blog.paradigmslip.ca

Category: Unified Theory

  • 6 Days on the 4th Floor: The Preamble

    I’ll begin my story with the day that I was pulled in, but the roots of that day were set down much earlier than that. Back in July of 2014 I filed charges of advocating genocide against our current Prime Minister and then Foreign Affairs Minister, John Baird. The charges were summarily dismissed less than two weeks later as a matter of governing policy.

    While a major violation of international law and treaties, this legal justification unfortunately works fine for the Canadian legal system. Under the Canadian Criminal Code the Attorney General is allowed to shape the prosecution of certain crimes, including by not limited to:

    • 7(2.33) – offenses occurring in space
    • 7(4.3) – sexual offenses against children
    • 7(7) – denying prosecution of criminal foreign nationals
    • 54 – assisting a deserter
    • 24 – terrorism, hiding terrorist property, banking with terrorists
    • 136(3) – providing false evidence
    • 141 (2) – bribery
    • 164(7) – voyeurism, corruption of morals, child pornography, advertising sexual services
    • 283(2) – kidnapping
    • 318(3) – advocating genocide
    • 319(6) – public incitement of hatred
    • 320(7) – denying seizure of hate propaganda
    • 347(7) – allowing criminal interest rates
    • 385(2) – concealing title documents
    • 422(3) – breach of contract, intimidation and discrimination against trade unionists
    • 477.2 (1) – offenses committed by a non-citizen on a foreign ship in Canadian waters
    • 477.2 (2) – offenses committed in the economic zone of Canada by citizens or in relation to citizens
    • 477.2 (3) – offenses committed in non-recognized states (ie: Palestine)
    • 477.3 (3) – piracy
    • 810.01 (1) – intimidation of the criminal justice system or a journalist
    • 810.2 (1) – threatening violence, endanger safety, inflicting psychological damage and various forms of sexual assault

    These crimes involve matters than have the potential to shock the conscience of the country. The reason the Attorney General is given so much authority over them is to protect the public from too much media exposure for matters that could damage the public peace. However, the wording of these clauses also allows for bad faith interpretations of laws that give them the ability to simply refuse to prosecute the crime as committed. If a corrupt Attorney General were to be paired with a corrupt Prime Minister or Premier, the results would be disastrous for the effectiveness of the judiciary and faith in law enforcement officials in general. My own incident illustrates how easy it is for a Crown Prosecutor to twist both the word and spirit of the law to suit their own needs. Before I get into that discussion any further, I’m going to talk about why I reacted so strongly to what happened to Mr. Dunphy.

    Mr. Dunphy’s situation arose on Easter Sunday, a time traditionally spent with family. For me, it was the first time in several years I could spend the weekend with my entire immediate family. Brothers, sister, their wife, husband, and significant other, parents, nephews and the Love of my Life. Not only that, but we were also enriched by the presence of a new niece not yet a year old and finally able to deliver the Good News that myself and my Love were ourselves expecting a bundle of joy this summer. It was the nicest Easter that I have had yet in my life, but it felt marred when I heard about the shooting of an unnamed man and details began to emerge through Twitter. My gut told me there was something important going on, but I remained calm and waited for the story to be told.

    When I finally found out what had brought a gun into Mr. Dunphy’s home and left him dead and his daughter without a father, I was horrified and outraged. Horrified at the inherent stupidity in a system that had not learned enough about social media to click a single button to see the full context of Mr. Dunphy’s words. Outraged at the visible legitimizing by the Premier’s office of a judicial response that created a situation where a gun was brought into a family home where children could be present. All of this due to ignorance and the inability of our current system to fundamentally deal with the complexities of the modern era.

    My own understanding of the full context of Mr. Dunphy’s series of tweets is that he expressed his religious beliefs. He hoped that God judges the politicians who look down upon the poor and the unfortunate. His final tweet that was viewed as a threat was taken completely out of the context he’d intended. Read in context, he’s saying that he won’t offend the living by disrespecting the dead. There was nothing hostile or violent in his tweets. Only people with hostile, violent and ignorant minds would interpret them that way.

