As we here at the Canadian Nationalist Party have been saying for a while now: the only thing left in this society that has any legitimacy is the Church.
Every other institution has been corrupted. The Church is all that remains.
In furtherance of the faith, and in an effort to foster relations of goodwill amongst our fellow countrymen, we have begun transcribing into audio format the OAHSPE Cosmon Bible.
This is meant to be a publicly accessible resource for listening to the OAHSPE, and an alternative to reading through the text-based version.
The OAHSPE is considered a work of divine revelation. It was produced in the early 19th century by spiritual channel, and speaks of a new dawning age where man is not beholden to any intermediary between himself and his Creator.
Once again, the Province of Saskatchewan is attempting to criminally proceed against us in response to our political speech Beware The Parasitic Tribe. However, the Crown has yet to provide us a public hearing in the matter as the information used to de-register the Canadian Nationalist Party remains undisclosed.
For those who have bothered to listen, I have been raising this objection for several years now.
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
“Any Canadian charged with a criminal offense has the right, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again”
Section 11(h) of the Charter
Pursuant section 19(2)(b) of the Privacy Act, we have the right to access this information. In the meantime, we reserve our right to be presumed innocent on occurrence #2019-919038 in the absence of a public hearing:
Any Canadian charged with a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
Section 11(d), Charter of Rights and Freedoms
We are jeopardized twice over by the Crown’s neglect of our right to a judicial review in the matter:
Definition:
double jeopardy – common-law and constitutional prohibition against a second prosecution after a first trial for the same offense.
same-evidence test – The “same-evidence test” used in determining the issue of double jeopardy is whether facts alleged in second indictment, if given in evidence, would have sustained a conviction under the first indictment or whether the same evidence would support a conviction in each case.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition
On October 20th of last year, we made an application in accordance with section 41 of the Privacy Act for a review where the RCMP refused us access to information #991149331. Contrary to the opinion of the Federal Court, this application was made within the 45-day timeframe allotted for such an application.
This information was obtained by a foreign entity and used to interfere with our right to stand for qualification to the House of Commons as provided by section 3 of the Charter.
As it now stands, the Crown is violating our section 11(a) Charter right to be informed of the specifics of occurrence #2019-919038 within a reasonable time. We have made representations to both the Federal and Provincial government to no avail.
Were the information publicly disclosed today (as it ought to be), we would not be required to live in a society where free expression is considered a crime. These conditions are prejudicial toward our right to mobility under section 6 of the Charter and are having a deleterious effect on our ability to maintain employment.
The Crown is unfairly burdening us with residency requirements while failing to satisfy their burden to establish that access to information #991149331 may be refused.
The Crown is neglecting our section 11(a) Charter right to be informed (within a reasonable time) of the specifics used to deprive us of our political standing:
“No free man shall be deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the territory.”
Clause 39, Magna Carta
In response to this violation of our constitutional right, we intend to protest in furtherance of Canadian nationalism.
However, this legislation is unconstitutional on the face of it (prima face) because the claim that Germany committed a Holocaust has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In light of the 1991 Zundel trial before the Supreme Court, the Crown has not satisfied its burden to prove that Germany ever committed a Holocaust because the evidence tendered in that trial, and the decision resulting from it, has not been refuted.
The decision rendered during the Zundel trial is the most relevant to Canada’s Holocaust claim. No other decision speaks to the allegation of a Holocaust in the way the Zundel trial has done:
“Even as of this writing, Zundel and the revisionist cause remain a subject of front page attention and comment in Canada. Try as they might to exorcise the phantom of this indefatigable sign of contradiction and stalwart defiance, Zundel and revisionism have had an indelible impact which bodes ill for the inquisitors, whose megalomania instigated what Noam Chomsky called the “disgrace” of arresting and trying a dissident publisher.”
Michael A. Hoffman, The Great Holocaust Trial (1995)
Now, after quietly including this legislation in a budgeting bill, the Crown has begun using it to criminally proceed against Canadians.
Willful Promotion of Anti-Semitism Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Section 319(2.1), Criminal Code
Saskatoon Police Service recently charged Brandon Taylor Moore under section 319 for allegedly “condoning, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust”. He was arrested and released from custody on December 18th and now faces court conditions prohibiting him from publishing the evidence against him.
He is next scheduled to appear on February 24th.
The City of Saskatoon should not forget that their enforcement of this legislation is, in part, predicated upon their infringement of our section 2(c) Charter right to peacefully assemble during the 43rd Federal Election:
It is possible to conceive that, had the Canadian Nationalist Party been permitted to make democratic use of Civic Square (as per our request), Holocaust denial would never have been codified as a criminal offense and Canadians would not be being tried on such allegations (Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, CACV3747).
Therefore, if the City of Saskatoon is proceeding against Holocaust deniers with criminal charges under section 319(2.1) CC., it is incumbent on the court to make public these proceedings.
“But when your eye is unhealthy, your whole body is filled with darkness. And if the light you think you have is actually darkness, how deep that darkness is!” – Matthew 6:23
As part of this claim, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a Holocaust actually occurred:
Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state- sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945;
Section 319, Criminal Code
In the criminal court of law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecuting authority. If they cannot refute the evidence tendered in R. v Zundel, then the accused person must be acquitted of wrongdoing.
Criminally proceeding against Holocaust deniers finds no legal precedent within the Commonwealth and this proceeding is the first of its kind in North America. Apparently, our interpretation of history can now be imprisonable …
“When the public have suffered, and when they, themselves, demand protection by such laws, then such laws shall be made. To make such laws beforehand, is to sin against the Most High.”
OAHSPE, Book of Judgement Ch. 35 verse 9
These proceedings come on the heels of Bill C-9, which seeks to remove religious defences under section 319 against hate propaganda charges.
What these developments demonstrate is that there exists an utterly self-serving faction who are lobbying our Parliament to suppress free speech and silence dissenting opinion. This is abhorrent in a society that claims to be “free and democratic”.
It is legislation such as this that is being used to suppress our national identity.
Every Canadian should be paying attention to these proceedings because once a people are prohibited from determining their own history, they stand no chance at counteracting the encroachment of tyranny.
This is not the Jewish ‘Star of David’. It is the Mark of the Beast as described by the Book of Revelation:
“Here is a call for wisdom: Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is six-hundred threescore and six (666).”
When dealing with the governments of man, the 1215 treaty of Magna Carta may be Western Civilization’s last line of defence against tyranny. Invoked on March 21st, 2001, the Magna Carta can still be used in order to hold the British Crown accountable.
The current standing in law of the Magna Carta is a point of contentious debate. Even more so is the practical application of the 63 provisions embodied in the agreement.
Many people seem to believe that the treaty of Magna Carta has no effective application in Canadian society. However, because our Head Of State remains the same heir in perpetuity as the King who sealed the agreement, it is as binding upon the Crown as the day it was drawn up at Runnymede on June 15th, 1215.
Because the Magna Carta is a contractual agreement directly between the Crown and their subjects, it can only be repealed or amended by those same original parties coming together to make changes. Parliamentary proceedings have no effect on the liberties contained in the Magna Carta and their contemporary application as parliament was not a party to the contract when it was agreed upon.
The Crown must uphold the provisions embodied in the Magna Carta after it has been invoked. It is considered constitutional law.
The people of this country demand accountability from their leaders and will not support an administration that is no longer serving them.
The people who have infiltrated our government are attempting to collapse our economy and extinguish our identity in order to usher in a world government surveillance state.
We cannot allow this.
Your government has exaggerated the current outbreak beyond proportion.
