Attempt by Parliament to Sever "Canada" from Crown and our Eternal Magna Carta Rights and Liberties failed in 1973.

Courts now being used to effect change surreptitiously.

Details of Canadian Plot on "Monarchy Abolishment"

As it turned out, an attempt to establish a presidential republic in Canada was made in 1973 already. Then Canadian government developed a legislation which was to curtail the British Queen's powers in the overseas colony. But the Queen didn't give up and didn't put her signature under the Canadian document.

[Editor's note: The Queen refused because it would have violated her sacred duty before God to defend the "law of the land" under Magna Carta. That is the extent of the Queen's powers, and they are for YOUR benefit as Free men and women, but clearly present a problem for governments wishing to infringe our inalienable rights.]

Details of the plot against the British Queen were revealed in accordance with the old English tradition, in 30 years. As Agence France Presse informs, the British State Archives declassified confidential documents saying that 30 years ago Canadians wanted to replace the Queen with a president. In order to live in a presidential republic, like the neighbor, the USA.

The declassified document was the letter typed and signed by Hugh Overton, at the North American Department of the Foreign Office. Before a conference of the Commonwealth, he informally warned the Buckingham Palace that the Queen's trip to Canada might add fuel to the domestic controversy concerning the role of the monarchy. The role of the British Queen in the Canadian life became the subject of more active political interest at that time.

At the end of 1972, the Montreal Gazette reported that the government developed five plans according to which the powers of the Queen over Canada were to be curtailed. Despite the fact that many foreigners consider this power illusive, Queen Elizabeth II took the Canadian document seriously; it was said that the Queen even accepted four of the proposals. But she rejected the proposal to be replaced with a president.

[If such a document exists, where is it? And why were Canadians kept in the dark?  Also, if the Queen did not still have supreme authority in Canada, it would not have been necessary for Parliament to get permission from Crown to sign the Canada Act in 1982, which grants "no additional legislative powers" above that of the BNA (Canada Act s.31) see reference at bottom of page.]

However, Canadians didn't insist particularly. They probably thought that there were more important problems in the country than relations with the British Queen. Then prime minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau decided not to insist upon a presidential republic to be created in Canada, as he understood that the very posing of the problem might entail fatal consequences. It could be rather dangerous for the government that managed to remain in power due to a slight difference in the votes at the federal elections.

[Editor's note: It would, indeed, have been very dangerous for government, because as the ruling of the BC Court of Appeal has done, it undermines the Crown instituted and authorized constitutional documents (i.e. BNA Act) from which ALL alleged authority of our parliament is granted to make and enforce "law". More importantly, it violates the sacred oath of Crown to defend "Holy Church" and the "Sacred Magna Carta". So where Pierre Trudeau may have failed in setting up an insurgent "republic" in 1973 (though without authority or consent of individuals in Canada) the courts of this country are acting as though a republic now exists, and they are attempting to "modify your rights" illegally and surreptitiously by giving legislation more authority than the Canada Act, BNA Act and Eternal Magna Carta. This is not merely an attack on Crown, but more importantly, it is an attack on your ancient rights contained in our historic Common Law. We now have Crown authority to "assail" any parliament and/or its members that refuse to honour these rights!] [See link here]

Since that time, the problem of powers of the British Queen in Canada hasn't become the most important one. The relations between English-speakers and French-speakers were much more important. It's likely that Canadians didn't submit the five proposals to London for consideration. But there are still lots of classified documents in the State Archives, it is not ruled out that more details concerning the problem may be uncovered in the future. To tell the truth, the Queen must be given her due: there is still no president in Canada.

Sergey Borisov
PRAVDA.Ru

Translated by Maria Gousseva

Read the original in Russian: http://world.pravda.ru/world/2003/5/16/43/5252_zagovor.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Constitution" in spelling only..... Never approved by the people, the Canada Act is a promissory note, at best. Our real Constitution remains the Magna Carta...

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

Poll: Majority favour end of monarchy - Oct 2/2007

Three judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal denied the federal attorney general's request yesterday to dismiss the case by overturning a lower court ruling that allowed it to proceed.

Without even hearing from Roach's lawyer and daughter, Kikelola Roach, the judges upheld an earlier ruling, and dismissed the government's appeal, calling the case a "straightforward, charter-based constitutional challenge of a federal law," and not a dispute over the conduct of federal officials.

As Associate Chief Justice Dennis O'Connor put it: "There's nothing, quote, citizenshippy about it."

The ruling means the class action, in which damages of $5,000 are being sought for people who have refused to swear the oath or swore it under duress, now can proceed in the Ontario Superior Court.

As the test case, Roach, 74, a permanent resident of Canada who was born a British subject in Trinidad and emigrated to Canada more than 50 years ago, argues the requirement to swear an oath to the Queen violates the charter's freedom of conscience provision.

New Canadian citizens must swear an oath to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors."

See 'Queen's position' to see the other side of this peculiar coin.

Clarity Act too weak to stop Quebec separation, expert says

The good news is that any district, municipality, territory or province can separate into its own republic with a simple majority...

See our 'Magna Carta' section to see how parliamentary statutes become unlawful.

.