    Mr. Dunphy was completely innocent of any crime. There’s no mens rea (the intending mind) in anything he wrote. Had he been charged with the crime of Uttering Threats, as I have since been, arrested and brought before a judge, he would have been able to provide the judge with the full context of his tweets from that day and been able to satisfy that none of the suggested mens rea that brought the Premier’s private security detail to his door existed in the slightest.

    But that is unfortunately not what happened on that fateful day. Instead we hear a story that informs the public that the RNC officer approached Mr. Dunphy shortly after Easter dinner. He introduced himself, entered his home, spoke with him for a while, then Mr. Dunphy’s demeanour changed and he, a man suffering from chronic pain from a debilitating worker’s injury, quickly pulled out a loaded long gun before the officer could react to disarm him, aimed it at the officer, and the officer had to shoot Mr. Dunphy in self-defense.

    While my opinion is obviously one of a layperson, I could speculate on what may have happened based on my recent experiences with law enforcement and the mental health system. My first speculation is that the officer could be telling the complete truth, up to the moment where he states Mr. Dunphy aimed a loaded rifle at him. Mr. Dunphy, a man already familiar with the RCMP due to his licensed medical marijuana production, likely felt comfortable allowing a police officer to enter his home. He probably offered him tea and some oatmeal cookies. But at some point during their conversation the officer brought Mr. Dunphy’s tweet into the discussion.

    Imagine being confronted with by a single sentence from your life taken so far out of the context it was uttered that it bears no resemblance to the reality of the situation. Mr. Dunphy, having no mens rea, would have been dumbfounded by the accusation. A family man, a man who’s raised a daughter by himself after the passing of his wife at an early age, who kept his spirits up by being a vocal advocate for the poor and the broken, being presented with his own words twisted in such a psychotic fashion as to make him look violently angry and possibly homicidal towards families. Up until this point, Mr. Dunphy has no idea the officer he’s allowed into his home has any hostile intentions towards him, nor that the officer considers him a possible threat.  Mr. Dunphy had done nothing to put himself into a fearful state, unlike the RNC officer, who’s view on reality was becoming psychotic due to flawed and incomplete intelligence.

    Likely presented with a printout of his single tweet and bearing witness to the sudden confrontational change in a man he was attempting to be friendly with, a gentle soul like Mr. Dunphy would have tried to immediately placate the officer to restore his peace of mind. Instead of reaching for his rifle to defend himself, it’s much more likely that Mr. Dunphy simply reached for his phone to bring up Twitter. The officer, ignorantly expecting to be in the home of a potentially violent and homicidal man, assumes Mr. Dunphy to be reaching for a concealed weapon and reacts as his training dictates.

    What followed in the home after the shooting, only the officer and subsequent investigators know. But as someone who personally fits the psychological profile of Mr. Dunphy more so than that of the Ottawa Shooter as was suggested by the first doctor who assessed me, I can only imagine how the situation was altered before being presented to the public. The initial media slant of the tweet suggested that even those involved in the media release still didn’t realize they hadn’t understood the full context of the tweets. Even the morning after Mr. Dunphy’s death, they were all too happy to pat the officer and themselves on the back over a job well done ‘protecting the public peace.’

    Again, this is all speculation on my part, but it seems much more likely to be the case that Mr. Dunphy, an outspoken and intelligent man, suddenly went to pull out his phone and the officer misinterpreted his actions. I see no reason for him to make the conscious decision to threaten a police officer he’d invited into his home with a gun and throw his entire life away.

    The way the government of the province and the St. John’s media have treated this incident shows a callous disregard for the value of human life and families that extends downwards from the upper levels of government, but which is thankfully absent in Western Newfoundland. It also exposes a major blindspot in a system unable to cope with the complexities of a rapidly changing world.

    My next post will cover the tweet that lead up to my detention on the 4th Floor of the Western Memorial Regional Health for 6 days, including a brief trip before the Supreme Court judge who oversaw the first hearing of my Charter Challenge. I witnessed him having his hands tied by an abuse of the system of common law precedence built on arbitrary schemes. 

    I must warn you though, during all of the events that followed, I’m probably the least interesting person in all of them. Despite the system being flawed, there were a number of exceptional people either working or trapped within in it who experience it on a daily basis. I was only a tourist.

    I should also note that during my experience every single officer, doctor, nurse and court official I met acted with the grace and patience of a saint… aside from the one lawyer who thought it would be appropriate to create a false pretense before a Supreme Court judge in front of a court full of witnesses.

