PROJECT FREEDOM CANADA
Canada is currently facing a crisis of extreme proportions in terms of a MAJOR violation of human rights to be enacted soon by a single political party. This political party is the Federal Conservative Party. This party is intending to RAISE the age of sexual consent from the current age of 14 to the age of 16. This will result in a loss of constitutional rights to all citizens of Canada that are the age of 14 and 15 years old – a substantial portion of the population -. This party believes they have the right and authority to do this for several reasons:
– the general political ignorance of that affected age group
– the apathy of the majority of citizens who feel that this issue does not affect them and is therefore unworthy of challenge
– the unwillingness of those who are aware to defend those incapable of defending themselves
Project Freedom Canada will not permit this gross violation of the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS to go unchallenged. See excerpts of the Charter below:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
The MANDATE of Project Freedom Canada
– That it is not within the power or authority of any one political party to rescind the basic constitutional rights of any group of citizens.
– The Federal Conservative Party in Canada is by passing of the proposed legislation to RAISE the age of sexual consent guilty of violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
– To defend the integrity of the Charter by preventing the rescinding of rights granted to citizens. A right given is protected by the Charter. To defend those citizens affected by this law not only directly – as all those aged 14 and 15 – but indirectly as all those sexual minorities defined as Ephebephile who suddenly find themselves outside the law in their sexual relations.
– To prove that the Federal Conservative Party in Canada has no legal grounds for this violation of the Charter. Their arguments are not based on fact but instead on general apathy towards this act and hysteria in regards to consensual adolescent sexual activity.
– To challenge this violation according to section 24 of the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.
Read all about the Charter Challenge Transcripts
Below are the transcripts. I was unable to obtain standing on behalf of public interest so it is now the Criminal Lawyers Association that has been contacted to aid in this endeavour.
Court File No. CV-08-00355544-0000
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and A.G. OF ONTARIO
M O T I O N
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE, MR. JUSTICE BELOBABA
on Monday, March 30th, 2009, at TORONTO, Ontario
O. Altair, Mr. Applicant (Unrepresented)
R.W.Y. Lee, Esq. Counsel for Respondent
N. Dennison, Ms. Counsel for Respondent
THE COURT: Good morning. Okay, good, so we can now start with the only matter that is before us today. Ms. Dennison, you are here?
MS. DENNISON: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Lee, good morning to you.
MR. LEE: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Altair?
MR. ALTAIR: Yes.
THE COURT: Good morning to you. And this is, to say the least, an interesting application or proceeding that has been brought by Mr. Altair to challenge the constitutionality of the recent amendment to the Criminal Code that raised the age of consent for having sex from 14 to 16 and Mr. Altair has not been charged with any offence under the new legislation, but you are simply, from your point of view…
MR. ALTAIR: To prevent anyone from being charged.
THE COURT: …to prevent anyone from being charged. You are here to vindicate the public interest, as you see it, and to try to bring this application or action, because it’s not clear what it is…
MR. ALTAIR: We could talk about that later, yes.
THE COURT: …to bring this to see if a Judge would, indeed, agree with you and find that the law is in some way and for some reason unconstitutional, right?
MR. ALTAIR: Sure.
THE COURT: Okay. So, Ms. Dennison, you are bringing the motion to dismiss the proceeding in the altogether, aren’t you?
MS. DENNISON: Yes, that’s correct.
THE COURT: And as an alternative claim, you are also looking to strike it out as non-disclosing a reasonable cause of action?
MS. DENNISON: That is correct.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. DENNISON: I just wanted to ensure that the Court had all the material before them, which would include a copy of the Attorney General’s factum, motion record, three books of authorities. Mr. Altair has also provided written submissions, as well as material in support of his written submissions and I hope you have received all of that.
THE COURT: I am looking for the written submissions of Mr. Altair. I don’t think I have that.
MR. ALTAIR: Oh, dear. I delivered it to your secretary last week on the 20th, or 19th, Friday. Oh, do I have to speak into that?
THE COURT: Yes, you really should stand up when you speak to me.
MR. ALTAIR: Oh. It would have been — oh, that’s it. You’ve got it right there. Right, that’s it. Sorry, I didn’t bind it.
THE COURT: Let me just take a few minutes to look at this, okay.
MS. DENNISON: Certainly.
THE COURT: I have your factum here, Mr. Altair.
MR. ALTAIR: There should be the factum, as well as the statement of claim and the notice of constitutional question.
