Section 1 has some interesting court rulings associated with it.  As I mentioned in the last few posts in this series, 'rights' are the "standard of permitted and forbidden action within a certain sphere; law".  As such, the Charter is the outline of what those standards are and will outline what is permitted and forbidden.  This is the feudal lord (king / parent) giving permission to the feudal serf (citizen / child) on what the standard of behaviour is going to be and what would happen when those standards are not followed.  Again, remember that it only applies to the government and is designed to be the hand cuffs to bind the feudal serfs to ensure they don't go rogue. 

I share this information for educational purposes only.  If you need help and are a feudal serf, I recommend that you hire a lawyer as I AM not a lawyer, but instead I'm merely sharing what I've learned over the past 13+ years of researching the topic. 

  Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Annotations from the Courts

This section has two functions. It constitutionally guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in the following provisions and states explicitly the exclusive justificatory criteria against which limitations on those rights and freedoms must be measured. Accordingly, any inquiry under this section is premised on an understanding that the impugned limit violates the constitutional rights and freedoms which are part of the supreme law of Canada. To establish that a limit is justified under this section two central criteria must be satisfied. First, the objective which the measures responsible for a limit on a Charter right or freedom are designed to serve must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom, and secondly, the party invoking this section must show that the means chosen are reasonable and demonstrably justified.   -   R. v. Oakes (1986), 24 C.C.C. (3d) 321, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, 50 C.R. (3d) 1. 

My Interpretation:  If you recall from my last post, there is a balance that must be found between the rights and freedoms of the citizens / feudal serfs and the interests of the state.  I'll get into what those interests are near the bottom of this post.  But this case is stating that there are two criteria that must be met for limits to be imposed on the citizens rights and freedoms.  However, those limits appear to fall short on specifics as the interpretation of 'importance' is vague.  But perhaps this next case will give us a hint as to what some of the state interests are.

Legislation may meet the requirement under this section of having been enacted to meet a pressing and substantial objective, notwithstanding the legislation is not confined to protecting the most clearly vulnerable group. In enacting protective legislation, the legislature is required only to exercise a reasonable judgment in specifying the vulnerable group. Whether the means chosen impair the right or freedom in question as little as possible will depend on the government objective and on the means available to achieve it. In matching means to ends and asking whether rights or freedoms are impaired as little as possible, a legislature mediating between the claims of competing groups will be forced to strike a balance without the benefit of absolute certainty concerning how the balance is best struck. The choice of means, like the choice of ends, frequently will require an assessment of conflicting scientific evidence and differing justified demands on scarce resources. As courts review the results of the legislature's deliberations, particularly with respect to the protection of vulnerable groups, they must be mindful of the legislature's representative function. Less certainty may be possible when the government is mediating between different groups than when the government itself is the antagonist of the individual whose right has been infringed. The court will not, in the name of minimal impairment, take a restrictive approach to social science evidence and require legislatures to choose the least ambitious means to protect vulnerable groups. There must, nevertheless, be a sound evidentiary basis for the government's conclusions: Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, 58 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 24 Q.A.C. 2, 39 C.R.R. 193, 94 N.R. 167. 

My interpretation:  It appears to me that part of the function of government is to act as a mediator between groups of people and that they view one of their primary purposes as being responsible to protect the vulnerable from other groups or even themselves.  Again, this case talks about striking a balance between the conflicting values of each party.

The term "law" in this section includes common law as well as statute law: R. v. Canadian Newspapers Company Ltd. (1984), 16 C.C.C. (3d) 495, 31 Man. R. (2d) 187, 13 C.R.R. 43 (C.A.). 

My interpretation:  To be clear, statutes are not 'law' but rather is a source of law.  The other source is when people have a conflict and they petition (beg) the courts to mediate the dispute.  When ever the courts make a ruling, that ruling becomes 'common law'.  In this realm, judicial precedent = common law.

A limit will be prescribed by law within the meaning of this section if it is expressly provided for by statute or regulation, or results by necessary implication from the terms of a statute or regulation or from its operating requirements. The limit may also result from the application of a common law rule: R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613, 18 C.C.C. (3d) 481, 45 C.R. (3d) 97. 