    They are, unfortunately, struggling within a system that favours marginalizing the problems of our society rather than dealing with them head on.

    My only hope is that telling their story will help get them the assistance they so desperately need.

  • Rough Draft of Memorandum of Argument

    Here’s a rough draft of the Memorandum of Argument I’m looking to file with the Courts in reference to my Charter Challenge. Anyone interested in making comments, or suggestions can email me at abyss@paradigmslip.ca.

    MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT

    PART I.                  STATEMENT OF FACTS

    OVERVIEW

    1. The Applicant, ANDREW ABBASS (“Mr. Abbass”) submits that the judicial process invoked by Subsections 318(3), 319(6) and 320(7) (the “Subsections”) of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”) are not compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) and subject to just remedy under Section 24 (1) of the Charter or found to have no force or effect under Section 52 (1) of the Constitution Act of 1982.
    2. Whereas the Applicant believes his right to equality before, under and in the benefit of and protection of the law, guaranteed by Section 15(1) of the Charter have been violated by the judicial proceedings initiated through his exercising of his responsibility as a citizen of Canada to uphold Canada’s laws, subject to just remedy under Section 24(1) of the Charter.
    3. Whereas Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982 requires the Charter to be upheld as the Supreme Law of Canada, in that the preamble of the Charter recognizes the rule of law as a founding principle, the Subsections represent a direction violation of the rule of law capable of impeding fundamental justice.
    4. The Applicant will argue that these Subsections should be recognized by this Court as special privileges afforded to the Attorney General for interpreting the language and context of the laws in good faith, not an inalienable interpretive language right protected by the Charter or any Act.
    5. The Applicant therefore seeks an order rescinding, repealing or revoking Subsections 318(3), 319(6) and 320(7) of the Criminal Code of Canada under Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982, or amending them by adding “unless interested” at the end of each subsection, or any just remedy the Court considers appropriate under Section 24(1) of the Charter.


    BACKGROUND FACTS TO THIS CASE

    Mr. Abbass’ filing of the Charge of Incitement towards Genocide

    1. On July 16th, 2014 the Applicant, Andrew Abbass, learned of the deaths of 4 children on a beach in Gaza. Video coverage and pictures of the aftermath of the event were widely available on social media outlets.
    2. The following day, July 17th, 2014, while looking for a Canadian response on CBC’s website pertaining to the funeral of the 4 children killed the previous day, the Applicant found minimal coverage of the event.
    3. During his search, the Applicant discovered a Huffington Post article about a YouTube video the Conservative Party of Canada had quietly released to its Israeli supporters on July 16th, 2014. (Through Fire and Water)
    4. In viewing the video, the Applicant and was disturbed by the splicing together of military and political footage with aggressive music and quotes from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and then Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird.
    5. The Applicant showed the video directly to several associates who were also offended by the juxtaposition of aggressive imagery, quotes and music.
    6. To better understand the nature of what the Applicant felt was offensive, he compiled a transcript of the video to analyze the selected quotes and imagery.
    7. In compiling this transcript, the Applicant found what he believed to be a sophisticated language of hatred and incitement towards genocide.
    8. The purpose of this use of this language, in the opinion of the Applicant, was to incite the Israeli people towards attacking the people of Gaza, implying that their actions were justified and morally correct in the eyes of Canada.
    9. The Applicant initially telephoned the RCMP in Ottawa on the 20th of July to report the crime, but was informed he would have to file the charges through his local jurisdiction.
    10. On the morning of July 21st, the Applicant filed charges with the RNC in Corner Brook, Newfoundland. As the crime occurred outside their jurisdiction, an RNC liaison officer was assigned and the charges were forwarded to the RCMP in St. John’s.
    11. The Applicant received a phone call from RCMP officer JOHN DOE on July 30th, requesting a meeting for August 1st.
    12. The Applicant met with the plain clothed RCMP officer on August 1st, who informed the Applicant that no charges were being pressed.
    13. The officer informed the Applicant that the video and statement by the Prime Minister were being considered a governing policy, not criminal and that his only option was to vote in the next election.
    14. The following Tuesday, August 5th, the Applicant filed a complaint with the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP.
    15. The report compiled by the Officer undertaking the investigation of the complaint has been completed and a letter of Disposition is to be made available in the coming months. (Document)


    PART II.                                STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

    1. The Applicant submits that the process he has undertaken as part of his responsibilities as a Canadian citizen raise the following important issues of law that are of national and public importance:

    Issue 1:   Do the Subsections violate the rule of law by placing the Attorney General’s interpretation of what constitutes incitement towards genocide and the creation and dissemination of hate propaganda above the law?

