An Alternative To Crown Governance

In order to understand how a Canadian citizen may choose ISS laws as an alternative to Crown governance, there are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to consider:

First of all, there’s section 3, which states that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of a legislative assembly.

The other is section 1, which states that the rights and freedoms set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are guaranteed, except in cases where reasonable limits prescribed by law can be demonstrably (shown to be) justified in a free and democratic society.

Presently, a letter has been sent to the Attorney General of British Columbia, relying on the above two sections of the Canadian Charter, to illustrate why I, as an ISS member, must by law be exempt from Crown governance. I also observe in the letter that any citizen of Canada who wishes to request a similar remedy must (by law) receive it.  Having received a response, I now intend to commence action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

When a right listed in the Canadian Charter is denied, then Canadian courts are mandated to provide an appropriate and just remedy to this denial.

Clearly the right listed in section 3 may (according to current practice, through federalprovincial, or municipal electoral legislation) be exercised by Canadian citizens under Crown governance once every several years, and the rest of the time the right is denied. Therefore courts in Canada are mandated to find an appropriate and just remedy to the denial of this right if asked.

Public officials in Canada, such as a provincial attorney general, have declared allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II, their Queen. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is her highest command to them. Disobeying this Charter opposes the principles that Canada is founded on, and no such official may knowingly do so in good conscience without being derelict of duty and subject to possible dismissal from their position, as well as potential prosecution. Despite the courts having the mandate to order any public officials to adhere to this Charter, those officials are required by law to obey it to the best of their abilities without the need of being directed by a court.  It is their duty, if their allegiance to their Queen is sincere. This is why I am starting by writing to my geographical province’s attorney general, and to her Queen.

An Interactive Sovereign Society (ISS) member has laws enacted by a legislative assembly that never denies the right guaranteed in section 3 of the Canadian Charter. By being made only responsible to ISS laws and not Crown laws, a Canadian citizen is therefore no longer denied the rights guaranteed in section 3. That is why the courts may consider this remedy. Another remedy may be suggested, that might accomplish ceasing the denial of this right more appropriately or justly. Until then, any court that hears the presently suggested remedy may order it.

If denying the right to vote for four years at a time could be demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society, then the court could lawfully refrain from ordering the above remedy, because of section 1 of the Charter.  If such justification cannot be demonstrated, then the court must order the above remedy unless a preferable one has been suggested in time for the court to make its decision. Demonstrable means demonstrating it. This means using a working example to show how failing to deny this right for periods of time causes detriment to freedom and democracy (if any such working example exists).

The Office of the Attorney General (aka the Department of Justice) of a province heads the prosecution of any citizen for disobedience of Crown law. If an attorney general’s office chooses not to prosecute, then a citizen can only be prosecuted by another citizen in civil court. If an attorney general gives notice that a citizen voluntarily responsible to Interactive Sovereign Society laws will under no circumstances be prosecuted under Crown laws, then that citizen will be treated accordingly in Canada. That citizen can then only be held responsible to ISS laws in ISS courts, under ISS court procedure. If a future Attorney General attempts to reverse the decision, this effectively binding precedent should prevent that.

That is the law, according to the principles upon which the nation of Canada is founded, whatever You may think of that nation, and those principles.