[UPDATE: 9 JULY 2015]
This web site presents a complete OCR of the Dean Emeritus F.C. Cronkite, Q.C., Memorial Lectures, Third Series, October 1982, delivered at the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan by Barry Lee Strayer, Q.C., Assistant Deputy Minister (Public Law) Department of Justice (Canada) barely six months after the so-called “patriation” of Canada’s constitution from the United Kingdom.
This important pair of Lectures will be invaluable to researchers of constitutional law and history of Canada.
The scan of the lectures was made from a privately inscribed copy dedicated to Rhodes Scholar and professor of constitutional law of Canada, the late F. R. Scott by the lectures’ author, Oxford-trained Barry Lee Strayer. Pay close attention to Strayer’s inscription to Scott.
All the Canadian Rhodes Scholars on the Supreme Court of Canada at the time of the so-called 1981 Patriation Reference, were involved in the “Majority” opinion alleging a “constitutional” (conventional) requirement of “substantial consent” to “amend” the Constitution of Canada. But first, it wasn’t an “amendment”. The claimed procedure of amendment was a front to cover a coup d’état. The elaborateness of the mere procedure is invoked by co-conspirator in the coup, Barry Lee Strayer, in his Cronkite Lectures after the coup was done, as the reason they were going to get away with it.
These lectures may also interest researchers of American constitutional law, for Strayer was in a class “taught by Professor Paul Freund — who had studied under Frankfurter and worked as a young lawyer in the Roosevelt New Deal Administration that had been regularly before the Supreme Court [of the United States] battling to defend innovative [euphemism for unconstitutional] legislative reforms.”[1]
Later, in Canada — and apparently recruited by Frank Scott: see the dedication to Scott inked by Strayer on the cover of Scott’s copy of the lectures (sidebar) — Barry Lee Strayer was an adviser in constitutional law to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau regime, and a principal draftsman of the Canadian Charter of 1982, imposed under the rubric of “patriation”.
Lawyer Robert Martin, in his article entitled “A Lament for British North America” (meaning, the real Canada flushed for regional union by Trudeau and the socialists), affirms: “Barry L. Strayer, now a judge of the Federal Court of Canada, is generally regarded as having played the leading role in drafting the Canada Act 1982 and its appendices.”
In other words, Strayer played a leading role in the coup d’état which he himself defends in these two 1982 Cronkite Lectures.
In his Introduction to his 2013 book entitled Canada’s Constitutional Revolution, Strayer himself, speaking of the 1982 “patriation” euphemistically describes the “profound and innovative nature of these changes,” and alludes to “the way” they were achieved, concluding here as in Saskatchewan in 1982, that “it is legitimate to call it a revolution”.
Strayer notes his 22-year involvement (“longer than any other official or politician”) with the “process” of bringing about the 1982 “Revolution,” his euphemism for the coup d’état.
“Profound and innovative” are also euphemisms, meaning unconstitutional and illegal.
In Revolution, recounting his own road to study at Oxford, Strayer notes that he “arranged some financing and ultimately won a Mackenzie King Travelling Scholarship”. These travelling scholarships were financed by the Rockefellers, who were close associates of Mackenzie-King. Much as Power Corporation of Canada has long sponsored its pet politicians with jobs and rewards in between their political mandates, J.D. Rockefeller patronized a young Mackenzie-King. It is not improbable that the pro-Soviet Rockefellers may have acquired control of Canada’s Liberal Party through their relations with King.
Like the Vincent Massey Scholarships, the Mackenzie-King Travelling Scholarships appear to be deliberate supplements to the Rhodes Scholarships. (Vincent Massey was a Royal Institute of International Affairs insider, i.e., the world government, Rhodes Scholarship crowd.) Soviet agent, Lester Bowles Pearson, had a Vincent Massey Scholarship.[2]
It should be noted that Frank Scott also recruited Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Scott was an advocate of world government and socialism, who consorted with the Rhodes Round Table group, and wrote for some of its publications. He was involved in the development of “human rights” principles imposed at the international level (UNESCO) upon billions of human beings the vast majority of whom had no say in the content of these principles, some of which controvert or undermine their own social, spiritual and constitutional traditions. A tad ironic, since the U.N. claims to support “self-determination of peoples”, but reserves the right to impose what they are entitled to believe.
