![\"Lorraine](\"https:\/\/patriationandlegitimacy.com\/english\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ethics-Ser_00108.png\")
Lorraine E. Weinrib<\/p><\/div>![\"Patriation](\"https:\/\/patriationandlegitimacy.com\/english\/wp-content\/uploads\/Patriation-and-Legitimacy-Divider.png\")
\n <\/p>\n
War on Canada!<\/em> Law professor Weinrib (ex-Ontario Justice Department) likens the 1982 \u201cpatriation\u201d to a \u201cdefeat in war<\/em>\u201d<\/h4>\n
\nT<\/span>he existence of a coup recognized by Strayer himself, its principal architect, is corroborated in many places. Law professor Lorraine Weinrib, for example, while trying to conceal the coup in which she, too, played a role, had the misfortune to describe the fraudulent “patriation” of 1982 as tantamount to a \u201cdefeat in war\u201d for Canada. A constitutional amendment is neither a \u201ctrauma\u201d, as Barry Strayer puts it, nor a \u201cdefeat in war\u201d. However, a \u201cdefeat in war\u201d destroys the constitution of the losing power, which is then replaced by a constitution chosen by the victor.<\/p>\nIn her guest lecture entitled \u201cJustifying Oakes\u201d for the Symposium at the Ottawa Law Review (\u201cThe Past, Present and Future of Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms\u201d) on February 9, 2012,1<\/sup> constitutional law professor Lorraine E. Weinrib\u2019s technique for covering up the 1982 coup on Canada \u2014 and her own role in it for the Ontario government \u2014 is to praise and extol every one of its unconstitutional, illegal, and anti-democratic aspects as though each were constitutional, legal, and democratic.<\/p>\nBut \u201cdemocratic\u201d would have to mean the Canadian people had voted<\/em> for the overthrow of their own institutions. However, they were not even asked to vote; no doubt because it was illegal to ask. More to the point, had they been asked, they would have said, \u201cNo\u201d. Which would have been unacceptable to those who had \u201cdissatisfaction\u201d as we will see below. Therefore, a coup<\/em> was imposed.<\/p>\nThe 1982 coup d’\u00e9tat on Canada, hidden behind the fraud of an alleged \u201cconstitutional amendment\u201d, and that fraud itself hidden behind the fraud of \u201csubstantial consent\u201d, was therefore not<\/em> a \u201cpopular\u201d revolution.
\n <\/p>\nThe Epitome of Euphemism<\/h5>\n
![\"Canada's](\"https:\/\/patriationandlegitimacy.com\/english\/wp-content\/uploads\/Canada_Parliament_Buildings-1.png\")
Canada’s Parliament Buildings<\/p><\/div>
\n
\nWeinrib calls the coup on Parliament \u201can amazing transition\u201d; a \u201cdramatic\u201d constitutional change; one that came about because \u201cwe\u201d she says, \u201chad dissatisfaction\u201d with \u201cinstitutions\u201d (here comes the dead give-away) \u201cthat we couldn\u2019t change\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u201d does not mean the Canadian people. \u201cWe\u201d means those who hijacked the country. By \u201cinstitutions\u201d, Weinrib means the British-style Parliament and provincial Legislatures of the founders of the national homeland of Canada.<\/p>\n
The Westminster Parliament and legislatures of 1867 are permanent, which is why \u201cthey\u201d (the conspirators) couldn\u2019t \u201cchange\u201d them. And \u201cchanging\u201d them (i.e., replacing them) was not a \u201cconstitutional amendment\u201d but a constitutional and parliamentary coup d\u2019\u00e9tat<\/em>. The 1982 \u201cCharter\u201d threw down the Parliament of Canada. In its wake, Provincial Legislatures from sea to sea reeled under the blow \u2014 before they toppled and were swept out to sea.<\/p>\nIn the wake of the coup d’\u00e9tat, a tsunami was unleashed that is still sweeping the world today, engulfing it under wave after wave of \u201ccoup d’\u00e9tat\u201d constitutions, using poor \u201cdefeated\u201d Canada as a \u201cmodel\u201d.<\/p>\n
Weinrib characterizes the criminal conspiracy among the Trudeau regime and the premiers of the provinces who organized the coup as \u201ca rich debate\u201d. Weinrib speaks on what the 1982 \u201cCharter\u201d (the coup d\u2019\u00e9tat<\/em>) really did to Canada when \u201cadded\u201d to Confederation (the political and legal structures of 1867).<\/p>\nIn \u201cCanada\u2019s Charter of Rights: Paradigm Lost?\u201c, 119-178, Review of Constitutional Studies<\/em>, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2002<\/a>, at page 120, Weinrib writes:<\/p>\n\u201cFirst, the adoption of Canada\u2019s Charter of Rights and Freedoms occurred without the precipitating events that have pushed other nations to this step, such as revolution<\/u>, defeat in war<\/u>, or reconstruction of government at the end of a regime<\/u> \u2026\u201d<\/h5>\n
