Re-published from Elliot Lake News and Views.

Do 9 Churches in the Côte-des-Neiges district of Montreal, Canada have communist sympathies?

A pastoral bulletin published in autumn of 2011 requires redistribution of the POLITICAL POWERS and RESOURCES of North America -- read: Canada -- to be pooled with those of all nations in the Western Hemishpere, notably those of South America.

[caption id="attachment_183" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="6767 Côte-des-Neiges, pamphlet shelf in the Lobby of the Côte-des-Neiges Community Center, run by the Marxist Côte-des-Neiges Community Council, i.e., "Development Corporation""][/caption]

This “Christian” policy necessarily attacks the constitutions of Canada, the United States and Mexico, including those of the countries of Central America, to form an implicit Western hemispheric union:


"The Christian Style in Ecological Justice…" (“à 4 mains”, Vol. 10, No. 2, Autumn 2011, p. 6)

Consequently, without any major knowledge of constitutional law and history, nor of politics, nor of economics — subjects in which the experts need years of formal studies and of practice to pronounce — and in the pious name of “Christian style”, we are implicitly invited to destroy our existing nations.

This is what they are demanding, if you understand constitutional law… even if they don’t know it themselves.

Astonishing, we are asked to abolish our prejudices (i.e., preconceived notions) — by supposing that the White majority race in North America is thus “richer”, which lead to the root cause of poverty of the South American races.

By extension, is the White race wealthy, and the ethnic minorities poor, and thus, victims of discrimination?

NO!  The reality is otherwise: poor White children in the United States far exceed those who are Black and Hispanic children. There are 12.1 million White children in poverty vs. 6.5 million black.

Those figures are from the organization “Afro-American NCCP”:

http://american3rdposition.com/?p=5095

Here’s a link to the Council of Churches in Côte-des-Neiges which issues the pastoral newsletter calling for western hemispheric union “to help the poor” of South America:

http://cdnchurchcouncil.org/index.html

The same article in the newsletter (link above) cites the “international community” as the source of the Gospel on Climate Change. However, the vast majority of member states of the UN, i.e., the “international community”, are COMMUNIST, much like the current Pope. The favorite tactic of Communists, to accomplish their world-government power-grab is to LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE.

[caption id="attachment_184" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="Autumn 2011 Côte-des-Neiges pastoral bulletin on the pamphlet shelf in the Lobby of the Cote-des-Neiges Community Center demands that Canada's Parliamentary powers be "shared" with others in the Western Hemisphere."][/caption]

If you can invade the Churches and train them to accept Marxism as Christianity, you have a ready-made, Fifth-column attack force to destroy countries from within… precisely for world communism, which has nothing to do with “Christianity”.

After all, those poor starving people down south won’t be the ones using the transferred RESOURCES and POLITICAL POWERS these 9 little Churches in Côte-des-Neiges would like to CON North Americans into giving up.

- 30 -

 

Dedicated especially to Pierre Elliott Trudeau and other so-called "Liberals", but written with the Socialists in mind in the Côte-des-Neiges area.


The Communist (Leftist) is a parasite.

Convinced of his own superiority, the Communist (Leftist) is like a narcissistic young Stalin, determined to destroy anyone who does not reflect back to him the perfect image of his own illusion of his own superiority.

The Communist parasite produces nothing. He does not increase the Gross National Product: he steals it. He busies himself collecting or appropriating the property of others, earned by others in the course of their real labor which has created real value; but he, himself creates no value.


Your Communist Benefactor
(Kissed by a Pig)

He cleverly secretes himself into "charitable" organizations and "friendly" societies where he siphons off the Gross National Product of the People through direct and indirect means: on the one hand, he pays no taxes to run his "charitable" business: your Government supports him; you support him.

On the other hand, he taxes you by demanding your "charity" so that gathering to himself all you have earned, and all you have created -- for him to hoard and "redistribute" as he, and he alone sees fit -- he can then call himself Society's Benefactor.

The image and the power of the Communist (Leftist) are entirely based on what he takes or is able to con from others. For, he, himself, is a useless slug, intoxicated by the stench of rot arising all around him from the holes he bores through decent, normal society. He insists that you are mentally ill if you refuse to recognize his putrid smell as the perfume of his own superiority. You must ennoble and elevate his all-pervading Transcdendent Parasitism.

The Communist (Leftist) parasite takes from others and he redistributes: he does nothing less, and no more. And for this act of appropriation, and most frequently of misappropriation -- which in his ideal state rises to his own Totalitarianism -- he therefore orders, demands, and compels your adoration. He demands moreover that you, the People, confuse licence with Liberty on the one hand, and slavery with Liberty on the other: his license, your slavery.

The Communist (Leftist) parasite is his own religion; he is your religion. He is all relative things to all confused and befuddled People. He is the Narcissistic Maladjusted Worm, living off you, your sisters and your brothers, and making you thank him for it. All hail the Worm!

Communism - Leftism - is a mental illness with its own political movement. Consistent with its own illegitimacy, it often rises to violence: both open violence and secret violence. When in power, this parasitic terror declares all normal mental and emotional activity to be a mental illness; he condemns it, to elevate his own universal sickness to the status of normalcy. He covers himself in Lies. He, himself, is the Absolute Lie.

The Communist (Leftist) parasite, having egotistically taken anything of value earned by others in the course of their real labor, "redistributes" it in tiny dosages, for which his beneficiaries must get down on their knees in gratitude. Except for himself, of course, who takes the largest dose off the top, and which he measures out to himself at his own discretion: a salary and benefits and a fine house, and anything he can steal from the donations of the People, rationalizing his thefts in the light of his own Great Superiority.

The Communist (Leftist) parasite is without equal (which is ironic). He is The Prince. He is the Great Machiavelli. He rewards himself for his unparalleled Machiavellian generosity in earning absolutely nothing, while thieving from others, and while deigning to give to you just enough of what he has stolen, to keep you breathing and him on top.

The narcissistic Communist (Leftist) gives himself a fine house which he hasn't earned, and where he fornicates hedonistically with all comers in all orifices to flatter himself for his own generosity in redistributing what he has stolen or conned from others. His good name (while he is still embedded in the provisional society he is working to destroy -- because, he, himself being useless, has supreme contempt for anyone and anything that is useful --) proceeds entirely from the false image that he gives himself of "Social Benefactor".

The Communist, being a narcissist who denies the validity of the views of others -- that is, of those who have produced what he steals and whose society and culture he is bent upon destroying -- is manically compelled to brutally defend his narcissism as normalcy against the normal standards of the hard-working people who are his victims.

The Communist (Leftist) parasite is sly: he preaches "tolerance" for "the views of others" (he means his own views), but, he, himself, is supremely intolerant of your views unless they conform to his views.

The Communist (Leftist) parasite alters the dictionary. Words no longer mean what they are supposed to mean. Sense is now non-sense. Real sense becomes inconceivable. He thus alters the fundamental tools of logic and baffles the ability to reason, and thus to oust him.

The Communist (Leftist) is a pervert and a hedonist, who to defend his own perversion and his own hedonism, feels compelled to attack the healthy normalcy of others by labelling it abnormal. He must remould the world in his godly image of perversity and hedonism which knows no limits, to make his own perversion thus appear normal. He replaces Liberty with licentiousness. He replaces Freedom with slavery. He erects Worm Rights Tribunals to impose the slavery and to condemn the real independence and the true Liberty of the People.

The Communist is a parasite and a destroyer of all social standards of hard work, decency and self-reliance that might keep him from becoming the Ultimate Parasite: The Worm Who Rules The World.

He is not merely a symbol of decay, he is decay. He has the worm's instinctive drive towards infiltration, and in all the holes he bores through decent, moral and ethical society, he leaves behind his rot and corruption.

