ThisIsASocialMediaHandle

@tetheredtoed1 My parents taught me how to read before I even went to Kindergarten.

What Happens When God-Given Rights Are Replaced with Court-Given Rights? By @JasonLavigneAB Throughout Canada’s modern era, one guiding truth has held constant for many citizens of faith: that our fundamental rights and freedoms originate from a higher authority—God—rather than mere privileges granted by government or courts. When the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced in 1982, the drafters inserted a crucial statement at the very outset: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: …” According to former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford, the last living signatory to the Charter, this statement, followed by a colon, was deliberately designed to be read before each section of the Charter. It was not a ceremonial “preamble” but a constant framing principle, meant to remind legislators, judges, and citizens alike that the Charter’s rights have a transcendent source. The supremacy of God was intended to inform and contextualize all subsequent articles, rather than be relegated to symbolic status or ignored altogether. Over time, however, Canadian courts have increasingly treated the acknowledgment of God’s supremacy as a mere flourish, stripping it of legal force. This shift has had profound consequences: it effectively transfers the moral grounding of our rights from a divine foundation to one determined by judicial rulings. As courts frame these freedoms less as “God-given” and more as “court-given,” Canadians have gradually seen the original moral framework replaced by a purely secular, malleable standard of what is “reasonable.” How Canada’s Courts Marginalized the Charter’s Opening Statement The initial vision of inserting the recognition of God’s supremacy was a response to widespread concern that the new Charter might abandon Canada’s moral and spiritual underpinnings. Thousands of Canadians wrote letters and petitions urging legislators to include it. Legislators, including then-Premier Peckford, insisted on a statement affirming God’s pre-eminence, thus acknowledging that government is beneath a higher moral authority. This was treated as a symbolic use over time; despite the explicit “Whereas …:” format, courts have largely dismissed or minimized this statement. Many judges and constitutional scholars call it a “preamble,” implying it carries no substantial legal weight. Consequently, judicial decisions seldom invoke the supremacy of God to guide interpretation of individual rights or government powers. As a result, the statement has lost most of its intended effect. The rise of the Oakes Test is one of the most apparent markers of this secular pivot, as the Supreme Court’s adoption. Created in the landmark case R. v. Oakes (1986), it provides a multi-step process for determining whether the government can justify limiting a Charter right under Section 1. Key prongs of this test include proving a “pressing and substantial objective” and ensuring the measure is “proportional” and minimally impairs the right. Noticeably absent is any explicit reference to a higher moral code, divine principle, or the supremacy of God. Instead, the test relies primarily on secular reasoning and judicial balancing of interests. In short, Canada’s courts no longer treat our rights as morally anchored in God’s supremacy. Instead, they are weighed and shaped by legal frameworks that reflect evolving social values and subjective interpretations of “reasonable limits.” When the supreme authority is merely the courts, fundamental freedoms can become malleable, especially during political pressure or shifting cultural tides. The Erosion of God-Given Rights Many Canadians who value Canada’s Christian heritage see direct correlations between diminishing recognition of God and the erosion of rights once considered inviolable. With the opening statement set aside, questions of conscience and religious exercise often undergo purely legalistic balancing. By ignoring the transcendent source of conscience rights, courts have been more readily subjecting them to limitations for “public policy” reasons. Paramount are the Freedoms of Expression and Association. These freedoms, once grounded in a belief that every human is imbued with inherent dignity by God, are increasingly argued in purely pragmatic terms, such as what is beneficial for society or permissible by law, as determined by shifting majority views. Without higher moral grounding, unpopular speech or minority associations might be curtailed more easily. Moral underpinnings in legislation, including abortion laws, marriage definitions, euthanasia