Those are indeed the words of a \u201claw\u201d Professor: Lorraine Eisenstadt Weinrib, a constitutional adviser to the government of Ontario at the time of the patriation coup d\u2019\u00e9tat<\/em>.<\/p>\n![\"Canada's](\"https:\/\/patriationandlegitimacy.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Canadas-Constitutional-Revolution-Cover-Strayer-200x300.png\")
Canada’s Constitutional Revolution, Barry Lee Strayer<\/p><\/div>Like Barry Lee Strayer, in his euphorically titled book on the overthrow, (Constitutional Revolution), and in his Cronkite Lectures, Weinrib equates the 1982 Charter with \u201crevolution\u201d.<\/p>\n
What is \u201crevolution\u201d? My WordWeb dictionary from Princeton gives three clear meanings:<\/p>\n
1. A drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving<\/p>\n
2. The overthrow of a government by those who are governed<\/p>\n
3. A single complete turn (axial or orbital).<\/p>\n
The Founding Peoples of Canada did not overthrow their government in 1982, any more than the Russians overthrew theirs in 1917.<\/p>\n
In her 2007 article, “‘This New<\/u> Democracy …’: Justice Iacobucci and Canada’s Rights Revolution<\/em>” for The University of Toronto Law Journal<\/em>, Vol. 57, No. 2, Education, Administration, and Justice: Essays in Honour of Frank Iacobucci<\/em> (Spring, 2007), pp. 399-413<\/a>, at 403, Weinrib chants the litany again:<\/p>\n\u201cIt is nonetheless challenging for any legal system to make the transition from legislative to constitutional, rights-based democracy. This is particularly the case for a country like Canada, where the transition was not precipitated by a convulsive experience<\/u>, such as regime change<\/u>, the demise of a failed state<\/u>, or defeat in world war<\/u>. Such convulsive experiences repudiate what came before, often signalling the need for new comprehensive constitutions and new institutions to give them life.\u201d<\/p>\n
Madam is implying that in Canada, the British North Americans, the founding peoples of Canada, \u201crepudiated\u201d their own history and overthrew their own Parliament in 1982.<\/p>\n
The irony here is that Weinrib denies the 1982 Charter coup arrived with \u201cregime change\u201d. In fact, we had full-blown \u201cregime change\u201d in Canada on the Southern-Rhodesian model when Marxist Mr. Trudeau hung onto an office he did not legally hold due to his void oath, and imposed the \u201cnew constitution\u201d.<\/p>\n
\nT<\/span>he existence of a coup recognized by Strayer himself, its principal architect, is corroborated in many places. Law professor Lorraine Weinrib, for example, while trying to conceal the coup in which she, too, played a role, had the misfortune to describe the fraudulent “patriation” of 1982 as tantamount to a \u201cdefeat in war\u201d for Canada. A constitutional amendment is neither a \u201ctrauma\u201d, as Barry Strayer puts it, nor a \u201cdefeat in war\u201d. However, a \u201cdefeat in war\u201d destroys the constitution of the losing power, which is then replaced by a constitution chosen by the victor.<\/p>\n
In her guest lecture entitled \u201cJustifying Oakes\u201d for the Symposium at the Ottawa Law Review (\u201cThe Past, Present and Future of Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms\u201d) on February 9, 2012,1<\/sup> constitutional law professor Lorraine E. Weinrib\u2019s technique for covering up the 1982 coup on Canada \u2014 and her own role in it for the Ontario government \u2014 is to praise and extol every one of its unconstitutional, illegal, and anti-democratic aspects as though each were constitutional, legal, and democratic.<\/p>\n But \u201cdemocratic\u201d would have to mean the Canadian people had voted<\/em> for the overthrow of their own institutions. However, they were not even asked to vote; no doubt because it was illegal to ask. More to the point, had they been asked, they would have said, \u201cNo\u201d. Which would have been unacceptable to those who had \u201cdissatisfaction\u201d as we will see below. Therefore, a coup<\/em> was imposed.<\/p>\n The 1982 coup d’\u00e9tat on Canada, hidden behind the fraud of an alleged \u201cconstitutional amendment\u201d, and that fraud itself hidden behind the fraud of \u201csubstantial consent\u201d, was therefore not<\/em> a \u201cpopular\u201d revolution. Canada’s Parliament Buildings<\/p><\/div> \u201cWe\u201d does not mean the Canadian people. \u201cWe\u201d means those who hijacked the country. By \u201cinstitutions\u201d, Weinrib means the British-style Parliament and provincial Legislatures of the founders of the national homeland of Canada.