Mass Immigration is Undemocratic: Demand a Vote

[UPDATED ON SATURDAY 15 SEPTEMBER 2012:]  The lawful Constitution of Canada is based upon the animating principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, also called Parliamentary Supremacy.

There are at least two components of this principle, which act in corollary:

(1)  No particularly elected Parliament may bind a subsequently elected successor Parliament;

(2)  There must always be a "successor Parliament", which means, of the same type and genus as its predecessors.


Anton Venn Dicey in his  Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution described the principle like this (1889, 3rd Edition) at page 38:

The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever ; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.

Dicey was speaking of the British Constitution and the British Parliament, the supreme Mother of all Parliaments -- and fountain of perpetual freedom -- from which Canada's own Constitution and Parliament are descended.

This principle of perpetual unfettered sovereignty guarantees perpetual freedom to the peoples who live under it.   They never can be overtaken by a tyranny, which is to say, a regime any or all of whose laws are final and irrevocable, and cannot be "unmade" in virtue of the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

And yet, there seems to be a loophole.

For, realistically, while the federal Parliament and the provincial Legislatures of Canada acting as adjuncts to it under section 95 of the British North America Act, 1867, may "make or unmake" any law whatever on immigration policy, a "successor" Legislature cannot so easily "unmake" the social, demographic, political and often grave legal consequences of immigration, and in particular of mass immigration.  Section 95 reads as follows:

Agriculture and Immigration.

95. In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time Make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.

How do you immigrate a quarter of a million dissimilar people from radically different cultures into Canada one year, and then send them home the next under a new Parliament?   Legally speaking, it is feasible; realistically, it is not.

Frank R. Scott, Professor of law and later Dean of the Faculty of Law at McGill University, affirms that the Parliament established in the Constitution of 1867 is a guarantee against tyranny.  Writing in the Canadian Bar Review of January 1948, in his article entitled "ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: 1923-1947" at pages 277-278, Professor Scott observes on the subject of the ability of a Legislature to delegate its powers to another body, that it could not delegate them to be exercised by a  tyrannical government, a "dictatorial" type of government :

"Every sovereign parliament may delegate its powers to subordinate authorities.  This is true of the Dominion [Canadian] Parliament, whose most famous and extreme example is the War Measures Act, and of the provincial legislatures.  Without such a power modern government could not be carried on.  But limitations appear to exist [to the power of delegation] [ ... ] in that no legislature could abolish itself, substituting some totally different kind of body in perpetuo, [ ... ] a useful principle with which to oppose -- should the occasion arise -- the setting-up of some dictatorial, unparliamentary government [ ... ]."

In essence, a dictatorial or totalitarian act, meaning a final act, is unparliamentary; it cannot be easily undone.

Immigration, and in particular mass immigration, especially dissimilar mass immigration, largely becomes a FINAL ACT.

A final act, viewed from the perspective of parliamentary sovereignty, is a totalitarian or dictatorial act.  Therefore, immigration decisions, once given effect, are the equivalent of totalitarianism with respect to an electorate which finds its own constitutional interests adversely affected.  The remedy normally available of rescinding or altering a law in the next election, is not realistically available to undo the Parliamentary and Legislative act of dissimilar mass immigration.

Mass immigration, therefore, and its potentially unwelcome effects, including corrosion of the constitutional host culture, seems to escape the controls of the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty.   In all else but immigration, this principle guarantees freedom to the electorate and supremacy to their choice of duly constituted Parliament.

In my view, therefore, no immigration at all,  and in particular no mass immigration, should ever be conducted by any Parliament and Legislatures without a prior binding referendum to the people on a clear question, generally agreed-upon.  Only in this way do the people of the nation guarantee to themselves the right of refusal which the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is conceived to guarantee, but seems ill equipped to guarantee in regard to immigration.

And when I say, "the people of the nation," I mean the Founding Peoples of Canada, the "de souche" peoples whether French or English-speaking, of the ETHNIC CONFEDERATION that was formed in 1867, as well as their cultural heirs who came to adopt and make their Canada's roots, history, and one or another of our Founding Cultures.

Only in this way can the Founding Peoples of Canada -- to whom Confederation belongs, and whose particular cultures and rights are constitutionally entrenched by the Constitution of 1867 -- ensure their own longevity on their own soil.

Evidence that the Provincial Legislatures have no constitutional power to foster mass immigration or dissimilar immigration on provincial soil is found in a 1979 article by future Supreme Court of Canada justice, Gérard V. La Forest.

