Right to Life by Tom Black

Published June 1, 2017

Tom Black

As members of the Ontario Landowners, we most often are referred to by people who don’t know us personally as “those property rights lobbyists”. The fact is we are property rights promoters, but we are also your neighbours, your work associates, your policemen, firemen, nurses, doctors, truckers, electricians, church goers, mayors, councillors, and maybe even family members. Landowner members come from all walks of life; we are not just rural, small town, or farmers! People in this cause give their time and money in an attempt to preserve the rights and freedoms that were adopted when this country was created back in 1867. The value system that was used was the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments which included respect for the sanctity of life and respect for our fellow human beings. Whether we believe in God as defined by many different religions or we are atheists, the Ten Commandments are still a very solid foundation on which to build the laws that govern a country. In the 1982 renewed constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it states; “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”

The importance of those words is what makes this country the ‘go to country’ for many immigrants and refugees from all over the world. It is not because people want to come here and sit beside the fire for 6 months of the year because it is too cold to go outside. The words ‘supremacy of God’ is what puts some things out of reach of government rule makers. The sanctity of life is one of these subjects that we, in the British Commonwealth of Nations, believe must always be inalienable, meaning that no government can remove it (life) or make it less relevant.

So when we talk about Property Rights we are talking about a ‘bundle of rights and freedoms’ and one right is your right to life. It means your government can’t snuff it out according to the laws of this country unless you have killed someone and thus, removed your right to the protection of our Constitution. (We don’t currently have the death penalty in Canada, and although it is not likely to happen, it could be re-instated.)

So, you might wonder where this rant came from. Well it seems that the City of Ottawa, the capital of our great country, does not respect the sanctity of life. On May 11, 2017, the annual “March for Life” comes to Ottawa and marches to Parliament Hill. This is often the largest rally of the year on the Hill. For the day of the parade, an 80-year old, 32-year veteran of the RCMP, Francis Barrett applied to the City of Ottawa and received approval from the ‘Protocol department’ to raise the ‘March for Life’ flag on the pole at City Hall. Mr. Barrett, whose father served in WW1 and whose four brothers served in WWII, rose early that morning and along with some other folks, went to City Hall and hoisted the flag at 6 am. It flew for several hours until social media alerted seven councillors who quickly signed a demand that it be removed. The politically correct media referred to it as the ‘anti-abortion’ flag not the ‘March for Life’ flag. The flag was removed with Mayor Watson’s approval. Now the abortion issue has become a ‘no-go’ zone for politicians because of the ‘lefts’ over-reaction to anything that would try to put some kind of limitations on it.

On May 11, 2017, police in Edmonton charged a 31-year old mother of second degree murder for administering a lethal overdose of methamphetamine to her 11-day old baby. Police spokesman, Scott Pattison said his “investigators are working on behalf of someone who is vulnerable and unable to defend themselves”.

So here is my problem. Who was defending that baby 12 days before, when that same mother could have legally taken its life without any consequences. The point is that presently, there are no laws that protect that fully functioning human being even on the last day of gestation. We, who are living in a great county, built on the sanctity of life, must insist that politicians with the courage to do so, put some parameters around this failure to protect the “vulnerable and defenseless”.

5 Responses to “Right to Life by Tom Black”

  1. Tom Tracey June 14, 2017

    Very well written Tom, our government has no problem protecting, what they call endangered species not only the life and habitat but even potencail habitat … we must protect human life @ all stages.

  2. Grace Joubarne June 6, 2017

    Hi Elizabeth: I bought one of the first copies of your book…excellent work. But the Supreme Court Decisions trump the Bar statements. That statement has been beaten back several times. The Bar can pontificate about Civil Law; it has no recourse against the Charter/fundamental human rights as first codified by the ICCPR and ICESCR. As long as people believe the stories that the corporate government and it’s subsidiaries (including the Bar) tell us, we will never learn to stand on our Full Legal Capacity human rights and the Charter. They talk about budgets when the horded money is actually found in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. They talk about repatriation of the Constitution when the corporate monarchy was FORCED to express the ICCPR and ICESCR in its domestic legislation. There was no ifs, ands or buts about it. It was not voluntary…International Law forced the revamp of our Constitution so that individual rights trumped corporate law anytime an individual stood on their Charter rights. And you don’t need a lawyer to do so. The form is right on the internet and is part of the Court forms.