THE COURT: No, I have all of that. Just the factum, though, has a bunch of appendices, right, of various press releases and things of that sort, right. Okay, let me just look at the factum quickly.
Where is the container for this? I don’t want to lose — okay, yes, we will just put this over here.
Okay, Ms. Dennison, I have gone through your factum — your factum, along with your colleague, Mr. Lee’s written argument and I really just need to hear argument on one point. In fact, I need Mr. Altair to respond to just one point.
MR. ALTAIR: Oh, all right.
THE COURT: And you have read the factum of the Attorney General of Canada?
MR. ALTAIR: Oh, yes. That’s why I brought it. I thought we would have a chat and follow along. I don’t know how these things…
THE COURT: Sir, you should stand up — stand up when you address the Court.
MR. ALTAIR: Oh, dear, I am sorry. Yes.
THE COURT: Okay, this is something that clearly concerns you and I don’t deny you the right, at least as you see it, to be concerned about it. It is something that may end up being litigated by you or by someone else where these constitutional issues and arguments may well be deployed, but the first hurdle you have and the hurdle that you have not cleared is that you don’t have standing to bring this lawsuit.
MR. ALTAIR: I thought that’s what we were here for.
THE COURT: No, I know, but…
MR. ALTAIR: Sorry.
THE COURT: …I am just saying to you — I am saying to you, sir, that the law could not be clearer on this and I want you to look at paragraph 39 of the Attorney General’s factum, because it’s set out in that paragraph.
MR. ALTAIR: Which book would that be in?
THE COURT: That’s called the factum of the Attorney General.
MR. ALTAIR: Oh, this one here. Oh, okay. I was under the impression that the reason why they were challenging was because I didn’t have standing.
THE COURT: Yes, you don’t have standing.
MR. ALTAIR: And, yeah, the purpose was to obtain standing. That’s what I thought.
THE COURT: No, you — the point is, you are claiming as a public interest litigant. You are not charged and before the Criminal Courts of our land.
MR. ALTAIR: And we don’t want anyone to be. That’s why I am here.
THE COURT: Right and you are simply someone who is interested in seeing that a certain law be tested constitutionally…
MR. ALTAIR: Correct, yes.
THE COURT: …and ideally, from your point of view, be set aside, all right. The Canadian Law, in fact, most laws in western society, don’t allow a public interest litigant to just come forward and as officious interveners start to challenge laws at whim to clear the public interest standing hurdle and that has been done in a very narrow category of cases. You have to satisfy two or three very critical tests. Failing any one of them means you cannot be a public interest litigant and this is set out in paragraph 39 of the factum — well, actually, it starts sooner than that. It starts on paragraph 33:
“No standing to claim violation of the rights of others.”
And the Attorney General sets out the law on this point and by the time they get to paragraph 39, this is the point that catches my attention, Mr. Altair and this is where it’s clear that this is not a case where any Court would allow you to proceed simply out of the public interest and let me read this out.
“The claim for public standing most clearly fails the third part of the test. Mr. Altair has not shown that there is no other reasonable and effective way for the issue to be brought before the Court.”
In other words, the test says you have got to show to the Judge there is no other effective way for this issue to be brought before the Court, unless I, Mr. Altair, get standing to litigate this on behalf of concerned citizens. Here, you are in the Criminal Code. Here, everyday across our fair land, sadly, people are being charged with criminal offences and sadly, especially under the sexual offence category, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of men and women that are being arrested everyday for various transgressions, various violations of the Criminal Code and that’s why they say in paragraph 39:
“The prosecutions under many of the offences in question occur on a regular basis. The validity of the provisions, as amended in 2008, will no doubt be questioned in the course of future prosecutions and Courts hearing these Charter challenges in future prosecutions will have the benefit of actual factual disputes featuring specific circumstances of actions accused persons and victims.”
MR. ALTAIR: Well, when I mentioned in my factum the violation of Charter — of s.15, I am speaking about what we have almost here, really, is a conflict of values, because there is simply no reason for these laws to be invented. I mean, we’re talking about a portion of the population that have been adults in this country that is currently in Canada for hundreds of years. Raising the age of sexual consent one year, is the same as raising it ten. It’s like raising the voting age.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. ALTAIR: It’s like — it’s like…
THE COURT: But those are Charter arguments. I am not there yet.
MR. ALTAIR: Oh.
