Lessons from the International Property Rights Conference by Elizabeth Marshall

Published November 1, 2014

Elizabeth MarshallAs one of the speakers, at the International Property Rights Conference, held in Kanata on Oct 4, 2014, I would like to extend a heartfelt thanks to Tom and Marlene Black, and all of the volunteers, who made this day such a success. Hats off to you all; it was a wonderful event.

During the conference, there were a number of people, who were extremely excited about the information they received, including various politicians. Unfortunately, these politicians left before they heard from the Canadian point of view.

On an International level, with the Speaker’s countries all being, either part of the British Commonwealth, or previously a member of the British Commonwealth, we all had much in common. Every country, in attendance, has their constitutional foundation based on Magna Carta and the Anglo-Saxon common law.

The inviolable rights of the people are protected under Magna Carta and the common law jurisprudence which have been upheld in the courts. The courts are beginning to lose focus pertaining to these rights, therefore we must be prudent, to ensure that those representing the Crown, the Courts, and the government, be held to these strict constitutional doctrines.

One of the achievements of the Conference was the founding of the International Property Rights Association.

It is my thought that if we, as an Association, uphold the rights of someone in Australia or Canada, etc., we are upholding our own rights. This must be done at a level beyond our borders, therefore we must have the ability to take these issues to the United Nations, or we must actively rid the United Nations of the insidious philosophy which is actively trying to remove the people’s rights. Through this international group, we will actively be seeking other associations which would like to become members, but only if those other associations are in agreement with our founding Mission Statement.

It would seem the United Nations is following the Hegelian philosophy to the detriment of the various countries and those who choose to live in those sovereign nations. Hegel’s theory is for world dominance by a world government where the poor, and the middle class will all be forced to be the servants and there will be no freedom of choice. This is why Hegel’s philosophy is the foundation of Marxism, Stalinism and the Chinese society. Under Hegel, there is to be no national sovereignty and there is to be no absolute right to life, limb, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, private property or freedom of contract. Section 28 of the Declaration of Human Rights, at the United Nations states:

28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

And yet section 29 states:

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

This is the type of Declaration which removes the people’s rights. According to the D.H.R. the people’s rights must subscribe to what the United Nations determines may or may not be contrary to its purposes, just like the failed Canadian Charter of Rights, which merely removes Canadian’s rights. We as an International Association need to establish that no entity can remove the inviolable rights of any person.

4 Responses to “Lessons from the International Property Rights Conference by Elizabeth Marshall”

  1. Liz Marshall November 5, 2014

    Bob Marcellus please see page 166 to 173 of the updated C.A. Intent document. If you have difficulty, please contact Duaine McKinlay.

  2. douglas sears November 2, 2014

    Shirley;; Please ask Liz Armstrong waht section of the BNA Act limits the powers of municipal govts.to public property. I have a copy og the Act but cannot see any paragraph about municipalities limitation of powers.

  3. Donald Crosby November 1, 2014

    What also needs close attention and which we might be more successful affecting is the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement. Overall this would be the most recent Ontario version of UN Agenda 21 and seems to be crafted in such a way that nobody would actually try to read it.

  4. Bob Marcellus November 1, 2014

    I will be using your argument to defend my right to camp on my own property on Nov 26th.

    I still have not found the reference to the recently issued letters patent which shows that only the easement is within government control. I have purchased 2 copies of PR101 and have the POTHATI aswell. Pleses guide me to the appropriate page.



Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Get all the latest OLA news
delivered monthly right to your inbox!