Writing in "Towards a New Canada:  The Canadian Bar Association's Report on the Constitution" published in the Canadian Bar Review of 1979, Mr. La Forest, Q.C., as he then was -- while illegally recommending the replacement of the federal Constitution of 1867 with a new one to restructure Canada for multulturalism -- highlights words he feels would need to be expressly added to the "new" constitution to authorize (give power to) the federal Parliament and provincial Legislatures to advance muticulturalism.  At page 500, La Forest says:

"For other language and ethnic groups [he means, other than French- and English-speaking groups] far less can be done as a practical matter, but the Committee felt that in addition to the preambular statement on multiculturalism, the constitution should explicitly recognize the right of the federal and provincial legislatures to assist these groups in promoting their languages and cultures."

In constitutional law, the word "right" in respect of a level of government typically means "power".  Fortunately for us, such words were never added to Mr. Trudeau's illegal "new constitution" of 1982, which simplifies the battle.^FN1

The only words added in regard to multiculturalism, and relied on by Mario Beaulieu, for example -- leader of the Mouvement Québec français, which is demanding the "independence" of Quebec as a multicultural "projet de société" -- are those at section 27 of the 1982 Charter:

Multicultural heritage
27.

This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

I draw your attention to the word "heritage," defined by Webster online this way:

1: property that descends to an heir

2 a: something transmitted by or acquired from a predecessor : legacy, inheritance

b: tradition

3:something possessed as a result of one's natural situation or birth : birthright

If the patriation had been valid in law, which it isn't, the only legal interpretation possible for the word "multicultural" in tandem with the word "heritage" at section 27 of Trudeau's Charter, is one which brings it into harmony with the strictly limited multiculturalism of legal federalism.

Legal federalism is the Founding Peoples' birthright from 1867, of which they are the "heirs" and which is their "legacy and inheritance".   Mass multiculturalism is not an "inheritance," it does not come from the past; it has and can have no legal standing in Canada.  Any other interpretation is arbitrary, abusive, and void as unconstitutional.

The point I am trying to make is that neither Parliament nor the provincial Legislatures of Canada have the power, acting alone or together, to do anything contrary to the legal federalism of 1867.

This means that federal multiculturalism programs all across Canada are unconstitutional and illegal; and that the Quebec ministry called "Immigration et Communautés culturelles" which promotes multiculturalism, are both unconstitutional, inconsistent with legal federalism, and totally illegal.  No law and no policy of any political party or of any sitting government is valid unless consistent with legal federalism.

Canada was founded as a federal state in 1867 for the benefit and protection of its own Founding Peoples.   That is the grundnorm or constitutional purpose of Confederation.

Multiculturalism of the kind foisted on Canada today, and practiced in Europe, meaning mass multilculturalism and not Canadian federalism, is excluded because the only "mutiple cultures"  protected by the Constitution of Canada are those of the Founding Peoples of 1867.

More evidence that multiculturalism has no place in the legal federalism we inherit from 1867 is the recent compilation and commentary on speeches of Canada's Founding Fathers by Janet Ajzenstat, Ian Gentles, Paul Romney, and William Gairdner, Editors.

In their book, Canada's Founding Debates, searchable online in googlebooks:

THE TERM "MINORITY RIGHTS" is often used to describe and justify multicultural programs to encourage and strengthen diversity in public life.   The speakers in our debates [they mean the Confederation Debates of 1865] use it in an older sense, one not entirely forgotten today, but not easy to reconcile with the idea of programs to enhance diversity.  They belong to the school of thought that believes cultural and religious differences are a potential source of antagonisms threatening civil peace.

Memories of the terrible religious wars of seventeenth-century Europe are at work.  From communal traditions and from their study of history, the legislators [she means the Founding Fathers of Canada -- they were not strictly 'legislators', they proposed the content of the new Constitution that would create a federal Canada from sea to sea, but the United Kingdom passed it into law, under the sovereignty of England] conclude that passionate antagonism towards peoples of another nationality or religion is always a human possibility.  In Prince Edward Island, W. H. Pope deplores religious partisanship.  Newfoundland`s Daniel Prowse wrings his hands over that "bane to our community," "sectarian and political differences."  Speakers in Canada and Nova Scotia nervously congratulate themselves on the lack of antagonism among religions and among "races".

But although they may not wish to ENCOURAGE diversity, the legislators adamantly believe it should be TOLERATED.  Some of them describe it as ineradicable.  Many of them are religious men who wish to see the particular institutions they cherish continue, and understand very well that they in turn must respect the religion and traditions of others.  Hence the repeated praise for religious liberty in these debates.

