What is true democracy and does it even exist?
Yes, true democracy does exist but its a well hidden truth. It’s why we have focussed our lives on exposing it’s existence so that people will no longer be robbed of the truth and their rights in each country!
What we are working to avoid, is other direct democracy political parties such as the one in Greece. The people supporting them received one referendum, then the party sold them out without giving the people another referendum and the right to make the decisions, all within 7 days.
Historic research facts on true Direct Democracy: Thus far, the only peoples who have ever had a true democracy remains within the Indigenous Nations prior to contact, not only here in North America but such as Ubuntu and others found within Indigenous Nations worldwide.
This is what our research is based on and how we came about uncovering the duplicity created within worldwide governance for control such as the fake versions of it like Switzerland etc. but used as viable examples to confuse and abuse.
Please see information on the Great Law, white roots of peace which the United States Constitution and United Nations system is based on, promised during the war against Britain. After the war of independence, the true direct democracy consensus aspect of it in the US of consensus by the people was revoked.
Anyone doing research on Direct Democracy given today’s technology, records and critical thinking and common sense would have found the same information and could have been able to analyse the manipulation of nations worldwide that has transpired for well over 1000 yrs. when trying to find solutions for everyone given our present circumstance and especially within Canada.
To better understand the comments we are making, one needs to understand our motivation to remove any ambiguous terminologies that stem from a purely corrupted system of manipulation for centuries as well as Intent from being implied as that is not a guarantee to stand for nor that we can count on or even take to court.
Given globalization and the fact that international laws are now superseding our national and provincial laws, we have no time to lose with ambiguous statements. We as citizens all need absolute clarity and nothing less from anyone speaking of or offering Direct Democracy.
To remove the dictatorship aspect of our present governance, the people need guarantees and proper representation from independent representatives without final decision making authority to act as communicators and coordinators.
The present political party system fails the people because they need to legally focus on their party’s corporate constitution and mandate and not focus on the demands of the people.
As for governance management that too has to be changed. All aspects of funding and accountability, reporting etc., The Board Members, the Ceo and all involved , need to be made accountable to the people and not only to a government political party entity or parliaments who especially control majority of the provinces within their political entity such as with the Liberal party in Canada.
The governing representatives cannot wear two or three hats due to conflict of interest such as done since confederation and presently done as we speak under the Crown of Canada, the Provinces and our Crown Corporations.
Within our supreme court system and our rights, the court decision precedence demands that in order to bring a case to court within aspects that affects everyone of us or our communities as a whole, demand that we provide proof through having written signatures by the majority affected to allow anyone to speak or to include group in court.
Furthermore, the courts say that they and the government and all civil servants do not owe fiduciary duty to Canadian citizens, however, the governments both federal and provincial do hold fiduciary duty to the Indigenous Nations and veterans. As it stands, the Bank of Canada or any other public Crown corporation does not owe fiduciary duty to the people because there is no fiduciary responsibility under public law. It is obvious that these measures were undertaken by creating laws where only the governments can sue within or the people and not vice versa!
This is where it all becomes clearer; through election systems, the people are the unofficial, official shareholders as stipulated in 1982 patriation but it is represented by the queen who represents all levels of governance, the people and corporate assets.
In reality, the Queen or the GG do not have authentic roles other than in name only and under or shall I use the word must act on the ADVICE of the prime minister or provincial ministers. The keyword ADVICE is an ambiguous word used to say authority of the minister or prime minister. The government dictates to both of them what to do.
The Queen has literally nothing to do with Canada other than being a shrine on a wall. See the Canadian Government rule book that every Canadian needs to have in the link: manual-of-official-procedure-of-the-goc
Where the constitutional issues are concerned within the Court system, then we again, need the same thing (written authorization) otherwise we are thrown under the bus by being challenged only based our own personal rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is basically another bogus scheme created to mislead. Court cases prove this over and over.
When dealing with political party reform, then this falls into corporate governance. The supreme court has determined, that political reform is not justiciable because it is of a political nature, matter. unless democratically changed. However, it can be justiciable if taken to court under corporate law as all political parties fall under corporate law, the same as municipal governance, provincial governance and federal governance and all crown corporations.
Why is it justiciable under Corporate Law? Because Political party governance is under corporate law and fall under the Crown Corporations act, the administrations and financial acts as all that is a corporate paper entity such as the political parties are regulated by these acts.