Scott was also involved in the early 1940s in the preparation of “Principles and Postulates” for an “international law of the future”[3] (world law), by some 200 self-appointed Canadians and Americans — apparently of the Left — in preparation for the post-War founding of the United Nations. He was the national chairman (the equivalent of party president) of the socialist Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), which was a founding member at Frankfurt, Germany, of the 1951 Socialist International (SI), a fork and successor of the earlier Soviet-run Communist Internationals.
The CCF became the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) in 1961 at the time of the Oslo Congress of the Socialist International, with the NDP inheriting the full member status of the CCF in the SI.
The Oslo Congress of the Socialist International formally adopted the following principle, incumbent upon all of its members:
“SOCIALISM AND WORLD PEACE
The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a first step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations so that it may become more and more effective as an instrument for maintaining peace.”
It is important to note that Bob Rae (Rhodes Scholar; aka Cohen) identifies the contribution of the NDP (and others) in the “passage” of the 1982 Charter, which as Strayer admits in these lectures — and as is clear to anyone familiar with the language of constitutional law — is a coup d’état.
In his 2013 article for the leftist Huffington Post entitled “Patriating the Constitution and the Charter” (posted: 05/20/2013 12:53 pm EDT Updated: 07/20/2013 5:12 am), Rae recounts:
“John Diefenbaker, Ellen Fairclough, Gordon Fairweather, Tommy Douglas, David Lewis, and Ed Broadbent were just as much authors of the Charter as Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. I was proud to fight for it then, I am proud to fight for it now.”
Rhodes Scholar Rae himself thus takes part credit for the 1982 putsch admitted by Barry Lee Strayer in these lectures. Rae seems to mince his words in ascribing credit for the so-called “Charter” to non-NDP’ers such as Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. It is open to debate whether Conservative Prime Minister Diefenbaker knew his 1960 “Canadian Bill of Rights” (a Canadian Parliamentary statute turning on a Parliamentary command to interpret its other laws in a certain manner) was to be the precursor of a full-blown 1982 coup d’état by virtue of a very different type of “charter”.
Rae’s brother John Rae (aka “Cohen”) is a Vice-President of Power Corporation of Canada (which hosts the Quebec committee distributing the Rhodes Scholarships) and a prominent member of the Liberal Party who advised Trudeau’s successor, Jean Chrétien. Trudeau in 1980 and Chrétien in 1995, both attempted to dismantle Canada for an EU-style regional union, using a “political” party set up in Quebec on orders of Trudeau and a secret committee of Power Corporation (headquarters of the so-called Liberals) for the purpose of running the unconstitutional referendums.
Source: https://patriationandlegitimacyofthecanadianconstitution.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/www.huffingtonpost.ca_patriating-the-constitution-and-the-charter_bob_rae.pdf
It should not be overlooked that the 1982 coup d’état was helped into place by the use of the unconstitutional “reference” or advisory function of the provincial appellate courts and the then-Supreme Court of Canada. The legerdemain (“an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers”) was carried out by the majority of a 1981 extra-judicial supreme court “patriation” advisory bench, most of whom were Oxford men, and Rhodes Scholars.
Rhodes Scholars on the “Patriation Reference” were the Honourable Mr. Justice Roland Martland (Rhodes B.A., 1930), the Honourable Mr. Justice Jean Beetz (Rhodes B.A. 1953), the Honourable Mr. Justice Julien Chouinard (Rhodes Masters, 1953). The fourth Oxford man (B.A. 1932) on the “majority” opinion alleging that “substantial consent” of the Provinces would “legalize” the upcoming 1982 Charter (thus providing a cover for the impending coup d’état) was the Honourable Mr. Justice Roland Almon Ritchie.
The “substantial consent” opinion was wrong in law, since no degree of “consent” can serve to legalize an expressly unconstitutional act. However, it served the conspirators, as it seemed to exclude Quebec (which refused to “consent”) from the “Patriation”. A permanent impasse was thus created by a fraud on the law, giving rise to a permanent grievance as “grounds to secede” or for further “negotiations” to alter all of Canada with Quebec as the pretext.