In short, in the matter of religion, culture, and politics, they are adherents of John Locke's doctrine of the separation of church and state in the LETTER CONCERNING TOLERATION (1690).  To put an and

/ 328

to religious wars, Locke banishes religion and religious distinctions from the political sphere.  Politics is to concern itself with the people's legal rights and material welfare, not their hopes and fears for the life hereafter.  Moreover -- the other side of the coin -- the state is not to interfere with religious teachings and practices as long as they do not transgress the law.

It should by now be clear that the Fathers of Confederation did not wish to encourage multiculturalism.

In fact, they designed Confederation to ELIMINATE the then-existing "multiculturalism" of the French of Lower Canada and the English of Upper Canada merged together in the old Province of Canada before Confederation.

An important principle of constitutional interpretation requires the courts to review "legislative intent" or in other words, the views and intentions of the "legislators": in this case, the statesmen who created Canada in 1867.

The views of the Fathers led directly away from mass multiculturalism and into legal federalism, creating exclusive rights of self-determination for the Founding Peoples, each on their own soil, free from undue interference.

Given the totalitarian nature of mass dissimilar immigration and the illegality of the multiculturalism it is being used to build in Canada, constitutionally speaking, it is up to Founding Canadians, and not to politicians or any transient elected legislature to determine the future ethnic composition of immigration to Canada, and the conditions of reception of any such immigrants.

At present, the Founding Peoples of Canada are completely unable to halt demographic changes to their own social, cultural and political territory which they might not countenance.

As a result, in two or three generations of "totalitarian mass immigration," the Founding Canadians can become a powerless minority on their own soil.

The decision-making on immigration absolutely must be placed in the hands of the Founding Peoples of Canada, to whom the Parliament, the Legislatures and the Constitution belong, and all of which were founded for their permanent welfare.

Chief Justice Rinfret of the Supreme Court of Canada, writing in Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1951] S.C.R. 31, drew our attention to the people's ownership of the Constitution when he said:

"The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled."

By "citizens" and "country", Chief Justice Rinfret necessarily meant the same thing: the Founding Peoples for whom the Constitution was erected and the Parliament established in 1867.

If this is not done, if the Founding Peoples of Canada do not take direct control of immigration out of the hands of Parliament and the Legislatures, the Constitution of Canada quite simply can be eradicated by mass immigration, and in particular by dissimilar mass immigration.

This loophole, which makes immigration a "totalitarian" (virtually irreversible) decision by Parliament and the Provinces, can be used by one or more malign governments -- controlled by international finance and the multinational corporations -- to impose new and inconsistent forms of government or social ideologies by simply changing the people to whom the country and the Constitution belong.

Indeed, this has likely already happened to some extent; and before we Founding Canadians are out-numbered on our own soil, it is time to assert the protection of our true Constitution, and take back control.

DEMAND an end to immigration pending a binding referendum to the Founding Peoples of Canada on immigration and all related policy.

- 30 -
__________

<sup>FN1 -- Trudeau's so-called "patriation" of 1982 was illegal: there was no power in the lawful Constitution of 1867 authorizing Parliament acting unilaterally, or even Parliament and all the Provinces agreeing, to replace the Constitution with a new one.

This is so in part because of the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty (discussed above) which requires a successor parliament of the same type and genus; and in part because of the doctrine of delegation which prevents either Parliament or a Legislature from "abolishing" itself -- see F. R. Scott, above -- by delegating its powers to a different body. The body created in 1982 in a joint coup on Canada by Trudeau and United Kingdom Parliament is not a Westminster-model, that is British-style supreme parliament, they are subordinate legislatures subject to judicial review, under Trudeau's illegal Charter, for all their acts.

There is no such thing as subjecting a supreme Parliament or Legislature in Canada to judicial review for the wisdom of its policies, which is now done under the Charter. Parliament and the Legislatures are respectively supreme, each within its own sphere in the constitutional division of powers. The Canadian judiciary only has power, a power it must keep in harness, to review whether each sphere of government has remained within its constitutionally alotted subject matters of legislation.

Therefore, I am pleased to announce in this humble footnote that the Charter is void, and we have been hijacked since 1982 under a foreign régime which is incompatible with our true legal federalism of 1867. However, not to worry; there are remedies for coup d'états, which is what this is.

FN 2 -- The white-race founding people of France are already calling mass immigration to their country, an "immigration of replacement".</sup>

- 30 -