THE QUEEN’S SPEECH

________________
 
1.  The Globe and Mail’s report of the official English translation of the Queen’s speech is full of errors, whether typographical or duplicated from another source is unknown.  I am placing the errors in brackets, in footnotes, and re-translating myself, using the official French speech published in Le Droit  on Tuesday, October 13th, 1964, p. 10.  The next words in the Globe and Mail English version read:  {all the more in the resolutions formulated here established the basis}.

2.  {Commonwealth a country} {where I can express myself} {think that there exists in our officially in French}

3.  The French says “approfondissement de ses richesses”, i.e., “the deepening of its riches”.

4.  {the intelligences}

5.  “Colonel-in-chief” — For the purpose of possible future research, how is it that Mrs. Windsor has assumed what appears to be a subordinate military title, when in fact she is supposed to be the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Canada? Has she, in doing this, in the precincts of the Quebec Legislature in the context of this particular speech, perhaps impliedly “restructured” the constitution to subordinate herself to unseen or unknown entities in Quebec who are intended to take over the new “country” upon Mrs. Windsor’s unlawful proposed ratification of a new constitution?

6.  {that burn there forever}

7.  {in Cyprus}

8.  {held a child on their arms} The French says “in” {qui ont serré un enfant dans leurs bras}.

9.  {how to lighten}  The French says “illuminate them” {les illuminer}.

10.  We can see here that the natural ethnic patriotism of the French Canadians has been seized upon to motivate them to destroy Canada for a future still unknown to them — a future that emerges clearly in the pages of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois which plans a Communist state of Quebec.  In addition, the planned unconstitutional mass immigration for Horace Kallen’s polyethnic pluralism (multiculturalism) is also intended, the outcome of which Communist Pierre Elliott Trudeau in his 1962 April issue of pro-Soviet Cité Libre anticipates will be the “disappearance” of the French Canadians from the face of the Earth.  And yet, Mrs. Windsor pretends the warmest of human feeling towards the French Canadian mothers whose children will vanish from their arms as the Catholic educational system is shut down for a secular system to accommodate hundreds of foreign immigrant races of all denominations whose presence will depose the French Canadians, destroy their self-government, and finally eliminate their ethnicity except as a footnote in history.

11.  “The ways of democracy” — Means, apparently, the well-thought-out tactic of the elites to force target national populations to vote to destroy themselves for the New World Order.

12.  {should not fear to reassess its political philosophy}  Those words do not appear in the French speech published in Le Droit; but, Mrs. Windsor does say them in her French speech recorded by the CBC:  “Mais un État dynamique ne doit pas craindre de repenser sa philosophie politique.”  For this transcript, I am translating the words that she spoke.  It should also be noted that while Le Droit skips that line in her address, there is also in the “official” French at that juncture a confusion of two of her separate statements, which Le Droit merges, as seen in the table below, compared to her words in the CBC video:

13.  The use of the word “agreement” (agreement reached) in the (Globe’s official) English version is significant.  Mrs. Windsor, in the CBC video, uses the French word “protocole”, which translates literally as “draft treaty”.  This presages the coming demand to dissolve Confederation and replace it with the European system, by pretending that the British North America Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 3), is a “compact” between “two” “races”; and that being a compact, i.e., a “contract”, or “agreement”, it can be dissolved and terminated by another agreement.  This is in fact a deliberately facetious “interpretation” of the British North America Act, 1867 in order to denature and trivialize it for the purpose of getting rid of it.  The choice of the French word “trace” is also interesting in this context (“un protocol tracé il y a cent ans”).  While “trace” in French means literally a “site plan” or a “tracing”, as in a blueprint, it also evokes the related French word “trace” meaning “vestige,” as in something faded, or a remnant.  The words chosen for this speech thus happen to diminish and devalue the Constitution of Canada as a faded remnant of an old contract that is merely dissoluble.  In subsequent decades, an erroneous statement of Lord Chancellor Lord Sankey to similar effect for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the “Aeronautics case” (In re Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada [Privy Council] [1932] AC 54) will be used by the domestic and foreign enemies of Canada to harp on the supposed nature of Canada as nothing but a “two-race” contract with a view to overthrowing Canada’s true, legal Confederation.  Even the White House (a Trilateralist Administration under President Carter), will favor the “two nations” compact theory in the 29-month lead-up to the 1980 Quebec referendum to overthrow Canada for the EEC-EU system.  I apologize for digressing in the course of a transcript.