  3. Liz June 1, 2017

    I guess Grace has not read my book…here’s the proof…
    This charter has only increased the removal of Canadian’s Rights as guaranteed under the BNA. The courts are to uphold the Constitution at all costs , so in reality, Trudeau may not have had a legal basis to take his Charter back to the England, for ratification or implementation. One only has to consider the statements of the Canadian Bar Association in 1948:

    “Therefore it becomes immediately apparent that if those freedoms and rights are inalienable it must be because they are already part of the constitution and cannot be conferred by legislative enactment. The moment it is conceded that they are within the power of gift by the legislature it must be conceded that they are vulnerable to further legislative action and can be withdrawn at any time.”

    Grace you can obtain a copy of my book on the OLA web-site – time for you to do some reading…

  4. Craig Dellandrea June 1, 2017

    Terrific article Tom. It does a good job of highlighting the moral confusion in this country around protection of the most vulnerable in our society.

  5. Grace Joubarne June 1, 2017

    Sorry, but you are incorrect on one main point and this is confirmed by a powerful Supreme Court Decisions on the matter. Prior to the codification and ratification of the ICCPR and ICESCR from which the obligatory Constitution, 1982 flowed, the individual had no rights and no recourse. That is a fallacy. After 1982, the individuals rights were supreme and the individual had common law rights and recourse. However, the individual must know how to stand on what is termed their Full Legal Capacity fundamental human rights. That is not done by using lawyers.

    R.V. Hynes 1999 CanLII 18979 (NL CA)
    83) Prior to the charter’s advent the individual really had no special means of protecting against incursions upon his or her basic fundamental rights by Executive or Legislature arms of the State.
    84) Primary purpose of the Charter was to change this relationship…

    R. v. Hape, SCC
    [11] The Constitution Act of CANADA is the power that can and must be used by an individual to invoke and exercise their rights and freedoms. The Executive Powers of CANADA are bound to follow this Constitution Act and if they do not, then they are in dishonor of their obligation.
    [12] Many are seeking their rights and freedoms and on their journey they have been led to believe that Common Law is the way to seek freedom. They are led to believe in administrative judgements & commercial liens. This is a strawman argument and a falsehood. Prior to the Constitution Act, 1982, Common Law was not enforceable to any real degree. With the Constitution, 1982, Common Law must be expressed and claimed through the Constitution Act itself.

    M. (A.) v. Ryan [1997] S.C.R. 197

    [13] Common Law must develop in accordance with Charter values.

    Zingre v. The Queen et al [1981] 2 SCR 392 (Supreme Court of CANADA)
    “…it is a recog­nized principle of international customary law that a state may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform its international obligations.“
    Translation: International Law cannot be ignored.

    Municipal enactments interfere with life, liberty and security (including private property) — do not conform to International Law re FLC and right of ‘Everyone to own property alone ‘ and therefore not in association with a Corporation Municipality.

    R. v. Hynes
    [85] “Section 24(2) is critical to carrying out Charter’s purpose with investing individuals with the power to defend themselves against incursions on their guaranteed rights and freedoms”

    [101] “The determination to protect the rights under s. 24(2) was never intended to revert back to the government. The Charter’s purpose was to place the Courts between the Executive Powers and the individual to protect the individual’s fundamental rights and freedoms.”


    To get relief from violations and impositions on FLC fundamental human rights
    To enforce intrinsic rights
    Enforce against Her Majesty for not fulfilling her obligations under International Law

    Common Law (Civil Code in Quebec): obligations arise from law and are attached by law.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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