Obstruct plate

Because they do not have the right to abuse our rights. It's that simple. By law (not statute as statutes are NOT laws) we are NOT obliged to do anything that interferes with our rights and freedoms. We cannot be forced to sign or agree to anything. Signing is a voluntary movement of ours.....we do not have to do it. Also, you need to remember that we the people have to consent to being governed and we can withdraw our consent at ANY time.

Getting a license plate and a driver's license are not rights. If the terms are violated then the privilege can be revoked.

CoolChick's arguments about "our rights and freedoms" would (perhaps unfortunately) work better in the US than they do here. We hear so much about that country that we sometimes think our situation as citizens is like theirs: in significant ways, it is not. Think of the famous distinction between their "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and our "peace, order and good government." Our individual rights are much more circumscribed than theirs. If somebody can correct me, please do, but I don't think any (?) US jurisdiction allows its police to conduct random "spot checks" of drivers simply because they are on that road at that time. In Canada, such "spot checks" are routine. On either side of the border, though, an individual citizen withdrawing his or her "consent to be governed" automatically indicates that he or she is willing to accept the legal consequences. We Canadians as a group certainly have the right to withdraw our consent -- we get a chance to exercise that right at every election -- but as individuals, in a given situation, not so much.

Squishy wrote:

Getting a license plate and a driver's license are not rights. If the terms are violated then the privelege can be revoked.

You are wrong... according to the Bill of Rights..we have a RIGHT to travel on our highways....it is a RIGHT.... not a privilige as we are brainwashed into believing. Look it up....

The highways can be travelled on foot and on bike, as well as by bus or taxi.

Do you have a quotation of the section you are referring to? The closest thing I can find is our right to mobility under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which do not guarantee the use of highways.

We as human beings have a right to travel freely. It is clearly stated under Common law... I will get the exact location of that 'right' and post.

Highways are highways...doesn't matter whether its a 400 series or a country gravel road !!

This may help you understand the situation as per US proven cases....

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/right2travel.shtml

I will find the Canadian equivalent shortly... brb

"Right to travel freely" sounds like mobility rights. It is outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (not the Bill of Rights) and reads as such:

Mobility of citizens

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

Rights to move and gain livelihood

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

Limitation

(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and

(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

Affirmative action programs

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

No mention of highways - you can travel by any means available to you, which does not have to be by a vehicle you drive. Your right to mobility may be exercised on foot, by bus, by train, by plane, or as a passenger in someone else's vehicle.

CoolChick wrote:

This may help you understand the situation as per US proven cases....

Don't recall that Ontario is in the USA......NEXT..

hwybear wrote:

Don't recall that Ontario is in the USA......NEXT..

Don't know about that "Toronto" place...they even have that weird 'merican accent.

Proper1 wrote:

If somebody can correct me, please do, but I don't think any (?) US jurisdiction allows its police to conduct random "spot checks" of drivers simply because they are on that road at that time.

Several states do, including Michigan, where I lived for two years. Usually in states where random checks are not allowed, an officer must have some reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle, or have witnessed an action by the driver.

Proper1 wrote:

On either side of the border, though, an individual citizen withdrawing his or her "consent to be governed" automatically indicates that he or she is willing to accept the legal consequences.

Well said. If someone really doesn't want to be governed by the laws of Canada, that person has an easy option: LEAVE.

CoolChick wrote:

This may help you understand the situation as per US proven cases....

Nothing in the United States Bill of Rights or Constitution gives a person a right to own or operate a motor vehicle. That link was the work of a libertarian who cherry-picked cases that agreed with him and ignored the hundreds of cases that didn't. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms only guarantees mobility, not the right to drive a vehicle. Put it this way, if I have a "right" to drive, is the government going to step in and give me a free car? As for your "right" to travel, I think Squishy said it best:

Squishy wrote:

you can travel by any means available to you, which does not have to be by a vehicle you drive. Your right to mobility may be exercised on foot, by bus, by train, by plane, or as a passenger in someone else's vehicle.

But as for this...

Squishy wrote:

Don't know about that "Toronto" place...

You have got to be kidding me, Squish.