The Communist (Leftist) parasite hates the Law, for true Law is made by the People through their elected representatives whom they may dismiss at will for perverting the Common Good to their own ends, or for Corruption. But Corruption and the self-serving perversion of the Common Good are the entire Being of the Communist. In his Universe, he is Everything; and without him, you are nothingness.

The Communist parasite hates the Rule of Law. He supremely hates all Constitutions, which are the Supreme Law of the People. Being a narcissist, he can respect no law but his own, which is arbitrary, flagrant and organized debauchery and corruption. He can tolerate no Parliament but the parliament of himself.

Thus, for the Communist parasite, the Law, too, must be infiltrated and perverted against the People to compel them through facetious "Human" (Worm Rights Tribunals) to worship the Worm and his theft and his hedonism, and to hand over damages to him, if they fail to worship his Worm regime.

Thus, the Communist (Leftist) parasite destroys the real Rule of Law and the Constitution, which he replaces with Social Engineering. To do this, he buys or corrupts the politicians and the Judges, or better yet, he lies his own way into office under false oaths where he then chronically deceives the People, while convincing them -- as usual -- that he, and he alone is their Social Benefactor. He invades all the Parties; he perverts them to his own Leftist, parasitic ends. He does this, he tells himself, for the "Benefit" of the People, which the People themselves are too stupid to know.

He exploits his stolen office to promote real Worms to be the Judges of the People. He, who is now the Executive Worm, orders his Worm Judges to pervert and preferably to replace the real Constitution of the People by twisting and turning the real Rule of Law into worm convolutions until it is no longer the Law, but has the name of Law, and thus can be imposed upon the People. Worm Law thus becomes a parasitic mimicry of real Law, which his Worm Judges now impose as "supreme law" upon The Worm's poor, befuddled, oppressed and beleaguered victims, the People.

The Communist (Leftist) parasite is a fraud and a sham whose excesses know no limitation. He is Absolute Fraud. He is an Absolute Sham, whose only occupation is self-absorption. His only religion, to which he must bend all inferiors at all cost -- that is, their cost, is his adoration.

Refuse to worship The Worm at your own peril! For he is the Conqueror Worm, the Killer Worm, the Sneak Worm, who in battalion with his sly Worm Compatriots, seeks to destroy all who in his judgment, and his alone -- he being perfect and above all Law -- must be slyly stalked, harassed, defamed and intolerated, and ulimately disposed of, by his cunning system of destruction of the Truth, and of Decency, and of normal light-of-day operations. For, the People must never be allowed to see what he is really up to, while he spirits away his "enemies" -- those who are onto him and who know him -- into his Dark Boundless Hole.

The Communist (Leftist) parasite is not only in the hole, he is the hole. He is the Dark Hole. He is the Alpha and Omega of unending Darkness. He is the Devil Saviour of his victims, the People. And in his Hole, which he both is and occupies, the shadows are Light, Truth is deception, sedition is Right, and Freedom and all its mechanisms -- which are dangerous to his own unilateral imposition of his own unilteral and sly, totalitarian decay -- are evaded, invaded and overthrown.

He alone says who lives, who dies; he alone kills, he alone gives life.

Throw the Worm Out! Depose the Sly Conqueror Worm! He is the self-serving, lying two-faced enemy of the People whose interests he pretends to serve while serving none but his own. He is the Universal Ultimate Criminal.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American WORM Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com
Montreal, Friday, 11 May 2012

To: ministre@mddep.gouv.qc.cat

UPDATE: Pierre Arcand never replied to this following letter. He was re-elected by the fools who live in Cote-des-Neiges last September 4th, 2012.

Wednesday, 9 May 2012

Pierre Arcand
Député de Mont-Royal
Parti libéral du Québec
Ministère du Développement durable,
de l'Environnement et des Parcs
141, avenue Président-Kennedy, 8e étage
Montréal (Québec)  H2X 1Y4
Téléphone : 514 864-8500
Télécopieur : 514 864-8503
Circonscription
3400, rue Jean-Talon Ouest
Bureau 100
Montréal (Québec)  H3R 2E8
Téléphone : 514 341-1151
Télécopieur : 514 341-4777
ministre@mddep.gouv.qc.ca

[1] Discrimination

[2] Government Financing Of A "Charity" As A Political Front Promoting "Socialism"


6767 Côte-des-Neiges Boulevard, Montreal

1.  I moved into Côte des Neiges over 3 years ago.  I am a white, English-speaking, bilingual female CANADIAN, descended from the Founding Peoples of Canada on all sides.

2.  I joined the MultiCaf, where I am therefore a member, entitled to use the facilities, and where I have attended an Annual General Meeting.  (Addresses and details, below.) I also have a computer room membership card with my photo on it, to prove it.

3.  As a Côte des Neiges resident, I am also entitled to the use of facilities at the Côte des Neiges Community Center.  As a MultiCaf member, I was also told, along with over 100 other members in attendance at an Annual General Meeting, that I have FREE access to the two rooms permanently reserved for the MultiCaf on the 6th floor at the Côte des Neiges Community Center where MultiCaf sponsors the Chinese people of Côte des Neiges with FREE ROOMS at the Community Center for Chinese activities.

At the annual general meeting, MultiCaf members were told: MultiCaf has TWO MORE ROOMS reserved on the 6th floor of the Community Center, that are prepaid, and most of the time are going to waste, because not used by anyone.  We were specifically told that, as MultiCaf Members, we can also use those rooms, free of charge, whenever they are available.  I decided to use them.

However, Christian Lefebvre, who has made it clear to me, in the most malicious manner possible that he is stalking me, and has stalked me since I lived in Park Extension four years ago, where I never knew the man, interfered between MultiCaf and the Community Center to deny me -- a Multicaf member -- access to the MultiCaf rooms on the 6th floor at the Community Center.

That malicious interference was more than a year ago.

Upon being maliciously denied access to the MultiCaf rooms, I then asked to have what any other resident of Côte des Neiges is entitled to:  a free office at the Community Center for a non-profit activity.  My non-profit activity was to promote knowledge of the Constitution and history of Canada through a club called Founding Canadians 1867, and in French, Fonder Le Canada 1867.

My request was instantly met with the most extraordinary hostility, and I was explicitly told, to my face, that I would not be given a free community office for the purpose of a Canadian constitutional group.  I was ordered, instead, "DO SOMETHING FOR THE IMMIGRANTS," as if I have no rights as a Canadian to teach my history and culture on my own soil.

The only politically correct, acceptable "Social Activity" for me is to cater to the immigrant foreigners, and not to the Constitution and Founding Peoples of Canada, who apparently have ZERO rights in Canada, as I do, as far as these organizations are concerned. Let's see if the so-called "Liberal" government agrees.

Subsequent to these astonishing events in which a Canadian has been openly denied access to services publicly declared available to everyone, it has become apparent to me that largely socialist-communist activities are being government-financed out of these so-called "Community" hubs in Côte des Neiges; and apparently the only activities and opinions "respected" in Côte des Neiges are those "officially approved" and brainwashed into the Community by the apparently government-funded pro-Communist "Community Development Center" which also has its office on the 6th floor of the Community Center, and which had denied me the right to use the MultiCaf rooms, and has denied me the right to a free office to launch a Constitutional club for Founding Canadians.

Last week, while I was in the Lobby of the Community Center, a woman came downstairs with a box of flyers she planned to put out on the public shelf unit.  I heard her say, in English, that "she does not agree" with it, but she is obliged to distribute flyers promoting "sexual diversity".  I commented, "that is brainwashing", and I was moreover stunned that the government would finance the dissemination of Marxist ideology in a public place, which clearly violates basic political and democratic rules of play.  I said to the woman that so-called "sexual diversity" is damaging to the family.

