Psam wrote:If You oppose this, then You either lack the courage to handle this level of responsibility, or You lack the courage to allow your fellow citizens (People who pay taxes, raise Children, pay mortgages and rent, put food on their tables etc) to be trusted with this level of responsibility.
There's that extreme position again. There are other possibilities such as the belief that giving the Government a few years to put their plans in motion and see some of them through to completion is a reasonable position. That six months is far too short a time frame to do anything meaningful on such a grand scale as a Society with a population of 35 (or so) million people.
Psam wrote:If the CRA asks the society to withhold part of its wages paid to its judiciary for income tax purposes, then I expect that the ISS will take CRA to court for denial of section 3 Charter rights.
And again, predictably you will loose for the simple matter that your section 3 Charter rights are not being infringed upon.
Psam wrote:I intend to stop eating
As another has expressed - this is simply public postering. I certainly do not believe for an instant that you will fast for any period of time let alone till you pass from lack of nurishment. You are attempting to force your position onto others again. People will join ISS if they want to belong to your club - very few will join for the sole reason being to stop you from starving yourself.
Psam wrote:Your claims about rex judicata contradict some of what was said by the judge, Master Keighley, during the hearing regarding my petition last October
I seriously doubt that. More likely you've misunderstood what was said - whether or not deliberately is up to you to determine but I suggest you re-read what was stated in the context that the author was making it. Or in the alternative, ask for clarification within specific context so said author can clarify.
Psam wrote:if a charge under an income tax act is made against the ISS, then a new pursuit of a section 3 Charter defence under quite different circumstances than my petition last October seems to be a possible avenue to pursue
Possible, but not likely. I suspect your claim that you can't have the voting system you want as infringing your section 3 Charter rights will be ignored while the Court is focused on evaluating whether or not you/ISS have appropriately withheld/paid taxes.
Psam wrote:included in the referendum but not chosen by the electorate, then that would still not deter Me from my intention to hunger strike
Exactly: you are trying to force your will on others. You are not willing to accept a greater body of Society choosing a different path to you. I would not be surprised if the greater body of ISS choose a different path to you that would result in you either disbanding ISS or kicking those dissenting opinions out of the club.
Psam wrote:If our society is so full of People who are so indulgent in cowardice of each Other that They refuse to consider the possibility that each Other can be trusted with a modicum of responsibility
You've got the same responsibilities as the rest of us: to work peacefully with your fellow Societal members to reach reasonable consensus on how we're going to interact and sustain both our Society and ourselvs. Understand that consensus is general agreement - that does not mean everyone must agree. And yet, you attempt to hold yourself hostage via starvation if the rest of us do not comply with your demands/desires. It seems to me that in choosing to force instead of work with - you have already failed in part of your current responsibilities - yet you claim to want more.
- Why is attempting to structure your ISS group as a political party of Canada and trying to convince others your way is better so poisonous to you?
Psam wrote:cowardly form of governance enforced upon every resident of the land
Move outside it's geographic jurisdiction - and it will no longer be forced upon you. In the alternative, work with the system to try and change it. Such change has happened in the past and with slow growth it'll happen again.
Psam wrote:a responsible denial of consent
No one is going to accept your "responsible denial of consent" not to be held accountable to the Law that states murder is not acceptable. If you can't understand why that is - then perhaps you have some soul searching to do.
Psam wrote:my contentment to be departing from a land
Instead of starving yourself, you could just move.
Psam wrote:Is there any chance I might find a lawyer who agrees that there are periods of time in Canada during which section 3 Charter rights are not available to be exercised?
Never say never - and I've seen some Lawyers choose what I would consider to be mighty strange battles. However, I'd expect it to be a small minority of the Legal field who would believe in your litigation claim.
Psam wrote:a petition signed by every single lawyer registered to the Bar in Canada saying “each signatory of this petition believes that it has been conclusively demonstrated that denial of section 3 Charter rights for periods of time causes society to be more free and/or democratic”
That's not going to happen. I believe most Lawyers simply do not view your section 3 Charter rights are being denied. So you'll have to convince them of that first before they consider the second part of that petition statement. Keep in mind: You've failed to convince us, some unknown percentage who have no career path in the Legal field.
Psam wrote:I can execute this plan without interference by any state officials that say it is illegal for Me to be allowed to end my life this way.
I don't believe suicide is yet illegal in Canada. As a result, I suspect you have no concerns there. But there are plenty of busy bodies in Society that will try and convince you suicide is not the right path and they will probably try and interfer. But don't you worry, because they can't lawfully force you to stop - for example if they tie you to a bed and force feed you, they'd be up for criminal charges of unlawful confinement.