The Magna Carta was passed and assented to by Crown AND British Parliament (see Sir Edward Coke - 1628 [Lord Campbell's Lives, supra, vol. 2 p.13]) on more than one occasion, and adopted into the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Canada's BNA Act provided for "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of United Kingdom" and thereby adopted the same constitutional principles. Magna Carta is our ONLY Constitution, as it is the only document directly agreed to by the people, and intended to "last forever" in "all places". The 1297 [final version] of our Charter records an exchange of goods in sealing the consent of the parties to the terms of the contract.
Clearly, our Magna Carta was and always will be an integral part of Canadian Constitutional Law, as further witnessed by section 26 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was passed as the Supreme Law of Canada by an act of the Parliament of England, signed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by the will and consent of the government of Canada. Section 26 recognizes the existence of those "other rights" which we inherited via our "Mother of Constitutions" as the Magna Carta is often referred to. It is your birthright! It is the 'law of the land'!
Further to the substantiation of this fact, we have the BC Court of Appeal, in 1949, stating quite clearly that Magna Carta is indeed part of our common law and the Constitution of Canada.
It would appear that the origins of rights are not a security of holding them. Indeed our history suggests the only way man has found to hold his rights is with the defence of those rights by force; however, governments have learned better ways of disarming the free people they wish to enslave, and by use of fear, have convinced many that the slavery offered by their government is preferred to that of the "enemy at the gates", whether actual, fictitious, or inflated.
See how the "government of Canada" is using (and broadening by definition) the remote threat of "terrorism" to destroy the rights of "freemen", and by their doing, becoming terrorists (modifiers and extinguishers of lawful liberty) themselves .
See how you have a right to bear arms [and Revolution] that clearly lays within the law.
And we will that if any judgments be given from henceforth, contrary to the points of the charters aforesaid by justices or by any other our ministers that hold pleas before them touching the points of the charters, they shall be undone and holden for naught.
- His Royal Highness, King Edward I, 1297.
Do you know the difference between a right and a privilege? There are differing theories and views, but they generally all lead to the same reality.
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or by the hand of the divinity itself: and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, -- Alexander Hamilton, 1775
Rights vs. Privileges
(important links at the site)
The Great Charter (Magna Carta - 1215AD)
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/magna_carta.htm
[Editor's note: Page does not render well in Mozilla. Only Internet Explorer :( ]
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on April 12, 2006]
Note: http://www.bcrevolution...
Our Civil Liberties
Posted on Wednesday, April 12 at 10:39 by DiogenesContributed By
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
Rights are the untouchable and eternal freedoms well all have, rich and poor alike, immune to the decrees of both the corrupt and the tyrant alike.
Privilges are mere allowances granted at the whim of whatever ruler happens to be reigning at the time.
Currently, our leaders are trying to convince us that our rights are merely privilges.
This very act reveals them for what they truly are, corrupt and tyrants-in-waiting.
How's that for an answer Dio?
---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
"The Weapon" - Rush
there is also a link in answer to the posed question
Rights vs. Privileges
There are essentially two "camps" on the issue of freedom. In one camp we have those who believe that government exists to provide people with freedom, based on the assumption that the ultimate authority lies in an area transcendent from humankind itself. Then, opposite them are those who believe that government grants "rights", which really, by definition are privileges since they are bestowed and revoked by other groups of humans. The latter groups must believe in and practice slavery, although individuals in this group will generally have to convince themselves through some psychological "gymnastics" that they are not perpetrating such a crime.
Rights are bestowed by a creator. This doesn't mean your parents, nor does it mean the state.
Privileges are NOT rights! They are bestowed by other humans - under their rules. What that means is that you grant THEM fealty, the fidelity sworn by a vassal to his feudal lord. I.e., you agree to play by their rules or even on their behalf. In essence, this is an "owner/owned" contract between people. Accepting privilege means you grant ownership of your behavior to another human being. Government grants privileges. Therefore, government can take them away.
The problem is that government is confusing rights with privileges. It doesn't see the distinction. So, your right to breath may well be confused with a privilege that the government may choose to revoke, like it did for the Branch Davidians and Randy Weaver's family.
In our view, only a creator can bestow or revoke a right - no matter what name you assign that creator. The job of government is to ensure that no human usurps the creator's power to bestow or revoke a right.* That means that the job of government is to protect individual rights: It has no power to grant or revoke rights and is clearly prohibited from doing so in the United States Bill of Rights. The Constitution clearly defines what powers the Government DOES have, and it is clear that the government may not interfere in inalienable (Absolute/Natural) rights.
End of story. No further discussion.
The only legitimate question at this point is, "Why is it important that I understand the difference between rights and privileges?", to which I'll answer:
It's important for you to know the difference between rights and privileges so that you know when someone is trying to deny you your rights. Believe me, there are plenty of people out there who would prefer that you DO NOT know the difference between rights and privileges because if you understand rights, they cannot enslave you.
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or by the hand of the divinity itself: and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, -- Alexander Hamilton, 1775
"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." -- John F. Kennedy
*Even our Bill of Rights only acknowledges rights, it does not grant them. It just makes clear to present and future governments that the foundations of this country were built on the assumption that we, as individuals all possess inalienable rights beyond the powers of government.
Judicial Activism - undermining Constitutional Rule of Law and denying your rights - Ninth Circuit Court Disconnect from Natural Law
What you can do (A link)
---
Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding.
Ezra Pound
The only good is knowledge...
Damed FINE!! Go to the head of the class!@
now "if" we could get more folks to get this then perhaps there might be less bs from those we elect
---
Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding.
Ezra Pound
The only good is knowledge...
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />
Diogenes
---
Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding.
Ezra Pound
The only good is knowledge...