Fundamental principles cannot be set aside to meet the demands of convenience or to prevent apparent hardship
Quote of the Week
The following comments were reportedly issued by a professional nurse. Though the person remains anonymous, the facts speak for themselves:
“Among all the vaccines I have known in my life (diphtheria, tetanus, measles, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis, meningitis and tuberculosis), I want to also add flu and pneumonia.
I have never seen a vaccine that forced me to wear a mask and maintain my social distance, even when you are fully vaccinated.
I had never heard of a vaccine that spreads the virus even after vaccination.
I had never heard of rewards, discounts, incentives to get vaccinated.
I never saw discrimination for those who didn’t. If you haven’t been vaccinated no one has tried to make you feel like a bad person.
I have never seen a vaccine that threatens the relationship between family, colleagues and friends.
I have never seen a vaccine used to threaten livelihoods, work or school.
I have never seen a vaccine that would allow a 12-year-old to override parental consent.
After all the vaccines I listed above, I have never seen a vaccine like this one, which discriminates, divides and judges society as it is. And as the social fabric tightens… It’s a powerful vaccine! She does all these things except IMMUNIZATION.
If we still need a booster dose after we are fully vaccinated, and we still need to get a negative test after we are fully vaccinated, and we still need to wear a mask after we are fully vaccinated, and still be hospitalized after we have been fully vaccinated, it will likely come to “It’s time for us to admit that we’ve been completely deceived.”
Are Lockdowns Effective?
If they are effective, then where are the supporting statistics? A look at sites from each province and some reporting sites, shows significant statistics in relation to COVID-19, despite the fact that many are incomplete and fail to provide all relevant considerations, such as Bonnie Henry only talking about deaths per “cases” when the real criteria to consider is “infections” (this latter point being the same or lower than the flu).
Despite this, not one province nor the Federal Gov’t are releasing any information or statistics to permit analysis of whether their lockdowns are effective.
Despite this, why are you continuing to enforce lockdowns and restrictions upon us Bonnie Henry?
Recent opposition by gym owners who have opened even in the face of having their business permits cancelled, continues to show mounting opposition by all sectors in our society against these useless COVID-19 restrictions.
England – Is this finally the beginning of the end?
Boris Johnson in England has announced to thunderous applause in Parliament that COVID-19 restrictions including wearing of masks, mandatory vaccinations and working from home will, as of next week, be coming to an end.
British Columbiahttps://experience.arcgis.com/experience/a6f23959a8b14bfa989e3cda29297dedNote: The flu averages about .1% fatality rate from complications, or about 1/1000 infections. That is what is required to be considered – not simply cases as Bonnie Henry falsely informs us.Both these rates have, nonetheless, continued to fall for a year or more. Jan. 19, 2022 Tests 5 332 975 (more than total people in B.C.) Cases 301 178 Only .56% (1/2 of 1%) of tests are positive, or a “case” (Much less if you factor in the 97% false positive rate using the PCR test at 35 cycles) 301 178 Cases ÷ 2 492 deaths = .83% Case Fatality Rate (CFR) Quoted by Bonnie Henry Because few cases are reported due to stigma and many people confusing with flu or common cold due to similarity of symptoms, Bonnie Henry did a study of antibodies in people (which would not exist if they were not already infected) and found an average of eight (8) times more people were infected than were reported cases. Using this figure then: 301 178 x 8 (actual estimated cases by Bonnie Henry) = 2 408 424 Infections 2 408 424 ÷ 2 492 = .010 Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) Less than flu ————-
Lost your employment? You may wish to investigate more and more sites offering employment without masks or jabs. Being unvaccinated is not a permanent obstacle to future employment!https://jablessjobs.work/—————–
HEAR PAUL FROMM, DIRECTOR OF CAFE WITH CHARLES LINCOLN EDWARDS OF NEW ORLEANS — NOT MUCH TO SAY ABOUT FREEDOM: COVID DIVERSITY & VACCINE IDENTITY: COVID LOVE, HATE, & INDIFFERENCE
The Supreme Court, on January 13, 2022, handed down two major COVID-19 related decisions: Biden v. Missouri permanently in favor of far reaching vaccine mandates FOR THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY (due to the power of Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid Laws) and NFIB v. OSHA, which TEMPORARILY stayed the OSHA vaccine mandate for thousands of workers nationwide. The mainstream media’s misrepresentation of these results notwithstanding, the NET Victory went to to Federal Power to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations, and that is how we need to analyze the results of January 13, 2022. Paul Frederick Fromm and I are alone tonight discussing COVID-as-CASTE, COVID-as-DISCRIMINATION, COVID-as-CLASSIFICATION, and other aspects of COVID-as the GLOBAL RESET and New World Order, two years after the “discovery” of COVID-19:
In Medico-Stalinist Quebec, the Unvaccinated Are Banned from Church
Quebec’s Premier François Legault has put in place a COVID-19 restriction that we must denounce and stand up against.
He announced that all places of worship in Quebec must use vaccine passports to refuse entry to unvaccinated people!
This is a clear case where COVID-19 restrictions have gone too far. We cannot allow governments to assume total control over places of worship by letting them dictate the conditions under which their province’s citizens can go to church. One’s vaccination status has no theological relevance to whether one should be permitted to receive sacraments and participate in their faith communities.
To make matters worse, there is strong evidence to suggest that this policy was made without any consultation with religious leaders in Quebec!
In a Christmas letter by Bishop Guy Desrochers of the Diocese of Pembroke, Ontario, he wrote: “And please note that the Bishops of Quebec were not even consulted before the publication of this announcement which seems to me to be totally unfair to a part of our faithful”.
In fact, the Archdiocese in Quebec has chosen to suspend all masses in Quebec City until January 10th instead of complying with the vaccine mandate, suggesting that at least some Catholic bishops in Quebec are opposed to these restrictions.
Keep in mind, there are already restrictions on places of worship in Quebec, which force them to be below a 50% capacity, with a maximum of 250 people. The vast majority of churches understand the importance of taking measures to protect vulnerable people from COVID-19. The fact that many are not on board with the government with this policy should show that this an extreme and unjust policy.
This issue goes beyond personal opinions about COVID-19 vaccines. This is an issue of conscience rights and religious freedoms.
If someone feels they ought not to take any of the COVID-19 vaccines Canada offers due to their religious denomination, due to the connection between most COVID-19 vaccines and HEK-293 (a cell line derived from an aborted fetus), or due to any other sincere and serious reason, they should be allowed to do so without having their right to practice their religion stripped away.
Premier François Legault must recognize this. Government leaders must not be allowed to coerce some of their citizens into receiving a medical procedure by denying them their right to freely worship. Though he is undoubtably under pressure to contain rising cases of the Omicron variant, Premier Legault must do so while respecting the fundamental freedoms of the faithful in Quebec.
Technocracy Triumphant — Manitoba Court Cancels The Charter Rights You Thought You Had
Taking the attitude “who am I to judge” is, under many circumstances, appropriate and admirable. There is one circumstance, however, when it is extremely inappropriate and reprehensible. That is when you are a justice of Her Majesty’s bench before whom one person or group has brought another person or group, complaining that the latter has injured them in violation of the law and asking you for redress of their wrongs. If you happen to be in that situation then your job – your only job – is to hear the case, weight the evidence, and issue a ruling, in short – to judge. To plead humility as an excuse for not doing so is to abandon your duty.
Earlier this year, in the late spring, Chief Justice Glenn Joyal of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba heard evidence that lawyers representing the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms presented on behalf of the Gateway Bible Baptist Church in Thompson, along with six other congregations, two ministers and one other individual in two related but distinct constitutional challenges to the provincial bat flu public health orders. (1) One of these challenged the sweeping powers with insufficient accountability that had been given to the Chief Public Health Officer. The other challenged portions of the public health orders themselves on the grounds that they violated the fundamental freedoms named in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in such a way as could not be justified by the “reasonable limitations” clause of the Charter’s Section 1. The evidence in these challenges was heard in May. After taking the summer to deliberate or take a vacation or go for the world’s record in thumb twiddling or whatever, last week on the twenty-first of October Chief Justice Joyal finally ruled in these cases. For the purposes of distinction the ruling with regards to the constitutionality of the powers of the Chief Public Health Officer will be called “the first ruling” and the ruling with regards to the constitutionality of portions of the orders will be called “the second ruling”.