Burden of proof -- The onus of proving that a limit on a right or freedom guaranteed by the Charter is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society rests upon the party seeking to uphold the limitation. While the standard of proof under this section is the civil standard, this test must be applied rigorously and where evidence is required in order to prove the constituent elements of a s. 1 inquiry, and this will generally be the case, it should be cogent and persuasive and made clear to the court the consequences of imposing or not imposing a limit. The court will also need to know what alternative measures for implementing the objective were available to the legislators when they made their decisions. It may be however that there will be cases where certain elements of the analysis under this section are obvious or self-evident: R. v. Oakes,  (1986), 24 C.C.C. (3d) 321, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, 50 C.R. (3d) 1.  

My interpretation:  The party seeking the limitation would be the state when ever it seeks to jail somebody, take their children or limit their liberty in any way.  That is why people are advised to NOT talk to the police or anybody with police powers (CPS, CRA, etc).  The reason is that THEY have the burden of proof, not you!  As such, when you talk to them, you provide them with evidence to be used against you.  That is why lawyers are advising people to shut up!  However, the reverse is true if you are petitioning the court to restrict what the state can or cannot do.  The burden of proof goes both ways.

Evidence to support that Canada is a feudal empire, citizens are feudal serfs

In the famous Meads v Meads case in Alberta, Chief Justice Rooke made some startling revelations to clarify what the state and courts are all about.  In his ruling he shared this excerpt from another ruling:

The preamble to the Charter provides an important element in defining Canada, but recognition of the supremacy of God, emplaced in the supreme law of Canada, goes no further than this: it prevents the Canadian state from becoming officially atheistic. It does not make Canada a theocracy because of the enormous variety of beliefs of how God (apparently the very same deity for Jews, Christians and Muslims) wants people to behave generally and to worship in particular. The preamble's recognition of the supremacy of God, then, does not prevent Canada from being a secular state. -   O’Sullivan v. Canada (No. 2) (1991), 45 F.T.R. 284, 84 D.L.R. (4th) 124 (F.C.T.D.)  

We have had discussions about this in past posts as well, where one astute steemian commented that a secular state is being encouraged to ensure Spirit is left out and not allowed to make the decisions or guide the development of people within that state.  It is the courts attempt to push Creator out and ensure the fictional construct is the highest authority for governance.

If you recall from the film UNGRIP, I shared the idea that the state is at war and that all participants are solders in that war.  I will speak to this in more detail in another post.  But I wanted to make it clear that the violence associated with the state supports the premise that the King is at war and he / she depends on his courts and military power to maintain control over his empire and the feudal serfs who swore an oath of fealty to him / her.  Here is what Chief Justice Rooke had to say in his Meads v Meads ruling when he quoted  Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Forgotten Books, 2008), at pp. 87, 147, 184:

Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the two cardinal virtues.    
...  
The laws are of no power to protect them, without a sword in the hands of a man, or men, to cause those laws to be put in execution.  
...  
And law was brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular men in such manner as they might not hurt, but assist one another, and join together against a common enemy.   

Why am I raising these points in a blog post about the Charter?  Because the Charter is the document that is supposed to limit those war powers to ensure that there is a balance between the war machine (state) and the rights of the subjects / citizens / feudal serfs.  My question though:  Why would we want to participate in a war machine to begin with?  Do we really need the state to protect us because we are vulnerable and need protecting?  Are we really that scared of the bad guys that we cannot do this work ourselves?  

For those who are contemplating removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the state and learning how to self-govern within the jurisdiction of the Spiritual Realm, or as some would say "The Kingdom of God is within you", keep in mind that this Charter is a benefit.  Their 'law' is a means of protection and as a subject of the King, you swore an oath and in return the King swore and oath to protect you ... within limits.  The charter outlines what those limits are as there are conflicts between your rights and the rights of the king!  

The King is corruptible and so to is his courts!

