originally posted on September 9, 2022
Here are some thoughts about the relevance that the death of Queen Elizabeth II has to the ambitions and functioning of the Canada Interactive Legislature (CIL).
The CIL Charter states that the CIL “shall maintain the agenda of advocacy for the invocation of section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to replace the monarchy with a domestic authority that is chosen in a way that avoids nepotism, respects the ancestral heritage and sovereignty of the First Nations, and respects equality of all citizens. Any such abolition of the monarchy shall be exercised with respect and gratitude to the departing monarch for the great service to humanity of providing the sovereign lawful state that would allow the most democratic society in human history (to present knowledge) to be legitimized, one of the greatest gifts that a monarch may ever give to the sovereign People who have previously subjected themselves to her wisdom on the source of their sovereignty.”
These sentiments shall carry forward to King Charles III. Respect and gratitude to the monarch for presiding over a lawful state that may defend fundamental constitutional democratic rights in a way more respectful to a citizen than has been previously observed in history is the agenda of the CIL, and shall remain so.
The inception of this protection of democratic rights was solidified on April 17, 1982 when Queen Elizabeth II signed the Constitution Act, 1982 that had been resolved by Parliament, presided over by the right honourable Pierre Trudeau as prime minister. So it might be plainly accurate to regard Elizabeth II as the monarch who presided over the inception of true democracy for the first time in history.
Presently there is an ISS member who has (in an attempt to help in providing a safe supply for drug users, to reduce the deaths in the greatest present epidemic of deaths in Canada, and to match the progress made in Switzerland and Portugal in drastically reducing those deaths by decriminalising drugs) invoked the protection of democratic rights, as per the Constitution enacted by Her Majesty, to confess to authorities to possession of 20 grams of cocaine with the intention to traffic, posting a video of his sale of his first gram of cocaine on YouTube and sending it to authorities, and widely distributing a business card with “legal and regulated cocaine sales” printed on it along with his name, picture, and phone number. Despite his numerous confessions, authorities have not indicated any intention of intervening in his sales, and it is possible that this is thanks to the Constitution enacted by Her Majesty Elizabeth II.
Kukpi7 Judy Wilson, Secretary-Treasurer of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, has made public statements indicating that she believes that there have been reductions in the tyranny imposed upon the First Nations, Inuit, and Metis, as the indigenous Peoples of Canada, by the institution that calls itself government, during the time that Elizabeth II was Queen, and that these reductions show many signs of continuing to be expected with Charles III as King.
The ISS Constitution, (the CIL being a subgroup of the ISS and therefore responsible to its requirements) states that the ISS is founded upon the principle of the sovereignty of the individual. It might be said that a monarch who presumes to have the authority to impose her government’s laws upon members of an indigenous culture tyrannically colonised by her ancestors is thus acting in contravention of the principle of individual sovereignty, and thus it might be argued that the ISS should be denouncing Elizabeth II as being complicit in tyranny. However, under the laws of the Crown, it could be said that the Queen acts as a servant of Parliament and must obey it. This is evident in the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867 where it states that the Constitution of Canada is similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), in Reference re Secession of Quebec (in paragraph 63), depicts the Bill of Rights, 1689 as an epochal historical milestone in defining democracy in the Constitution of the U.K. The Bill of Rights states that in many important respects, the monarch must obey the will of Parliament. So it might be said that Elizabeth II had no ability, under the laws of the government that She agreed to preside over, to influence it to honour the sovereignty of indigenous people. However, on the date of the Queen’s death, the first indigenous Governor General in Canadian history, Her Excellency the right honourable Mary Simon made a statement in which she recounted some words the Queen spoke to her on her date of appointment to office: “be gentle with yourself”. Her Excellency expressed appreciation of the wisdom in those words. It is possible that Elizabeth II made tangible efforts to improve the respect shown to the sovereignty of indigenous Peoples by the government of Canada, in whatever personal avenues may have been available to her despite her subservience to Parliament. This sentiment expressed by the late Queen’s (and now the King’s) personal representative in Canada, the Governor General, certainly gives reason to give strong credibility to this possibility.
The CIL Charter also states that if the CIL receives “affirmation that the CIL’s legislation for ISS members shall be upheld in place of federal Crown legislation for similar matters for as long as the House of Commons continues its sustained periods of denial of the rights described in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (details in Appendix A), the CIL shall maintain an attitude of cordiality and appreciation to the Crown and its authorities and consenting citizens, for being the first authoritative government in human history (to present knowledge, and with apologies if this is found otherwise) that offers this extent of protection for fundamental democratic rights of human beings in their sovereign association as law abiding citizens of a land”. Certainly Her Majesty the departed Queen and her successor King Charles III may qualify for this treatment by the members of the CIL if the described affirmation is received. While it appears at present that no authorities are willing to deny that adherents of the CIL have this entitlement under the law, they have not explicitly affirmed this, only tacitly. However CIL adherents who believe that this tacit affirmation is simply a delayed acceptance of the inevitable conclusion that denial of democratic rights for several years at a time is an unconstitutional injustice that courts will remedy for any relevant matter such as an ISS member being prosecuted under laws of the Crown for which the CIL has enacted differing legislation, those CIL adherents may see it as suitable to show this cordiality and appreciation, in good faith, in advance of this protection of these rights being explicitly affirmed.
Either way, the CIL owes the potential for its successful ability, to create different laws for its adherents from the laws made by the periodically selected renewable oligarchy known as the House of Commons, to the signature of the Queen on the Constitution Act in 1982. Remembering Her Majesty with fondness may therefore be a common attitude among CIL adherents.
There is one more important relevant detail in the CIL Charter, regarding the allegiance to the monarch that politicians in Canada are required to publicly swear or affirm before taking office. The CIL Charter states that if official affirmation is received that CIL laws will be applied to ISS members in place of Crown laws, then “candidates receiving sufficient votes to be designated with inclusion in the legislative processes of the Canada Interactive Legislature shall be required to make the same declaration of allegiance, as is specified for members of the House of Commons in the Constitution of Canada, prior to exercising any such inclusion”. It may not be too long before candidates holding office in the CIL make official public pledges of allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, proud son and successor of Her Majesty Elizabeth II.