The government thinks it owns all the land. It also thinks it has the consent of the people to govern. These two things, when you think about it, are quite incompatible. - Claude Awad I want to explore this idea because I think it has a LOT of merit. Let us break this apart and see if he is right. In 1882 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the case Holman v. Green, 6 SCR 707; ‘Therefore at the date of the admission of Prince Edward Island into the Union pursuant to the provisions of the 146th section of the British North America Act, the land in question formed part of the demesne lands of the Crown belonging to that province.’ What that means is that a demesne was formed at the very moment the province was formed. The Lieutenant Governor being the Lord of the land and the Crown holding the alodial title. People purchase permission to possess the land, which we call freehold title. The people dont actually own the land but rather permission to possess the land only. Ownership is retained by the Crown. The recent Supreme Court ruling creating a new feudal tenure called Aboriginal Title fits into the feudal system as well. Aboriginal land is still subject to the Crown. If you believe you truly own your land, try refusing to pay your property taxes and see what happens. As for the people themselves, the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 - The consent of the governed is a value that is basic to our understanding of a free and democratic society. As I have written over and over, consent requires a free will choice to participate or not. If one chooses to participate then the premise is that they voluntarily surrender their right to property in order to gain benefits and privileges. Protection is the name of the game of feudalism after all. However, if one chooses to NOT consent to being governed by the Crown, then do they get their property back? No. Not only that, but the state persecutes or gets rather violent against anybody who revokes their consent to being governed. The premise being that they own the land, so if you dont like the rules that they make, then leave! Associate Chief Justice Rooke stated in his ruling Meads v Meads 2012 ABQB 571 Of course, it is indeed possible to cease to be governed by Canadian law. One only need leave Canada and break formal ties with this jurisdiction. Yet more proof of their claim of land ownership. So how are these two incompatible as Claude suggests? If the Crown claims ownership of all the land, how is it that the people have any say on whether they participate with her democracy or not? Our freedom to choose is founded upon our ability to be free. We are not free if we dont have any land upon which to base that freedom on. Our bodies are an integral part of the land. Our bodies cannot be separated from the land as they are completely dependent upon the land for survival. The land provides food, clothing, shelter, air, water and all forms of physical, emotional, mental and especially spiritual support! If the Crown takes away ownership and control of the land, our bodies go with it. At that point there is no consent. By simply claiming the land, the Crown has placed all people into involuntary servitude. At that point, there is no freedom to consent or not as one cannot get their property back should they refuse to consent. The only choice they give us is to stay or go. I agree with Claude as his statement has significant insight. The Supreme Court has contradicted itself. If we are to be truly free, the land too must be free as well. True freedom must provide the individual to participate or not. If one is not free to revoke their consent to being governed then this is not a free and democratic society. The premise of government should rest on the free will choice to participate or not. By claiming the land as well, the Crown has usurp that free will choice and violated their own principle that was enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights No one may be held in slavery or servitude. Slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. So the Crown has to choose: 1. Accept their mandate to govern through the consent of the governed and surrender the land to the people and have a truly free society or 2. Maintain control of the land and accept that such ownership forces all the people on the land into involuntary slavery by taking away the right to choose to be governed or not. Thank you Claude for pointing out the contradiction. I never saw it from this point of view before. Even though I have been dancing around this idea for years. Bravo!!! Anybody have any thoughts on this?
Posted on: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 16:07:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015