Top Health Tools
Top Health Tools

Top Reports
Top Reports
Top Articles
Top Articles

Top Reviews
Top Reviews
Practically Speaking: There is
Practically Nothing Left of Our Rights

Dee Nicholson, the National Director of Communication for Freedom in Canadian Health Care, writes on the recent political dynamics involving bill C-6 and Canadian health freedom.

Several “muses” played a part in writing this, my humble opinion: a bill (C-6) that overtly threatened our rights; a dictatorial Prime Minister
sending Parliament on a forced vacation; and the Minister of Justice, the Honorable Rob Nicholson, to whom I am, thankfully, not related.

Each one of them stirred a few brain cells into activity, making some dust fly, and concurrently reminding me that these thoughts are not in the day-to-day dimension of the average Canadian. More’s the pity.

I received the following note from a friend, who got it from a friend, who seems to be wise beyond the norm, in that she points out that even the astute among us, who have trimmed the wool from our eyes, are having difficulty seeing all the way to the big picture: "Today in Haiti they called
12000 US troops an occupation. The stories of violence are marketed, not true. Yet we will have that many troops in Vancouver for the Olympics. And what do we call it? Hell, most people I speak with do not even know they voted for it. All these scares keep us busy, researching, debunking. Yet their real game is to keep us so busy debunking we do not research
or even conceive of what they are really up to."

As Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, once said: “How fortunate for the governors that the governed do not think!” Fortunate, indeed, I would say. Most people are under such a heavy burden of stress in their lives that they hand over the reins of government
to people they could not possibly know well enough to let them steer the ship of state, unsupervised, for a term of several years, and having voted, go back to their nuclear lives saying, “Its the government’s problem, let them handle it. That’s what we pay them for.”

When you think about it, in practical terms, that is equivalent to handing the keys to a jet plane to a five-year-old, and telling Junior to ‘take her for a spin’. Seriously, what do we really know about the people we elect, beyond slick campaign speeches, a lot of glitz and glamour, and that they must be ‘terrific’ people, because their brochure said they were? Or because they happen to be endorsed by the right party? What knowledge do we really have of the inner workings of a candidate, what makes him tick, and what he might do if he thought nobody was watching? What, in
fact, beyond the dog-and-pony show of politicking, and the very expensively-designed and rigorously-enforced party talking points, do we really know? How can we be so casual about the governing of our very lives?

But I digress.

Let me assure you, the realization of how deep the deception of ‘democracy’ has become, or indeed always was, had none of the flavor of a typical “Eureka!” moment; in fact it was, to me, the omen of more dark realizations to come. All of these lead irrevocably to the same
conclusion, that there is an unseen hand running this planet, and it isn’t the least bit associated with Heaven.

The first muse: Bill C-6

The late, unlamented Bill C-6 was a real pip. Even more of a pip was the performance given by our Health Minister, Leona Aglukkaq, whose pleadings for her pet bill included the floating of the possibility of ‘dead babies’ stacking up, if the Senate did not pass C-6 unamended.
She put on an animated show for the media, wearing her oh–so-serious spectacles, and outdoing them in her demeanor.

The corporate media, ever the darling of the real governors of the world, the money masters, spewed Aglukkaq’s take on C-6 across headlines, while in back rooms, highly-paid toadies were couching those ubiquitous
talking points in phrases guaranteed either to confuse or manipulate people into believing that there were no Constitutional violations in the Bill. Rather, Aglukkaq insisted, the stated purpose of this legislation was to protect the Canadian public from things like badly-designed baby
seats and toxic toy products, and save Canadian lives. For that purpose, she whined, her demonstrably overzealous agency needed overreaching authority, like warrantless search and seizure, denial of due process of law, and the administration of this kangaroo court process to be determined at ministerial discretion, for a start.

Here’s where it got interesting.

While the corporate media fell totally under the charms of the horn-rimmed Minister of Health, and dutifully parroted her claims of Bill C-6 being for the good of the Canadian people (pardon me while I upchuck), the Liberal-dominated Senate of Canada was fighting hard to enforce the Constitution. They pointed out the thousands upon thousands of letters they had received from Canadians across the land, from people demanding that their rights be defended, and they actually performed their job, which is to give “sober, second thought” to all legislation put forth by the Lower House, and to ensure that it does not offend the Constitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Leading the charge were feisty Alberta Senator Tommy Banks, along with Senators Jerry Grafstein, Joseph Day, Jim Munson, and George Furey, all Liberals, and Senator Elaine McCoy, who is listed as a Conservative, but broke ranks to defend our rights. “It seems to me that an operational problem should be solved operationally,” she said, cutting right
to the chase.

Elaine McCoy’s reasoning was that if all Health Canada wanted, by its proposal that it be given the right to warrantless search and seizure, was to make sure they could get immediate access to a warrant, why were they not simply looking into ways of expediting the process?