The reply I got was astonishing, considering it came from a woman who "disagrees" with teaching "sexual diversity".  She shut me up, declaring I had no right to say such things, "YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS," she declared self-righteously.  Apparently, this woman has been trained as a Marxist "change agent" to pretend to oppose these Trotskyist "values" so that she can simply draw out anyone else opposed, and shut them up and deny them respect for their opinion.

Let me illustrate for you just what these Trotskyist "values" mean in practical terms, otherwise known as Mr. Trudeau's "Just Society".

It means men having their PENISES cut off surgically and PLASTIC TITS injected, so they can call themselves "trannies" or "T-Girls".

It means converting to LESBIANISM and publicly shoving your tongue down some girl's throat to prove how "free" and "liberated" you are.  Apparently, it also means chasing former so-called Liberal Paul Hellyer from one alien landing site to another:

[1] http://www.trudeausociety.com/about_us.html

[2] http://www.trudeausociety.com/transgender_transsexual.html

[3] http://www.trudeausociety.com/sexuality.html

[4] http://www.trudeausociety.com/home/Frontpage/2008/03/17/01293.html

4.  I would like the Minister to explain to me why a white Canadian, who wishes to teach the Canadian Constitution and history on Canadian soil, is denied a free office for her proposed non-profit activity, but foreigners of all kinds and colors all have free offices teaching and promoting foreign cultures and languages, and Marxism, on Canadian soil.

5.  This so-called government appears to be financing and underwriting the cultural genocide of people who -- naturally, legally, and hardly unexpectedly in the light of LEGAL FEDERALISM -- consider themselves Founding Canadians, entitled and determined to protect, teach and promote their Canadian history, Constitution and culture on their soil.

6.  Why am I treated as a third-class citizen and ordered to kowtow to foreigners instead of teaching and practising my own law, history and culture, according to my own personal interests, for the benefit of MY race, culture and country?

My grandfather went to war for this country, specifically to free it from Communism, and now his granddaughter is denied equality with foreigners on her own soil, while government tax money is illegally squandered to indoctrinate the public in political ideologies they did not vote for, such as Communism, Socialism, and Trotskyism.

CONCLUSIONS:

I demand to know how much GOVERNMENT MONEY is shovelled into:

[a]  immigrant cultures, foreign laguages and activities, and multiculturalism at the Côte des Neiges Community Center, i.e., including FREE OFFICES in the so-called "social economy", and other taxpayer-funded support.

[b]  the CORPORATION DE DÉVELOPPEMENT COMMUNAUTAIRE DE CÔTE-DES-NEIGES, Numéro d'entreprise du Québec (NEQ) 1143965292

695-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges
Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada

This organization is supposedly run by THOMAS MILLS, but his name is NOT on the government's current register of Administrators for this entity at CIDREQ.

This organization is openly promoting socialism and Marxism, including urging residents to demand "redistribution of wealth" in 2-color flyers printed and circulated at great expense throughout the community, while DICTATING the political and social "values" we are ALL supposed to adhere to, while calling it "democracy". Obviously, a dictatorship which deprives you of the right to think, discuss, and express your own views, is not a "democracy".

This organization has existed since at least the late 1980s, and has apparently seized control of every grass-roots group in a 5-mile radius, and has apparently sucked in ALL community groups, no matter who launched them, in order to dictate to and mould the lot of them to socialist-Marxist "values" dictated by this organization.

The MultiCaf, of which I am a member, is one of the organizations under the dictatorial umbrella of this government-funded "Corporation De Développement Communautaire De Côte-Des-Neiges".

This organization declares that it operates in the following "sector" of activity:

CAE
Organisations civiques et amicales
Regrouper Organismes Communautaires/Travail Communautaire De Concertation

In other words, it is a non-profit "charity".  However, it really appears to be functioning as a political front, to short-circuit elected representation, and to undermine Parliamentary functioning by seditiously indoctrinating vast populations who have recourse to community groups, with Communism.

No government, at any level, has any legal right to pay for this.

NB:  I want to know where the salaries are coming from to run this thing; I want to know how much they benefit financially from their free offices, and where they get their annual operating capital.

And I want to know why a so-called "charitable" organization which is privately incorporated, is, in fact, largely government funded, and acting as a political front for Marxism.

If this organization wants to promote Socialism, it can do so on its own time and nickel, and not with a dime of government money, but it will first have to register as a political party and see if anyone will vote for it.  Then, we will learn if a valid oath can be had, to exercise such vote, if they manage to win a seat.

I wrote to this organization over a year ago, requesting to know the source of the ideologies they are teaching.  I had an answer back, asking me who I am. I replied by sending my Facebook page, and I have never heard from them since.  Which is no surprise, because this political front is non-elected and thus non-accountable.

The current board of directors is below, and I want to know the salaries and benefits of each and every person employed by this organization, because I am entitled to know who is benefiting and how much, for the "friendly" "non-profit" task of socially re-engineering the political views of 100,000 people in this neighborhood on the taxpayer's nickel.

Moreover, these people control the entire "Community Center" building, which is a 7 or 8-storey all-equipped glass and cement office low-rise with maintenance and utilities.  I would like to know HOW DID THESE PEOPLE QUALIFY FOR THE USE AND CONTROL OF THIS ENTIRE BUILDING, which a handful of years ago, was a major office of the Montreal Rental Board (Régie du Logement), with bailiffs' offices below and hearing rooms above.  You would have to be very well connected to grab a PRIZE like this, which no doubt is providing everybody on this list with excellent wages and benefits:

Membres du conseil d'administration

Djebbar, Fatma
Vice-président
498-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada

Lefebvre, Christian
Secrétaire
101-6767 Côte des Neiges Montréal Québec H3S2T6 Canada

Besancenot, Bernard
Trésorier
360-3600 RUE Barclay Montréal Québec H3S1K5 Canada

Bibeau, Ginette
Administrateur
3333 Côte Sainte-Catherine Montréal Québec H3S2A5 Canada

Richard-webb, Anne
Président
597-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada

BELEC, DENISE
Trésorier
344-3600 av. Barclay Montréal (Québec) H3S1K5 Canada

BIBEAU, GINETTE
Président
3333, CHEMIN CÔTE STE-CATHERINE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3S2A5

MARTIN, JOCELYNE
4605 rue Bouchette Montréal (Québec) H3W1C6 Canada

LESER, LAURENCE
Secrétaire
599-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada

TREMBLAY, LOUISE
Vice-président
596-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada

[c] All the same information is required for the Multi Caf:

La Caféteria Communautaire Multi Caf
Numéro d'entreprise du Québec (NEQ)  1143699263
320-3600 av. Barclay
Montréal (Québec) H3S1K5 Canada

CAE
Organisations civiques et amicales
CAFÉTÉRIA COMMUNAUTAIRE, BANQUE ALIMENTAIRE


There are between 11 and 25 salaried employees living off this charity. I want to know their names, titles and wages.  The administrators are listed as follows:

FOY, NORMAN
Président
4910 boul. Édouard-Montpetit Montréal (Québec) H3W1P9 Canada

MOHAMMED, PARTOVI
Administrateur
1-3881 av. Linton Montréal (Québec) H3S1T3 Canada

LANDRY, ALAIN
Administrateur
320-3600 av. Barclay Montréal (Québec) H3S1K5 Canada

CÔTÉ, ROGER
Administrateur
500-1801 boul. De Maisonneuve O Montréal (Québec) H3H1J9 Canada

AMYOT, WALDECK
Administrateur
21-4200 rue Bouchette Montréal (Québec) H3S1J2 Canada

LANIEL, JEAN-PIERRE
Administrateur
207-5785 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S1Y8 Canada

KEMP, TERRY
Administrateur
2745, RUE BEDFORD, APP. 17 MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3S2G7

TANGUAY, SUZANNE
Trésorier
4361 1e Avenue Laval (Québec) H7R2X8 Canada

[d] I want all political activities promoting communism, socialism and Marxism on the governmen nickel STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.