“Per Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Chouinard and Lamer JJ.: A substantial degree of provincial consent—to be determined by the politicians and not the courts—was conventionally required for the amendment of the Canadian Constitution..”
So saying, the Rhodes-stacked non-judicial bench was further wrong in law, since the legal effect of the 1982 Charter — the literal overthrow of the lawful Parliament and Legislatures — is a coup d’état, not a “constitutional amendment”. There are additional grounds for the wrongness of the advisory opinion (most particularly, jurisdictional in nature), but these are not essential to this note.
Source: “Patriation Reference”: Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753
The legal effect of the Charter imposed upon the existing constitutional documents of 1867 et seq., in fact altered the essential character and nature of Canada’s true legal and political institutions.
In other words, close readers of constitutional law will understand that the “new” constitution essentially overthrew the lawful Parliament and Legislatures of 1867. The “addition” of the Charter to the existing documents replaced the lawful Westminster-model, supreme Parliament of Canada of 1867 and the Legislatures of the Provinces with new political bodies subordinate to U.N. treaties and accords.
Professor Peter Russell made a statement in the Canadian Bar Review (Vol. 61, No. 1 of March 1983) in his article entitled “The political purposes of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” which proves that the locus of decision-making power (i.e., legislative power) has shifted in Canada.
Said Russell:
“In all liberal democracies, limits are placed on the extent to which fundamental rights and freedoms are enjoyed. The Charter’s principle [sic] effect is to change the way in which decisions about these limits are made. There is no guarantee that this new decision-making system, in which judicial review plays a central role, will result in better or even in more liberal decisions about these limits.”
This pretty much sums up the fact that Canada no longer has the Parliament and Legislatures founded in 1867.
Power has been taken from what used to be the lawful Parliament and Legislatures, and handed to the new post-coup “central” judiciary on the basis of the vaguely worded Charter; and with no specific judicial assignment of power.
Instead, there is an ad hoc assumption by these new “courts” of what before were exclusively legislative functions of the elected Westminster-model parliament and legislatures of Canada.
These new, and very un-British “courts” after 1982, strike down laws, revise (“read down”) laws, and expand laws otherwise properly within the legislative sphere of the post-1982 parliament or a province, by forcibly inserting new “legislative” provisions (“reading in”).
Real courts have no such power under the lawful Westminster system inherited by Canada in 1867. What are these new entities? Who “elected” them?
It would be interesting for the reader to know that Peter Russell was a co-founder of Praxis Corporation, a sinister organizer of events to fuel socialist “demand” from the “poor”. Praxis was financed with Canadian tax dollars by the Trudeau Fed.
Russell was also the first to rush into print a scholarly-looking, anyway, collection of critical articles on the 1982 so-called “patriation”, with colleagues including Rhodes Scholar and “socialist lawyer”, William R. Lederman.[4] Neither Russell nor Lederman, however, admitted to the 1982 coup d’état, to which Strayer in a manner of speaking confidently confessed in his Cronkite Lectures.
In these lectures, given by Barry Lee Strayer to a law college shortly after the 1982 “coup” constitution, and while himself a member of the now-rogue “government”, Strayer essentially admits that the so-called “patriation” was a coup d’état. A coup, also known as a putsch, or an overthrow, is the illegal seizure of a government.
However, Strayer, while admitting the coup — in which, of course, he participated, and later enjoyed the prestige of being a federally appointed judge under the coup constitution he, himself helped to impose — calls it “legitimate” despite the admitted “legal deficit”. Strayer rests his case for the “legitimacy” (handy fascist word from the Carl Schmidt era) of the 1982 putsch on the elaborateness of procedures attending the imposition of the “new” constitution.
London School of Economics[5] blogger and Dawson College (of Montreal) history professor, Frédéric Bastien, describes a bit of the engineered facade under which the Left perpetrated the 1982 “patriation” upon unsuspecting Canadians.
In quoting, I give no credibility to Bastien’s April 9th, 2013 pot-boiler, La Bataille de Londres (The Battle of London), which only adds mirrors to the smoke obscuring the absolute illegality of the 1982 “patriation”.