Perhaps it was the requirement that an Affidavit, delineating and supporting the probability that a search is reasonable, be presented to a judge; considering the fact that Health Canada has a hair trigger, the inconvenience of having to validate the ministry’s concerns in a legal document must have been anything but minor! Good heavens, what if Health Canada were prevented from going after those dastardly vitamin-traffickers, who might do a midnight flit, unless armed officers could burst in on them with the element of surprise?

It is important to note one critical fact: Bill C-6 had passed the three readings of Parliament unanimously. Unanimous votes don’t happen by accident, they happen at the direction of the Leader. And while the Senate appears to have an arm’s-length relationship with the Prime Minister and the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, they tend to be loyal to the party that appointed them: gratitude for a really good job that you can do until you’re 75, with all kinds of perks and a pension that rivals those in the corporate domain, must run deep.

So, while Leona Aglukkaq and other big-cheese Conservatives were slamming the Liberal Senate majority for “stonewalling” Conservative legislation for no other reason other than that they could, and asserting that they were ramming an insult up the Prime Minister’s nose at the expense of the ‘safety’ of Canadians, in effect, the entire Liberal Senate
Caucus was breaking ranks with Michael Ignatieff, because his Parliamentary caucus voted unanimously to pass C-6 with its Constitutional violations intact!

Ignatieff’s ‘arm’s length’ relationship with his Senate caucus appeared cut off at the wrist.

That means the Senators were doing their job, while the leader of their own party would not do his, protecting and defending the Constitution and the rights of all Canadians. By amending Bill C-6 in such a way as to resolve most of the Constitutional issues in its language, the Senate forced the Bill back to Parliament, to start all over again --- this time to face a barrage from health freedom advocates and their fired-up hordes of angry Canadian consumers of natural health products and their right to sell them and consume them, the moment they got back from Christmas vacation.

One thing the Senate missed, however, was the clause that I believe to have been the most dangerous to all our freedoms. In Sections 2 and 14 there lurked language making Canadians subject to the dictates of unidentified foreign authorities. Stunningly, this language generated not a peep out of either of the Houses of Parliament!

In case you haven’t thought about that, consider this: how many trade groups does Canada belong to? How many international agreements does our government sign, most without the slightest murmur in the mainstream media, while those which do garner some attention are suitably prettiedup for public consumption?

All those international agreements, according to the World Trade Organization, are actually binding contracts, and they have us by the short hairs on that: we can withdraw from our affiliations, but we lose the “benefits of participating in the group”. Canada has one vote at that table, and there are over 190 other guys sitting down with ours. They aren’t Canadian. They might not have anything against us, understand the probable cause for Leona Aglukkaq’s being so serious about C-6?

Personally, I am not often given to flights of fancy, and take some pride in my objectivity. Mr. Harper and Ms. Aglukkaq would no doubt say they wondered what I’d been smoking, but that’s my opinion, and I’m sticking to it. I just figure that one clause, the one nobody wanted to talk about, like the elephant in the drawing room, had to be important. And gee whiz, look what it could do to our right to be Canadian!

There was way too much emphasis on C-6 for me to believe that all this hoo-hah was over a product safety bill. Health Canada used all the propaganda tricks in the book: they passionately described C-6 like a glowing panacea for all their problems in protecting the lives and safety of Canadians, then blithely dismissed the loud demands of scads of Canadians by saying, “We do not feel the bill violates the Constitution”, and calling activists “conspiracy theorists”. Then they brought out the big guns in a desperate last gasp: a warning from Leona Aglukkaq that they
shouldn’t amend Bill C-6’s Constitutional violations, because a whole bunch of babies would die.

The Senate still lobbed the bill back to Parliament substantially changed, leaving Aglukkaq in a disempowered huff and Harper without his loophole to avoid abiding by our rights as Canadians, as well as stuck with an obstinate Liberal majority in the Senate.

The second muse: Pass the prorogation, please

A rather sticky wicket for the besieged Stephen Harper, who had his feet to the fire over the Afghan detainee torture issue, and was floundering in the polls, buoyed only by the relative ineffectiveness of the saturnine
Michael Ignatieff. The ultimate fate of Bill C-6, I believe, became a driving force behind the second muse, the prorogation of Parliament until March 3rd.

You have to understand, when I read stuff in the paper, I immediately go in the other direction to see what I might find. In this case, I looked at what had befallen C-6, and the options left to Stephen “Not-me!” Harper, and it turned out that prorogation did a huge favor to Harper that
nobody seemed to be saying much about.

Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton were both howling about what a coward Harper was, “running away from criticism” and “hoping Canadians would forget” the specter of torture haunting the halls of power, while “stacking the Senate with new appointees”. Harper, while getting outfitted for his trip to the Olympics, lobbed back that “Canadians don’t care much about torture”, a rather insulting retort which somewhat ensured a shortened lifespan for his troubled minority. He shamelessly admitted he’d be appointing new Conservative Senators. And back and forth it went.