[e] And I demand equal time, equal facilities, and equal respect for my White, English-French-Irish Canadian roots, history, constitution and culture on my soil. Because, contrary to so-called Prime Minister Stephen Harper lying through his teeth, Canada is NOT a "nation of immigrants". It is a legal federation of its founding peoples, and I demand respect for me and my roots, as such.

Govern Yourselves Accordingly.


Founding Canadians 1867
Fonder Le Canada 1867
__________________________

Kathleen Moore Pageot

P.S.  A copy of this letter is going on the Internet.

Republished from WiseGeek:

The expression "cuckoo in the nest" has a range of meanings. It can mean any person or thing found where it doesn't belong, and is also used to mean any problem that grows quickly, consuming resources needed for other purposes. In addition, the term is sometimes used to refer to an illegitimate child. "Cuckoo in the Nest" or "A Cuckoo in the Nest" appears in the title of a 1933 film, a 1970 television program and a 2008 novel, among other works.

The term "cuckoo in the nest" derives from the nesting habits of some species of cuckoo. Over 50 species of European cuckoo and 3 species of New World cuckoo engage in a nesting behavior called brood parasitism. Instead of raising their own young, brood parasites lay their eggs in the nests of other species of bird.

Parasitic cuckoos are host-specific, meaning that each species of cuckoo lays its eggs in the nest of only one other species of bird. Cuckoo eggs have evolved to resemble the eggs of these species, making them difficult to tell apart. When a cuckoo egg hatches, the host bird raises the young cuckoo as one of its own: there is literally a cuckoo in the nest. Cuckoo eggs have a short incubation period and cuckoo young mature quickly, so the young cuckoo has an advantage over the host species young. It usually destroys their eggs or evicts them from the nest, then imitates their cries to get the host parent to feed it, allowing the adult cuckoo to conserve resources while its young consumes resources meant for others.

The cuckoo's nesting behavior has been known to humans since antiquity. Aristotle and Pliny both described the parasitic behavior of the cuckoo. The idea of the "cuckoo in the nest" was used as an analogy for human behavior at least by the Middle Ages. The Old French term cucuault refers to a husband whose wife has been having an affair and who, by implication, is raising children who may not be his. The name derives from the Old French cucu or cuckoo, and is the root of the English world "cuckold."

Contemporary uses of the phrase "cuckoo in the nest" vary widely. For instance, one might say, "We were surprised when the family dog adopted a kitten and raised it as her own, like a cuckoo in the nest." Other uses for the phrase might highlight its implications of sexual impropriety or theft of resources.

Les Canadiens français : espèces en voie de disparition.

Le nombre d'immigrants de confession musulmane qui s'installent dans la région de QUÉBEC ne cesse de croître. De plus, Mme Boulmerka et son équipe travaillent depuis plusieurs années pour obtenir des subventions du gouvernement québécois afin de rendre l'école plus accessible aux familles qui n'ont pas les moyens de débourser les quelque 3200$ annuels - incluant les remboursements des frais de garde - que coûte l'inscription d'un enfant...

L'Islam arrive dans les contrées lointaines du Québec - le noyau terrestre du peuple fondateur canadien-français.

L'incursion de l'Islam et de toute autre étrangeté dans le coeur canadien français du Québec est l'équivalent de réduire la forêt tropicale équatoriale pour frôler des vaches. Cette perte de notre habitat normal détruira le noyau de nos territoires inhérents dans notre patrie canadienne française.



Le Québec doit monter un refus total sans tarder. La désobéissance civile est essentielle. Une campagne d'information aux Canadiens français dans ces secteurs est nécessaire.

Par exemple, des brochures d'une page doivent être envoyées à porte-à-porte par la poste pour quelques cents la pièce avec une liste de vidéos sur ce qui est arrivé à l'Europe - les zones « no-go », les meurtres, les viols, le terrorisme islamique, la disparition des fondateurs de l'Europe de leur propre sol.

Inviter les petites banques locales, les propriétaires et les agents immobiliers à refuser catégoriquement de louer ou de vendre n'importe quoi aux étrangers. Afficher des avis et des pancartes dans chaque ville et village clamant haut et fort : « ZONE NE PAS VENIR ». « NOUS REFUSONS NOTRE PROPRE GÉNOCIDE AUX MAINS DES MARXISTES ».

Le Canada est une confédération ; le but légal et constitutionnel du fédéralisme au Canada est de protéger et de préserver les peuples qui ont fondé le Canada sous nos propres législatures. La ligne de flottaison a été atteinte. Plus d'invasion ! Plus de globalisation ! Et nous devons renverser la globalisation existante.

L'IMMIGRATION MASSIVE EST UN RENVERSEMENT CONSTITUTIONNEL. C'est antidémocratique et illégal. Il viole l'AUTONOMIE des fondateurs du Canada comme établi par la constitution fédérale du Canada. Il prive les CANADIENS de l'autonomie, nous plaçant sous la règle étrangère des NATIONS UNIES communistes-globalistes.

Nous « ne préservons pas » notre héritage EN LE DILUANT avec un déluge des étrangers.

S'ils nous disent que nous sommes des « racistes », nous leur répondons que, « NON, VOUS êtes les racistes. »

S'ils nous disent, « nous sommes des minorités, protégez-nous, accommodez-nous ! » nous leur disons que, « non, vous sont des majorités venant d'ailleurs, rentrez chez-vous ! » Notre constitution nous protège, notre constitution nous accommode. Nous avons droit d'exister !

Si nous voulons voir les cultures étrangères, nous pratiquerons le TOURISME !

Nous possédons une alliance constitutionnelle pour nous protéger. Elle vient de 1867. Cette alliance n'inclut pas des Asiatiques, Nigerians, des Mexicains ni l'Islam. Ces personnes ont leurs propres constitutions ailleurs. Nous avons la-NÔTRE, ici !

L'immigration massive prive les Canadiens français de notre législature unique, que nos ancêtres ont créés pour nous en 1867.

Nous comprenons que les indigènes ont besoin de leurs territoires protégés pour survivre. Les peuples fondateurs du Canada ont besoin également de leurs territoires fédéraux protégés pour survivre.

Les fondateurs du Canada doivent se protéger mutuellement. Nous devons affirmer la constitution de 1867, conçue par nos ancêtres pour nous protéger.


- 30 -

À noter : j'ai utilisé Systran pour faire cette traduction. S.v.p. me signaler toute correction ou révision. Merci.

French-Canadians: an endangered species.

Le nombre d'immigrants de confession musulmane qui s'installent dans la région de QUÉBEC ne cesse de croître. De plus, Mme Boulmerka et son équipe travaillent depuis plusieurs années pour obtenir des subventions du gouvernement québécois afin de rendre l'école plus accessible aux familles qui n'ont pas les moyens de débourser les quelque 3200$ annuels - incluant les remboursements des frais de garde - que coûte l'inscription d'un enfant...

Translation: The number of immigrants of the Muslim faith who settle in the area of QUEBEC is growing constantly. Moreover, Mrs. Boulmerka and her team have worked for several years to obtain subsidies from the Québéc government to make the school more accessible to families who cannot afford the fees of approximately $3,200 a year, which is the cost of enroling one child, including reimbursement of daycare expenses...

Islam is arriving in remote areas of Quebec -- the heartland of the French-Canadian Founding People.