14. And I apologize again, as I need to complete the previous idea.  The Globe’s official English [Monday, October 12th, 1964, p. 8] says:  “To fully succeed, it must manifest an effective understanding, freely entered into, that will be an expression of our country’s maturity.”; Le Droit [October 13, 1964, p. 10] says:  “Pour réussir pleinement il doit produire une entente efficace et librement consentie qui sera l’expression de la maturité de notre pays.”  Mrs. Windsor, about 50 minutes and 24 seconds into the full-length CBC video, says the same words in French, except that she says “serait” (would be) not “sera” (will be).&nbap; However, the important French word is “entente”, translated as “understanding” in the English, and again, implying a dissoluble contract, not a constitution.  Mrs. Windsor effectively has made the apparently irrational statement that for Confederation to “succeed fully”, it must be replaced by something else.  Mrs. Windsor has blatantly called for the overthrow of the Constitution of Canada.  Given her remark on “patriotism” and her suggestion — both in the same speech — that the role of the Monarchy is to “personify the democratic state” (a statement which would have Canada’s Founding Fathers rolling in their graves, who deliberately chose an indivisible, unitary Monarchy as opposed to American “democracy”), we begin to sense the plan for the increasing nationalization of Quebec and a referendum (“democratic state”; “legitimate authority”, “legality of means”) as the tool for dissolving the supposed “contract” in order to replace Confederation with what will be the European system.  There is no constitutional power to replace Confederation, so use is made of words that evade this basic issue, “legitimate”, “means”, etc.  In other words, Mrs. Windsor has placed herself, as Monarch, above the Constitution, which she encourages us to destroy on her say-so, using “democracy” and her own personal sanction of “democracy” as “the means”.

15.  While Mrs. Windsor now switches to the English “language of Sir John A. Macdonald”, the words alleging Canada in 1867 was founded by and composed of “two races”, “two great civilizations” are apparently her own.  In contrast, in the 1865 Debates on Confederation (Hansard), we find Attorney General George Etienne Cartier describe four (4) races as those which are about to found Canada.  But of course, if you don’t reduce the 3-race British to just “one race” and “civilization”, you can’t so easily combine it with the founding French Canadians to allege a rather cut-and-dried “two-party” “compact”, a device by which you are seeking to dissolve Confederation.  (It should not be forgotten that it is unconstitutional for a Monarch to act politically, as Mrs. Windsor does here; although the 1964 Globe and Mail will make apology for her in a separate special editorial.  Being so reminded, we should look into the history of why British monarchs are not entitled to act politically; and remember that they are not above the Constitution, but “below” it.  “The King is below no man, but God and the Law”:  Bracton).   Here is George Etienne Cartier, in the joint Legislative Assembly of Upper and Lower Canada (which will become Ontario and Quebec in 1867) speaking on Tuesday, February 7, 1865:   “Look, for instance, at the United Kingdom, inhabited as it was by three great races.  (Hear, hear.)  Had the diversity of race impeded the glory, the progress, the wealth of England?  Had they not rather each contributed their share to the greatness of the Empire?  Of the glories of the senate, the field, and the ocean, of the successes of trade and commerce, how much was contributed by the combined talents, energy and courage of the three races together?  (Cheers.)  In our own Federation we should have Catholic and Protestant, English, French, Irish and Scotch, and each by his efforts and his success would increase the prosperity and glory of the new Confederacy.  (Hear, hear.)  He viewed the diversity of races in British North America in this way:  we were of different races, not for the purpose of warring against each other, but in order to compete and emulate for the general welfare.  (Cheers.)”

Note:  This typed transcript was prepared by Kathleen Moore for the legal research purposes of Habeas Corpus Canada on 9 June 2012 from the official English text published by the Globe and Mail on Monday, October 12th, 1964, p. 8.  Due to major typesetting errors in that English text, the official French speech published in Le Droit on October 13, 1964, p. 10, was also consulted in preparing this English transcript.

The French network of the CBC filmed the speech live in the Quebec Legislature.  The official transcripts in French and in English differ slightly from the words actually spoken.  Therefore, a third transcript is being made, solely of the words spoken in the video.