policies, and more, have been shaped by courts applying secular “reasonableness” tests, rather than seeking moral resonance with any notion of divine law. Many, including myself, argue that a society that divorces these life-and-death questions from the supremacy of God risks losing its moral compass. Why a Return to the Supremacy of God Matters A society that recognizes rights as “God-given” views individual freedoms as intrinsic and non-negotiable, and the government is simply a steward of those rights, not their origin. In contrast, when courts assume the role of final moral arbiter, rights are restricted, redefined, or dismissed in the name of competing state interests. Appeals to tradition, conscience, or religious convictions become secondary to judicially fashioned norms. To provide a moral compass by recognizing God’s supremacy doesn’t mean imposing a single religion. Instead, it reaffirms that there is a moral order above human institutions and that laws and court decisions must be grounded in more than transient cultural trends or political expediency. We must acknowledge that rights truly flow from a divine source to protect individual dignity. Then, neither Parliament nor the judiciary can legitimately infringe upon them except under the most exceptional circumstances. This principle fortifies every individual’s worth, reducing the risk of state overreach. We must ensure consistency by acknowledging God’s supremacy. This offers a moral framework that can guide legislators and courts, guarding against ever-shifting conceptions of “reasonable” or “proportionate” infringements on rights. It maintains continuity with Canada’s founding principles as expressed by its earliest leaders, who named it the “Dominion” in direct reference to a biblical imperative. Practical Steps to Restore the Founding Vision Supporting elected officials who recognize God’s supremacy is the most straightforward and most direct method of democratic action. By electing Members of Parliament who respect the moral foundation set out in the Charter’s opening lines and actively affirm that Canada’s rights come from God, citizens can begin to shift political discourse back to first principles. Revisit the Charter’s founding statement in the House of Commons by hearing parliamentarians and their constituents call for a renewed emphasis on reading the Charter’s opening reference to “the supremacy of God and the rule of law” when drafting new legislation or debating bills that limit fundamental rights. This would reflect Brian Peckford’s original expectation that these words are not a “preamble,” instead, they inform every clause of the Charter. Educating and advocating via faith communities, think tanks, and educational institutions can organize to highlight the intended meaning of “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law” via public awareness campaigns, seminars, and educational materials that can illuminate how courts have diverged from this guiding principle and why it matters. Challenge the courts to revisit or replace the Oakes test. While the Oakes test is a fixture of Canadian constitutional law, litigants and legal scholars can push for a renewed interpretation that does not ignore the moral grounding declared at the outset of the Charter. Even small shifts, such as acknowledging that certain rights rest on transcendent principles, could significantly impact future case law. Our Future When Canada’s founders and the architects of the Charter insisted on recognizing “the supremacy of God,” they affirmed that human rights originate outside the realm of government. They sought to protect individuals from shifting cultural tides and majoritarian rule by placing ultimate authority above political and judicial power. Over time, however, courts have largely sidelined this grounding principle, effectively replacing God-given rights with court-given ones. Reasserting the supremacy of God is not about imposing a single doctrinal view. Instead, it is about renewing Canada’s moral and spiritual inheritance, ensuring that our fundamental freedoms are firmly anchored in an authority higher than the state. If the courts do not acknowledge it, a grassroots movement of electing MPs who openly champion this founding principle could rekindle the intended moral compass. Canadians can restore the balance by pressing their representatives to once again respect that the rights enshrined in the Charter come not from Parliament, nor the courts, but from our Creator. And with that renewed perspective, Canada can safeguard the dignity and freedom of all, guided by enduring moral truth rather than transient judicial decree. God bless Canada, and God bless you.

