Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Psam]

You have voiced your opinion, and other than a bare handful of like minded, it has been roundly and soundly ignored and disregarded

When a bare handful of like minded People have their common grievances ignored and disregarded by a majority of other People, then that makes that bare handful, by definition, a minority.

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-cs ... 3/index.do

Read paragraphs 32, 48 to 54, and 79 to 82.

[LordEd]

It's the Canadian public that is forcing their system of governance on Me.

I wasn't asking to have my preferred system of governance forced upon any other person.

I was asking not to have their system of governance forced upon Me.

I would be quite content if their system is not forced upon Me while other Canadians wish to continue to have elections once every four years to determine how They are governed.

We would also be quite content if the system was not forced on you. That would mean you have physically left and been accepted by another country so that you could drain their resources instead.

[Hyrion]

When a bare handful of like minded People have their common grievances ignored and disregarded by a majority of other People, then that makes that bare handful, by definition, a minority.

1) Common grievances do not define rights.

2) Whether or not you are a minority doesn't alter the reality that the Constitution protects minority rights equal to everyone else.

3) You still have not yet proven any of your rights have been infringed - either to the bulk who are reviewing your opinion or to the Courts.

[Hanslune]

When a bare handful of like minded People have their common grievances ignored and disregarded by a majority of other People, then that makes that bare handful, by definition, a minority.

1) Common grievances do not define rights.

2) Whether or not you are a minority doesn't alter the reality that the Constitution protects minority rights equal to everyone else.

3) You still have not yet proven any of your rights have been infringed - either to the bulk who are reviewing your opinion or to the Courts.

I believe he is referring to the right of self-aggrandizement which IS a right in the Ruritania.

[Hyrion]

I believe he is referring to the right of self-aggrandizement which IS a right in the Ruritania.

That would actually explain quite a bit....

[rogfulton]

And now I have that damn ear worm Long Live Politzania stuck in my head.

Yes, I know the difference.

[Dr. Caligari]

It's the Canadian public that is forcing their system of governance on Me.
I wasn't asking to have my preferred system of governance forced upon any other person.
I was asking not to have their system of governance forced upon Me.
I would be quite content if their system is not forced upon Me while other Canadians wish to continue to have elections once every four years to determine how They are governed.

But, as others have pointed out, you have no problem with accepting all the benefits of Canadian law.

How about this idea: you don't have to comply with any Canadian laws, but only on the condition that you go out in public only while wearing a large sign that says "Attention murderers, robbers and rapists: I am not protected by Canadian police." Willing to try that?

[ArthurWankspittle]

How about this idea: you don't have to comply with any Canadian laws, but only on the condition that you go out in public....

I hope he's going to pay rent or similar for this Canada he's using when he's out and about.

[Hyrion]

It's the Canadian public that is forcing their system of governance on Me.

"As long as you live under my roof you'll obey my rules!" - quoted from many a father

As others have pointed out, you need to leave Canadian Jurisdiction in order to no longer be held to Canadian Laws. Any Country's Jurisdiction is applied to more then just it's people - it's also applied to the land mass that said Country has Jurisdiction over. So... if you wish to leave Canadian Jurisdiction, then you need to either:

• A: Convince a sufficient size of the population to secede (which might be a little tough given a portion of Quebec still hasn't succeeded at that itself)

• B: Move to another land area not under Canadian Law.

However - I point out that even the ISS expects it's members of Society to obey it's Laws - so you having the understanding that you are expected to obey Canadian Laws while under Canadian Jurisdiction is not unreasonable:

If a member's understanding or interpretation of these principles is believed to be unsatisfactory to other members of this society, then a process of judicial inquiry shall be available to the membership for resolution of such disagreements.

And... if it can be reasonably said the "Canadian public is forcing it's system of governance on you" then it can only be said to be true from the perspective that the Canadian public expects you to obey the Laws Of Canada - just as you expect any member of ISS to obey "the Laws of Interactive Sovereign Society".

If it's unreasonable for the Canadian public to expect you to obey the Laws of Canada while you're under Canadian Jurisdiction - then it's also equally unreasonable for you to expect members of ISS to obey the laws of ISS.

[Hyrion]

If a member's understanding or interpretation of these principles is believed to be unsatisfactory to other members of this society, then a process of judicial inquiry shall be available to the membership for resolution of such disagreements.

I thought a Sovereign (as they generally define themselves) was one with no one above him - one exempt from the governance of another.

So isn't the fact that ISS has a judicial inquiry process with an assigned chief of justice a tad contradictory?

Doesn't the ISS expect it's members to abide by whatever ruling the chief of justice makes thereby confirming that the chief of justice is "above" them? And if they have the option to abide or not and they choose not to - then doesn't that leave said disagreement unresolved?

Interesting contradictions - guess they're not as Sovereign as they think they are.

[The Observer]

So isn't the fact that ISS has a judicial inquiry process with an assigned chief of justice a tad contradictory?

Which is exactly why I won't join ISS. They apparently believe in having control over their members and requiring them to follow the rules that ISS has established. That is way too much freedom to be giving up by my reckoning.

[LordEd]

We haven't been told how many are 'members'. I bet if a small contingent from quatloos joined we could probably take over by force of numbers. Then they can see how well it works having a dissenting opinion, as is natural in the majority of the world.