In Canada most people don’t even realize that we have 2 classes of people, 2 types of nations sharing the land through treaties when we consider Canada as a nation. The whole of Canada does not belong to Canadian citizens who fall under the Crown of Canada and it’s crown corporations and court system. We can only claim what has been claimed as ceded.
Most of those who present themselves as representatives within political parties have no clue of our history and what the treaties entail and what has transpired in a corrupt manner when addressing First Nations in this country and the legal ramifications in law and duties to them or that they are actually North American Peoples with dual citizenship in Canada and the USA and do not consider themselves as truly being Canadian other than geographically living on their lands here.
Therefore, Canadian citizens and indigenous Nations together being the true shareholders and land owners on both sides of 2 separate nations as Canadian and Indigenous nations each with their own rights and laws living within the boundaries of Canada, then concessions need to be made and Treaties respected.
It used to be that the federal government was solely responsible to the First Nations and acted as negotiators with the provinces between both groups, now the provinces and the First Nations within the provinces are being passed over directly to the province since globalization requires it given that the provinces can dismantle the federal government over night if they wished because they do not need to ask the citizens permission since they hold all powers. However, if you read the liberal party constitution, then the provinces are attached to them via the corporate structure and bound by the liberal party constitution and mandates.
When Justin Trudeau said to an Ontario woman on television that he couldn’t help her and that her problem was a provincial problem, he was diverting his responsibility because it is in actuality, a Liberal Party problem as 8 liberals right now rule the provinces out of 10 provinces and 3 territories.
Conclusion? I could go on and on and on and on. Given these facts and so much more, I will address the problem at hand with parties claiming to be direct democracy parties when in all fairness according to their mandates and ambiguous statements and hypothetical connotations, it is obvious that their methods although seemingly perhaps honorable, are only in the end, the same things Canadians and people worldwide have been mislead with in regards to direct democracy, what it truly is and how is it to be implemented.
Although tact should be used, it is hard to be dignified and graceful when representatives of these political parties have not done their due diligence. Ignorance to possible facts that they may have been misguided is no longer an excuse that can be used since their priority is to protect the people in their constituencies and not work for a political entity ruling over everyone even if they use words like can or may, or should..when the words need to be ” will and shall”. We have everything needed to educate ourselves, the people and therefore, have zero excuses to use.
We as Canadians and the Indigenous Nations are mastermind fully losing our country to globalization therefore and unfortunately, there is no more time to be sympathetic to organizations that have not done enough to protect the people at all costs. The Convention of consent is a simple stepping stone to saving our country, placing the people in their rightful places and to finally get true justice for all by placing the people first.
The Convention of consent serves to eradicate the Doctrine of Discovery Papal Bull (the Pope is who it belongs too.), protect the peoples corporate ownership interests as the official shareholders instead of the Canadian government aka, the queen along with communicating that we will impose a true direct democracy system of Governance and this is why we are in conflict with all other misleading types of Direct democracy worldwide. Ours is a true direct democracy placing the people above all governance as the final decision makers within their own countries.
Problems found with a Political Party promising direct democracy in a Province of Canada:
1) Language and text missing or no consideration given to the people as the shareholders of the province; removal of the queen (BRITISH COLUMBIA Government) in right of the province and replace it with the people as needed for direct democracy which is absolute veto power to the people.
2) Problem with a group’s entire text in sec. 3 of their Rules of Governance.
sec 3 – This is what we have a problem with: “Each MLA will vote his/her conscience while considering the wishes of the majority of voters in the respective electoral district the MLA represents.
If the voters feel the views and wishes of the majority have not been respected, or that the proposed legislation is not in the best interest of the citizens of the electoral district or the province, a workable, effective, and binding referendum can be initiated.”
3) Language in your text is also an issue; especially with words that can be misleading, through assumptions and presumptions.
4) Maintaining veto rights over the people. (That’s a NO, NO! That’s the fraud)The people need to have an immediate legal recourse when dealing with mismanagement and not as presently offered in BRITISH COLUMBIA that a recall of a representative cannot be effected until after eighteen months. This is outrageous to say the least and makes no common sense.
5) No real meaningful indication of fiduciary responsibility etc. or viable recall strategy. (meaning, a strategy is needed so that the people can sue the representatives for mismanagement etc.)