Come on, you have to admit Toronto is one of the most "American" cities in Canada. I lived there for over ten years and during that time I learned very little about Canadian culture. I did know about the latest catchphrases, fashion trends, music developments, and other stuff from across the border.

I'll forgive you guys when you adopt either "aboat" or "aboot" as the correct (and only) pronunciation.

hwybear wrote:

CoolChick wrote:

This may help you understand the situation as per US proven cases....

Don't recall that Ontario is in the USA......NEXT..

Actually whether or not Ontario is in US or not is not the issue... LAW is based on Common Laws both in the USA UK and Canada. We have a RIGHT to travel which stems from Magna Carta and the UK Bill of Rights. Canada is a commonwealth country and the Laws of Canada are based on BRITISH Law. That is why the QUEEN still graces the Canadian bill of exchange (ie. legal tender )

That lady on our legal tender happens to be the Queen of Canada, but yes - we have a queen because of our relationship with the United Kingdom. However, are you saying that common law is the only valid law, and anything enacted after that is not valid unless consented to by every individual? And assuming that, does not choosing to live in this area mean you have consented to all applicable laws? Stating that an "act" is not law is false - it is not common law, but it is still law.

Our right to mobility does not guarantee our right to drive. If you, as a law-abiding citizen, were told by the government that you were unable to leave the city of London or the province of Ontario, then your right to mobility would be violated. Revoking your drivers license still leaves several modes of transport available to you; you don't get to choose your preferred mode. As long as some way of leaving the area is available to you, your rights are intact with regards to mobility.

I am saying we have a right to travel PERIOD. people were driving motororised vehicles before the Highway Traffic Act ever was !!!!!!

And YES... Acts require our consent... try getting a drivers licence without signing anything.... or buying a car or getting plates or getting a new ownershipo...all require signatures.... in other words CONSENT...you are consenting to the terms of that contract. If you dont sign it you are not bound by it..... Same when you get a mortgage..you SIGN for it and are bound by the rules within it.... Dont sign, don't consent, hence you cannot breach !!!!

Mobility DOES guarantee our right to travel by operating any vehicle.... so long as we are not engaged in commerce. Commerce being as a true DRIVER which is a JOB... which you would get PAID for. Then you act in commerce and are subject to commercial liability. I do not drive for money I drive to travel from point A to point B.....that is my RIGHT. Removing consent to be governed under an Act means removing consent to be bound by the terms of that contract. We are supposed to be FREE as a people so therefore we are free to sign or not sign, consent or not. You can remove yourself from the governance of anyone especially a legal FICTION which is a corporation.

Government is not there as a GOD, it is there as an elected body to SERVE the people....we are not supposed to be SERVING them. As with police officers they are SERVANTS of the people not vice versa... we should remember that and more to the point so should they !!!

As for the ignoramous who suggests we can leave if we dont like it...Why should people leave... people are sovereign and have a RIGHT to be here unlike governments who have to be elected to govern and even then are never sovereign as they are a CORPORATION acting in COMMERCE.

And to the individual who posted and then deleted his post.... we have a right to travel by any mode of transport not just BY FOOT as you suggested... But I gather you know that and thats why you deleted your post.... If a common law/ natural law does not state any limitations then no limitations apply...

We have a right to travel PERIOD

So I can jump in a plane and fly it around because I have not signed anything to do with a pilot's licence and thus am not bound by any aviation laws?

I can go enter restricted airspace and refuse to be shot down because I do not consent to their laws. We'll see how that goes.

Going along the same subject, how do you feel about road closures due to parades or demonstrations? Do they violate your right to drive down the road you choose?

CoolChick wrote:

I am saying we have a right to travel PERIOD.

This is also what I am saying. Walking is travelling. PERIOD. Biking is travelling. PERIOD. Taking a bus is travelling. PERIOD!

Squishy wrote:

So I can jump in a plane and fly it around because I have not signed anything to do with a pilot's licence and thus am not bound by any aviation laws?

I can go enter restricted airspace and refuse to be shot down because I do not consent to their laws. We'll see how that goes.

you really do live in Orillia....Next Stop....Moosonee

and seeing as VIA rail On strike, and Airlines dropping out of thesky like a blacklflies cuz of the economy, Id say our choices are getting more "LIMITED" tohisFreedom of Movement thing... could always hitch hike

Are there really no roads up to there? I should go exploring someday with the Escape.