<\/p>\n The Westminster Parliament and legislatures of 1867 are permanent, which is why \u201cthey\u201d (the conspirators) couldn\u2019t \u201cchange\u201d them. And \u201cchanging\u201d them (i.e., replacing them) was not a \u201cconstitutional amendment\u201d but a constitutional and parliamentary coup d\u2019\u00e9tat<\/em>. The 1982 \u201cCharter\u201d threw down the Parliament of Canada. In its wake, Provincial Legislatures from sea to sea reeled under the blow \u2014 before they toppled and were swept out to sea.<\/p>\n In the wake of the coup d’\u00e9tat, a tsunami was unleashed that is still sweeping the world today, engulfing it under wave after wave of \u201ccoup d’\u00e9tat\u201d constitutions, using poor \u201cdefeated\u201d Canada as a \u201cmodel\u201d.<\/p>\n Weinrib characterizes the criminal conspiracy among the Trudeau regime and the premiers of the provinces who organized the coup as \u201ca rich debate\u201d. Weinrib speaks on what the 1982 \u201cCharter\u201d (the coup d\u2019\u00e9tat<\/em>) really did to Canada when \u201cadded\u201d to Confederation (the political and legal structures of 1867).<\/p>\n In \u201cCanada\u2019s Charter of Rights: Paradigm Lost?\u201c, 119-178, Review of Constitutional Studies<\/em>, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2002<\/a>, at page 120, Weinrib writes:<\/p>\n Those are indeed the words of a \u201claw\u201d Professor: Lorraine Eisenstadt Weinrib, a constitutional adviser to the government of Ontario at the time of the patriation coup d\u2019\u00e9tat<\/em>.<\/p>\n Canada’s Constitutional Revolution, Barry Lee Strayer<\/p><\/div>Like Barry Lee Strayer, in his euphorically titled book on the overthrow, (Constitutional Revolution), and in his Cronkite Lectures, Weinrib equates the 1982 Charter with \u201crevolution\u201d.<\/p>\n What is \u201crevolution\u201d? My WordWeb dictionary from Princeton gives three clear meanings:<\/p>\n 1. A drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving<\/p>\n 2. The overthrow of a government by those who are governed<\/p>\n 3. A single complete turn (axial or orbital).<\/p>\n The Founding Peoples of Canada did not overthrow their government in 1982, any more than the Russians overthrew theirs in 1917.<\/p>\n In her 2007 article, “‘This New<\/u> Democracy …’: Justice Iacobucci and Canada’s Rights Revolution<\/em>” for The University of Toronto Law Journal<\/em>, Vol. 57, No. 2, Education, Administration, and Justice: Essays in Honour of Frank Iacobucci<\/em> (Spring, 2007), pp. 399-413<\/a>, at 403, Weinrib chants the litany again:<\/p>\n \u201cIt is nonetheless challenging for any legal system to make the transition from legislative to constitutional, rights-based democracy. This is particularly the case for a country like Canada, where the transition was not precipitated by a convulsive experience<\/u>, such as regime change<\/u>, the demise of a failed state<\/u>, or defeat in world war<\/u>. Such convulsive experiences repudiate what came before, often signalling the need for new comprehensive constitutions and new institutions to give them life.\u201d<\/p>\n Madam is implying that in Canada, the British North Americans, the founding peoples of Canada, \u201crepudiated\u201d their own history and overthrew their own Parliament in 1982.<\/p>\n The irony here is that Weinrib denies the 1982 Charter coup arrived with \u201cregime change\u201d. In fact, we had full-blown \u201cregime change\u201d in Canada on the Southern-Rhodesian model when Marxist Mr. Trudeau hung onto an office he did not legally hold due to his void oath, and imposed the \u201cnew constitution\u201d.<\/p>\n
\n <\/p>\nThe Epitome of Euphemism<\/h5>\n
\n
\nWeinrib calls the coup on Parliament \u201can amazing transition\u201d; a \u201cdramatic\u201d constitutional change; one that came about because \u201cwe\u201d she says, \u201chad dissatisfaction\u201d with \u201cinstitutions\u201d (here comes the dead give-away) \u201cthat we couldn\u2019t change\u201d.<\/p>\n\u201cFirst, the adoption of Canada\u2019s Charter of Rights and Freedoms occurred without the precipitating events that have pushed other nations to this step, such as revolution<\/u>, defeat in war<\/u>, or reconstruction of government at the end of a regime<\/u> \u2026\u201d<\/h5>\n