The incursion of Islam and other strangeness into the French-Canadian heart of Quebec is the equivalent of cutting down the equatorial rainforest to graze cows. This loss of our natural habitat will destroy the core of our inherent territories in our French-Canadian homeland.



Quebec must mount a total refusal without delay. Civil disobedience is essential. A campaign of information to French Canadians in those areas is necessary.

For example, one-page brochures must be sent door-to-door by post for a few cents apiece with a list of videos on what has happened to Europe -- the no-go zones, the murders, the rapes, the Islamic terrorism, the disappearance of the founders of Europe from their own soil.

Urge local (small) banks, landlords and real estate agents to flatly refuse to rent or to sell anything to the foreigners. Put up signs in every village and town: "NO-COME ZONE". "WE REFUSE OUR OWN GENOCIDE AT THE HANDS OF THE MARXISTS".

Canada is a Confederation; the legal and constitutional purpose of federalism in Canada is to protect and preserve the peoples who founded Canada under our own Legislatures. The water line has been reached. No more invasion! No more globalization! And we must reverse the existing globalization.

MASSIVE IMMIGRATION IS A CONSTITUTIONAL OVERTHROW. It is undemocratic and illegal. It violates SELF-GOVERNMENT of the founders of Canada, as established by the federal Constitution of Canada. It deprives CANADIANS of SELF-rule, placing us under the foreign rule of the communist-globalist UNITED NATIONS.

We do not "preserve" our heritage by DILUTING it with a deluge of foreigners.

If they tell us we are "racists", we answer them, "NO, YOU are the racists."

If they say, "We are minorities, protect us, accommodate us!" we tell them, "No, you are majorities from elsewhere, Go home!" Our constitution protects us, Our constitution accommodates us. We have a right to exist!

If we want to see foreign cultures, we'll practise TOURISM!

We have a constitutional alliance to protect us. It comes from 1867. That alliance does not include Asians, Nigerians, Mexicans or Islam. Those people have their own constitutions elsewhere. We have OURS, here!

Mass immigration deprives the French-Canadians of our unique Legislature, which our ancestors created for us in 1867.

We understand that the native peoples need their protected territories to survive. Founding peoples of Canada also need their protected federal territories to survive.

The Founders of Canada must protect each other. We must assert the 1867 Constitution, designed by our forefathers to protect us.
e

A Lament for British North America

By Robert Martin*

Introduction

When, on 26 October 1992, the Canadian people rejected the package of constitutional reforms known as the Charlottetown Accord, they may have created a historical watershed. They may have abandoned a three decade long national fascination with constitutional reform. [1]

This was a most welcome development. It shifted public attention away from the grand abstractions of constitutional law to the mundane, but concrete, realities of the lives of Canadians. Such a shift was desperately needed. One can only wish, idly, that it had happened sooner, for considerable damage had already been done.

While the interminable process of constitutional reform distorted Canada's politics and public discourse, the most significant legal changes spawned by it were the result of the enactment of the Canada Act 1982. In particular, the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms transformed our law, our politics, and our culture.[2]

I want to look at an almost unnoticed bit of constitutional reform. This was the renaming of our basic constitutional document, the British North America Act of 1867.1 will set out in detail the change which was made and describe the near universal lack of interest it elicited. My central purpose is to argue that, despite the vast attention which has been lavished on it, our constitution no longer fulfils an essential - perhaps the most essential - function of a constitution. It no longer sets out a unifying national idea. Our constitution gives scant intellectual or emotional direction in the maintenance of a peculiarly Canadian society.

The largest portion of the essay will be devoted to a discussion of why any of this does or should matter. I will attempt to argue that the idea of British North America once provided coherence for the Canadian state. My conclusion will not be that we should return to British North America, but that we are a country without a recognized and accepted national idea and with little prospect of creating a fresh one.

2. The Canada Act 1982

The Canadian constitution [3] is not a popular, not a people's, constitution. It is, in its language and its structure, a lawyers' constitution. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the perversely complicated package of amendments known formally as the Canada Act 1982. This brief statute, enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, has a Schedule "A" attached to it the Canada Act 1982 in French. Then it has a Schedule "B" the Constitution Act, 1982. In fact, there are two Schedules "B". One is the Constitution Act, 1982 in English; the other the same statute in French.

There is, in turn, a Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982. The function of this Schedule is to give new names to a series of statutes. The first of these is the original British North America Act, 1867. It is given the title Constitution Act, 1867. Now each amendment to the British North America Act had been called a British North America Act, with the year of its passage forming part of its title. Thus, an amending statute passed in 1907 was called the British North America Act, 1907. These amending statutes are also retitled. Each is now to be called Constitution Act followed by the year of its enactment.[4] The amending statute already noted is to be styled the Constitution Act, 1907.

As of 17 April 1982, the day the Canada Act 1982 took effect, Canada ceased to be British North America.

Where did the idea of making this change come from? I have not been able to discover an answer to this question. I turned initially to two persons who had been important in constitutional reform.

Barry L. Strayer, now a judge of the Federal Court of Canada, is generally regarded as having played the leading role in drafting the Canada Act 1982 and its appendices. He could not recall who originated the idea nor did he remember any discussion of it. [5]

We do know that the renaming of the British North America Act made its first official appearance in the Victoria Charter of 1971, [6] a comprehensive proposal by the Government of Canada for constitutional reform. Mark MacGuigan is also a judge of the Federal Court of Canada. In 1972, as a Member of Parliament, he co-chaired the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada. [7]

The Victoria Charter loomed large in the deliberations of the Committee. Mr. Justice MacGuigan could not recall any discussion of the question of abandoning the phrase British North America.[8] There is no specific reference to the issue in the final report of the Committee.

I then turned to published sources. Once upon a time, Canadian legal literature was scanty and superficial. It is no longer scanty. There is now a particularly vast literature about the constitution and, even more particularly, about the Canada Act 1982. This literature addresses the Act's genesis, its adoption, its content and its implications. Now I cannot claim to have read all this literature, but I have read a lot of it, certainly as much as any rational human being could be expected to.

I have come across only one reference to the renaming of the British North America Act. In the Second Edition of his treatise, Constitutional Law of Canada, published in 1985, Peter W. Hogg observed of the new name, "This change seems to me to smack of rewriting history ...". [9] Apart from this incisive observation, none of the many commentators on our process of constitutional reform, so far as I can discover, has directly addressed the purpose or significance of our jettisoning of British North America. [10]

So why was the change made? My surmise is that it was an attempt to make the constitution appear "more Canadian". [11] The parliamentary committee of 1972 did allude to this general point. It opined in its report:

The measure of the inadequacy of the British North America Act is that it does not serve Canadians fully as either a mirror of ourselves or as an inspirational ideal. [12]

The implicit suggestion is that the very phrase "British North America" had become a relic. This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982 which actually effected the change is given the title "Modernization of the Constitution". Presumably no self- respecting "modern" constitution would dare call itself the British North America Act.

Was this the case? To answer this question we must do two things. We must attempt, first, to discover the meaning of British North America. Then we must assess whether this was an idea which could claim by 1982 to exert any force in Canada.

3. The Meaning of British North America

The sense of being British North America once gave coherence to the Canadian state. It gave Canadians an understanding of why Canada existed.

What was British North America? What was the content of the idea?

Like all significant ideas, this one was made up of contradictory and inconsistent elements.

In part, British North America was a narrow expression of our colonial, settler origins. [13] The phrase bespoke the outpost of empire, "Ready, Aye, Ready" sense of being a bit of the Mother Country which simply happened to be located across the Atlantic Ocean. This was a romantic, defensive understanding of the meaning of British North America. It was alienating to non-British Canadians and it limited our ability to develop a sense of ourselves as an autonomous state. If this had been all that British North America meant, its jettisoning would, by 1982, have been long overdue.