Prorogation allowed him an option that nobody, but nobody, expanded upon, but which to my mind was the lynch pin to what was going on: the re-striking of all Committees in the Senate, which was only possible with prorogation -- or an election. Bill C-6 had been the flag, the cherry on the fruitcake, that pointed up the Conservatives’ inability to get legislation through the Senate, while it had a Liberal majority. He could fix the overall majority problem simply by appointing a few more Conservative Senators. But that Liberal majority would still hold in the Senate
Standing Committees, and unless it, too, were wiped out, Harper would face this sort of opposition again, as he pressed his agenda of putting holes in our Constitution.

That would mean a couple of things: First, as long as Harper could finagle his way through the minority problem in the House (and we all know that’s a sham, at best, and a purposeful fraud, at worst), he could guarantee that his legislation would pass through the Senate relatively easily. Second, even if an election were to be forced upon him by the
non-confidence vote, and he wound up in Opposition, he could still rule from Stornoway, by controlling the Conservative caucus in the Senate.

The third muse: The Justice Minister “limits” our rights

All of these realizations came before the holidays, and just as I thought I could take a breather, along came an email from the Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, who was belatedly (very) replying to a letter I had emailed him last year, demanding to know how it was that he, as a lawyer, didn’t spot the overt constitutional violations in C-6, and cut it off at the pass.

Not only was I insulted that he had taken so long to respond that the Bill was dead and buried already, but he actually had the cojones to write this: “At the outset, I would like to emphasize that the obligation to ensure all federal government legislation, regulations, policies, and activities conform with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one that
the Department of Justice Canada takes very seriously. With regard to legislation, prior to the tabling of all bills in Parliament, my departmental officials review the proposed legislation for consistency with the Charter. As Minister of Justice, I am required under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act to report any inconsistencies with the Charter to the House of Commons. I would like to assure you that this process is completed for all tabled bills, including Bill C-6.”

Well, that didn’t exactly answer my concerns. It was merely a long version of the talking point letters I got back from Ignatieff and Layton: “We do not believe there are any constitutional violations in Bill C-6”. And it was a cop-out, to write his job description, without responding to how I was
accusing him of not doing it.

But then he really threw me for a loop, with this: “It should be noted, however, that the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Charter are not absolute and are subject to limitations under section 1 of the Charter, including reasonable limits prescribed by law that are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.”

I immediately bristled like a pissed-off pit bull, as our Minister of Justice, after outlining what he ostensibly does for a living, has the audacity to put himself and his cronies above the law, which happens to state that any legislation which derogates, diminishes, or limits our stated rights in any
way is “of no force or effect” – and which is exactly what I had said to him in my first email!

Say what? “The rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Charter are not absolute and are subject to limitations”??? Did you read what he just said? This is the Minister of what? And can you now see the agenda unfolding, as they chip away, and reinterpret, and manipulate, at all of the rights that make Canada Canadian?

Tell you what, Mr. Justice Minister, we’re not finished this debate. It encompasses the core of what is happening all over the world, and it’s represented in far too much legislation, with hidden clauses that excoriate our rights as though they never existed (and there are many who assert that they didn’t), and secure foreign control over our so-called “free” country.

We’ve all seen the erosion of liberty traded stupidly as a “put option” against our security, and now are being forced to be viewed naked by strangers in airports in order to use our right of free passage. Now we see that behind all this is an agenda that removes the rights of nationals in favor of “foreign authorities”, with the collusion of our own government,
under cover of a political power struggle.

“It's fascinating just how similar are the problems that we both have - you in America and we here in Europe. The same lies, the same cheating, the same scams, and all about the same things...We're running along parallel lines here,” said Bloom, referring to the rise of supra-national governance, the police state and the various tax & control scams, like global warming and the swine flu. ~ Godfrey Bloom, UK Independence
Party Member of European Parliament

Welcome to the precursor of world governance, folks.

Winnipeg-born Dee Nicholson describes herself as a “Truth Seeker". She is the author of two books, is a degreed metaphysician, Reiki Master, and life coach, as well as an activist for human rights, especially the right to choose our food, medicine, and health care. Dee is the National Director of Communication for Freedom in Canadian Health Care, which is a charter group member of Canadians for Health Freedom ( She is a frequent blogger on the site, offering commentary on a wide range of topics.

Reference Sources:

February 3, 2010

STAY CONNECTEDNewsletter | RSS | Twitter | YouTube |
This site is owned and operated by 1999-2018. All Rights Reserved. All content on this site may be copied, without permission, whether reproduced digitally or in print, provided copyright, reference and source information are intact and use is strictly for not-for-profit purposes. Please review our copyright policy for full details.
volunteerDonateWrite For Us
Stay Connected With Our Newsletter