Failing that, we would then be a minority and could under the reasoning given here, insist that they are in violation of s.12 of the constitution and just pick and choose the portions of their laws we like.

[Psam]

The Canadian government does not justify it's existence on moral grounds but on legal ones. It is the duly appointed government.

I would like to know precisely what is meant by the expression "duly appointed".

I expect that this means the government was appointed as specified in the Constitution, the supreme law of Canada.

Why is the Constitution the supreme law of Canada?

I expect that the reason for this is that the Queen signed it. Why do I think that? Well, just say Trudeau sr had shown up on that rainy day in April, 1982 and the Queen had said, "during our plane flight here We have had a change of heart and are no longer willing to sign this Constitution Act". Would the courts still allow the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be used as a defence? I don't believe so.

So what makes her Majesty my Queen? Did "God" make Her my Queen? Well maybe, and I'm not going to say I can disprove that, so perhaps the Constitution is my supreme law. By that logic of course, the government is duly appointed and therefore I have no legitimate reason to show reasonable dissent. However, I don't agree that this assertion can be proven or disproven and therefore it should be considered possible that her Majesty is not my Queen, which would mean that the Constitution is not my supreme law, which would mean that the government is not "duly appointed" to govern Me.

Of course, the arguments between what I referred to as dissenters and statists can be applied in favour of the statists to say that She is my Queen because her state prevails as the law making institution in the land, with the force to back up its authority. The only part of the definition of "statist" that doesn't apply in this case is that the alleged government of Canada might not be perceived as "highly centralised". However, given that every single legislator, judge, enforcement officer, military officer, and many other public servants have pledged allegiance to the same Woman, there could be an argument made to say that it is highly centralised in authority structure despite a diversity of the bureaucratic portfolios assigned to the numerous branches of government that exist in Canada.

So in order to show that the legitimacy of the alleged government to claim the authority to govern Me, it must be demonstrated that her Majesty Elizabeth II is my Queen. I'd be happy to assume for the sake of argument that this is the case for further discussion.

[Psam]

As far as the expression "you live under my roof and you live under my rules" goes, I think this is an excellent argument to show why governance of and over Canada should be handed over to the First Nations.

However, by my own personal conscience, any person who would say such an abusive thing to his children, and then ends up some day locked up in an old folks' home with children that never bother visiting him because he's been a worthless and abusive person al his life, deserves it. Any person who would say such a thing to his children should not be allowed to hold those children under his rules because he does not make reasonable or respectful rules.

Therefore, since I don't agree with this reasoning, I don't believe that governance of and over Canada should be unilaterally handed over to the First Nations.

[Dr. Caligari]

Why is the Constitution the supreme law of Canada?

If it's not, your entire argument goes straight down the toilet.

Which is where it went anyway.

[Psam]

My argument does not "go down the toilet".

My arguments include the assertion that a government that has designated a constitution as its supreme law has a logically indisputable right to govern any person who has not freely chosen to accept a concise and complete method for their own laws to be written and adjudicated that allows any other person to be involved in the process of writing and adjudicating those laws.

I have no wish to live lawlessly and I don't believe there is any excuse for living lawlessly.

http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... survey.pdf

[Hyrion]

Why is the Constitution the supreme law of Canada?

Having been founded July 1, 1867 Canada is currently 148 years old. Your ancestors (perhaps parents, perhaps grandparents, perhaps it was you) decided Canada would be a pretty good place to live and moved here.

How old are you? I seriously doubt you lived in this land prior to the founding of Canada. If you did, then you're up for the Guinness Book of World Records as the oldest living human being. Perhaps your questions should be directed to your parents and why they decided to have you born in Canada instead of elsewhere (assuming you were born here).

Facetiousness and sarcasm aside: If you truly wish to question the existence of the Canadian Government and what gives it it's authority - then it sounds like you need to start with a basic history lesson.

[Psam]

...and just for clarity, my arguments do not include the assertion that a person who has provided an alternative complete and concise method yadda yadda has conclusively proven their right to be excused from the governance of a prevailing state in a land. However, my arguments do include the assertion that any state whose officials or proponents declare that there are absolutely no circumstances under which such an alternative would be respected is thus illustrating the invalidity of its claim of authority.

[Hyrion]

However, I don't agree that this assertion can be proven or disproven and therefore it should be considered possible that her Majesty is not my Queen, which would mean that the Constitution is not my supreme law, which would mean that the government is not "duly appointed" to govern Me.

Ahh - I stand corrected, it's not a little history you need - it's a LOT.

I'd suggest you start with Hammurabi in 1754 BC and why he apparently decided Society was better of with a Code of Laws.

[Hyrion]

Any person who would say such a thing to his children should not be allowed to hold those children under his rules because he does not make reasonable or respectful rules.

You obviously haven't been exposed to very nasty children - or if you have, you're choosing to ignore that because you certainly aren't willing to tolerate any level of what you even perceive to be abuse.

Not all parents who state that are being abusive. In other words - your lumping such a response into a single aspect is just an another example of the extreme positions you prefer to take.

For example, parents who see to their own protection as well as the protection of their other children as a necessity when that 16 year old is involved in drug deals with gangs.