But British North America also expressed another more positive and more inclusive notion of being Canadian. It was not so much a statement of our "Britishness" as of our uniqueness. This had primarily to do with the shared understanding that we stood for a different way of doing things in North America. We were not, emphatically not, like our neighbours. And we knew why. Our society was not based on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"; we were not founded on the celebration of individual freedom. We had chosen, rather, "peace, order and good government". The individual was to be subordinated to the collective. Life was not simply to be about the acquisition of wealth by individuals. We would also have obligations towards each other.

These notions about the distinctiveness of British North America remained central throughout much of our history. George Grant, appropriately enough, summed this up in an introduction which he wrote for the 1970 edition of Lament for a Nation.

Our hope lay in the belief that on the northern half of this continent we could build a community which had a stronger sense of the common good and of public order than was possible under the individualism of the American capitalist dream.[14]

The sense of having avoided the crass individualism of American life was also important to the way British North America understood itself: Enoch Padolsky noted how Frederick Philip Grove, in an influential essay written in 1929, described the United States as:

...dominated by a god called "Standard of Living", ruled by a law "which bows before economic obesity", with goals of "sensual enjoyment and the so-called conquest of nature", and dominated by a "new... plutocracy for the enslavement of the mind and the spirit. [15]

The idea that British North America was a "community with a character and experience of its own " [16] had acquired form and some vigour by the middle of the 19th century. Canadians understood that while they were part of North America, they were, in important ways, different from Americans. They took pride in having avoided the excesses, the republican licentiousness, which they saw as characterising the society of the United States. Chief amongst those excesses was slavery. British North America was, in its own eyes, a better and freer society.

It was understood that British North America was not "British" in a narrow ethnic sense, but that it had two constituent elements - English-speaking Canada and French-speaking Canada. The two elements had voluntarily come together in a single state which expressed both their duality and their common determination not to be American. English-speaking Canadians were not necessarily English or British; they simply spoke English.

Our democracy was also rooted in the notion of British North America. Our sense was not the American one which saw democracy as the reconciliation of an infinite variety of hostile and competing interests. In the Canadian conception the source of democratic government was the Crown. The Crown in British North America was to function as the instrument of the people which ensured the working of their democratic institutions. The Crown was also the guarantor of the French language and the distinctive culture of Onebec. Democracy was for us an organic expression of our unity. [17]

The idea of British North America self-evidently underlay the impetus towards Confederation. [18] It was a motivating factor in our expansion to the West. [19] And it would seem that by the end of the First World War the idea was firmly fixed in the Canadian psyche. Grant expressed this with his accustomed eloquence.

Growing up in Ontario the generation of the 192Os took it for granted that they belonged to a nation. The character of the country was self-evident. To say it was British was not to deny it was North American. To be a Canadian was to be a unique species of North American. [20]

Yet the extraordinary fact is that, insofar as I can determine, not one public voice was raised in opposition to the end of British North America.

Two people one might have expected to speak out were Eugene Forsey and Frank Scott. A long- time associate of his told me that Forsey was privately unhappy about the change, but did not say anything because he concluded it would be futile to make a fuss. [21] Forsey was the author of an excellent primer on Canadian government and politics, How Canadians Govern Themselves. [22] In the first edition, published in 1979, he discussed the British North America Act and set out its basic structure. [23] For the 1982 second edition he referred to "... the British North America Act, 1867 (now renamed the Constitution Act, 1867)" [24], but made no comment on the change. As for Frank Scott, he did for a time act as an advisor to Pierre Trudeau during the process of constitutional change which led to the Canada Act 1982. A recent and full biography of Scott discusses this role, but makes no reference to Scott having had any reservations about abandoning British North America. [25]

4. The Decline of British North America

The simple and incontrovertible fact is that by 1982 British North America was an idea which no longer moved Canadians, indeed it seems it was an idea which was barely intelligible to Canadians.

It is very difficult to document the gradual, but inexorable, demise of an idea. There are no mileposts to point to. One day Canada was British North America and the next it was not.

But some enlightenment can be gleaned by looking at the decline of another bit of terminology which was very much tied up with British North America. This is the word "Dominion".

The word is found, appropriately enough, in the original British North America Act. The Preamble speaks of "One Dominion under the Crown", while section 3 provides for the creation of "One Dominion under the Name of Canada". Strictly speaking, the official name of the new country was, simply, "Canada", but usage sanctioned "Dominion of Canada". [26]

The word "Dominion" appeared in the titles of many national institutions. The national government was referred to as the "Dominion government", especially in order to distinguish it from provincial governments. And Canada's national day was called "Dominion Day".

Slowly the term began to disappear. In the 1930s the government of Canada began to use "Canada" instead of "Dominion of Canada". "Dominion" was removed from the names of national institutions and gradually expunged from the statute book. [27] Both writers on constitutional law and our judges have long since abandoned "Dominion" and now use the phrase "federal government". [28] And in 1982 "Dominion Day" was renamed "Canada Day" . [29]

I presume that "Dominion" was consigned to the same fate as "British North America" for the same reason - it was thought to connote a colonial, less than fully independent status. Particularly in the case of "Dominion" this seems odd, for there was a time when the phrase "Dominion status" was a constitutional terms of art used to signify an independent, self-governing Commonwealth state. This usage, in a formal sense, dates back to the Statute of Westminster of 1931.

The decline in the fortunes of "British North America" went hand in hand with the waning in the minds of Canadians of the sense of their country's uniqueness. In a recent article William Christian addressed the question why George Grant wrote Lament For a Nation when he did. Christian's answer was straightforward. It was that Grant had come to "... see clearly that the dream of sustaining in Canada any sort of alternative to American civilization was irrevocably extinguished". [30] The blame, Grant saw clearly, lay with Canadians themselves and their "having come to accept the attractiveness of modernity". [31] Or, as, in slightly different fashion, another commentator on Grant put it:

Canada has ceased to be a nation, not because its political existence has ended, but because its distinctive intention has ceased to be important. [32]

For Grant the end of the Canadian dream came in 1963 when a Canadian government allowed the United States to place nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. Others say the dream died with the Ogdensburg Agreement of 1940 and Canada's acceptance of continental defence under U.S. leadership. [33] The point, however, is not to quibble over the precise date at which one could state with certainty that both the reality and the hope of an independent Canada had ended, but simply to note the existence of an ongoing and seemingly unstoppable process.

Since, by 1982, Canadians no longer understood the meaning of British North America, it probably made some sense to abolish it and, at the same time, bring our constitution into closer conformity with that of the U.S. [34]

The end of British North America was also, as Peter Hogg seems to have been the only commentator to notice, [35] a milestone in the abolition, or rewriting, of our history. This has had profound effects in including Canadians to abandon the sense of their own uniqueness. The preferred style in universities and secondary schools is either to deny that Canada has a history or to persuade students that such history as we might have is something to be ashamed of, that our past is fundamentally flawed. [36] This perspective is starkly set out in a document called Anti-racism and Ethnocultural Equity in School Boards: Guidelines for Policy Development and Implementation issued by the Ontario Ministry of Education in 1993.

Much of the traditional curriculum focuses on the values, experiences, achievements and perspectives of white-European members of Canadian society and excludes or distorts those of other groups in Canada and throughout the world. [37]

The answer to this is obvious. School boards are required to "develop or modify curriculum to reflect a culturally and racially diverse society". [38] They are, in effect, directed actively to rewrite our past.

5. Does It Make Any Difference?

In order to answer this question, we must address an even more fundamental question. Why do states exist?