THE COURT: I am not even talking about the other arguments that the Attorney General is making about s.15 or the other Charter claims. I am not even at the constitutional issue.
MR. ALTAIR: Oh.
THE COURT: I am simply at the very first, what’s called the threshold, the doorway issue.
MR. ALTAIR: Say, yeah, I thought that’s what we were here for.
THE COURT: Can you — can you be in this courtroom, in any courtroom in Canada, as a public interest litigant challenging these Criminal Code provisions in these circumstances and the answer, I think, is unequivocally, no, you cannot.
MR. ALTAIR: Oh, that’s a shame.
THE COURT: Why…
MR. ALTAIR: I was looking forward to it, you know.
THE COURT: Why, Mr. Altair? Because there are other reasonable and effective ways for the issue to be brought before the Court and that’s right from the Supreme Court of Canada, a line of cases that have said, basically, Mr. Altair, if there is no other way, if there is no other way for this matter to be heard by a court of law, then the public interest litigant should be given standing to voice the concerns on behalf of everyone or on behalf of his group of concerned individuals. But here, again, to repeat what I have said, the Criminal Code is active every day, from your point of view, unhappily arresting and prosecuting people in circumstances where they have allegedly violated the age of consent. In this case it would be having sex with boys and girls under the age of 16, if they are not within that five year, I think, age proportionality provision. So, everyday, literally, there are other men and women who are being arrested that will have the opportunity to test the validity of this law in the context…
MR. ALTAIR: Yeah, see, I was hoping I could do that before that happened, before anyone was tried, but no, eh? That’s a shame.
THE COURT: No, not with the Criminal Code where you have such a ready and active avenue of prosecutions where the Court will have the benefit of having John Doe or Jane Smith stand up and say I am in jail, I am charged, my liberty is at stake, I am entitled to bring and mount all these constitutional arguments to prove to you, Your Honour, that the law is unjust, unfair, unconstitutional. Here are — here is the evidence, here is what my lifestyle is like, what my interests are like and the Court then has the ability, with a very strong evidentiary foundation, to look at the person who is charged voicing a constitutional grievance or complaint and test against the Attorney General’s defence of the law whether or not the law is valid or invalid and to that extent, this massive undertaking on your part, which is documented extensively, to say the least, is to no avail. I mean, my advice to you — my advice to you is to be on the lookout for cases where people are charged and then come to their assistance with this additional line of argument…
MR. ALTAIR: I am prepared to do that.
THE COURT: …or, and I am not advising this at all, yourself…
MR. ALTAIR: Well, you know, I don’t…
THE COURT: You know, but there is no other…
MR. ALTAIR: …I don’t break the law.
THE COURT: …choice, sir, and that’s why, frankly, with respect to you, for what I think is still a very much misguided — a misguided action on your part, but that’s your right to bring a lawsuit as you deem appropriate. I found that in reading the materials, once I came across and reviewed the issue of the law on standing, which I did diligently, there was just simply no way in the world that this case could go forward…
MR. ALTAIR: Well, that was quick, then. I thought we would be here a lot longer than that.
THE COURT: …unless — unless you are, in fact, charged with this offence.
MR. ALTAIR: Oh. All right, I guess there is nothing we can do about that.
THE COURT: Now, so, I don’t have to hear from you, Ms. Dennison or you, Mr. Lee. Thank you both for the materials you have submitted. I will endorse the record accordingly. I will not say anything about the Charter issues, Mr. Altair, because I don’t need to get there.
MR. ALTAIR: Oh.
THE COURT: What I am saying is that the threshold has not been crossed…
MR. ALTAIR: Oh, I’m sorry, you are still talking. I am sorry about that.
THE COURT: You don’t — you have not established standing in this kind of a case where, typically, the argument is and should be made by people who are charged with the offence.
MR. ALTAIR: You see, I was a bit confused. I thought that’s what we were here to do today, to prove standing. I thought that’s what this was about. I guess not.
THE COURT: Well, no, you are, in a sense, to prove standing, but what I am saying to you, sir, is that there is no legal authority that I am aware of or that you could find, nor have you found any, that would provide you, as a public interest litigant, with the ability to challenge this law outside of a reality of being charged with the offence. It’s just not the way the system works. Otherwise — well, no need to explain the policy behind it. I think you understand.
MR. ALTAIR: Hm-hmm. No, I think I understand, yeah. That’s fine.
