TO > those who care about good government in British Columbia
When my old man was at the Dominion War College in 1942, he was taught “sometimes getting shot at is the best intel. you can get”. That was demonstrated on Saturday Jan 09 2021 as we protested outside the head office Ministry of Health in Victoria BC.
The corner of Blanshard and Pandora streets is a good spot for high-vis. advertising — hundreds of cars per hour going by. Many of them stop at the traffic light. So, they do read our signs. Response from motorists was 2 to 1 in sympathy with us. But that spot has dis-advantages, too. A couple of weeks ago, I was hit on the chest by a plastic water bottle, hurled from a passing car. Startled, came to mind Mick Jagger singing: “I went down to the demonstration, to get my fair share of abuse”. Not even a flesh wound though … didn’t need to let it bleed
A dangerous exception to the generally-polite response we get, was, the guy who came up bellowing “I told you last week to get the **** off this corner”. Sensing trouble I took a photo of him — > large, slovenly, drunk, belligerent, could be 50 to 60 years old, one of the street people holed-up at the govt.-funded slum a few blocks away. Sure, you can make excuse for his kind … adrift in the big city, in deep personal pain. But the moment you find yourself the target upon which they’re unloading their problems, is the moment when sympathy is ditched.
When he noticed me taking his picture, he charged at me. I fled. He chased for about 20 yards before giving up. Demons still yowling out of him … he headed across the street towards the group of protesters, raging that he was “going to punch them”. By then, someone had called 9-1-1. About 20 minutes later, a cop did show up. I told him what had gone on. Of course, such altercation is pretty minor compared with the grief police deal with, daily. The charming little old, very British town of good mannered White people which I knew half a century ago, has gone to the dogs.
But the good news, is : standing 40 feet away from the group, conversing with VPD constable #498, was an opportunity for me to get info. re their attitude to what we are doing. I asked him if he had his ticket book with him. He said he did not. I don’t believe that for a second. I pointed out that the GATHERING of us regulars at this place … which our critics call a “superspreader” ! …contravenes the Public Health Act Order. He agreed, saying “you’re all ticketable right now”. So, of course, I said: “Well then, give me a ticket.”
He declined, saying: ‘You’re carrying on a lawful protest’. Yet, I did sense that if I’d pushed the envelope, I would’ve talked myself into one. So I backed off. I said “I don’t need one. I had an incident on the ferries this week which is a good set of facts for challenging the govt. policy about masks” Nodding towards the Law courts building, visible just down the way, I said “I’ll be in court with it. I know police officers aren’t interested in hearing about the law”.
To his credit, he replied “I am interested in the law”….. so I reeled-off section 103 of the Public Health Act. Explaining right there is the defence to the strict liability offence created by Bonnie Henry’s Order re EVENTS AND GATHERINGS. He did not say anything more, yet I got the impression that he was thinking for himself.
I’ve been at the big anti-lockdown Events in BC, plus several small ones. There has been no major blowback. An occasional cat-call that we are “fools”, but that’s all. My sense, is, the zombies going by with their fashion-statement muzzles on tight, are confounded by public presence of so many ordinary folks, organized, boldly contradicting official propaganda. At this stage of this authentic populist movement, provoking an individual to reconsider the Central Party Line is what we’re about. Human beings go in-sane in herds. They come to their senses one at a time.
In Kelowna and Nanaimo, the RCMP have handed out notices alleging violations of the Public Health Act Order to people gathered to protest govt. policy. Sgt. Roberts was the officer in charge on-site at the first big rally in Vancouver last September. When I asked him if they were going to hand out Violation Notices, he said : “we decided not to issue tickets today because the Charter is above the Public Health Act” direct quote
To a certain extent, we have The Man with the Gun on our side. The Victoria and Vancouver Police do not charge us because they have received legal counsel, advising them that our GATHERINGS are Charter-protected political activity
The human mind has a miraculous innate logic programme. The contrast between thousands of peaceful people, marching through the downtowns of major cities in BC, cops escorting our marches rather than bothering us, versus nonsense purveyed on the lamestream media — images of thugs in uniform bullying individuals who are just going about daily life — works away at the consciences of ordinary citizens. Something’s gotta give.
As for the argument out of section 103, it’s important to realize that under the previous Health Act, there had to be evidence to support an Order. But the new statute changed it so that onus is now on the Accused, to prove his innocence. One more detail telling that British Columbia now suffers under communist tyranny. The way it’s going, I expect to be making this argument before a Judge. I sincerely do believe that the entire SARS-2-Covid19 extravaganza is medical malpractice ‘of the first water’ : a HOAX.
At such a trial, I will be submitting hundreds of articles grabbed from the Internet, written by world-class experts, undoing the very premise for the Order of that Head Witch, namely Bonnie Henry. Any half-way intelligent person, with integrity to honestly examine such items, must conclude that there is mass psychosis upon the land.
Wrong is put in place of right : Right is called Wrong. And the man who calleth for Justice, maketh himself a prey
Section 103 of the Public Health Act Revised Statutes of British Columbia
103 A person must not be convicted of an offence under this Act if the person proves that he or she
(a) exercised due diligence by taking all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence,
(b) reasonably believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would establish that the person did not contravene this Act or a regulation made under it,
(c) relied on information or an instruction provided to the person by a health officer who was exercising a power or performing a duty under this Act, if the person had no reason to believe that the information may have been false or the instruction may have been unauthorized, or
(d) acted under the order of a health officer who was exercising a power or performing a duty under this Act, if the person had no reason to believe that the order may have been unauthorized under this Act or any other enactment. — Gordon Watson