    Issue 2:    Do the current form of these Subsections allow a conflict whereby the consent privileges given to the Attorney General by the Code can impede the course of fundamental justice in crimes where he is personally interested?

    1. These issues warrant consideration by this Honourable Court on the basis that:
      • These are both novel and important questions of law.
      • The Subsections have never been tested for Charter compliance in this manner.
      • Variations of the Subsections are also present in other sections of the Code, as well as pending Bill C-51.
      • The need to have these issues addressed is pressing and the objective is both proportional and justifiable to maintain a free and democratic society.
      • The means are rationally connected to the objective and result in the minimal impairment of rights of all Canadians.


    PART III                               STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

    This Is A Case That Raises Issues of National and Public Importance

    1. Incitement towards genocide and the creation and dissemination of hate propaganda are crimes made infamous by the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany. Section 318, 319, and 320 of the Criminal Code of Canada were drafted with the legislative intent of criminalizing these types of behaviors before they can do substantial damage to the public good.
    2. The potential for the impairment of justice on these matters through conflicting interpretations of the Criminal Code of Canada has a significant impact on Canadians. Laws expected to provide protection to citizens from the abuses of power that allowed Nationalist Socialist Germany to undertake the Holocaust should not allow for interpretations capable of impeding fundamental justice.
    3. To that end, the Criminal Code of Canada together with the Charter have the expectation of being designed to protect the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens by ensuring that a proper legal framework exists to have such matters addressed by the judicial system in a timely and just manner.
    4. Delaying justice on a matter involving the incitement towards hatred and the dissemination of hate propaganda has the effect of increasing the damage to society and the public good on a national and global scale. In the opinion of the Applicant, The RCMP and Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP do not have the legal authority to engage in a proper and timely balancing of the importance of the rights at stake in this matter.
    5. Section 15(1) of the Charter states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit without discrimination. In dismissing the charges with no legal justification offered or route for appeal, the Applicant feels his rights to engage the legal process in a matter of grave importance have been violated, therefore allowing the Court to proscribe just remedy under Section 24(1) of the Charter in consideration of the circumstances of the violation.
    6. In filing an Originating Application (“Contract”) with the Supreme Court of Newfoundland as a self-representing citizen, the Applicant brings this matter before this Honourable Court to advance the pursuit of fundamental justice in the spirit of good faith and the public interest.
    7. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledges that good faith as it applies to the matter of contractual obligation should be a founding principle from which the Court manifests its interpretation of the Common Law of Contracts:

    There is an organizing principle of good faith that parties generally must perform their contractual duties honestly and reasonably and not capriciously or arbitrarily.  An organizing principle states in general terms a requirement of justice from which more specific legal doctrines may be derived. An organizing principle therefore is not a free‑standing rule, but rather a standard that underpins and is manifested in more specific legal doctrines and may be given different weight in different situations.  It is a standard that helps to understand and develop the law in a coherent and principled way.(2014 SCC 71 – J Cromwell)

    1. While the opinion of individual citizens on legal matters carries little weight in determining the proper course of the law, the ruling of this Honourable Court can provide guidance and direction to the Applicant and other citizens in determining if the issues presented require an expeditious, lawful and just remedy to maintain a free and democratic society.


