Subterfuge

And the Chain of Command

I was surprised when the first two emails I received about my last post — 'Zero Vision' — picked up on a passing comment about the upcoming by-election in Durham (rather than my commentary on Vision Zero), and this took me off in another direction (for the moment). As you can tell, I’m very much focused on local issues, as this is where the proverbial ‘rubber meets the road’ (with whatever Globalist agenda is being pushed forward), but we should not dismiss the other levels of government (as my friends with anarchist leanings suggest). We are all products of the culture (and era) in which we live of course, and I cannot shake Monty Python's take on Anarchism therefore: “I didn’t know we had a King. I thought we were an autonomous collective.” The Anarcho-syndicalist Commune.

To this point, the issue that comes up repeatedly as a reason to not vote (thereby legitimizing and ‘perpetuating the system’) is that our Members of Parliament (Provincial and Federal), and our Councillors (Municipal and Regional), swear an Oath to the Crown; now, of course, the much loved King Charles the Third.

For my idealistic, anarchist friends (is that an Oxymoron?), I must also share the following: How Accurate is Monty Python's Anarcho-Syndicalist Peasant Scene? Quite accurate, it turns out, though under very rare and unusual circumstances, that are highly unlike to exist in our modern world.

Not to dismiss this idealism out of hand, as I've certainly never seen myself as a Monarchist. I did, however, memorized the Kings and Queens of England and Britain in Grammar School (when I grew up in the UK), and I have always found this (often gruesome) history fascinating. What kid could visit the Tower of London and not be impressed (or traumatized perhaps?) at the sight of the chopping block (with axe marks cleaved into it) on which Anne Boleyn and King Charles the First lost their heads (one cannot help but imagine)?

www.atlasobscura.com/places/the-executioners-ax

The implications of this history are felt today (certainly here in Canada), and it goes a long way to explain why those 'elites' are a little twitchy, and terrified of the masses. Although I am not a Monarchist, I am not an anarchist, or anarcho-syndicalist either. You might want to revisit my comments on the Magna Carta, in an earlier piece: 'Subterfuge: The Uniparty - heirs and successors'.

As many of you will know, the question of Oaths sworn (and not sworn) has become an issue over this past year. A quick(ish) summary:

Following on the heels of the 1992 Agenda 21 (signed onto here by Prime Minister Mulroney), a so-called ‘Municipal Primer’ was circulated throughout many signatory nations. The objective of this document, issued here by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) was the political restructuring of local governments, in part, to facilitate the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Perhaps the two most notable changes following this were the introduction of a Chief Administrative Officer and the replacement of the Oath of Office, with a Declaration of Office.

A public Oath (for Public Trustees) was replaced with (what amounts to) a Corporate / United Nations instrument – the Declaration – which appears to transfer the allegiance of those elected to Office (it is being asserted) from the electorate, to the Corporation of the Town (Region, etc.), the corporate 'Stakeholders' contracting with the aforementioned, and various NGOs (whose policies are being adopted and implemented at the local level).

As the opening words of 'A MUNICIPAL PRIMER ON THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT' state: 'Promoting Sustainable Development Through Local Strategic Actions' (to be paid for by the UNsuspecting taxpayer of course). Those SDG goals, which have become the buzzwords of our day, have a long and subversive history — 32 years now.

That a Town Clerk now commonly swears in the Mayor and Council (a role once more often — and appropriately — performed by a judge) speaks to the apparent inversion of power that has occurred, while raising concerns over impartiality and potential conflicts of interest. The Declaration concludes with the words:

"And I make this solemn promise and declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath."

It is not an Oath, but it has the same ‘force and effect,’ to enable those in office to carry out various clearly delineated United Nations programs. ‘I believe it to be true,’ though I could be wrong of course — just like the disclaimer on this UN document:

Of course, Ministers and Councils are still going to implement all of these SDG schemes, and we’ll pay for them; enriching those corporate Stakeholders, regardless of whether or not any of the claims therein are ‘accurate.’ As local taxes now sky-rocket, people (rightly) are starting to ask questions.

Clearly, this is a complicated subject, and I look forward to digging deeper in the near future; for now though, since one of the main (near term) solutions offered is to have Mayors and Councillors (re)swear an Oath in place of the Declaration, I thought I’d examine where things currently stand. Shelagh McFarlane, who has produced a great deal of work on this subject, highlights a revealing statement in her 'POGG Primer' (Peace, Order and Good Governance), in which it is suggested by one City Solicitor that it might well be optional for a Mayor to swear either an Oath or Declaration, before taking his or her seat. Yet, the Municipal Act clearly states:

Declaration of office

232 (1) A person shall not take a seat on the council of a municipality, including a person appointed to fill a temporary vacancy on an upper-tier council under section 267 but not including a person appointed to act in place of a head of council under section 242, until the person takes the declaration of office in the English or French version of the form established by the Minister for that purpose. 2001, c. 25, s. 232 (1).

I am certainly no legal expert, but to execute an about-face like this (mid-term) seems problematic to say the least; legally and logistically. However, Municipal elections will come again soon, and this should be the number one platform issue for every prospective Mayor and Councillor; someone must test whether or not swearing the Oath of Office is actually an option. If not, with enough public support, the issue could be pressed, and a case made; after all, Federal and Provincial legislation appear to be at odds on this point (I must return to this in a moment).