#1 Anthony Fauci was aware of the Winnipeg Biolab incident with Dr. Qiu as outlined in the emails that he sent to Jeremy Farrar and Kristian G. Andersen February 1st, 2020.

BREAKING NEWS: Alberta Doctor betrayed by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith (Dr.Roger Hodkinson) defeats the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta! Dr. Roger Hodkinson will retain his medical license following a hearing before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA), which resulted in minimal sanctions against the outspoken pathologist. Dr. Hodkinson faced allegations of unprofessional conduct regarding 17 public statements made in November 2020 and April 2021. His remarks were critical of public health officials and presented an alternative perspective on COVID-19, including the efficacy of masking and vaccines. Initially, the CPSA alleged that his statements were inaccurate or misleading. However, following negotiations with lawyers for The Democracy Fund @TDF_Can, the CPSA limited its claims to arguing that Dr. Hodkinson’s comments violated the ethical code and extended beyond the scope of a general pathologist. My Take... Dr.Roger Hodkinson is one of the heroes of the COVID-19 Pandemic. He has spoken out extensively against COVID-19 Pandemic abuses, ethics violations, destruction of medical ethics, and dangers of COVID-19 Vaccines. Before becoming Alberta Premier, Danielle Smith publicly made a promise to Dr.Roger Hodkinson that she would dissolve the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. @ABDanielleSmith unfortunately betrayed that promise once she became Premier, and her current Health Minister, Adriana Lagrange @AdrianaLaGrange, has become a major public supporter of pedophiles and child rapist doctors who were given their medical licenses back during the COVID-19 Pandemic by this same College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (Dr.Fred Janke who tried to traffic a 5 year old girl to rape and create child pornography with, Dr.Ghasan Al-Naami who had videos of a 6 year old girl being raped on his computer just to name a few). The College of Physicians protected child rapists during 2020-2024 while destroying the medical licenses and medical careers of doctors like Dr.Roger Hodkinson and myself. You will note that Premier Danielle Smith has made no public statement acknowledging the abuses of Alberta's best doctors by the College of Physicians @CPSA_CA. Congratulations to my friend Dr.Roger Hodkinson for defeating this evil in our beautiful province of Alberta! 👏

Did you know that before Covid, Dr. Theresa Tam, was in a documentary discussing non-compliance, mandatory quarantine, and putting tracking bracelets on Canadians as an option during a pandemic/plague? Dr. Tam's involvement with the Winnipeg/Wuhan labs must be investigated.

These Canadians make Canada look bad.

Many Right Wing influencers in Canada grew their audience when covering the outrageous authoritarianism at the Trucker Convoy. A lot of these same people now support Pierre Poilievre, someone who helped memory-hole this historic betrayal of the Canadian people. It's disgusting

It’s called “Criminal Negligence Causing Death” under the Criminal Code of Canada. The only Canadian police officer to launch an investigation was charged and convicted for not asking permission before investigating a public official. @OttawaPolice Detective Helen Grus is a hero. The Ottawa Police and Tribunal Officer Chris Renwick are corrupted beyond recovery.

Them: "Trust the government." Me: "You realize the Canadian government funded the CIA's MK Ultra brainwashing experiments at McGill, right?"

Jesus is the 'Light' of the world. Free Masonry is not the Way. This is what I know.

@Corky77714 #51 for Alberta! #52 for Saskatchewan! [:51] to [:06]= [15]

Anyone for Alberta Independence or #51 please comment here so I can follow you. I think there’s more than I realized on X.

WATCH —Mark Carney talking about how much more money he can make investing in China compared to Canada: "it wont surprise you that yields in China are considerably higher than those in Canada" How financially exposed is Mark Carney to the CCP? We don't know. He's covering it up.

@ztisdale @PaulChiangMU For what it's worth, I had a dream when I was 11 about Chinese Light Armor and Troops coming down highway 35 in Alberta. Do Chinese owned lots in Canada have a lot of Sea Cans just sitting there?

@PaulChiangMU I warned everyone. 🤷‍♂️

Please see my statement below.

Germany deploys troops on Russia's doorstep for first time since WWII Source: Newsweek search.app/EZqFH Shared via the Google App

Mark Carney is now implying that the fact Paul Chiang is a police officer somehow makes what he did less of a problem — no, it makes it much, much worse.

@BrianHerron18 @222Minutes @DennisKendel @AHS_media refuses to show me my medical records. [They] keep unlawfully pushing me to apply for [their] digital ID. It is an offense under The Canada Health Act to deny a patient access to their own medical records, and there is no legal requirement for the AHS digital ID.

@222Minutes @DennisKendel AHS corruption shall I go on

Canadians Know Danielle Smith Is a Traitor, Right? notesfromthecircus.com/p/canadians-kn…

It’s not about the artificially suppressed silver price. It’s about who holds the real silver wealth. #silversqueeze