Speaking of the celebrations of April 17th, 1982, on Canada’s so-called “patriation” of its constitution, with crowds bustling to purchase t-shirts and memorabilia, Bastien correctly notes:
But the buyers in quest of legal erudition seem few in number among the spectators pressed along the whole route of the Queen and Prince Philip.
These last, in a ritual inherited from another era, arrive in a horse-drawn coach flanked by an escort of Royal Canadian Mounted Police wearing the fabled red tunic. A clamor goes up as the royals pass –- he, sporting the uniform of the Royal Regiment of Canada, she wearing a turquoise dress and a mink fur –- while the crowd waves little maple-leaf flags that have been distributed for free. Some are so very moved that they cry hot tears at the sight of the queen who, arrived upon the hill, lowers the maple leaf to hoist the flag of the House of Windsor straight to the top of the Peace Tower.
At the time, no one underscored this strange paradox. Old Canada had deployed the most beautiful symbols of her tradition for a ritual by which, as it were, she sacrificed herself to the benefit of a “new” country, a country which Trudeau wished to see profoundly refounded. The hara-kiri will take place symbolically on this altar of the new nation.
For, no doubt is possible, in spite of the royal protocol and the presence of the queen. What is taking place at this instant will shatter Canada, and the person responsible for this change is certainly Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who, in the parade of dignitaries, arrives right behind the sovereign.”
Did you know that the Canada founded for us in 1867 was supposed to have destroyed itself in 1982?
Are you not aware that the “hara kiri” of 1982 was a step on the way to yet another and final act of national suicide, the North American multicultural, nationless, regional, continental union?
By incorporating a so-called “Charter” crafted to ensure the importation into the “new” constitution of Canada of provisions of UN treaties and accords, the 1982 “new” constitution purports to bind the new parliament and legislatures to undertakings from which the supreme lawful Parliament and Legislatures, on the Westminster model, were at all times free to withdraw. Canada’s “new” 1982 political and legal institutions are thus subordinate, not supreme.
In other words, the “legal effect” of the Charter subordinates Canada to the UN as the future seat of world government. Absent the 1982 coup d’état, under the misnomer, flag-waving and blinding lights of “patriation”, the supreme Westminster-model Parliament which still remains the one and only lawful Parliament belonging to Canada, could not be subordinated to any other authority, such as the U.N. or a one-world government.
Canada’s lawful Supreme Parliament of 1867 could not even bind itself, since the permanent freedom of the electorate depended upon the ability of any particularly constituted Westminster-model Parliament to “make or unmake any law whatever” of any of its particularly constituted predecessor Parliaments.
This is because the lawful Constitution of Canada is based upon the animating principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, also called Parliamentary Supremacy.
There are at least two components of this principle, which act in corollary:
(1) No particularly elected Parliament may bind a subsequently elected successor Parliament (it may not even bind itself);
(2) There must always be a “successor Parliament”, which means, of the same type and genus as its predecessors.
Albert Venn Dicey in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution described the principle like this (1889, 3rd Edition) at page 38:
The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever ; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.
Dicey was speaking of the British Constitution and the British Parliament, the supreme Mother of all Parliaments — and fountain of perpetual freedom — from which Canada’s own Constitution and Parliament are descended.
This principle of perpetual unfettered sovereignty guarantees perpetual freedom to the peoples who live under it. They can never be overtaken by a tyranny, which is to say, a regime any or all of whose laws are final and irrevocable, and cannot be “unmade” in virtue of the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Canada’s Parliament can no longer “make or unmake any law whatever”. That is the “legal effect” of the 1982 coup, which stripped the electorate of essential guarantees, including subjecting it to the “government of judges”, against which the Preamble of 1867 is a written warranty.
Which is to say, the Preamble of 1867 guarantees to the Canadians a “constitution similar in principle” to that of the United Kingdom, as that constitution stood in 1867. The sole dissimilarity, in the Canadian case, is the somewhat American division of powers between federal and provincial levels, although in Canada — quite different from America — the division vests sovereignty in the federal level under a constitutional monarchy, which is one and indivisible with nation and people.