These rulings don't come from the Constitution Act, but instead come from the Feudal courts established a long, long time ago.  Again I will leave it to Chief Justice Rooke to really expose who is making the 'common law' that people are so eager to incite when they are in court.

[353] The authority of this Court, like other superior courts of inherent jurisdiction, does not flow from legislation, as does, for example, the Provincial Court of Alberta. Rather, this Court has inherited that jurisdiction as a successor to the English Royal Courts. Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society of British Columbia; Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307, 137 D.L.R. (3d) 1 explains this Court’s genealogy:  
  ... The provincial superior courts have always occupied a position of prime importance in the constitutional pattern of this country. They are the descendants of the Royal Courts of Justice as courts of general jurisdiction. ...  

 [354] That heritage reaches to the very foundation of an independent judiciary: ...    
  “Superior Court” is to be construed historically, and that ... it connotes a court having an inherent jurisdiction, in England, to administer justice according to the law, as and being a part of, or descended from, and as exercising part of the power of, the Aula Regia, established by William the First, which had universal jurisdiction in all matters of right and wrong throughout the kingdom, and over which, in its early days, the King presided in person. (Daniel Greenberg, Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary Words & Phrases, 7th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006)).  
  
[355] That history and its associated authority is described in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626 at para. 26, 137 D.L.R. (3d) 1 this manner:  
  ... The notion of inherent jurisdiction has developed from the role of provincial superior courts in Canada's legal system. The unique historical feature of provincial superior courts, as opposed to the Federal Court, is that they have traditionally exercised general jurisdiction over all matters of a civil or criminal nature. This general jurisdictional function in the Canadian justice system precedes Confederation, and was expressly continued by s. 129 of the Constitution Act, 1867, "as if the Union had not been made". ... [Emphasis added.]  
  
[356] The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and similar Courts are now Canadian courts, but these superior courts of inherent jurisdiction are the successors to earlier English colonial courts that predate Confederation: Valin v. Langlois (1879), 3 S.C.R. 1 at 19-20. In Alberta, that ‘inheritance’ was expressly indicated in the legislation that created this province: The Alberta Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 3, s. 16(1). The general authority that this court inherited is restated in the Supreme Court Act of Alberta, S.A. 1907, c. 3, s. 9:  
  ... the jurisdiction which on July 15, 1870, was vested in, or capable of being exercised in England by (1.) the High Court of Chancery, as a Common Law Court, as well as a Court of Equity, including the jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls as a judge or Master of the Court of Chancery, and any jurisdiction exercised by him in relation to the Court of Chancery as a common law Court; (2.) The Court of Queen's Bench; (3.) The Court of Common Pleas at Westminster; (4.) The Court of Exchequer as a Court of Revenue as well as a Common Law Court; (5.) The Court of Probate; (6.) The Court created by Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer, and of Gaol Delivery, or of any of such Commissions. 

My interpretation:  When an individual uses the Charter to petition the courts or file a Human Rights complaint, they are acting as a feudal serf to petition the feudal courts (Master of the Rolls) for protection.  That is exactly what is meant by the first definition of 'right' that I've been sharing with people for a few days now.  People fight for their 'rights' when in fact what they are doing is complaining to their parent to get a little extra benefits and privileges.

The state has NEVER been able to protect all the vulnerable and in their attempt to do so, they will end up restricting the freedom and liberties of all the feudal serfs / citizens.  The Queen swore and oath to govern the peoples of Canada and in that oath it is her duty to protect the vulnerable but also protect her empire!  It is this conflict that results in a gradual deterioration of the state as it tries to balance war and peace.  

But if you want to use the Charter to hand cuff the state, then I would recommend getting a copy of the Annotated Charter of Rights and freedoms and talk to a lawyer as the process can be complex.  

I chose to walk away and refuse all benefits and privileges.  As such, I am no longer a feudal serf and no longer use the charter to bind the state.  Instead a confront and rebuke their war machine, violence, coercion, genocide, claim on all the land & people, putting them into involuntary slavery as we are the land.

Don't believe Canadians live in a feudal system?  Just re-read what Chief Justice Rooke said about where the courts jurisdiction comes from.  He made it VERY clear!