As suggested recently (to my frustration, as it hinders our current by-election efforts here in the Federal Riding of Durham), all those taking office in Canada are compromised because they must swear an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Like the peasants in Monty Python, the thought of having a King reigning over us seems, at the very least, undemocratic. The actions of the Privy Council (as I discussed in Plan B - C- D and E) are without a doubt (in my unschooled opinion) undemocratic, but today, the Crown is (or should be) of symbolic value only; political neutrality is understood and expected. To swear an Oath of Allegiance (under these circumstances) might then be seen as swearing an Oath to a ‘Commonwealth’ of nations, and to the continuity of some binding force that has held sovereign nations with a common history together, for many years, in peace.

You will no doubt detect a hint of sentimentality here — this I will admit — but in this ‘post-national’ world (that the head of Privy Council here in Canada is so excited about) an institution that could counter this influence might be useful. Having said this, Monarchs are Sovereign in themselves (hence, the name 'Sovereign'), and this could be seen as extra-national (in modern day parlance). I remember being somewhat shocked, as a young lad in Britain, by the notion that our Queen was not actually a citizen of Great Britain, but Sovereign. Are we not all ‘Sovereign’? I might ask today, but without expounding on this, it follows that we must demand that any Royal figurehead remains absolutely politically neutral; because they have access and influence that we do not.

However, this issue of the Oath of Allegiance may take care of itself; at least, it will be taken care of at the Federal level of Government, and probably by means of a referendum ultimately. Perhaps this if one of the most important things the PPC could do for all of us, when it becomes a force to be reckoned with, within the House of Commons.

Of note (if you recall):

https://twitter.com/MaximeBernier/status/1653396925448613889

I agree with NDP, Bloc and Liberal MPs and Senators who want to scrap the obligation to swear an oath to the king, and offer the option to swear allegiance to the Constitution and the people of Canada instead.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-king-charles-oath-monarch-canada/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I now often think a Constitutional Republic would be a better idea (having seen the failings of democracy this past few years); but all countries went down the same terrifying path in Lockstep (Parliamentary Democracies and Constitutional Republics alike) thanks to a group of unelected, self-appointed, extra-nationals, who managed to temporarily seize control by means of a ‘global emergency.’ Just as more people need to be engaged, in order for our various political systems to work effectively, more people must understand, and defend, their Constitutional rights (the Constitution and Bill of Rights and Freedoms). This ‘engagement’ is the only thing that will prevent the world from slipping into some supra-national inspired, totalitarian nightmare (more on this later too, of course).

Returning to the Oath of Allegiance, and the Oaths of Allegiance Act. As mentioned above, this piece of Federal Legislation appears to contradict the Provincial, Municipal Act:

2 (1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other: (My italics)

I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second [King Charles the Third], Queen [King] of Canada, Her [His] Heirs and Successors. So help me God.

What has happened, is that the Oath of Allegiance has been bundled into the new Declaration, so that two separate statements, Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office, can be covered in one statement. From the Governor General's site, we have (as above):

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

I, __________, do swear (declare) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.

And:

OATH OF OFFICE

I, _________, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear (declare) that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as … So help me God.

These can be ‘affirmed’ too, of course.

We see on occasion (here, and in the case of a Prime Minister and others), that more than one Oath is often sworn. Both of the above amount to less than the current Declaration, and if made to a judge, or acting-judge (someone other than a member of the Town staff that is), then a large part of this issue might be resolved; on the municipal level as well as in Parliament.

Regulations

Marginal note: Regulations respecting oath of allegiance and oath of office

4 The Governor in Council may make regulations requiring any person appointed to or holding an office that is under the legislative authority of Parliament

(a) to take the oath of allegiance set out in section 2 notwithstanding that the taking of the oath is not required by any other law; and

(b) to take an oath of office in the form prescribed by the regulations for the faithful performance of the duties of that office, in any case in which the form of such oath is not prescribed by any other law.

R.S., c. O-1, s. 2

General

Marginal note: No other oath necessary

. . .

5 It is not necessary for any person appointed to any public office, for any mayor or other officer or member of any corporation, or for any person admitted, called or received as a barrister, advocate, notary public, attorney, solicitor or proctor, to make any declaration or subscription, or to take or subscribe any oath other than the oath of allegiance set out in section 2 and such other oath for the faithful performance of the duties of the office, or for the due exercise of the profession or calling, as is required by any law. (my emphasis)

The Oath of Allegiance (as set out in section 2) is another issue, independent of Oaths or Declarations of Office. This aside, anyone appointed to public office appears to have an option as to whether they swear an Oath or a Declaration.

Perhaps I'll be called out on my interpretation of this by one of my lawyer friends. I will let you know if I am, and I welcome further input. The important thing here is that this discussion take place (there seems to be reluctance to upset the proverbial apple cart in many quarters). Maybe this problem will just quietly go away, or maybe this will become Canada's next big legal challenge, as people seek assurance that the individuals they elect (to Council or Parliament) will actually represent their interests (and not simply push an agenda that has been handed to them from above).

“There is a chain of command and there's responsibilities for every level of government . . . We try very hard to stay in our lane, and focus on what we are elected to do. . .” (from 125:10)

Words that resonate with me still, from my Oct 23, 2023 presentation to Council. That ‘chain of command,’ lest we forget, should be from the people up, in a democracy (or Constitutional Republic), and what are the things we’ve elected our local Councils to do, beside fixing the roads and lobbying for hospitals? (To be continued)

I had intended to add to this commentary a short update on my recent wrangling at the Region, with respect to speed cameras and surveillance, but I must leave this until next time. Meanwhile, if you live in Durham, please remember to vote in the March 4th by-election. Or we may end up grubbing around with those anarcho-syndicalist peasants, for some “lovely filth,” when the Net Zero goals are fully enforced :-)

Thank you again, for your interest and for your support,

David