This was accomplished in legal terms by reversing the American formula. In Canada, it is the Provinces whose powers are enumerated (see Section 92). The lawful constitution of 1867 conferred the full general residuary power (full national sovereignty) upon the central federal Parliament; mere “examples” of the matters subject of that wide power are listed at section 91 of the 1867 BNA Act.
The 1982 coup constitution with its U.N.-style Charter and its interpretative methods drawn from those in the post-war European region, gave implied power to a new judiciary under the new constitution to interpret the Charter, and to strike down acts of parliament not in accord with federally appointed judicial whim. Whereas, the laws of the lawful Westminster-model Parliament of 1867 were supreme, and could not be struck down by anyone.
Thus, the classic Parliamentary Sovereignty belonging to Canada as expounded by Albert Venn Dicey, and guaranteed by the Preamble of 1867, was eliminated for a system of judicial supremacy under a federal executive putsch in close control of unelected judges; with that executive itself, in turn, in the apparent control of the corporate fascists of whom Power Corporation of Canada is emblematic.
Canada has thus traded its free Parliamentary institutions of 1867 — accompanied by the freedom of speech essential to them — for a “modern” totalitarian dictatorship in a velvet judicial glove run from behind the scenes by appointed bag-men of the globalist elites.
In these two lectures, Barry Lee Strayer attempts to defend the 1982 coup d’état, mainly by invoking the name of Hans Kelsen, whose theories, Strayer says, have been a considerable “comfort” to the “judicial mind” in cases calling for courts to recognize the acts of de facto (i.e., rogue or illegal) governments. We must therefore understand that every “government” in Canada since 1982 has been rogue and illegal, and this notwithstanding the mere procedure of “democratic” election.
In this OCR of the lectures, the pagination exactly follows the scans of the pamphlet.
Please notify me if you find a glitch in the OCR, and I will fix it. Thank you.
P.S. There is no quotes widget for this free hosting service at WordPress.com, so I have flung a tower of memorable quotations from Mr. Strayer down the sidebar.
__________
[1] Constitutional Revolution, Barry Lee Strayer. The source for this is not paginated in googlebooks, but it’s linked here:
[2] Lester Pearson, “aka” Mike, was outed as a Soviet agent by Elizabeth Bentley in the U.S. McCarran hearings. A bit of his FBI file is online, with a 1951 letter warning the RCMP.
[3] C.A.W., Manley O. Hudson, “The International Law of the Future“, April 1944, 22 Canadian Bar Review 277. See page 285 for the name “F. R. Scott, Montreal, Quebec, Professor of Civil Law, McGill University”. Wondering if that Civil Law mention was an error; he was a constitutional lawyer.
[4] The Court and the Constitution, Comments on the Supreme Court Reference on Constitutional Amendment, By Peter Russell, Robert Décary, William Lederman, Noel Lyon, Dan Soberman, Institute of Governmental Relations, Queen’s University, Kingston, 1982, ISBN 0-88911-034-4 (paper); ISBN 0-88911-035-2 (cloth). Nota Bene, my copy of this document, linked here, is a PDF provided to me by Queens via email.
[5] The Fabian-Socialist London School of Economics was founded by the pro-Soviet marriage partnership of Sydney and Beatrice Webb, putative authors of Soviet Communism — A New Civilization, their famous two-volume “first-person” report on a visit into the Soviet Union.
However, On April 7, 1952, a former high official of the Soviet Foreign Office, Igor Bogolepov, testified before the United States Senate sub-committee on Internal Security, that he had helped prepare the material for the Webbs’ favorable report in the Soviet Foreign Office. Said Bogolepov:
“the bulk of the material was prepared for them in the Soviet Foreign Office”.
In other words, the Webb’s “impartial” first-hand account was nothing but pro-Communist propaganda.
The late Jacques Parizeau, a former leader of the Communist Parti Québécois, was a London School of Economics graduate, amongst numerous others in the Canadian infrastructure, including the PQ’s “opposition”, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Canada’s federal and provincial institutions are in fact riddled with pro-Soviet indoctrinees of Soviet propaganda and Fabian Socialism aimed at supplanting self-government with the “trained” “bureaucracy of the future Socialist State”.
PATRIATION AND LEGITIMACY OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION 