APPENDED BELOW – TEXT of posting 2013-10-12 The Oakes Test to over-ride Charter Rights. How Prosecutors get around it.
I was charged for non-compliance with the 2006 Census. I did Non-compliance because of StatsCan out-sourcing to Lockheed Martin Corp.
Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Info was best bet for defending (I was to answer the questions on a Census Long Form). It would be a slam-dunk. Defended myself in the beginning. The APPENDED on Oakes test was after 5 years.
Because Lockheed Martin was core, I’ve learned a lot about surveillance and corruption and stuff, including the undermining of Governments.
MY CONCLUSION:
Yes, the Government may rescind the rights of an individual. However,
- The Statistics Act does not give the Government the authority to do that. StatsCan cannot just declare that this is so.
- In order to override the Charter Right of an individual, the Government has to pass the “Oakes Test“.
If StatsCan wishes to take away Canadians’ Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information, it would have to make an application to the Court to do so, supplying the Court with the arguments to satisfy the Oakes Test. It has not done that. So the Charter Right stands.
– – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – –
(I pretty well stopped using Facebook and Twitter years ago and am currently one toe in X. I do not use a cell phone. I was not affected today in the downtown, the internet was down – – I use cash almost exclusively.)
Mark Carney in Kelowna, B.C. Feb 13th, 2025. Running for the leadership of the Federal Liberals.
Excerpt from short video clip, Carney addressing Liberal gathering. I transcribed:
Something that MY Government is going to do is use ALL the powers of the Federal Government, including the EMERGENCY POWERS of the Federal Government, to accelerate the major products that we need . . .
The next entry on the X thread: a Globe & Mail ad, Carney and “sedition”. I don’t know from where it came. (Disclosure: I’ve been keeping loose track of Carney since he went from Wall Street (13 years at Goldman Sachs, etc) to Governor of Bank of Canada, thence to Gov Bank of England, to WEF, back to Canada and now being insinuated into position of Prime Minister of Canada.)
I interpret Carney’s words to mean (the same as was wanted, and is still wanted, under Covid – – people OBEY.
so under Carney’s Government there will be ONE narrative and only one. The Powers of the Federal Govt will see to that. (it’s the Globalist, the WEF position, the Federal Liberal position, Premier David Eby of B.C.’s position (legislation known as HPOA), etc – it is the position of all of them and more – – the Globalists. Klaus Schwab.).
Remember the way the covid narrative was launched? Fast. With confusion. No time to deliberately organize to obtain information. Isolation was effective in destroying the ability to focus, to compare notes, to make decisions. You don’t know what happened until it’s all over; or, as it’s happening, and in hindsight. That is a deliberate, coordinated, Globalist modus operandi.
SEDITION – – what’s that about?
The word “sedition” is seldom used in the streets, in Canada. I looked it up to see if it’s an American word? (it’s not). Sedition (from Latin): conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch. . . . or
Sedition is a term from law, which is used for people who act and speak openly against the government and those in power, to cause an uprising or a rebellion. In many countries, such behaviour is a criminal offence. (Yes, in Canada. Jail time up to 14 years if you are guilty.).
PLAUSIBLE SCENARIO?
I’m sending this to you because I think it IS plausible; plausible enough that we should discuss it. If it never happens, great!
Mark Carney is a Globalist. He wants to be the Prime Minister of Canada. I think he told us in the video clip: the Federal Govt has the Powers it needs to do what it wants to do. Be damned what people in the street think or want.
They de-briefed after the Freedom Convoy in 2022 – – how could they have done better than they did (Covid)? (They have no intention of CHANGING their Agenda.)
If the plebeians complain openly under Mark Carney’s Government >>> it will trigger arrest, the charge is sedition (huh? The plebes won’t know what hit them), there will be fast trials and into jail they go. The judges will uphold the Government narrative.
To me, Mark Carney is dangerous. These are his words: Something that MY Government is going to do is use ALL the powers of the Federal Government, including the EMERGENCY POWERS of the Federal Government . . . They will get away with it, because they already have.
I pasted together more (below) about sedition.
And I wondered what’s the difference? . . . sedition versus Invocation of the Emergency Act? . . . the Invocation of the Emergencies Act carries with it a Requirement of the Government to hold an Inquiry within a limited amount of time after the Invocation of the Emergency tactics. . . . I’m thinking that the Govt would prefer NOT TO have an Inquiry. The default tactic would be Charges of Sedition?
– – – – – – – –
Sedition https://www.vocabulary.com › dictionary › sedition
Is sedition illegal in the US? Has anyone been executed for treason in the US?
Of the 40 treason cases charged since the founding of the U.S., only 13 resulted in a conviction, and only three people have been executed for it.
Since 1956, only one person indicted for treason—Adam Gadahn, in 2006, executed for making propaganda videos for al-Qaeda.
Sedition is the illegal act of inciting people to resist or rebel against the government in power. It’s what the southern states did at the start of the Civil War.
Sedition is the rebellious talk and encouragement that might lead to a mutiny, and can be charged as a crime, like treason.
Is treason a sedition?
Treason is a serious crime in the United States that carries equally serious consequences, up to and including the death penalty. Sedition and subversive activities, while generally less serious than treason, still carry harsh penalties, including hefty fines and prison time.
I see on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition under “View History” – – there is continuous and many changes to the material on wikipedia . . . every year, going back through the covid years. A LOT of History – – meaning, a lot of activity related to wiki info on Sedition.
SEDITION IN CANADA
There is but one example of the charge of Sedition in Canada (PQ): Camillien Houde, jailed for 4 years. Upon release (1944): cheering crowd of 50,000 Montrealers, . . . won back his job as Montreal mayor in 1944’s civic election
(NOTE. “CONSCRIPTION” in Canada is known as “THE DRAFT” in the USA. Conscription is a hot button issue in Canada. BECAUSE OF HISTORY. The “Seven Years War” (1756 to 1763) pitted French against English, to the death. A battle over “who has rights?” in this colonial territory? Which Empire, Which Colonials? Groups of people do not forget their heritage.
IN CANADA, it is not a good idea to CONSCRIPT the Quebeçois with their emotional ties (still) linked to the American Revolutionaries who won against the Brits – – the same people they (the Quebecois) were defeated by. In general Canadians outside Quebec (Brits – the victors) will be more accepting of fighting and paying for War that supports the British Empire.
BUT BUT BUT In today’s world, the Interests of the American Empire and the British Empire are pretty well merged through FVEY and Corporate interests. I believe in my local community. Make it self-respecting. I have no respect for Mark Carney. Or the Liberals, federally. And none for David Eby, NDP, Provincial B.C. . . . I suspect that Conservatives would be unable to resist the dictates of the entrenched corporate interests. Canadians have to see what the Freedom Convoy saw in 2022.)
HELP TRANSFORM THE MARK CARNEY INFORMATION (All the Power and Control he sees) INTO ACTION.
You don’t need to “Guess” about anything. The Government BEHAVIORS are all captured IN PICTURES. You don’t need to read legal documents. Just ask your friends and neighbors if they know what happened.
Canadians need to be alerted and PREPARED. Which they are doing. The work has been relentless for a few years.
Sedition Legislation Criminal Law. Date of the 1st Act in Canada: 1918
In context of: Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to assemble, Freedom to Peaceful Protest, . . .
And in Context of Inquiry into Invocation of Emergency Act
Canada has used the Sedition legislation ONCE. It was in Quebec, over Conscription . . .
– – – – – – – – –
EXCERPT FROM:
. . . 3. INFORMED PUBLIC DISCOURSE IS MISSING IN ACTION
What am I classified as, in the data banks? . . . a protestor? An activist? – – insurrectionist? – – dissident? revolutionary – – subversive – – an insurgent – – or warrior? – – I certainly hope I’m categorized as being against fascism (anti-fa) – – I’m a resistor of tyranny? Yes, I’ll swear to that (I do non-violent resistance) – – A rebel – – an old lady? (yes, I am that!) . . . a disruptor? (Elon Musk is a “disruptor” who challenges the status quo) – – conscientious objector? . . . yes, do not expect me to be complicit or compliant with Lockheed Martin Corporation’s involvement at StatsCan (Lockheed Martin Corp – – the American military-industrial-congressional war profiteers, FVEY surveillance, war-mongering, complete with the cherry on top – – drone warfare). Am I a guerrilla fighter in the tradition of Ché Guevera?
How are YOU categorized?
– – – – – – –
Excerpt from the posting: 2010-09-13 RCMP identify coup d’etat as threat to Canada, article, Ottawa Citizen. (posted 13 years ago, but still relevant).
The RCMP have put the risk of a coup d’état on the list of four threats to Canada. . . .
. . . armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état.”
I’d say that coup d’états happen when the powers-that-be want more power and control than they already have. Or, they feel a threat to their power and agenda.
What would threaten them, in today’s world? . . . Why did the RCMP list coup état? . . .
Growing dissatisfaction among growing numbers of “peasants” would be a threat to the powers-that-be. Sufficient dissatisfaction, large enough numbers, intention . . . but that would be called a “revolution”, not a coup d’état.
So let’s see. The RCMP say the threat of a coup d’état exists. Earlier, I and others have said that we have corporatocracy, not democracy in Canada. Which means that the coup d’état has ALREADY TAKEN PLACE (“the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”).
What does the RCMP statement mean then? Does it mean that there is a threat of EVEN MORE coup d’état-ing?
To answer that, put yourself into the shoes of the powers-that-be (the ones doing the coups). What do THEY see? . . . I see coup d’état . . . they see revolution. We are viewing the same world, but through a different set of eyes. A power struggle between us and them.
I was astounded to hear “coup d’etat” used in the media (the Ottawa Citizen), quoting the RCMP. . . . But why the surprise? I have been saying that the success of the opposition to the terrible polluting in the tar sands, the success in protection of water, etc., threatens the corporate agenda. That “revolution” threatens the corporate agenda. When I stop to think – – as a population moves toward revolution, yes, that is when coup d’états happen. The population wakes up to what has been happening, they stop being sheeple, the powers whose interests are threatened must resort to military/police (violence) to impose their will.
In this network we have documented the growing military/police state in Canada. What is that other than the signs of a coup d’état? But is that the coup d’état that the RCMP are thinking of?
So is there evidence of dissatisfaction and unrest, IN LARGE ENOUGH NUMBERS to trigger pre-emptive (that’s what it would be), MORE coup état-ing by large corporations working with their big government quislings?
Another question: if the RCMP see potential coup d’état, where does that leave THEM?
We’re all in this together. I think we need to understand the situation and share it. Otherwise we, as Canadians, can’t solve it.
In any language, Use the vocabulary (you’re at a disadvantage if you don’t know the language or words for the discussion).
– – – – – – – – –
REALLY, this is what I want you to see. 2025-02-08 I got sucked in https://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=30881
Commentary that is not in the posting:
(USA): Trump, Kennedy, Musk, etc have launched a counter-insurgency
(, . . There has been a coup by (big pharma/ big corporations / big institutions). Revolutionaries or whatever word you want to use, don’t like the Fat Corrupt Lords & Criminals. They are getting more and more agitated. (People like RFK Jr etc) And Bingo! They have support enough to get elected. BUT! they do not yet have control of the “levers of power”.
I might phrase it, the desperation sets in.
I am counter-insurgent (I don’t like what Globalists (insurgent Coup d’Etaters) have done to Governance, no matter how much it was done “to protect my health and safety”.
They are desperate to hold on to POWER. Juat as desperate as we are to get rid of them.
– – – – – – – – –
APPENDED
2013-10-12 The Oakes Test to over-ride Charter Rights. How Prosecutors get around it.
This arises from my experience in trial over the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information.
I hope that people, including Law students, will challenge the idea that the Government, in over-riding a Charter Right, has to meet strict standards that protect Charter Rights. That is a myth. It is not true.
In reality, there is little protection because the procedure is flawed. It’s not too hard to see.
The following may be useful to someone, sometime.
THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK:
If the Government wants to over-ride a Charter Right, it must successfully argue the OAKES TEST in front of a Judge.
MORE – – see Items # 3 & 4 in Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8 Privacy . . . Oakes Test to override.