Hey! I can demand the government supply me with a plane and flying lessons because I want to travel there. I KNOW MY RIGHTS!

You miss the point ...

You are bound by common law remember ? So you will be committing a crime if you cause harm loss or injury to anyone. If you were to attempt to fly a plane and cause it to land on property or a human being you would be liable to be tried under common law....Under common law we are all responsible for causing harm to anyone or loss or injury by any means.

People parading or protesting would be exercising their rights... my right to travel would allow me to travel along another route because if I were to plough right through them i would cause harm injury and probably loss.

Squishy wrote:

Are there really no roads up to there? I should go exploring someday with the Escape.

Hey! I can demand the government supply me with a plane and flying lessons because I want to travel there. I KNOW MY RIGHTS!

Actually you are learning.... We actually do have a right to Education... which is clear when you see that so far children are freely educated.... for some reason it stops being free after high school.... maybe thats got something to do with your signature being valid at adulthood... just a guess !!!!!!!!!!!

No one is being harmed simply by my flying through restricted airspace (other than myself after being shot down).

Let's consider the Royal Commission Inquiry into Civil Rights, where chairman James McRuer wrote the following on pp. 730‑31 of Report No. 1, vol. 2:

It might well be that the police should have greater powers to control and investigate the use of motor vehicles on the highway. A motor vehicle is a dangerous machine. If it is not carefully used, it is a lethal one. It is a convenient vehicle for the commission of crimes of all sorts. Those who take motor vehicles on the highway have no civil right to do so. They may do so only if they hold a licence for that purpose. That requirement is no invasion of civil rights.

[emphasis mine]

Additionally, section 31 of the Highway Traffic Act reads:

Driving a privilege

31. The purpose of this Part is to protect the public by ensuring that,

(a) the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely; and

(b) full driving privileges are granted to novice and probationary drivers only after they acquire experience and develop or improve safe driving skills in controlled conditions. 1993, c. 40, s. 1.

You may challenge that in court and get a judge to agree with you, but until that happens, driving is a privilege as explicitly stated in law (yes, the HTA is "law").

Education is not free, government forces us to send kids there.. Our property tax pays for that....before we have children, while we have children and until we die we pay taxes for education. I can not imagine the rise if we had to foot the bill for education beyond high school, those persons are old enough to get their butt out of the house and go to work and earn some money to pay for their own education. What education part seems to be free is the lazy ass parents that won't feed their kids and we foot more of the bill for that too!

Maybe next time I go to enter another country, when they ask a question, Just tell the customs "I have the right to travel there"....wonder how that goes.

Squishy... If you harm yourself or cause injury to yourself because of your actions maybe you could be classed as certifiably insane.... just a thought !!!

We have a natural right to do so (re: your bolded sentence) also insofar as a motor vehicle being a dangerous weapon.....the same could be said of a lawnmower !!!!

Quoting from an ACT is no use !!! It is an ACT.... it is no coincidence that it is called an ACT..... follow me ? People HAVE challenged it... and won.... !!!!

hwybear wrote:

Education is not free, government forces us to send kids there.. Our property tax pays for that....before we have children, while we have children and until we die we pay taxes for education. I can not imagine the rise if we had to foot the bill for education beyond high school, those persons are old enough to get their butt out of the house and go to work and earn some money to pay for their own education. What education part seems to be free is the lazy ass parents that won't feed their kids and we foot more of the bill for that too!

Maybe next time I go to enter another country, when they ask a question, Just tell the customs "I have the right to travel there"....wonder how that goes.

Hello Bear

Actually we are not FORCED to send children to school, we can opt to home school ! Only people who pay property tax are contributing to education for all children....many people rent and do not directly contribute to education.

What about education for the disabled or the mentally challenged ? Are they lazy and should they get their lazy asses out there too?

Poverty is the cause of crime much of the time...so maybe taking a good look at ending poverty would produce a solution....But I doubt that will happen because the government NEEDS crime to pay salaries..including yours !!! Thats why these Acts are valuable to the government it is revenue... it is not about rights, which is what it should be.

