[gpm]

> Thats a very dishonest history of the rights of Canadians derived as subjects to her Majesty.

I assure you, it's not dishonest, it might be ill informed. I'm not a Canadian legal history scholar...

What, pray tell, constitutional rights did Canadians derive as subjects to her Majesty prior to 1982? Also how was the Canadian parliament able to bypass those rights when they didn't have authority over the constitution? Sources would be appreciated.

> And a very dishonest portrayal of the October Crisis

It's not a portrayal of that at all, it's a simple statement that an act and was invoked and a point of law without discussing the events that caused it to be invoked.