[This letter is being sent to my Member of Parliament. Variations of this letter are being sent to my Member of Provincial Parliament, mayor, and city councillors. Please consider advising your own elected officials of the risks that they are courting in pursuing an unconstitutional agenda, suppressing the rights and freedoms of Canadians.]
to: Peter Fonseca, Member of Parliament for Mississauga East – Cooksville.
I draw your attention to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that you swore an oath to defend upon your inauguration into the House of Commons.
The preamble reminds us that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” In other words, every Canadian is born with the same rights and freedoms as all humans. No state nor government grants us those freedoms. Governments, such as the one in which you presently occupy a seat, simply defend our inherent, God-given rights and freedoms.
Let’s review the first section, which states that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
We will first review some of the rights and freedoms that are being suppressed by the current government. Then, we will return to Section One of the Charter to see if the conditions it requires to justify those suppressions have been met. We will see that no level of government has justified, as required by Section One, suppressing the rights and freedoms that all Canadians enjoy. No other justification is possible.
***
Section Two of the Charter acknowledges that every Canadian has “(a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.”
Members of Parliament are denying each of those freedoms every day. I have the inalienable right to determine, in good conscience, what is true and false about the present situation. All Canadians have that same right. I have the right to express those opinions through any media. Rather than defend that right, your government is attempting to suppress and slander communications that it deems antithetical to its agenda. All Canadians have the right to assemble and associate with whomever they choose. The constant threats from the government against the most peaceful assembly imaginable taking place presently right in front of the Houses of Parliament are another example of the contempt of all elected members for the constitution.
Section Six acknowledges that “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.” It also states that every citizen and permanent resident has the right “to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.”
COVID-19 regulations clearly violate the right of every citizen of Canada to enter, remain in and leave Canada. The government has created a category of citizen called the unvaccinated – defined by capricious government diktats concerning the number of booster shots of an experimental medical procedure that have been administered – whose right to leave or enter Canada have been suppressed. Your government has conditioned the right to pursue a livelihood on vaccination status, a violation of the Charter you swore to defend.
Section Seven acknowledges that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The vaccine mandates threaten every one of those God-given rights. No government can require or coerce me to relinquish the security of my person by means of an intrusive medical procedure, whether experimental, authorized, or approved by the government.
Section Nine acknowledges that all Canadians have the “right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.” Yet, the government is ordering the detention of Canadian citizens returning to the country.
Section Fifteen acknowledges that “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination”. Instead, the government has created the category of Canadian called unvaccinated who are denied protection under the law in many areas of their lives.
***
Returning to Section One of the Charter: in order to limit those rights and freedoms with which Canadians are born, the government would have needed to demonstrate, in a way consistent with a free and democratic society and prescribed by law, that such reasonable limits were justified.
None of those requirements were met, or even attempted to be satisfied, before all levels of government began suppressing the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Is it possible that not one member in the House of Commons is familiar with the Canadian constitution? Which you all swore to defend?
Constitutionally, these are the conditions that would need to have been met before any rights and freedoms could have been temporarily limited.
The existence of a virus that was claimed to be the cause of the alleged COVID-19 pandemic would need to have been reasonably proved. Instead SARS-CoV-2 was proclaimed to be the causative agent of a condition called COVID-19. It was further claimed that the virus (which was never found in nature, but remains a computer-generated, theoretical construct) was transmissible among humans. None of those assertions can be defended scientifically. In fact, the existence of the presumed pathogen of this alleged pandemic – SARS-CoV-2 – is a matter of faith, not science. The entire edifice of all the COVID-19 restrictions is anti-scientific.
Until it can be demonstrated, in a manner consistent with an open and democratic society, that the condition known as COVID-19 has one unique cause and that it is transmissible and potentially catastrophic to Canadian society, no reasonable restrictions of our God-given rights and freedoms can be even considered. The government has conceded that it has no evidence that the alleged pathogen exists. It further concedes that it is not aware of the existence of any such evidence anywhere in the world. Remember also that Section One requires that any such demonstration of a dangerous pathogen be carried out publicly, in a way consistent with a free and democratic society. Then, laws – not orders or regulations – must be passed in Parliament that would describe and justify the exact suppressions required.
None of that was done before the Charter was violated. It is too late to start now, defending in the present actions taken in the past.
In light of this state of affairs, it is clear that you have been misleading the people of Mississauga and all of Canada. All mandates have violated our constitutional rights and freedoms, guaranteed by the Charter.
You are sitting in a rogue parliament. The entire government is rogue. Neither the House of Commons, the Senate, nor the Governor General are acting within the constitution.
You have three choices. First, you can resign your seat and allow the voters to choose another representative. Second, you can remain in the House of Commons and continue to support an unconstitutional agenda, in which case you will be pursued for crimes against humanity. Third, you can denounce the actions of the government and all opposition parties for those same crimes against humanity. In the case that you choose to act honourably and stand with the people of Canada against the present tyranny, you would be welcomed and protected among the truckers righteously and peacefully parked along Wellington Street, just in front of the Houses of Parliament.
This is not a political issue. It is constitutional. You cannot have been elected to act contrary to the constitution. No voter in Mississauga has the power to authorize you to support an unconstitutional agenda in Parliament. Remember that you represent Mississaugans and have sworn an oath to defend the constitution.
Please reply to me, telling me which option you are choosing in light of this knowledge.
Respectfully,
Paul Jackson, PhD