they stalked me for issuing an idle non-threat. They just didn’t understand what constitutes a threat legally. Should have called a lawyer first. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Even if they were operating in good faith, the fact that I’d been detained and missed my Charter Challenge for no lawful reason still hasn’t been addressed in the slightest. Justice delayed is justice denied, and right now

The RCMP, RNC and others can claim they were acting with good intentions, but the road to Hell is paved with those. I’m sure the guards at the Nazi Concentration Camps thought they were just dealing with a pesky vermin problem so their good upstanding neighbors wouldn’t have to mess their clothes.

No matter how you slice it, the mentality of Nazism has taken hold in Canada and sunk its roots deep into Newfoundland. With our genocidal and slavery-stained past, it should come as no surprise to any student of Newfoundland’s history.

The rights of individual citizens, families, the poor and the disabled, are being abused and degraded in Canada, especially in Newfoundland. By underfunding the judiciary, hiring too many police officers without a proper understanding of the law, and choking our legal system with a “Tough on Crime” mentality, we lose the ability for the legal system to operate in a fundamentally just fashion.

Instead of an independent and efficient judiciary, I’ve seen Crown attorneys arbitrarily flout legal and ethical standards. I’ve seen lawyers operating in conflict of interest positions and not being penalized. I’ve seen police with no respect for their duty to uphold the Charter as the Supreme Law of Canada as written in our Constitution. None of these people are above the law. I submitted peacefully to the whole process, but now I’m not going to remain quiet any longer. The police and Crown have made a mockery of our court system to keep themselves employed. Not even to uphold the law. Just for money.

I don’t know about anyone else who reads this blog, but I’m sick of how closed off NL is to realizing the bureaucracy has become completely corrupt. People pretend it’s just minor corruption, but it runs deeper than you can imagine.

After all, Newfoundland is the only place in the world to have completed the genocide of a First Nation. Plenty of building and companies named Beothuk, but not a single member of the tribe remaining. No wonder people here can’t accept their sacrificial role in being the catalyst for the racial divisions, genocide and war that is currently occurring globally.

Don’t expect the change to happen because of some rally. Or some vote. No occupy or anonymous movement will save us. This has to be direct citizen to citizen action.

Talk to people. Explain your point of view. Explain that approval seeking bootlickers in politics will never be able to fix anything. True change requires a real effort. Politicians just step up to ‘manage’ or ‘facilitate’, but really they just take credit for the hard work of others. Nothing will come of waiting for a vote and expecting the governments to follow the law when they’ve already repeatedly demonstrated no respect for it.

We can’t ask for change. We end up ask beggars on the street.

We have to seize change and demand a return to a more free, just, open and democratic society.

I created a GoFundMe account specifically for the Charter Challenge to help hire some additional legal aide.

All donations will go towards helping to build a case that will see the Federal government of Canada and the Provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador held accountable for their crimes against humanity.

Share this around, eh?

-Andrew

Here’s the second draft of the memorandum.

2nd Draft – Charter Challenge

Thanks to everyone who made suggestions.

Here’s a rough draft of the Memorandum of Argument I’m looking to file with the Courts in reference to my Charter Challenge. Anyone interested in making comments, or suggestions can email me at abyss@paradigmslip.ca.

MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT

PART I.                  STATEMENT OF FACTS

OVERVIEW

  1. The Applicant, ANDREW ABBASS (“Mr. Abbass”) submits that the judicial process invoked by Subsections 318(3), 319(6) and 320(7) (the “Subsections”) of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”) are not compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) and subject to just remedy under Section 24 (1) of the Charter or found to have no force or effect under Section 52 (1) of the Constitution Act of 1982.
  2. Whereas the Applicant believes his right to equality before, under and in the benefit of and protection of the law, guaranteed by Section 15(1) of the Charter have been violated by the judicial proceedings initiated through his exercising of his responsibility as a citizen of Canada to uphold Canada’s laws, subject to just remedy under Section 24(1) of the Charter.
  3. Whereas Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982 requires the Charter to be upheld as the Supreme Law of Canada, in that the preamble of the Charter recognizes the rule of law as a founding principle, the Subsections represent a direction violation of the rule of law capable of impeding fundamental justice.
  4. The Applicant will argue that these Subsections should be recognized by this Court as special privileges afforded to the Attorney General for interpreting the language and context of the laws in good faith, not an inalienable interpretive language right protected by the Charter or any Act.
  5. The Applicant therefore seeks an order rescinding, repealing or revoking Subsections 318(3), 319(6) and 320(7) of the Criminal Code of Canada under Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982, or amending them by adding “unless interested” at the end of each subsection, or any just remedy the Court considers appropriate under Section 24(1) of the Charter.