Incidently there are some people travelling as we speak without a passport... maybe you should look into it. I am not as stupid as you think I sound !!!

Got any case law showing that s. 31 of the HTA has been successfully challenged in any court of law?

The closest thing I can find to your position are a few cases, mostly in the US, but notably R v. Rowland in Alberta, where driving was deemed a "near right" subject to the driver demonstrating competency. That is, you can't be arbitrarily denied a driver's license, but legislation for the interest of public safety may require you to show that you can safely operate the machine. This would include abiding by traffic laws set by the province, unless you can show that they serve no interest for public safety. Skimming through the HTA, I can't see one that isn't related to safety. I have already shown how the original topic of this thread, an obstructed plate, can pose a danger by obscuring or confusing the identity of the driver.

Squishy... If you harm yourself or cause injury to yourself because of your actions maybe you could be classed as certifiably insane.... just a thought !!!

You're getting off-track here. It is your assertion that we have an absolute right to mobility, through any means. If I choose to exercise that right by flying an airplane (without signing anything; not consenting to aviation laws), then by your argument I should be allowed to fly anywhere I choose to without the government interfering.

But should I do a few repeated low fly-bys of Parliament, I'd bet I'd have a couple of Hornets escorting me to the ground. Violation of rights?

Then maybe instead of a licence which requires our consent.... why dont they give a certificate of competency which would not require our signatures? It would amount to the same, in that our competency to not be a danger is proven. My point is: they do not need our consent ... it is not neccessary to have people enter into contracts to prove their skills or abilities. The contracts are only there for revenue !!!!!

Can someone with a JP buddy either confirm or refute this "consent" thing, or at least know of some legal determination supporting either side? I'll admit that, while it sounds fishy to me, I have little knowledge in that part of law (i.e., the "technicalities").

My thought is that simply by entering the province, you have consented to all applicable laws. You can choose to challenge the law as being unconstitutional, heck, you can even challenge the constitution, but that's "Step 2". Step 1 involves getting charged if you have broken the law, regardless of any signature or place of residence. Until the law is successfully challenged and deemed unenforceable, that part of an "Act" is still the law.

Then again, the legal system works in odd ways.

I can show you a few successes...but first I am interested in hearing what people have to say on the matter. Your desire to learn more is quite uplifting.

Just because you are a 'resident' of a place does not mean you have to consent to anything...free will comes into play with all consents.

A plant is a resident of a place, but it cannot consent to anything !!!! why should a human being ?

CoolChick wrote:

As for the ignoramous who suggests we can leave if we dont like it...Why should people leave...

EXCUSE ME?! There's a good one - use personal insults. A good indicator that you've got nothing to support your ideas. And guess what - I'll reiterate it for YOUR benefit: if you don't like Canada, you can leave. You have that right. If you don't like the government, you can vote for a new one. But you can't decide which laws you will and won't follow. Calling someone an ignoramus is not going to change that. Nice try, though.

EDIT: Since you're so convinced you're right, why haven't you proven otherwise in real life?

CoolChick wrote:

A plant is a resident of a place, but it cannot consent to anything !!!! why should a human being ?

Humans have a bit more reasoning capacity than plants do. Attempting to treat humans, other animals, and plants as equals is (for lack of a better term) crazy hippy-talk.

Radar Identified wrote:

CoolChick wrote:

As for the ignoramous who suggests we can leave if we dont like it...Why should people leave...

EXCUSE ME?! There's a good one - use personal insults. A good indicator that you've got nothing to support your ideas. And guess what - I'll reiterate it for YOUR benefit: if you don't like Canada, you can leave. You have that right. If you don't like the government, you can vote for a new one. But you can't decide which laws you will and won't follow. Calling someone an ignoramus is not going to change that. Nice try, though.

EDIT: Since you're so convinced you're right, why haven't you proven otherwise in real life?

It wasn't written as an insult so I am sorry you took it as such. Telling someone to leave somewhere is rather rude and ignorant, so I was making an observation. You might be surprised what we can do as human being beings as opposed to legal fictions. I wont take offence at you...as you have been so very helpful in other areas...and for that I thank you !

How do you know I haven't proven certain things in real life ?