The simple answer, looking at many contemporary states, is that state boundaries are an expression of ethnic or linguistic or cultural bound-aries. France has the shape it does because it encompasses human beings who view themselves as French. Of course, not every person living with-in the boundaries of France regards himself or herself as French, nor does every such person live in France. But the fundamental raison d'etre of the French state is that it is the home of the French people.

But Canada, obviously, is neither ethnically nor linguistically nor culturally homogeneous. How do such states continue to exist?

States which are not ethnically homogeneous or which contain within their boundaries a number of discrete ethnic groups face profound difficulties. The disintegration of Yugoslavia and the apparently intractable ethnic warfare in Sri Lanka are but two examples amongst dozens which can be seen today in every part of the globe.

How then are multi-ethnic states to survive and even prosper? The answer is not easy to find, since there are in fact few examples of multi-ethnic states which have been successful over the long term.

An obvious possibility is for one ethnic group to dominate and oppress all the others. This is not a prescription for long-term stability, as can be seen in the recent history of the former U.S.S.R. and the Republic of South Africa. Another possibility is a series of alliances amongst the ostensible leaders of the various ethnic groups. In order to work, this approach generally demands the exclusion of the mass of the people from active participation in politics.

The question with which I began this section must be rephrased once again. How can a democratic, multiethnic state be organised?

It is possible that the only such state which has succeeded is the United States of America. What is its secret?

Obviously, generally high levels of economic development and prosperity have played their part. Nonetheless, I would argue that the success of the U.S.A. as a multi-ethnic democracy is very much a
function of the power of the ideological notion which has lain at the heart of its constitution, its politics and its culture. That notion is individual freedom.

Individual freedom and the ongoing commitment to it of generations of Americans have created the ideological cement which has allowed the U.S.A. to continue as a democratic, multiethnic state. I make no argument either for or against individual freedom as an idea, nor do I express any opinion as to its goodness or essential meaning. My point is simply that the ideological raison d'etre for the U.S.A. has been and continues to be individual freedom.

Why, then, is there a Canadian state? Why does Canada exist? Why should it continue?

Canada is not ethnically homogeneous. There is no single Canadian language. The ethnic justification for the existence of a Canadian state is not available. Is there an idea which gives a foundation and a direction to the Canadian state?

The idea of British North America once provided a purpose and a justification for the Canadian state. That idea has now disappeared. A fresh idea which could take its place has not appeared. And with no such unifying idea it is hard to imagine a future for the Canadian state, or at least for a multi- ethnic, democratic Canadian state.

Eugene Forsey clearly understood both the power and the importance of the idea which gave coherence to the Canadian state. Referring to the Crown, he said:

Without it, there can be no Canada, at best, just a blurred, faint, unmeaning carbon copy of some other country; a thing without character and without honour. [39]

But, it might be objected, other ideas have come along. What about "multiculturalism"? Or, what about the idea of individual rights as embodied in the Charter?

It is difficult to take multiculturalism seriously as an idea. Multiculturalism was invented a quarter of a century ago as an expedient by a federal Liberal Party desperate to win votes in Toronto.

As an idea to inform and unify a state it is laughably inadequate. Multiculturalism announces that Canada, or at least the formally English-speaking parts of it, has no culture. This is not much of an ideology.

Multiculturalism does little more than affirm our commitment to moral and intellectual relativism. That is, it affirms that we stand for precisely nothing. This was made evident in the Preamble to the failed Charlottetown Accord, the so-called "Canada Clause". [40] It is, of course, interesting that the would-be constitution-makers saw a need for the statement of a national idea, but the result was so flaccid as to be utterly worthless for the purpose. The Canada Clause would have told Canadians and the world that we are firmly on the side of goodness and are swell people. The Canada Clause was precisely what one would expect in the constitution of the nation which is the world leader in synchronised swimming.

Many people have argued that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, it will be recalled, became part of our Constitution at the same time as we ceased to be British North America, has supplied us with a new idea of what we stand for as a state. Now, to a considerable extent, at least outside Quebec, this is true. But that is the problem.

The Charter is, culturally, historically, and ideologically, an American document. It exalts individual freedom and its protection through legally enforceable rights. The Charter's enthusiastic acceptance by Canadians bespeaks the degree to which we can now understand our-selves only through American ideas. It symbolises our loss of any uniquely Canadian sense of ourselves. To the extent that the Charter does provide a unifying national idea, it is an idea that trumpets the abandonment of our autonomy and our uniqueness.

There is no longer a Canadian idea which can give coherence to the Canadian state. There is, then, no obvious basis upon which it may survive as a multi-ethnic democracy.

This assertion will probably be regarded as contentious in what is now more or less officially referred to, not as English-speaking Canada, but as "the rest of Canada", but it would be seen as self- evidently true by most people in Quebec. A substantial majority of Quebecois now see no raison d'etre for the current Canadian state. No amount of constitutional tinkering will change this.

The estrangement lies much deeper. British North America was, I have suggested, the union of two elements - English-speaking Canada and French-speaking Canada. But one element, English-speaking Canada, has largely disappeared. The reaction of the French-speaking element is to argue that there is simply nothing left to be united with, that with one partner dead there can no longer be a union.

Canada is not merely in a deep economic crisis. We are in an equally serious intellectual crisis. We are without a sense of why we exist. This is overwhelmingly apparent in the ease with which we accepted the integration of our economy with that of the U.S.A. and the silence with which the ongoing destruction of our cultural and political institutions is greeted.

6. Conclusion

I want to conclude where I began, with the Charlottetown Accord of 1992. That document manifests the two central themes of this essay -a people consciously abolishing their own history and, as a result, being left with a constitution which provides them scant intellectual or emotional direction.

The period from mid-1990, when the Meech Lake Accord failed to be formally implemented, to the autumn of 1992, when voters rejected the Charlottetown Accord, was one of national obsession with constitutional reform. There were Parliamentary committees and legislative committees in most provinces. There were citizens' forums and a series of national conferences. There were task forces and study groups. There were articles and reports and incessant lectures on television and radio.

Throughout the process we appeared to have convinced ourselves that making a constitution was the same as going to the supermarket. We seemed to believe that nothing more was involved than choosing from an unlimited range of proffered possibilities. We acted like bedazzled consumers, filling our constitutional cart with an incoherent jumble of questionable products.

The result, a result a majority of Canadians had the good sense to reject, would have been a constitution having no connection, no resonance whatsoever, with our history, our traditions and our culture. Had the Charlottetown Accord been accepted we would have taken the final step in a process in which the elimination of British North America was a significant watershed.

It would be foolish to suggest that we return to British North America. And I would not wish for an instant to recommend new attempts at constitutional reform. It is enough to draw attention to what we have lost.

*I wish to thank Jack Granatstein, Robert Hawkins, George Kerr and Rande Kostal for their comments on earlier draft. 1. The process can be said to have begun with a meeting of Attorneys-General held in Ottawa on 6 and 7 October 1960. See Anne F. Bayefsky, Canada's Constitution Act, 1982 and Amendments: A Documentary History. Toronto, 1989, vol. 1, p.1. 2. The literature on the Charter is voluminous and, by and large, credulous and uncritical. The worst book, in my opinion, is Ian Greene, The Charter of Rights, Toronto, 1989. The only ones worth reading are Michael Mandel, The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada, Toronto, 1989 and Rainer Knopff and F.L. Morton, Charter Politics, Scarborough, 1992. For my own views, see "The Charter and the Crisis in Canada" in David F. Smith, Peter MacKinnon and John C. Courtney, After Meech Lake: Lessons For the Future, Saskatoon, 1991, p.121.

3. For a discussion of what is meant by this phrase, see Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 3rd ed., Scarborough, 1992, pp.3-26.

4. This statement is not absolutely correct. A few of the statutes which: had amended the British North America Act, 1867 were repealed and the British North America Act, 1949 was renamed the Newfoundland Act.