THE COURT: So…
MS. DENNISON: Your Honour, we took the liberty of drafting a draft order. We would like to…
THE COURT: Okay. Show it to Mr. Altair, though, would you?
MS. DENNISON: Yes, certainly.
MR. ALTAIR: Oh.
MS. DENNISON: It doesn’t say on what basis, so your endorsement would still be…
THE COURT: Yes, the endorsement is simply on the base of standing, not on the basis of the Charter challenge.
MR. ALTAIR: Well, I guess there is nothing we can do about that. I will have to — I agree, you know, if that’s the case.
MS. DENNISON: It says the basis of it is — this just says, “This Court orders that the proceeding be dismissed.”
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. DENNISON: So, I think that’s fair, in the circumstance and you can certainly endorse the record to reflect Your Honour’s opinion that there is no standing in this case. I apologize for it not being stapled.
THE COURT: Okay, so, I have signed one order, Mr. Altair and counsel. I will read the endorsement out to you.
R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N
Belobaba, J. (Orally):
On March 30, 2009, Ms. Dennison and Mr. Lee for the Attorney General of Canada, Mr. Altair in person; motion by AG Canada to dismiss the proceeding brought by Mr. Altair.
The proceeding appears to be a combined application and statement of claim. I will refer to it as an action. The motion is granted. The action is dismissed primarily on the ground that Mr. Altair has no standing to bring this lawsuit. He has not shown that there is no other reasonable and effective way for the issue to be brought before the Court. Indeed, the more appropriate avenue is via a defendant who has been charged with the relevant criminal offence.
Order to go as per the order signed today and the order signed today, again, makes clear that this proceeding is dismissed.
Counsel, anything further?
MS. DENNISON: Thank you, Your Honour. Not that I am aware of.
THE COURT: No?
MS DENNISON: It’s my first civil case, so, thank you.
THE COURT: Okay, there is no request for costs, then?
MS. DENNISON: I don’t think so, in the circumstances.
THE COURT: Very good.
MS. DENNISON: Thank you.
MR. ALTAIR: Do I sign a piece of paper?
THE COURT: No.
MR. ALTAIR: Oh, okay.
THE COURT: No, you will get a copy of the endorsement, sir and a copy of the order…
MR. ALTAIR: Oh, okay.
THE COURT: …and that will be that. Thank you both — all three of you very much.
MS. DENNISON: Thank you.
This is to certify that
the foregoing is a true
and accurate transcript
of my recordings to the
best of my ability and
Jacqueline M. Johnston-Fierro
Official Court Monitor
We have all documentation ready to restore law and order to Canada. Do feel free to contact the criminal lawyers association and impress upon them the urgency in this matter to obtain standing on behalf on any client charged for this gross violation of the Canadian people by the sick, Federal Government.
Criminal Lawyers Association
Read some of the Factum
I will not present the entire factum as it is over 450 pages. I have decided to provide the introduction for those interested. This is a factum that will be used as soon as another is charged with violating the illegal age of sexual consent increase and other illegal amendments that were made to the Criminal Code of Canada (I am unable to pursue the Attorney General of Canada directly as I have not been awarded Standing from the Supreme Court).
FACTUM :introduction only
It is not by choice that I am serving as legal counsel for those I represent but a matter of circumstance. There are many others in this country that are far more apt and skilled to deal with this gross violation of our constitution but they sadly do not have the inclination to do so. I serve here as a result of these changes that force me to choose between political imprisonment verses the alternative of being a political exile, while at the same time directly divesting my lovers of their status as adults. This same status as adults –sexually-, that has been granted to them and enjoyed by them in this territory that is currently known as Canada, for hundreds of years-this cannot be stressed enough-. Not since the Victorian era has there been such an outrageous divestment of rights, when the legal age of sexual consent was unjustly increased from age 12 to age 14. Canada lacked a Charter of Human rights to defend the citizens from the perverted zeal of sectarian interests at that time. It is the act itself that is a violation of our Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Increasing the age of sexual consent 1 year is the same act as increasing it by 10 years. It is a classificationist targeting of a percentage of the population to suddenly label them as “children”, and strip them of their personal liberty. It is an act that will only result in an overburdened criminal justice system due to the tens of thousands of suddenly new Canadians that have been labelled sex offenders that will result –this cannot be stressed enough-. There is nothing complicated here in respect to the reason for our being here. This is an “open and shut case”. There is no mystery and no amount of prestidigitation will alter the fact that it is a result of an action. There is no true reason for us to be discussing the sexual minorities who are defined as paedophiles, since paedophilia is currently illegal in Canada. In fact the only reason why we are here is a result of a government that has selected to target a portion of the population that are currently adults and divest them of their right to continue to live as the adults they are and have been for hundreds of years. Teenagers aged 14 and 15 year-olds are not children. The fact that they are held culpable as adults and treated accordingly for violent crimes is confirmation of the fact that they are not children. The sexual relations between 14 and 15 year-olds and their lovers are relations amongst consenting adults and have no place being targeted by a Federal Government that has no justification for doing such a trivial thing, especially when there are so many more important and pressing issues in Canada.
It is simply not acceptable to allow an atmosphere to exist in Canada that will permit an individual’s socio-economic class to pose as a barrier to justice. In September 2006, the Government of Canada cancelled the Court Challenges Program once more, despite an independent evaluation done in 2003 that endorsed the Program’s purpose and operation, and despite the renewal of the contribution agreement with Heritage Canada until March 2009. I serve as the legal council for my clients as it is not possible for me to afford to pay for a lawyer, nor is it possible to apply for Legal Aid to cover this Direct Constitutional Challenge. The fact that private, unlearned and oft ill-prepared citizens must represent themselves in the Supreme Court to defend their Constitutional rights is a construct of the Federal Government of Canada. To strike my action as a result of procedural error will do nothing to terminate this conflict that was caused directly through the misdeeds of the Federal Government of Canada. It will not alter the facts of this matter, nor will it end this matter but only prolong it. To strike this action is to interfere in the completion of the “full circle of justice”. It is a misdeed that has served as the catalyst to cause this conflict without purpose. A misdeed committed by a servant of the people and now it is the just indignation of the people that must be faced. To allow otherwise is to permit a shelter to exist from the “full circle of justice” that must not be permitted. We demand that the Attorney General of Canada be held accountable to the people and stand and defend the misdeeds that have caused this conflict.
It is important to take note that we are presently in Canada. Not the U.K. nor Australia, nor the United States of America but in Canada. In Canada we must be proud that we have our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a part of our Constitution to protect citizens. It is what makes Canada better than most other country’s and that is why it is the duty of every citizen within Canada to defend our Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that it is a part of. We have it as our great responsibility to serve as leaders in the World and not be followers. While they attempt, we shall accomplish, while they think, we shall know. Canada must remain true to form as a beacon that lights the path of reason and leads away from the darkness of superstition.
There are some within Canada that believe that our country would be better without this Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms within the Constitution as they feel it is too litigious. They would like to re-write the Constitution without the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as limit the Judges within the Supreme Court of Justice to ten-year terms. They would like the Supreme Court to be just a rubber stamp of approval for the deeds or misdeeds of the State and to have no power over the actions of such a State. They do not believe that the government is elected by the people to serve the people but rather to dominate and control the actions and even the very thoughts of the people within Canada -not unlike the oppressive sectarian regime of the country of Iran– that’s not Canada. They behave in such a manner as to pretend that in Canada, we have no such Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but we do. By increasing the age of sexual consent they are attempting to set a precedent that will not be permitted. It has never been set and it shall not be set. It is their actions that display their utter contempt felt towards this Constitution within Canada. It is deeds and misdeeds by which we are judged. Not by empty threats, nor by unfulfilled promises, nay, but by our actions. An object at rest – if it may be said to hold desire – will desire to remain at rest. It takes a catalyst to provoke a conflict where there is none and this is an action.
This conflict currently before us is a result of a misdeed by this Federal Government. It is our responsibility to now correct this misdeed through action. The legal age of sexual consent will be restored to age 14 and all amendments made to the criminal code of Canada that rely on the legal age of sexual consent to be at age 16 will be deemed vapid and therefore will be struck permanently from the code. This will be the end result of all court proceedings, regardless of the time it will take to restore law and order to Canada. Within this country there will be no rise in Classificationist thought above the truth of Universalist thought. There will be no further targeting of minorities and no imposing upon the free Canadian people a foreign “Values System”, that will result in no change, apart from an excessively larger Sex Offenders Registry. This is a deliberate confiscation of personal liberty not seen within this Canada since the internment of the Japanese during WWII. The act of increasing the age of sexual consent is a despicable act itself and raising it 1 year is the same act as raising it 10 years –this cannot be stressed enough-It is the act itself that will not be tolerated. Increasing the age of sexual consent to age 24 will not prevent individuals below the age of 24 from rapists because rapists do not respect the law. A rapist is a rapist because that is what they are and what they do regardless of their age, sex, sexuality, race, socio-economic class etc. We have laws in Canada that deal with rape. To increase the age of sexual consent is to only result in an increase of the numbers of innocent Canadians who can be imprisoned as sexual offenders and result in an additional burden on an already overburdened criminal justice system. There is no good rape and bad rape, there is only rape and all rape is the same. There are no good victims and bad victims but only victims and all victims are the same. There is no good consensual sex or bad consensual sex. All consensual sex is the same for without consent there is only rape.