THE WAY IT WORKS IN PRACTICE – HOW IS THE OAKES TEST CIRCUMVENTED? . . . EASILY
The test has to be triggered by the Crown (the Prosecutors). (That’s what I was told.) All they have to do (as they did in my case), is DECLINE TO ARGUE THE OAKES TEST – – make some other argument. They can thereby extinguish a Charter Right without ever having to justify doing so.
It is a sound strategy if you are the Prosecutor, trying to win a case against a Charter Right.
But it has the consequence of making a mockery of the Oakes Test, AND of the Section 1 Over-ride, AND of the Charter Right.
Page 2 of 3
WHAT SHOULD BE
In defending a Charter Right, the Defence has to be able to compel the Crown to meet (to argue) the requirements of the Oakes Test.
The Test is irrelevant, unless there is some way in which the DEFENCE is able to trigger it? Or unless the Judge can order it?
UNTIL THEN Charter Rights in Canada are extremely vulnerable, maybe non-existent.
My Direct Experience, Excerpt:
- IMPORTANT: IN MY TRIAL, THE CROWN DID NOT ARGUE AN OVERRIDE OF THE SECTION 8 CHARTER RIGHT. BUT THE CHARTER RIGHT WAS IN FACT TAKEN AWAY.
Steve (lawyer) writes, 2013: (I, Sandra, added the parentheses.)
The “override” you’re talking about is section 1 of the Charter, which was not raised by the Crown, so it was not considered by Judge Whelan (Provincial Court, guilty decision) or Justice Conkin (Court of Queen’s Bench, guilty decision upheld).
Judge Whelan’s decision focused on whether the search (the taking away of my charter right to privacy of personal information) was “reasonable” under section 8 of the Charter.
As I had previously understood lawyer Steve’s explanation:
- under the procedures we, the defendants, could not place the argument against an override of the Section 8 Charter Right before the Court. The argument for an override had to be originated by the Crown, and then we could have placed the opposing argument, defending against an override.
(INSERT: The Judge asked the Prosecutor a few times if he was going to argue a Section 1 override of my Charter Right to privacy of personal information. The prosecutor consistently said “no”. I was confused by this. My understanding of the law was that the Crown effectively wanted to extinguish my right to Privacy. And would therefore be compelled to successfully argue the Oakes Test (which I didn’t think they could do). As became clear, the Prosecution would have been crazy to follow the prescribed procedure for override of a Charter Right. Read on.)
For me, the EFFECT of the Crown not arguing a Section 1 override:
Page 3 of 3
I was given a conditional discharge, but at the base, I was found guilty of non-compliance – – which has the effect of removing the Charter Right to privacy of personal information.
The OAKES TEST is specifically a TWO-PART test, with a 1. AND a 2. The Crown Prosecutor and Judge did not consider it, although it is the procedure established by law to override a Charter Right.
We were denied the ability to make the Oakes Test arguments against an override of the Charter Right to privacy. The Judge did not have to address those arguments in her decision through the simple mechanism of not calling it a Section 1 override.
The “REASONABLENESS” addressed by the Judge, as I understand, was whether it was reasonable for the Government to collect the information (because it is valuable information).
The preceding, (#4.) is excerpted from:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
UPDATE Feb 2016: From posting 2016-02-04 Census, Lockheed Martin & Charter Right. Replies to student research, Philosophy Class, Truth & Propaganda. (Includes “What were my primary motivations?)
RE: former Chief Statistician agrees with the premise of your second reason (Charter Right to Privacy). He states that while the mandatory collection of personal information is in violation of the charter right, however it is a ‘legitimate violation of the right’ (the idea that rights may be rescinded for a social good) because it is a recognized necessity as outlined in the statistics act.
MY REPLY:
Yes, the Government may rescind the rights of an individual. However,
- The Statistics Act does not give the Government the authority to do that. StatsCan cannot just declare that this is so.
- In order to override the Charter Right of an individual, the Government has to pass the “Oakes Test“.
If StatsCan wishes to take away Canadians’ Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information, it would have to make an application to the Court to do so, supplying the Court with the arguments to satisfy the Oakes Test. It has not done that. So the Charter Right stands.
