The CIL Charter states (in Part III, in the third paragraph on page 7 here) that our adherents are subject to all federal laws of Canada except for the laws amended by the CIL. We claim that the government of Canada denies fundamental constitutional democratic rights for several years at a time (usually four) while we make those rights available to be exercised at all times.
Two laws invoked in the CIL’s defence of this claim are sections 3 and 24 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as signed and assented by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on April 17, 1982, under the auspices of “principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”, in the Part of that Act named the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly referred to in Canada as “the Charter”.
3 Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
24 (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Constitution Act, 1982 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/index.html
The CIL’s arguments to authorities (Appendix A, starting on page 10 here) include the claim that section 3 Charter rights (voting and pursuing candidacy) are not available to be exercised for several years at a time under the Crown’s federal and provincial legislatures, and that this may qualify as (thus far unjustified) denials of these rights as per section 24. CIL adherents have publicly contravened several Crown laws for which the CIL has provided amendments, and authorities with more than adequate evidence of these contraventions have abstained from intervention, possibly because they believe that the CIL’s defence is sufficiently consistent with precedent that prosecution may be considered malicious, although no authorities have shown any willingness to answer any questions about whether this is indeed the reason why they aren’t prosecuting for irrefutably documented alleged crimes for which other people in Canada who have perpetrated similar actions have then received a criminal record. So if you would prefer to see these periods of time not regarded as denials of these rights, then CIL adherents may offer their sympathy that Canadian justice appears to perhaps not share your view.
The CIL uses an interactive electoral system (IES), which means that you have one vote that you can cast for any candidate any time you like and change to any other candidate any time after that, with no deadline and no finish date. Section 3 Charter rights are available to be exercised at all times, never denied. Subjecting a CIL adherent to CIL laws instead of Crown laws is argued by the CIL to be a full, effective, and meaningful remedy for the Crown’s denials of the adherent’s section 3 Charter rights.
If you do not dissent to the denial of your section 3 Charter rights, then it may of course be reasonable for the Crown to constrain your conduct according to the laws duly enacted by its legislative assemblies. However, if you do dissent to being denied these rights, then any attempt at a constitutional defence from any law of the Crown based on allegations of denials of section 3 Charter rights may be expected to require you to specify a legislative assembly that makes section 3 Charter rights continuously available to the same electorate that chooses the Canadian House of Commons, so that these rights are not denied for any periods of time. It may then be necessary for you to demonstrate that your specified legislative assembly has created alternative legislation to the laws from which you are defending yourself, before your defence could be viewed by a court as authentic. Otherwise, your defence may be equivalent to a request to deny the section 3 Charter rights of every single citizen of Canada in a law-making process that you can be held subject to. In other words, you may need the authentication of an interactively elected legislative assembly to legitimately use a section 3 Charter defence from laws made by the alleged government of Canada.
If the CIL is the only federally mandated interactively elected legislative assembly in Canada, as appears to be the case, then without CIL authentication, any exemption from federal Crown laws as a remedy for denials of section 3 Charter rights may be considered an unlawful denial of the democratic rights of all other citizens of Canada in a law making process to which you are subject.
If you wish to create a new interactively elected, federally mandated legislative assembly by which you would prefer to have your laws enacted as a remedy for the Crown’s denial of your section 3 Charter rights instead of the CIL, then here are some things to consider.
The CIL Charter states (Part VIII page 10 here) that: other than any distinctions explicitly described herein or implicitly or functionally necessary based upon the operation of the interactive electoral system in contrast to periodic elections, the CIL shall operate consistently with the Constitution of Canada. If you create a legislative assembly with the intention of authenticating a section 3 Charter defence and yet your assembly’s founding documents do not hold the assembly to a similar legally enforceable obligation of adherence to the Constitution of Canada, then in any judicial matter where your legislative assembly’s authentication is being used to attempt to validate a section 3 Charter defence to a court, you may expect the CIL to send intervenors to request that the court regard the defence as invalid due to there existing an alternative legislative assembly in Canada for which a section 3 Charter defence has greater consistency with what the Crown asserts (section 52 here) as the supreme law of Canada.
For your legislative assembly to be regarded as comparably consistent with the Constitution of Canada as the CIL, you may be required to demonstrate that your assembly makes its resolutions (principally its amendments to Crown laws against which it defends for its adherents’ invocation in a section 3 Charter defence) at least as publicly accessible as the CIL does, and also that it provides comparably inviting public access to its provision of section 3 Charter rights of all citizens of Canada as the CIL.
If your legislative assembly was to fulfil the above constitutional obligations comparably to the CIL, and CIL adherents became aware of this, then CIL adherents may be expected to access their democratic rights in your legislative assembly to use their collective influence similarly to how they have in the CIL, to attempt to facilitate the enactment of the same amendments to Crown law as the CIL has made. You may expect to see the same laws chosen by your legislative assembly as have been chosen by the CIL. It might be argued that there’s no point in creating a new alternative interactively elected federally mandated legislative assembly as a remedy for section 3 Charter rights if it would just end up enacting identical laws anyway.
So it is possible that nobody else will bother to create any other interactively elected federal legislative assembly in Canada to provide authentication of any legitimate section 3 Charter defence, and the CIL shall remain the only organization with the legal capacity to authenticate any such defence.
CIL authentication for a section 3 Charter defence only applies to an act contravening a Crown law for which the CIL has enacted alternative legislation. So if a law, against which you wish to defend yourself, has not had an alternative law enacted by the CIL, then to use a section 3 Charter defence, you may have to first ask the CIL to enact alternative legislation. If the CIL then publicly, duly declares alternative legislation to be enacted, then this would authenticate a section 3 Charter defence for you or any CIL adherent to be exempted (to an extent specified by the CIL in its alternative legislation) from that law.
Because the CIL gives you a vote that you can change whenever you like, you may find the CIL much more receptive and responsive to your preference for an alteration to an existing Crown law than the House of Commons which only lets you vote once every few years. We welcome your arguments in favour of reducing or altering any impositions that the law places upon the liberty of your fellow human beings. We agree with the Supreme Court of Canada that your usage of your vote to influence society’s legislative processes is a manifestation of both your inherent dignity and the sovereignty of the people amongst whom you are included as a citizen and law making constituent.
You will find a complete list of the laws of Canada for which the CIL has enacted alternative legislation by looking at the External Legislation Registry of the Interactive Sovereign Society in the Parts (listed in the Table of Contents) that document legislation of Canada or any of its Provinces. Any contravention of any Crown law listed in that document will be provided with authentication by the CIL for any section 3 Charter defence given by a party that dissents to the denial of the relevant constitutional rights.