English common law is the system of law based on the decision of courts of England without authority of written law but rather on customary usage by court. Common law as applied outside the England/”UK” has and is now making effort at assumption of jurisdiction over others and their lands by way of Her Britannic
English common law is the system of law based on the decision of courts of England without authority of written law but rather on customary usage by court.
Common law as applied outside the England/”UK” has and is now making effort at assumption of jurisdiction over others and their lands by way of Her Britannic Majesty’s Courts. This is fundamental to colonial agenda as extension of and for support of the “illusion of lawful authority.”
At a time when common law was struggling to gain strength in the Dominion of Canada, Indigenous People were not allowed to have “legal” representation, but were deemed to be wards under the protection of Her Majesty’s Administrators according to the Indian Act: an Act to encourage the gradual civilization of the Indian Tribes.
This was the “principle in Common Law” that was the foundation for the establishment of the “residential school system”. This principle in Common Law and assumption of authority continues to guide Her Majesty’s Courts through the Attorney General of Canada.
“Canada’s Land Claim Policy” has no successful outcome that would benefit the Indigenous People. That same policy was never meant to benefit the Indigenous but to further the colonial agenda.
Under “Canada’s Land Claim Policy” it is that the Indigenous who are required to prove the “Claim” in the Courts of Her Britannic Majesty. The Land Claim is in fact the concept that Lands of the Indian/North America were without lawful title (terra nullius). This concept is explicitly stated in the Ontario motto: “Ontario Yours to Discover”.
We are now asked by Stephen Harper and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to accept apologies for the past and to become full participants in the “Canadian Society”.
We are already full participants, as targets and victims of the policy and Administration. One must become aware of the role played by Indigenous people, the Indians of the Indian Act. The Indians are purportedly the beneficiaries of the fiduciary trust of the English Crown/Europeans. “Indians” within the meaning of the Indian Act are the focus of abuse within “Canadian Society” through the Common Law assumptions of Her Majesty’s Courts.
The TRC has no power to implement the recommendations nor did the TRC investigate the extent to which the Indian question plagues the Dominion. Criminal abuse, sexual abuse, and murder are the realities of the Residential School legacy. The admission of “Cultural Genocide” made by one Stephen Harper is in fact an effort to mask the actual Genocide that did take place in Residential Schools.
Has that policy changed?
Rather than fulfilling the potential for accountability and good, the beneficiaries of the trust are subjected to deplorable and dangerous living conditions that have received International attention.
One needs to ask:
- What forces are at work that prevents clarity in the accounting of the fiduciary obligations of the Crown?
- Why is it so difficult to be “Indian” in Canadian Society (e.g. rate of incarcerations, conflict of cultural values)?
- Why are Indigenous children apprehended at a rate that exceeds the rate of others within Canada (“I am a witness”)?
- What education curriculum reflects the 400 years of contact between European and Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere?
As the policy of “Kill the Indian and save the man” became the objective of Her Britannic Majesty’s administration and employees working in Canada’s residential who witting or unwitting (or half witting), were the agents and perpetrators of genocide.
Larry W. Green