6) Too many loopholes in the text wording.
7) Undetermined, unspecified referendums is too ambiguous and makes no real promise of change. People can no longer rely on words, we need to only rely on actions. Thus far, I see no real ones within the website.
8) Representatives voting on issues with their conscience before officially holding a referendum, is FRAUD within direct democracy. Voting on issues ahead of a people’s referendum will be assuming that 51% of the majority of the shareholders are in agreement which is not based on real facts.
9) Not seeing the constituents as the official shareholders with proxy rights (indicates that the party is not looking out for the best interest of the shareholders within the province.
10) By placing the people above corporations and institutions, then all levels of governance within a province even though they are corporate entities, will no longer have power over the people. This is and should be automatic so laws need to be changed to reflect that in the province.
11) Clearly, the Direct Democracy Political Party’s website information indicates that not enough thought into what Direct democracy is to begin with which will mislead the people as to their true rights within the provinces and this country.
I can understand that people might not be knowledgeable enough to understand. This is why, when looking at communities, a province or this country has a whole, and the misconceptions and perceptions people have, it basically all reverts back to legalese and jargon the governments have used to confuse people.
This needs to be a thing of the past as whomever is in Constituency governance delegation (without final decision making authority) need to explain things in simple terms that even an 8 year old child can understand.
Assuming, does not mean we are right with our assumptions which is why the people all need to be asked what they think before jumping into any type of decision making which is a problem the people face worldwide. A survey of 100 people or 10,000 out of approx. 28 million over the age of 20+ or such as with BRITISH COLUMBIA (3.787 million aged 20+) will not work for all to express their views, this is why public meetings , online access and consensus is important and needs to be preplanned, before people can promote true Direct Democracy.
If parties are promoting Direct Democracy yet still maintain veto then, it’s not a true Direct Democracy and it should not be presented that way since, for Direct Democracy to be valid, the people have to retain all veto powers over the governance.
At this point within our own Country, province or communities, we may see that the people actually understand more than most may think however, in our present system and legal jargon that is virtually impossible which is why it needs to be done properly and not used to propagate more ignorance of understanding.
The words need to be clear and concise and to the point with its definitions and not use ambiguous terms as being done now. Text is important as well as having glossaries to explain because of contextual misunderstandings.
In a nutshell, this begins with fiduciary contractual representative mandates before upcoming elections since, it will take the dismantling of the old systems to bring in the new ones. Guarantees also need to be put in place prior to elections for True Direct Democracy parties to present themselves to the public within electoral districts from each community.
This group after elections would then become Independents without final decision making authority for the people in their community to keep or remove. The party system is then dismantled and they are now, what they were meant to be, as civil servants, serving their constituents.
There is much work to be done within constituency parliaments and it won’t be done in a day but can be prepared for in advance. I have not see that anywhere thus far with the promise of true direct democracy within Direct Democracy political party mandates.
what is the most pressing is making certain that any government cannot have authority over the people whatsoever, unless under emergency situations and previously agreed upon by the people.
This endeavour will need very resilient people because of the controlling factions who will refuse to allow any power to the people in fear of giving the people too much power over them as already witnessed within our own society for the past 150 years and more.
Although achieving success will take every ounce of patience we can generate, especially with doing this bottom up first instead of federally across Canada.
The first order of business for a party presenting itself for elections , is to be specific and to legally transfer veto to the people which should be guaranteed through the voting process and the convention of consent as well as inserted in the mandate that is legally binding on the representatives and have clauses for recall and that the people can sue if the reins are not handed over the minute the party wins to the people no matter what pressures come from the outside world.
This is why it is important to be prepared way before elections given the magnitude of responsibility in bringing in direct democracy.
The provincial mandate should at least cover major issues to automatically go to referendum such as all laws, sales or purchases etc. least until the bank of Canada can be reverted back to all the people in Canada and for the provinces to use as Canadians can create our own money for taxation and all infrastructures needed.
Inflation should be capped and all other dealings with the federal government reassessed so as not to endanger the economy and Canadians or indigenous Nations in other provinces until all of Canada is exorcising the old system and implement their true direct democracy rights as the official shareholders and are taught about proxy votes, liquid democracy integration and other techniques that need to be incorporated into a new system of constituency parliaments in all communities.