Canada is a kingdom, or a dominion, whose head of state is a Queen, Elizabitch the second. She is also “Queen” of the United Kingdom and of 32 other countries and territories. To this day there are Loyalist in Canada and America who swear allegiance both publicly and privately to Britain. Like a pack of dogs, Canada fought France for the Crown (occupied land of the Aboriginal people) of Great Britain in 1759. Canada claims to be an independent kingdom and a member of the British Commonwealth, yet the Queen is the sole legal owner of all the land of Canada. Imagine this. The private “holdership” factor, based on freehold tenure of housing is 67%. For all other land less than 9.7% is privately held with over 90% (90.3 %,) of the land remaining as Crown leasehold, otherwise known as Public Land.  Crown land is administered for the Crown by various agencies and departments of the government of Canada. Of this, 50% is administered by the Provincial governments and 40.3% is Crown land administered by the federal government. Note that whenever the Queen stops by Canada, she usually leaves through the Rideau Canal, with homage from the peasants, in the form of taxes.



How Canada is owned

All physical land in Canada is the property of the Crown, Queen Elisabeth 11. There is no provision in the Canada Act, or in the Constitution Act 1982 which amends it, for any Canadian to own any physical land in Canada. All that Canadians may hold, in conformity with medieval and feudal law, is “an interest in an estate in land in fee simple”. Land defined as ‘Crown land’ in Canada, and administered by the Federal Government and the Provinces, is merely land not ‘dedicated’ or assigned in freehold tenure. Freehold is tenure, not ownership. Freehold land is ‘held’ not ‘owned’.

Revisiting Robert Malthus

If you listen to some of these bullshit tel-lie-vison ads about UNICEF and all those missionary invasion of Africa, you would think that Africa is one cup of grain away from extinction. Though the elite wish this, it aint happening soon. Still we hear the constant braying of these donkeys about world hunger. But what is the most common cause of hunger in the world? Is it drought? Is it flood? Locusts? Crop diseases? (Well maybe but that is another story of warfare) No, most hunger in the world has absolutely nothing to do with food shortages. People, who go to bed hungry in rich and in poor countries, do so in places where markets and stores are filled with food that they cannot or even shouldn’t have.

Despite this fact, ignorant people are bamboozled by evil doers into talking about reforming our food system by focusing on raising yields, or finding a laboratory way of ensuring year round yields.  All based on Euro scientific not traditional foods, such as what Monsanto provides. Though it is true that we might need more food in coming years, it is also true that the world produces more food than are needed to sustain its entire population. The problem is unequal access to food, unequal distribution of land, and wealth. In truth the hunger of the poor is a choice of the rich, political entities or followers of Malthusian solution.

Inequity and politics, not food shortages, were at the root of almost all famines in the 20th century. During Ethiopian famines in the 1980s, the country also exported food. Brazil, exported $20 billion worth of food in 2002, while millions of its people went hungry. Many of even the poorest nations can feed themselves—or could in a society with fairer allocation of resources. Resources such as land and access to certain amenities like water. 

It can be hard to grasp the degree to which the Western lifestyle is implicated. In Jamaica one favourite sea food is salted cod. Jamaica does not sit on salt water, but import the cod from New Found land at the expense of local fish. We don’t realize that when we buy imported shrimp or coffee we are often literally taking food from poor people. It is hard for many of us to recognize that the society we live in helps create poverty and insecurity. Our economy is based on endless production and growth. We’re told that if the rich get richer, it makes other people less poor. Wouldn’t it make much more sense to enrich the poor directly, to help them get land and access to resources?


1 2 3 4  5

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s