The Chief Justice ruled against the applicants in both cases. In one sense, however, the second ruling could be called a non-ruling. In paragraph 292 we find the following:
I say that while recognizing and underscoring that fundamental freedoms do not and ought not to be seen to suddenly disappear in a pandemic and that courts have a specific responsibility to affirm that most obvious of propositions.
This is very good and right. The problem is that the next sentence begins with a “but.” Apart from the bad grammar involved – Chief Justice Joyal is old enough to have still had the rule never to begin a sentence with a conjunction like “but” drilled into him in grade school – buts have this nasty habit of leading into material that completely negates everything that precedes the “but”. Here is what followed:
But just as I recognize that special responsibility of the courts, given the evidence adduced by Manitoba (which I accept as credible and sound), so too must I recognize that the factual underpinnings for managing a pandemic are rooted in mostly scientific and medical matters. Those are matters that fall outside the expertise of courts. Although courts are frequently asked to adjudicate disputes involving aspects of medicine and science, humility and the reliance on credible experts are in such cases, usually required. In other words, where a sufficient evidentiary foundation has been provided in a case like the present, the determination of whether any limits on rights are constitutionally defensible is a determination that should be guided not only by the rigours of the existing legal tests, but as well, by a requisite judicial humility that comes from acknowledging that courts do not have the specialized expertise to casually second guess the decisions of public health officials, which decisions are otherwise supported in the evidence.
This constitutes an abdication of the very responsibility he had just acknowledged. If fundamental freedoms still exist in a pandemic, and it is the court’s special responsibility to affirm this, this means that the court cannot defer to the public health authorities, the medical experts, on the question of whether their own measures are reasonable and justified. If civil authority A is accused of trampling on the public’s fundamental freedoms, and the court defers to the expertise of civil authority A on the question of whether the latter’s actions are reasonable and justified, this translates into “civil authority A can do whatever he sees fit, there are no limits on his powers to which the court will hold him accountable”. Indeed, saying that courts should be guided not just by the “rigours of the existing legal tests” but a “humility” that forbids them to “casually second guess” the decisions of public health officials is tantamount to saying that medical science is a higher authority than the law. (2)
In the sections of the ruling that immediately follow the paragraph from which we have quoted, we see what this “judicial humility” looks like in practice. In these pages Chief Justice Joyal considers the question of whether the public health orders meet the standards of the Oakes test. The Oakes test was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1986 to determine whether legislation or other government action that infringes upon Charter rights and freedoms is nevertheless permitted under the “reasonable limitations” clause. To pass, the infringement must first be shown to serve a “pressing and substantial objective”. Second, the infringement must be show to be proportional, which means that it must a) be shown to be rationally connected to the objective, b) be shown to only minimally impair the right(s) and/or freedom(s) in question and c) be shown to provide a benefit to the public that is greater than the harm done by impairing the right(s) and/or freedom(s). (3) For each of the stages of this test, the Chief Justice essentially takes the position that because Brent Roussin decided, after weighing all the information available to him, that each public health order he issued was what was necessary at the time, therefore the orders meet the standards of the test. Such a ruling in effect declares that Brent Roussin, as Chief Public Health Officer, is above the law insofar as he is acting in the capacity of his office. If the court defers to him as to whether his actions in the capacity of his office meet the standards of constitutionality set in the Oakes test or not, then he is above the Oakes test and the Charter and cannot be held accountable to either.
The ramifications of this extend far beyond the issues pertaining to the public health orders and the pandemic. What it means is that while we remain in form the country that we were, governed by a parliament under the reign of a constitutional monarch, in which Common Law and Charter nominally protect our rights and freedoms, in actual practice we have become a medical technocracy.
Anyone inclined to think that this is a good thing, or even a tolerable thing, is invited to consider the words of C. S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. (God in the Dock, 1948)
This description fits the rule of medical technocrats to a tee.
That a de facto medical technocracy is inimical to the freedom that permeates our parliamentary form of government, our constitutional monarchy, and the Common Law is the real issue at the heart of the other challenge. This was the challenge to the constitutionality of the provincial legislature’s having named Brent Roussin dictator, with Jazz Atwal as his Master of Horse, for the duration of the pandemic, which had to be framed, of course, as a challenge to the sections of the Manitoba Public Health Act (2009) which provided for this situation. These are sections 13 and 67. Section 67 empowers the Chief Public Health Officer to take special measures if he “reasonably believes” that “a serious and immediate threat to public health exists because of an epidemic or threatened epidemic of a communicable disease” which “cannot be prevented, reduced or eliminated” without the special measures. Section 13 allows him to delegate his own power under the Act to a deputy.
Chief Justice Joyal ruled that this two-fold delegation of power, first from the legislature to the Chief Public Health Officer, second from the latter to his deputy was constitutional. In the course of explaining his decision he made a number of statements that suggest a troubling sympathy with the technocratic impulse of the age. He gave his approval to the province’s claim that with the “emergence of new threats such as SARS, West Nile, monkey pox and the avian flu” it was important that the government focus on the “modernization of the PHA”. The modernization of the Public Health Act, that is to say, bringing it in line with contemporary trends around the world, means making it more technocratic. In this context the Chief Justice asserted with regards to the centralization of the public health system in the person of the Chief Public Health Officer that:
the act sets out the powers afforded to public health officials to address communicable diseases and importantly, it also constrains those powers so as to ensure an appropriate balance between individual rights and the protection of public health (first ruling, 12).
Does it ensure such an appropriate balance? As this is the quod erat demonstrandum, this forthright assertion of it would seem to be a classic example of petitio principia, especially when we consider the weakness of everything that was then put forward in support of the assertion. After providing quotations from speeches in the legislative assembly at the time the new Public Health Act was being debated that show that the legislators acknowledged the need for such a balance, the Chief Justice finally specified the constraints this Act supposedly places on the powers it gives to the Chief Public Health Officer (first ruling, 17). Not a single one of these is a real check that prevents the office of the Chief Public Health Officer from being corrupted into a medical technocratic tyranny by the excessive emergency power vested in it.
The first of these is that the official must believe there is a public health emergency that requires special measures to be taken. The third is that the orders require the prior approval of the Minister of Health. The fourth is the stipulation in section 3 of the Public Health Act that the restrictions on rights and freedoms of the special measures be as few as possible, the equivalent to the “minimal impairment” requirement of the Oakes test. In practice, the attitude of deferral to the specialized medical expertise of the Chief Public Health Officer on the part of the Minister of Health ensures that none of these constitutes a real constraint. The sixth, which is that the Chief Public Health Officer must be a physician, is a limit on who the Minister of Health can appoint to the office not a limit on use of the powers of that office by the officeholder. The seventh and final “constraint” pertains only to the secondary matter of the sub delegation of the Chief Public Health Officer’s powers to his deputy. This leaves the second and fifth, both of which warrant special comment and so have been reserved for last.
The second “constraint” is that under subsection 2 of section 67 “the types of orders that can be made are clearly delineated”. This is true, but the types so delineated are so extensive that this is not much of a limitation even without taking into consideration how much further deferral to the expertise of the Chief Public Health Officer would stretch them.
The fifth is the stipulation in subsection 4 of section 67 that “an order requiring a person to be immunized cannot be enforced if the person objects.” Although this looks like a real constraint on the Chief Public Health Officer’s powers, for several months now he has gotten away with making a total mockery of this stipulation by doing everything short of strapping objectors down and forcing the needle into them to compel them to be “immunized”.
Therefore, quite to the contrary of what Chief Justice Joyal claims (first ruling, 18) these constraints provide no real protection against the danger of the powers the Public Health Act confers upon the Chief Public Health Officer in a public health emergency being used to run roughshod over our rights and freedoms. Whatever the intention of the legislators in 2009, the Public Health Act fails to provide an appropriate balance between individual rights and the protection of public health. Instead, it places all the weight on the side of the latter.
It needs to be stated here that the need for an appropriate balance between individual rights and freedoms on the one hand and the public good on the other is a truism. The art of statecraft – politics in the best sense of the word – could be said to reduce to finding just this balance. The problem, at least in Canada, is that for decades now we have only ever seemed to have heard this truism trotted out whenever someone is insisting that individual rights and freedoms need to make cessions to the public good. Balance requires that there also be cessions from the public good to individual rights and freedoms. Indeed, since the vast majority of decisions that need to be made in any complex society have to do with the good of individuals and small groups, rather than the good of the society as a whole, and it is individual rights and freedoms that ensure that those making such decisions are the ones most competent to do so, which with only rare exceptions means the individuals and small groups directly concerned, balance arguably requires far more cessions to individual rights and freedoms from the public good, than the other way around.
The basic assumption of technocracy is contrary to all of this. This is the assumption that technical knowledge – the kind of specialized knowledge in any field that qualifies one as an expert – renders one competent to make decisions for other people if the expert’s field at all touches upon those decisions. This assumption is laughably false – technical expertise in one field does not translate into technical expertise in another field, much less all fields, and it is rare that a decision requires information from only one field. The most technical knowledge ought to qualify an expert for is to advise people in the making of their own decisions, not to make those decisions for them. Indeed, were we to assume that the greater an individual’s expertise is in one specialized field, the greater his ignorance will be in all others, and the more utterly incompetent he will be at making decisions for himself, let alone other people, our assumption would be wrong, but a lot less wrong than the assumption inherent in technocracy.
Technocracy is odious enough when it takes the form of the army of civil servants, passing the endless regulations that boss people around and tell them what to do in their own homes and how to run their own businesses, by which Liberal Prime Ministers have so effectively circumvented the constraints of our Crown-in-Parliament constitution in order to impose their will upon Canadians. A medical technocracy enacted in a public health emergency is far worse. Throughout history, mankind has been much more often plagued by tyranny than by insufficient government power, by too many rules than by too few, and the exploitation of emergencies, real or manufactured, and the fear they engender in the public, is the normal means whereby a tyrant seizes unconstitutional power. For this reason it is imperative than in any emergency, those empowered to deal with the emergency be subjected to even greater scrutiny and held to even stricter accountability, than in ordinary circumstances. This is the opposite of the attitude of deference that Chief Justice Joyal contended for in 281-283 of the second ruling, and which he reiterated in the first sentence of 292, “In the context of this deadly and unprecedented pandemic, I have determined that this is most certainly a case where a margin of appreciation can be afforded to those making decisions quickly and in real time for the benefit of the public good and safety.” (4)
This deference is fatal to the court’s role as the guardian of fundamental freedoms. Chief Justice Joyal acknowledged (284), as, in fact, did the province, that these freedoms were violated, and that therefore the onus is upon the government to justify the violation. (5) When the court gives this “margin of appreciation” to “those making decisions quickly and in real time”, however, is it possible for the province to fail to meet this onus in the court’s eyes?
Consider the arguments that the province made that it met the “minimal impairment” requirement of the Oakes test. Chief Justice Joyal reproduced (303) the reasons the province offered in support of this contention from paragraph 52 of their April 12, 2021 brief. Reason c) begins with “Unlike some other jurisdictions, there was no curfew imposed or a ‘shelter in place’ order that would prevent people from leaving their home other than for limited reasons”. That you cannot validly justify your own actions by pointing to the worse actions of someone else is something that anyone with even the most basic of training in logical reasoning should immediately recognize. The same reason includes the sentences “It was still possible to gather with family and friends at indoor and outdoor public places, up to the gathering limit of 5 people” and “An exception was also made for people who live on their own to allow one person to visit.” Offering these as “reasons” why the public health order forbidding people to meet with anyone other than members of their own household in their own homes for over three months only “minimally impaired” our freedoms of association and assembly is adding insult to injury. That is called throwing people crumbs, not keeping your infringement on their freedoms to a minimum. “Minimally impair” is not supposed to mean to impair the freedom to the point that it is minimal.
Reason e) which pertains to freedom of religion is no better. The province declared that there was an “attempt to accommodate religious services”. The first example of this that they gave is that “Religious services could still be delivered remotely indoors, or outdoors in vehicles”. It seems rather rich of the province to offer the latter up as proof that they tried to only minimally impair freedom of religion when, in fact, the churches that offered such services had to fight to obtain that concession.
Had Brent Roussin forgotten that he had initially banned drive-in services when he ordered churches to close in the so-called “circuit break” last fall?
Or rather had he remembered that it was Chief Justice Joyal who on the fifth of December last year had ruled that drive-in services were in violation of the public health orders before he, that is Roussin, amended the orders to allow for these services?
Either way it is rather disingenuous of him to make this allusion in this context.
The next sentence is even worse. “As well, individual prayer and reflection was permitted.” So, because he didn’t ban people from praying by themselves in the privacy of their own homes, which even officially Communist countries never attempted, he is to be credited for only “minimally impairing” our freedom of religion by forbidding us to obey God’s commandment to forsake not the assembly of ourselves, forbidding us to sing God’s praises as a community of faith, and forbidding us from partaking of the Holy Sacrament? Indeed, what this sentence tells us is that the person who wrote it thinks a) that individuals need the permission of government to pray and reflect in private, b) that it is within the powers of government to withhold such permission and forbid private prayer and reflection, and c) government’s not having done so means that their violations of our freedom of religion and worship have been minimal and reasonable.
Any sort of cognitive filter that allows a Chief Justice to look at this sort of nonsense and conclude from it that the province has met its onus of justifying its impairment of our fundamental freedoms as the minimum necessary under the circumstances is clearly a dysfunctional filter that ought to be immediately discarded.
Indeed, the province’s arguments illustrate the point made above about technocracy being inimical to freedom, constitutional government, and the balance between individual right and public good. Technical knowledge or specialized knowledge in a field of expertise, as stated above, does not translate into expertise in another field, much less expertise in all fields. Indeed, it tends towards a certain kind of deficiency in general reasoning that could be regarded as a sort of tunnel vision. It is called déformation professionelle in French and is similar to what is called the Law of the Instrument, illustrated in Abraham Maslow’s proverb about how if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. A physician’s technical expertise is in the field of medicine – treating sickness and injury and promoting health. He will therefore be inclined to subordinate everything else to the goals of his profession. In an epidemic or pandemic, this inclination will be all the more exaggerated. To a medical expert in such a situation, the answer to the question of what public health orders constitute the minimal necessary restrictions on fundamental freedoms will look very different than it does to those who do not share this narrow focus.
Consider the words that George Grant in his important discussion (Technology and Justice, 1986) of the implications of the increasing technologization of society identified as encapsulating spirit of technological thought, J. Robert Oppenheimer’s “when you see that something is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it.” The significance of these words is that the technological mind is inclined to reject external limitations, such as those of ethics, that stand between it and the actual doing of whatever it finds itself capable. Modern medical thinking is thoroughly technological and Oppenheimer’s thought, translated into that of a physician and epidemiologist overseeing a pandemic, would be “when you see that you can slow the spread of the disease by doing A, you go ahead and do A”. A might have a thousand other effects, all negative, but the mind that prioritizes slowing the spread of an epidemic over all other concerns can acknowledge this and still come to the conclusion that the benefit outweighs the harm, demonstrating that its ability to make calculations of this sort is seriously impaired. (6)
It is absolutely essential that those charged with the duty of protecting our fundamental rights and freedoms and holding government to its constitutional limits, recognize how the very nature of medical expertise tends towards the skewing of the medical expert’s perspective in this way and that therefore he is the last person to whose opinion government ministers and judges should defer in determining whether public health orders infringing upon fundamental freedoms are constitutionally justified out of necessity.
For the courts to fail to recognize this is for the courts to shirk their duty and acquiesce as our country succumbs to the tyranny of technocracy. (7)
(1) The applicants were the churches: Gateway Bible Baptist Church (Thompson), Pembina Valley Baptist Church (Winkler), Redeeming Grace Bible Church (Morden), Grace Covenant Church (Altona), Slavic Baptist Church, Christian Church of Morden, Bible Baptist Church (Brandon); ministers: Tobias Tissen (pastor of Church of God, Restoration in Sarto, just south of Steinbach) and Thomas Rempel (deacon of Redeeming Grace Bible Church); and individual: Ross MacKay.
(2) Tom Brodbeck’s editorial commenting on these rulings for the local Liberal Party propaganda rag – or paper of record, depending upon your perspective – was given the headline “Case Closed, Science Wins”.
(3) There is an unfortunate tautology here in that proportionality is the term used for both all three stages of the second step of the test taken together and the third stage of the same.
(4) The pandemic is “unprecedented” only in the sense that the measures taken to combat it have been unprecedented in their extremity. The Spanish Flu which ended about a century before the bat flu pandemic began killed between 25-50 million people. The bat flu has killed about 5 million over the course of a similar span of time. Not only is the total of the Spanish Flu much larger than that of the bat flu, it represents a much larger percentage of the world’s population which was considerably smaller at the time. It took place at a time when health care and medical treatment options were far more limited than they are today, and yet public health orders never came close to what they are today, despite the earlier pandemic having started in a time of war when people were already accustomed to emergency restrictions.
(5) Many of the news articles reporting on these rulings have been extremely misleading. Several have reported that the Chief Justice ruled that no Charter rights were violated. This is true only in the sense that there is a distinction between rights and freedoms and that the Chief Justice ruled against there having been a violation of Section 7 and Section 15 rights. With regards to Section 2 fundamental freedoms, however, he ruled – and the province admitted – that these had been violated, and that therefore there was a burden of justification on the government to prove these violations to be constitutional in accordance with Section 1. As the discussion of Section 2 was by far the most important part of the case, to summarize the entire ruling as if it were all about the Sections 7 and 15 challenges, is to utterly distort it.
(6) Suppose that a virus is spreading which, if unchecked, will cause 10 000 deaths. The public health officer, if he takes Action B, can prevent the epidemic and all of those deaths. However, Action B will itself cause 10 000 other deaths. The number of deaths will be the same whether action is taken or not. Should the public health officer take this action or do nothing? It would be odious to attempt to resolve the dilemma by comparing the value of the 10 000 lives lost the one way, with the value of the 10 000 lives lost the other. The person who makes the case for the public health officer’s taking Action B, therefore, would have to reason along the lines that since it is the public health officer’s duty to combat epidemics and save lives threatened by disease, and the intent behind Action B would be to save the 10 000 threatened by the epidemic not kill the other 10 000, Action B should be taken and the 10 000 lost to it considered collateral damage. The person who would argue the other side would point out that the 10 000 lost to the epidemic would die of natural causes, that the 10 000 lost as a result of Action B would die as the direct consequence of human action, and that the human moral culpability for taking an action that directly results in a death is greater than the human moral culpability for not taking an action that would prevent a death by natural cause, ergo it is worse to take Action B than to not do so. Which of these two arguments is the most persuasive. I would suggest that for people who are both normal and capable of rational, human, moral thought, the second of the two arguments is likely to be the most persuasive, and that those persuaded by the first of the two arguments are most likely to be found among medical experts.