BACKGROUND FACTS TO THIS CASE

Mr. Abbass’ filing of the Charge of Incitement towards Genocide

  1. On July 16th, 2014 the Applicant, Andrew Abbass, learned of the deaths of 4 children on a beach in Gaza. Video coverage and pictures of the aftermath of the event were widely available on social media outlets.
  2. The following day, July 17th, 2014, while looking for a Canadian response on CBC’s website pertaining to the funeral of the 4 children killed the previous day, the Applicant found minimal coverage of the event.
  3. During his search, the Applicant discovered a Huffington Post article about a YouTube video the Conservative Party of Canada had quietly released to its Israeli supporters on July 16th, 2014. (Through Fire and Water)
  4. In viewing the video, the Applicant and was disturbed by the splicing together of military and political footage with aggressive music and quotes from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and then Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird.
  5. The Applicant showed the video directly to several associates who were also offended by the juxtaposition of aggressive imagery, quotes and music.
  6. To better understand the nature of what the Applicant felt was offensive, he compiled a transcript of the video to analyze the selected quotes and imagery.
  7. In compiling this transcript, the Applicant found what he believed to be a sophisticated language of hatred and incitement towards genocide.
  8. The purpose of this use of this language, in the opinion of the Applicant, was to incite the Israeli people towards attacking the people of Gaza, implying that their actions were justified and morally correct in the eyes of Canada.
  9. The Applicant initially telephoned the RCMP in Ottawa on the 20th of July to report the crime, but was informed he would have to file the charges through his local jurisdiction.
  10. On the morning of July 21st, the Applicant filed charges with the RNC in Corner Brook, Newfoundland. As the crime occurred outside their jurisdiction, an RNC liaison officer was assigned and the charges were forwarded to the RCMP in St. John’s.
  11. The Applicant received a phone call from RCMP officer JOHN DOE on July 30th, requesting a meeting for August 1st.
  12. The Applicant met with the plain clothed RCMP officer on August 1st, who informed the Applicant that no charges were being pressed.
  13. The officer informed the Applicant that the video and statement by the Prime Minister were being considered a governing policy, not criminal and that his only option was to vote in the next election.
  14. The following Tuesday, August 5th, the Applicant filed a complaint with the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP.
  15. The report compiled by the Officer undertaking the investigation of the complaint has been completed and a letter of Disposition is to be made available in the coming months. (Document)


PART II.                                STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

  1. The Applicant submits that the process he has undertaken as part of his responsibilities as a Canadian citizen raise the following important issues of law that are of national and public importance:

Issue 1:   Do the Subsections violate the rule of law by placing the Attorney General’s interpretation of what constitutes incitement towards genocide and the creation and dissemination of hate propaganda above the law?

Issue 2:    Do the current form of these Subsections allow a conflict whereby the consent privileges given to the Attorney General by the Code can impede the course of fundamental justice in crimes where he is personally interested?

  1. These issues warrant consideration by this Honourable Court on the basis that:
    • These are both novel and important questions of law.
    • The Subsections have never been tested for Charter compliance in this manner.
    • Variations of the Subsections are also present in other sections of the Code, as well as pending Bill C-51.
    • The need to have these issues addressed is pressing and the objective is both proportional and justifiable to maintain a free and democratic society.
    • The means are rationally connected to the objective and result in the minimal impairment of rights of all Canadians.


PART III                               STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

This Is A Case That Raises Issues of National and Public Importance

  1. Incitement towards genocide and the creation and dissemination of hate propaganda are crimes made infamous by the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany. Section 318, 319, and 320 of the Criminal Code of Canada were drafted with the legislative intent of criminalizing these types of behaviors before they can do substantial damage to the public good.
  2. The potential for the impairment of justice on these matters through conflicting interpretations of the Criminal Code of Canada has a significant impact on Canadians. Laws expected to provide protection to citizens from the abuses of power that allowed Nationalist Socialist Germany to undertake the Holocaust should not allow for interpretations capable of impeding fundamental justice.
  3. To that end, the Criminal Code of Canada together with the Charter have the expectation of being designed to protect the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens by ensuring that a proper legal framework exists to have such matters addressed by the judicial system in a timely and just manner.
  4. Delaying justice on a matter involving the incitement towards hatred and the dissemination of hate propaganda has the effect of increasing the damage to society and the public good on a national and global scale. In the opinion of the Applicant, The RCMP and Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP do not have the legal authority to engage in a proper and timely balancing of the importance of the rights at stake in this matter.
  5. Section 15(1) of the Charter states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit without discrimination. In dismissing the charges with no legal justification offered or route for appeal, the Applicant feels his rights to engage the legal process in a matter of grave importance have been violated, therefore allowing the Court to proscribe just remedy under Section 24(1) of the Charter in consideration of the circumstances of the violation.
  6. In filing an Originating Application (“Contract”) with the Supreme Court of Newfoundland as a self-representing citizen, the Applicant brings this matter before this Honourable Court to advance the pursuit of fundamental justice in the spirit of good faith and the public interest.
  7. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledges that good faith as it applies to the matter of contractual obligation should be a founding principle from which the Court manifests its interpretation of the Common Law of Contracts:

There is an organizing principle of good faith that parties generally must perform their contractual duties honestly and reasonably and not capriciously or arbitrarily.  An organizing principle states in general terms a requirement of justice from which more specific legal doctrines may be derived. An organizing principle therefore is not a free‑standing rule, but rather a standard that underpins and is manifested in more specific legal doctrines and may be given different weight in different situations.  It is a standard that helps to understand and develop the law in a coherent and principled way.(2014 SCC 71 – J Cromwell)

  1. While the opinion of individual citizens on legal matters carries little weight in determining the proper course of the law, the ruling of this Honourable Court can provide guidance and direction to the Applicant and other citizens in determining if the issues presented require an expeditious, lawful and just remedy to maintain a free and democratic society.


Issue 1:
   Charter Compliance of Code Sections 318-3, 319-6 and 320-7

  1. The existing language used in Subsection 318(3), 319(6) and 320(7) of the Code are a direct violation of the rule of law. They allowing the consent (“arbitrary decision”) of the Attorney General (“appointed official”) to govern the prosecution of criminal justice in these crimes.
  2. The original legislative intent of inserting the Subsections may have been to prevent charges from being filed for spurious reasons, but they also created the potential for limiting a citizen’s lawful ability to seek justice for any crimes committed by the Federal government under this Section of the Code.
  3. By placing the Attorney General interpretative privileges above the law in question, the Subsections violate the founding precepts of the Charter which recognize the Supremacy of God and the rule of Law. In accordance with Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982, the Subsections as they currently exist should be found to have no force or effect.
  4. The equality rights provided by Section 15(1) of the Charter have been interpreted by the Court to be aimed at preventing :

“violation of essential human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political and social prejudices, and to promote a society in which all persons enjoy equal recognition at law as human beings or as members of Canadian society, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration.” (Iacobucci J. in Law v. Canada, [1999])

  1. To prevent further violation of essential human dignity through possible crimes against humanity, the Applicant taken a purposive approach to contextualize the dire need to address these Subsections within the broader scope of the law and requirement of maintaining a free and democratic society.
  2. The Applicant respectfully submits that grounds exist to challenge the Charter-compliance of the Subsections through either Section 24(1) of the Charter or Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982.


Issue 2:
Potential Consent-based Conflicts Of Interest in Criminal Code of Canada

  1. By denying the ability of the judicial branch to prosecute crimes of this nature without the consent of the Attorney General, the potential for a conflict of interest is created. It is difficult to envision a situation where the Attorney General would consent to the prosecution of a crime he himself may be found complicit in.
  2. To that end, several other instances of this particular formulation of the consent clause are found through-out the Code that can deny the prosecution of justice. Taken in this manner, they grant the Attorney General the ability to consent to the criminal act instead of prosecuting it.
  3. These consent clauses are found in wide range of laws, some of which are quite concerning when examined for their potential for abuse. The following list illustrates the possibility of crimes from the Code that can be committed with this embedded privilege providing immunity to prosecution:
  • 7(2.33) – offenses occurring in space
  • 7(4.3) – sexual offenses against children
  • 7(7) – denying prosecution of criminal foreign nationals
  • 54 – assisting a deserter
  • 24 – terrorism, hiding terrorist property, banking with terrorists
  • 136(3) – providing false evidence
  • 141 (2) – bribery
  • 164(7) – voyeurism, corruption of morals, child pornography, advertising sexual services
  • 283(2) – kidnapping
  • 318(3) – advocating genocide
  • 319(6) – public incitement of hatred
  • 320(7) – denying seizure of hate propaganda
  • 347(7) – allowing criminal interest rates
  • 385(2) – concealing title documents
  • 422(3) – breach of contract, intimidation and discrimination against trade unionists
  • 477.2 (1) – offenses committed by a non-citizen on a foreign ship in Canadian waters
  • 477.2 (2) – offenses committed in the economic zone of Canada by citizens or in relation to citizens
  • 477.2 (3) – offenses committed in non-recognized states (ie: Palestine)
  • 477.3 (3) – piracy
  • 810.01 (1) – intimidation of the criminal justice system or a journalist
  • 810.2 (1) – threatening violence, endanger safety, inflicting psychological damage and various forms of sexual assault
  1. While the list of Attorney General Consent clauses presented is not exhaustive, there is a pattern in that the majority of the offenses have the potential to be exceptionally socially damaging crimes and few reasons exist to allow such a clause to prevent justice.
  2. In addition, Bill C-51 introduces new consent clauses that can further impede the judicial process without due oversight.
  3. Through examining the legislative intent of the drafting of Bill C-51 in light of the comparable consent clauses already shown to have potential for abuse, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to provide guidance in ensuring that the principle of good faith is applied not only to common law contracts, but the social contract that provides for a good faith between Canadian citizens and the Government of Canada.


Summary And Conclusion

  1. pending


PART IV.               COST SUBMISSIONS

  1. This Applicant seeks for leave to raise issues of national and public importance before the court to seek a just and appropriate remedy. No costs are requested.


PART V.                NATURE OF ORDER SOUGHT

  1. The Applicant therefore seeks an order rescinding, repealing or revoking Subsections 318(3), 319(6) and 320(7) of the Criminal Code of Canada under Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982, or amending them by adding “unless interested” at the end of each subsection, or any just remedy the Court considers appropriate under Section 24(1) of the Charter.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dated at the City of Corner Brook in the Province of Newfoundland this *** day of February, 2015.

_______________
Andrew Abbass
Applicant

Canada,

I filed a Charter Challenge against clauses in the Criminal Code that violate the Charter and allow the Federal Government to use incitement towards genocide and institutionalized racism as a political tool.

Charter Challenge

I’m hoping to unite people behind the idea that we can fix the law to better follow the Charter, removing this additional right for the Attorney General and the PMO that’s been entrenched in the Criminal Code for decades.

I’ve got a Thunderclap setup to try to raise awareness: #Justice is in Your Hands

And a petition that’s been up since July: Arrest Harper for Inciting Genocide Against Muslims

And the original charges which were dismissed because of the clauses being challenged: Charges filed July 21, 2014

I’ve been trying to get all this done by myself, but things would happen much faster if there was more grassroots support.

The Thunderclap launches on the 25th at 6:00PM Newfoundland time.

Parliament re-opens on the 26th.

Del Mastro gets sentenced on the 27th.

The first court hearing for the Charter Challenge is set for January 28th at 9:15AM in Corner Brook.

I hope to have your support on this matter.

-Andrew

Received an update letter from the RCMP yesterday in regards to the on-going complaint investigation.

RCMP_Letter_Dec15-2014.pdf

They expect to have the investigation clued up in the next month(s?), where they will be able to provide me with a Letter of Disposition.

At that point, the complaint can undergo a further appeal and even a public hearing of all the facts in the matter.

I’m wonder which will be completed first, the Charter Challenge or the Investigation?

Help raise awareness of how these flawed laws are being exploited to allow the governments of Israel and Canada to commit genocide (latin: tribe killing).

Join the campaign, spread the word, demand the rule of law be upheld.

I filed an originating application here in Corner Brook on the 19th to bring a conflict between the Canadian Criminal Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms before the Supreme Court of Newfoundland.

Respondents include the Attorney General of both Canada and Newfoundland.

The Charter Challenge is in regards to what I’m going the call the #SatanicClauses of Canada’s genocide laws. I believe these clauses, 318-3, 319-6 and 320-7, violate the rule of law by literally placing the interpretations of the Attorney General above the law in question. This creates a potential conflict of interest should the Attorney General be charged under these laws. They allow the Attorney General to play the Devil’s Advocate in regards to the interpretation and application, hence the appellation #SatanicClauses.

As the Charter is founded on the supremacy of the rule of law, that law should govern a nation, as opposed to arbitrary decisions by individual government officials, these clauses exist in direct conflict with our constituting documents.

As Section 52.1 of the Charter states that the Charter is the supreme law of Canada, any law that is inconsistent with it’s provisions, in this case the rule of law, is found to have no force or effect to the extent of the inconsistency.

To that end, striking these clauses from the Canadian Criminal Code should place the power to determine whether to prosecute the crime of genocide with the courts, restoring the rule of law in Canada.

Israel has the same sort of clause in their genocide law: http://preventgenocide.org/il/law1950.htm

The court date is January 28th, 2015 at 9:15AM the filed (but redacted) documents are available below.

http://paradigmslip.ca/Charter_Challenge_318-3_319-6_320-7.pdf

These charges cost me $86.36 to file with the court and mail out. Pretty cheap for a civil revolution.

Please feel free to plagiarize my work.