Communication is very important. In order for us to comprehend a matter we must appreciate the source of this information and so we will discuss here the facts of what we are. Oftentimes an action can only be understood when the motivation behind the action is viewed as a leaning based on the actual point of reference from whence it came.
I am a sexually active Hebephile/Ephebephile (teen lover) and engage in recreational sex exclusively with boys aged 14 to 18 years old. I admit that most of my lovers have been 16 and 17 but there is no reason to refuse the attentions of 14 and 15 year-old boys and I have had numerous lovers who were that age. I do not have relationships with boys. I only engage in recreational sex with them. I am a Humanist/Atheist and a member of The Brights. I regard Human sexuality and expression as a need in terms of Human emotional and mental stability. I regard sex and orgasms as a healthy (when practiced safely), form of recreation and encourage many to pursue their passions and desires without fear or shame but with courage and pride. Since moving to Toronto I’d say that I have had roughly 30 to 40 different lovers over the past 8 years. This is the reason why I will be regarded by the court as an authority on teen sexuality, I am not a rapist nor am I a predator. I am an adult who selects to engage in recreational sex with teenaged boys who are sexually attracted to older men and find me sexually attractive. Harmless, consensual, recreational sexual activity requires 2 or more willing participants. The fact that the present Federal Government within Canada openly chooses to publicly identify itself as a part of the Christian Fundamentalist movement and target all 14 and 15 year-olds for the divestment of their rights and to confiscate the personal liberties of tens of thousands of more Canadians through imprisonment, is disgraceful.
I am a published author and have made a significant contribution to Canadian boylove culture through my book entitled Viamund the Boylove Vampyre Says… Poetry & Haiku’s. I have included the webpage that contains the story of the book as well as a copy of the book – the one that was made through the 3-year contract with iUniverse- until my contract was cancelled as a result of too many complaints from Christian Fundamentalist targeting campaigns. This type of boycotting is trivial compared to hate sites created through Christian Fundamentalist organizations that stalk individuals and encourage illegal behavior against those who do not have the same values as these Christian Fundamentalist organizations. This is something that must not be permitted in Canada.
The Federal Government of Canada has openly allied itself with the Christian Fundamentalist movement and organizations that are not based on nationality but rather on sectarian agendas that extend beyond our borders. Such organizations like the Council for National Policy, Focus on the Family, Family Action Coalition, Wikisposure and other miscellaneous Christian Fundamentalist groups are classificationist and encourage their members to violate laws. The age of sexual consent increase will not “protect” adults from their own Human sexuality and expression. It is a conflict of values whereby we have a government that has abused the power it was granted by the people in order to impose it’s values on Canada. Humanists know that young adults old enough to be persecuted as adults for a violent crime are therefore old enough to consent to harmless consensual recreational sexual activity. Sex is healthy and a need in terms of human emotional and mental stability – this cannot be stressed enough -. Youth must learn about sex safe, contraceptive use, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, the difference between consent verses non-consent in an unbiased manner in order to “protect” themselves. Patterned-power-differentials exist within all relationships to a degree and are not a negative factor in human relationships. Canada must continue to represent pride, courage and truth. Not fear, shame and lies. There is only one truth regardless of the popularity of it. If 8000000000 people claim that the world is flat and only 8000 people claim that the world is round, the world will still be round. The Federal government is guilty of forcing Canadians to change their values or to abandon Canada and flee elsewhere or to face imprisonment. There is nothing petty or frivolous about the need to strike these amendments that were made to the Criminal Code of Canada and restore law and order to our country. There is nothing harmful about consensual sex that has been enjoyed by adults in Canada for hundreds of years but there is something very harmful about a Fundamentalist government being permitted to violate our constitution for no purpose apart from a lie. It is time for truth.
Tags: Canadá, criminal code, factum, law