The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects our conscious and religious beliefs!
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html#I
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.
I have been doing some reasearch to defend against persecution for my belief in use of cannabis as a constitutional right or a religious medicinal sacrement. I believe all plants are gift's from God. I feel I have been discriminated against due to my cannabis utility and freedom of expression and religion. I must now put forth my view on this.
My history:
I became interested in the Christian Religion and the King James New Testament Bible at age 14. The messages were for peace, love and foregiviness. I have studied with various sects of the Christian religion, but I have yet to find one in agreement with my own philosophy. That is why I prefer to be independant or non denominational in my practice of the Christian faith!
Biblical documentation for free God given use of plants for consumption. Cannabis is an herb that bears seed!
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
We have the rights to altered states of conscieness through comsumption of plants which God has given us freely! As Jesus Christ himself said "the truth shall set you free".
Those in power whom have demonized cannabis, do so for their own ill-gotten gains. Not to help society, but to keep the people in fear of something that they think they need protection from. Thus, funding a prohibitory statue. No one needs protection from a plant. We need protection from the lies of our governing bodies, and educators.
Charter Protection of Religious Rights: Supreme Court of Canada
[13] In Big-M Drug Mart, the corporation argued that the so-called Sunday shopping laws violated religious freedom and thus that it should be acquitted of charges laid pursuant to those laws. The Crown argued that the corporate respondent was incapable of holding religious beliefs and thus could not claim section 2(a) freedom of religion rights.
[14] The Supreme Court made it clear that no accused can be convicted of an offence under an unconstitutional law:
Any accused, whether corporate or individual, may defend a criminal charge by arguing that the law under which the charge is brought is constitutionally invalid…
The argument that the respondent, by reason of being a corporation, is incapable of holding religious belief and therefore incapable of claiming rights under s. 2(a) of the Charter, confuses the nature of this appeal. A law which itself infringes religious freedom is, by that reason alone, inconsistent with s. 2(a) of the Charter and it matters not whether the accused is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic or whether an individual or a corporation. It is the nature of the law, not the status of the accused, which is in issue (paras. 38-41).
[15] Similarly, in this case, it is irrelevant that Mr. Latchmana is not charged with violating the MMAR or is not a medical marijuana user. The relevant fact is that he is charged with an offence and thus it is open to him to argue the constitutionality of that offence. Parker makes it clear that the possession of marijuana section is unconstitutional absent constitutionally acceptable exemption provisions for those in medical need. It is therefore open to Mr. Latchmana to argue that the current system is not viable constitutionally and thus that the law is unconstitutional.
Released: April 23, 2008
Signed: Justice Kathleen J. Caldwell
PHS Community Services Society v. Attorney General of Canada, 2008 BCSC 661 (CanLII)
[157] Canada argues that if s. 4(1) of the CDSA offends s. 7 of the Charter, it is saved by s. 1 as a law that is a reasonable restraint on s. 7 rights in a free and democratic society. In my opinion, the law compels the dismissal of the claim. The principles of fundamental justice are among the most important in society. Any law that offends them will not ordinarily be saved by s. 1: New Brunswick (Minister of Heath and Community Services), 1999 CanLII 653 (S.C.C.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46, 177 D.L.R. (4th) 124 at para. 99. Given what is at stake, the present case is no exception.
VI. Disposition
[158] In sum, I declare that ss. 4(1) and 5(1) of the CDSA are inconsistent with s. 7 of the Charter, and of no force and effect.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2008/2008bcsc661/2008bcsc661.html
Sopinka J. in Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519 at [594] held that, "Where the deprivation of the right in question does little or nothing to enhance the state’s interest (whatever it may be), it seems to me that a breach of fundamental justice will be made out, as the individual’s rights will have been deprived for no valid reason."
R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, 2003 SCC 74, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571
[226] As Lamer J. recalled in Motor Vehicle Reference, supra, at p. 513, “[i]t has from time immemorial been part of our system of laws that the innocent not be punished”. This fundamental principle is at the core of his introductory remarks, at p. 492:
A law that has the potential to convict a person who has not really done anything wrong offends the principles of fundamental justice and, if imprisonment is available as a penalty, such a law then violates a person’s right to liberty under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . . . .
In other words, absolute liability and imprisonment cannot be combined.
Since this landmark decision, courts have been “‘empowered, indeed required, to measure the content of legislation’ against the principles of fundamental justice contained in s. 7 of the Charter, and specifically, to ensure that the morally innocent not be punished” (R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3, at p. 17).
Conclusions:
We have a constitutional and charter protected right to religious sacremental cannabis or any other herbs that God has given us. A law which itself infringes religious freedom is, by that reason alone, inconsistent with s. 2(a) of the Charter. To deprive us from use of cannabis, is a breach of fundamental justice, therefore the individual’s rights will have been deprived for no valid reason. The principles of fundamental justice are among the most important in society. Any law that offends them will not ordinarily be saved by s. 1. IMO The Crown should prove the harm to society caused by the utility of cannabis for sacremental or medicinal purposes in a private dwelling or assembly! The Charter of Rights acknowedges the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html#I
Ken Surgent