5. Telephone conversation with Mr. Justice Strayer, 29 March 1993.

6. For the text, see Bayefsky, op. cit., pp.214-222.

7. The text of the Committee's Report is in ibid., pp.224-311.

8. Telephone conversation with Mr. Justice MacGuigan, 19 April 1993.

9. Scarborough, 1985, p.5. This observation has survived into the Third Edition of the book. See Constitutional Law of Canada, op. Cit., 1992, p.8.

10. I must confess that, at the time, I did not grasp the significance of what was being done. Indeed, I described the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982 as "housekeeping provisions". See "Introduction", (1984) 2 Socialist Studies, p.4 at 6.

11. Mr. Justice Strayer used this phrase. See notes 5.

12. Bayefsky, op. cit., p. 230.

13. For a forceful elaboration of this point of view, see John Conway, "Politics, Culture and the Writing of Constitutions" in Harvey L. Dyck and H. Peter Crosby, eds., Empire and Nations: Essays in Honour of Frederic H. Soward, Toronto, 1969, p.3.

14. Ottawa, 1970, p. x. See the interesting discussion in H.D. Forbes, "The Political Thought of George Grant", (1991)26 Journal of Canadian Studies, no. 3, p.46.

15. "Grove's 'Nationhood' and the European Immigrant" in Ibid., (1987) 22, no.1, p.32 at 41.

16. This phrase as well as the ideas in this paragraph come froni Allan Smith, "Old Ontario and the Emergence of a National Frame of Mind" in F. H. Armstrong, H. A. Stevenson mid J. D. Wilson, eds., Aspects of Nineteenth Century Ontario: Essays Presented to James J. Talman, Toronto, 1974, p. 194.

17. My understanding of British North America is, I confess, profoundly Tory. That is hardly surprising since British North America is, itself, a uniquely Tory idea. My understanding is drawn from the writings of George Grant, Eugene Forsey and Frank Scott and much influenced by Charles Taylor. The unique role of the Crown is discussed in Eugene Forsey, Freedom and Order, Toronto, 1974, pp.21-72. For a different perspective on Canadian Toryism, see Peter J. Smith, "The Ideological Origins of Canadian Confederation", (1987) 20 Canadian Journal of Political Science, no. 1 p. 3, and "Civic Humanism vs. Liberalism Fitting the Loyalists in", (1991) 26 journal of Canadian Studies, , no. 2, p. 25.

18. John A. Macdonald's speech of 6 February 1865 to the legislature of the Province of Canada in which lie urged adoption of the proposals for Confederation is a classic text for understanding the idea of British North America. He referred, in several places, to "the best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America". He spoke of "people possessed of skill, education and experience in the ways of the New World" and "ardent attachment for this, our common country". He warned of "the defects which time and events hare shown to exist in the American Constitution" and urged his compatriots to choose instead "British laws, British connection, and British freedom" as well as ensuring that "the rights of minorities are safeguarded". Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, Quebec, 1865, pp. 25-45.

19. See Doug Owram, Promise of Eden: The Canadian Expansionist Movement and the Idea of the West, 1856-1900, Toronto, 1980.

20. Lament for a Nation, Toronto, 1965, p.3.

21. Telephone conversation with Graham Eglington, 20 May 1993.

22. 1st. ed., Ottawa, 1979; 2nd. ed., Ottawa, 1982.

23. Ibid.,lst.ed.,pp.10-72.

24. Ibid., 2nd. ed., p.9.

25. Sandra Djwa, The Politics of the Imagination: A Life of F.R. Scott, Toronto, 1987, pp. 429-437. Scott believed that the R.N.A. Act implied, by its nature, a degree of subordination between Canada and the U.K. and that this should be remedied by what he called "repatriation". He did warn, however, against "repatriation" "at any price". See Frank R. Scott, Essays on the Constitution: Aspects of Canadian Law and Politics, Toronto, 1977, p.402.

26. Although the phrase does appear it, legislation. See, for example, sections 3 and 5 of the British North America Act, 1871.

27. As far as I can tell, the only statute which still uses the word is the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, R. S. C. 1985, c. C-28. Despite its title, the Act is indexed under "C" in the current revision of the statutes.

28. See the interesting discussion in Hogg, op. cit., 1992, 1,,'. 104-105. Early editions of Bora Laskin's Canadian Constitutional Law used "Dominion" without any evident shame or embarrassment. See, for example, 2nd ed., Toronto, 1960,pp. 30-37. Scott was not enthusiastic about either the term or the status. See Essays on the Constitution, op. cit., p.157.

29. See Holidays Act, R. S. C. 1985, c. H-5, 5.2. There was considerable controversy surrounding the passage of the amendment to the Holidays Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. H-7, which effected the change. In the first place this was a private member's bill, one of the very few ever to find its way into law. In the second place, it appears there were only 13 Members present in the House of Commons when the motion to read the Bill for a third time was adopted. The quorum in the House of Commons is 20. (Constitution Act, 1867, s.48). Further, only minutes were devoted to consideration of the Bill by the House of Commons. And, finally, there was a lengthy and acrimonious debate about the Bill in the Senate, a debate in which some Senators tried, without success, to discover why a private member's bill was being pushed through Parliament with such haste, particularly when an earlier government bill to the same effect had been tabled. In, the Senate, at least, there was a full debate over the desirability of making the change. A Senator who favoured "Canada Day" observed, "... history is not a stagnant pool". (Canada, Debates of the Senate, First Session, Thirty-Second Parliament, vol. IV, 22 July 1982, p.4668.) A different view of history was advanced by a Senator who wished to retain "Dominion Day", "I am saddened that it seems so easy for people to cast aside, and to allow others to cast aside, our glorious history". (Ibid., 27 July 1982, p. 4685.).

30. "George Grant's Lament", (1993) 100 Queen's Quarterly, no. 1, 199 at p.206.

31. lbid.,p.210.

32. H.D. Forbes, op. cit., p.50.

33. See J. L. Granatstein, How Britain's Weakness Forced Canada into the Arms of the United States, Toronto, 1989.

34. Some commentators contrived not to understand that this was happening. See, for example, D. Smiley, "A Dangerous Deed: The Constitution Act, 1982" and R. Whitaker, "Democracy and the Canadian Constitution" in Keith Banting and Richard Simeon, eds., And No-one Cheered, Toronto, 1982. Others, however, did understand. See Ronald I. Cheffins and Patricia A. Johnson, The Revised Canadian Constitution: Politics As Law, Toronto, 1986, pp.145-156.

35. See above, p.43.

36.See my article, "How I Lost My Father - Twice", The Globe and Mail, 11 November 1991, page "A".

37. Toronto, 1993, p. 13.

38. Ibid.. p.14.

39. Freedom and Order, op. cit., p 49.

40. The Canada Clause would been added as part of a new section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The following would have become some of our "fundamental characteristics".

e. Canadians are committed to racial and ethnic equality in a society that includes citizens from many lands who have contributed and continue to contribute, to the building of a strong Canada that reflects its cultural and racial diversity;
f. Canadians are committed to a respect for individual and collective human rights and freedoms of all people;

Consensus Report on the Constitution: Final Text, Charlottetown, 28 August 1992, p.1.

First prize in the vacuity sweepstakes must go to the proposal put forward in 1992 by the government of Ontario. Its suggested "Canada Clause" would have advocated "democratic participation by all Canadians, whatever their race, gender, religion, culture, or physical or mental disability; and concern for the well-being of all Canadians" as well as "respect for the dignity of individuals, groups and communities". Legislative Assembly, Select Committee' on Ontario in Confederation, Final Report, Toronto, 1992, p.10.

*Robert Martin is professor of Law at the University of Western Ontario.