    Issue 1:        Charter Compliance of Code Sections 318-3, 319-6 and 320-7

    1. The existing language used in Subsection 318(3), 319(6) and 320(7) of the Code are a direct violation of the rule of law. They allowing the consent (“arbitrary decision”) of the Attorney General (“appointed official”) to govern the prosecution of criminal justice in these crimes.
    2. The original legislative intent of inserting the Subsections may have been to prevent charges from being filed for spurious reasons, but they also created the potential for limiting a citizen’s lawful ability to seek justice for any crimes committed by the Federal government under this Section of the Code.
    3. By placing the Attorney General interpretative privileges above the law in question, the Subsections violate the founding precepts of the Charter which recognize the Supremacy of God and the rule of Law. In accordance with Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982, the Subsections as they currently exist should be found to have no force or effect.
    4. The equality rights provided by Section 15(1) of the Charter have been interpreted by the Court to be aimed at preventing :

    “violation of essential human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political and social prejudices, and to promote a society in which all persons enjoy equal recognition at law as human beings or as members of Canadian society, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration.” (Iacobucci J. in Law v. Canada, [1999])

    1. To prevent further violation of essential human dignity through possible crimes against humanity, the Applicant taken a purposive approach to contextualize the dire need to address these Subsections within the broader scope of the law and requirement of maintaining a free and democratic society.
    2. The Applicant respectfully submits that grounds exist to challenge the Charter-compliance of the Subsections through either Section 24(1) of the Charter or Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982.


    Issue 2:     Potential Consent-based Conflicts Of Interest in Criminal Code of Canada

    1. By denying the ability of the judicial branch to prosecute crimes of this nature without the consent of the Attorney General, the potential for a conflict of interest is created. It is difficult to envision a situation where the Attorney General would consent to the prosecution of a crime he himself may be found complicit in.
    2. To that end, several other instances of this particular formulation of the consent clause are found through-out the Code that can deny the prosecution of justice. Taken in this manner, they grant the Attorney General the ability to consent to the criminal act instead of prosecuting it.
    3. These consent clauses are found in wide range of laws, some of which are quite concerning when examined for their potential for abuse. The following list illustrates the possibility of crimes from the Code that can be committed with this embedded privilege providing immunity to prosecution:
    • 7(2.33) – offenses occurring in space
    • 7(4.3) – sexual offenses against children
    • 7(7) – denying prosecution of criminal foreign nationals
    • 54 – assisting a deserter
    • 24 – terrorism, hiding terrorist property, banking with terrorists
    • 136(3) – providing false evidence
    • 141 (2) – bribery
    • 164(7) – voyeurism, corruption of morals, child pornography, advertising sexual services
    • 283(2) – kidnapping
    • 318(3) – advocating genocide
    • 319(6) – public incitement of hatred
    • 320(7) – denying seizure of hate propaganda
    • 347(7) – allowing criminal interest rates
    • 385(2) – concealing title documents
    • 422(3) – breach of contract, intimidation and discrimination against trade unionists
    • 477.2 (1) – offenses committed by a non-citizen on a foreign ship in Canadian waters
    • 477.2 (2) – offenses committed in the economic zone of Canada by citizens or in relation to citizens
    • 477.2 (3) – offenses committed in non-recognized states (ie: Palestine)
    • 477.3 (3) – piracy
    • 810.01 (1) – intimidation of the criminal justice system or a journalist
    • 810.2 (1) – threatening violence, endanger safety, inflicting psychological damage and various forms of sexual assault
    1. While the list of Attorney General Consent clauses presented is not exhaustive, there is a pattern in that the majority of the offenses have the potential to be exceptionally socially damaging crimes and few reasons exist to allow such a clause to prevent justice.
    2. In addition, Bill C-51 introduces new consent clauses that can further impede the judicial process without due oversight.
    3. Through examining the legislative intent of the drafting of Bill C-51 in light of the comparable consent clauses already shown to have potential for abuse, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to provide guidance in ensuring that the principle of good faith is applied not only to common law contracts, but the social contract that provides for a good faith between Canadian citizens and the Government of Canada.


    Summary And Conclusion

    1. pending


    PART IV.               COST SUBMISSIONS

    1. This Applicant seeks for leave to raise issues of national and public importance before the court to seek a just and appropriate remedy. No costs are requested.


    PART V.                NATURE OF ORDER SOUGHT

    1. The Applicant therefore seeks an order rescinding, repealing or revoking Subsections 318(3), 319(6) and 320(7) of the Criminal Code of Canada under Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982, or amending them by adding “unless interested” at the end of each subsection, or any just remedy the Court considers appropriate under Section 24(1) of the Charter.

    ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

    Dated at the City of Corner Brook in the Province of Newfoundland this *** day of February, 2015.

    _______________
    Andrew Abbass
    Applicant