(7) That technological science was leading us to a universal technocracy which would be the worst of all tyrannies was a warning sounded frequently throughout the Twentieth Century by such thinkers as Jacques Ellul (The Technological Society, 1954, Perspectives on Our Age, 1981), C. S. Lewis (The Abolition of Man, 1943, That Hideous Strength, 1945), and René Girard (I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning, 1999). In Canada, George Grant played the role of Cassandra on this theme, which runs through his entire corpus of work from Philosophy in the Mass Age (1959) to Technology and Justice (1986). It was central to the thesis of his 1965 jeremiad Lament for a Nation that by succumbing to the technologically driven capitalism of America, Canada was losing the pre-liberal traditions that informed her founding, and would be drawn like the rest of the world into the “universal homogenous state”, a technocracy that the ancients had predicted would be the ultimate tyranny. Technological science, as he argued in the first essay of Technology and Justice, begins as man’s mastery of nature, but progresses into man’s master of himself, which translates into his mastery of other people. He did not shrink from implicating modern medicine along with other more obvious culprits in this.POSTED BY GERRY T. NEAL
Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Decides the Charter is A Joke — No Problem Giving Unelected Chief Provincial Health Officer the Power to Close Churches & Businesses & Cancel Peaceful Assembly
Manitoba Chief Justice rules Public Health Officials shouldn’t be “second guessed”
POSTED ON: OCTOBER 21, 2021
MANITOBA: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is disappointed in the two concurrent decisions of Chief Justice Joyal of Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, upholding lockdown policies. The first Decision held that the authority given to Chief Provincial Public Health Officer Dr. Brent Roussin was constitutional. The second Decision held that the Manitoba Government’s lockdown restrictions were justified in their violations of the Charter– freedoms of conscience, religion, expression and peaceful assembly. Chief Justice Joyal also found that there had been no unconstitutional violations of the Charter rights to liberty, security of the person, and that there was no violation of equality rights on lockdowns that saw stores restricted to selling only goods the government deemed essential and churches closed for worship.
The hearings on these issues occurred earlier this spring.
During Covid, the Manitoba Legislature, comprised of the people’s democratically elected representatives, had been sidelined in favour of the authority of Dr. Roussin. The issued Orders were not considered, debated, amended, or studied by the legislature. There was no requirement that Dr. Roussin provide the legislature with reports on the Orders, or the science which supposedly supports them.
The Applicants filed expert reports authored by world-renowned Stanford Professor, Epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, former Manitoba Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Joel Kettner, and Infectious Disease specialist and Medical Microbiologist Dr. Thomas Warren. The materials before the Court were comprised of more than 2000 pages of peer-reviewed science and government data.
The onus was on the Manitoba Government to justify its restrictions on Charter rights and freedoms as being reasonable, necessary, and beneficial.
One of the crucial issues discussed in this trial was the operation and reliability of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test that is used by governments across Canada, including the Manitoba Government, to diagnose Covid and measure its spread. Manitoba’s expert microbiologist, Dr. Jared Bullard, admitted that the positive PCR does not diagnose whether someone has Covid-19, but rather is able to determine that a patient has remnants of SARS-CoV-2 in their nose which may have been there for up to 100 days. He acknowledged that a positive case could be someone who has not been contagious with Covid-19 for three months.
The action contended that Manitoba, Dr. Brent Roussin as Chief Public Health Officer, and Dr. Jazz Atwal as the Acting Deputy Chief Public Health Officer, failed to consider the collateral social and health costs of locking down society. The Applicants contended that the Public Health Orders which restricted religious gatherings, and indoor and outdoor gatherings could not be justified by section 1 of the Charter.
At 292 of the decision by Chief Justice Joyal, he stated, “In the context of this deadly and unprecedented pandemic, I have determined that this is most certainly a case where a margin of appreciation can be afforded to those making decisions quickly and in real time for the benefit of the public good and safety.”
He added, “…determination of whether any limits on rights are constitutionally defensible is a determination that should be guided not only by the rigours of the existing legal tests, but as well, by a requisite judicial humility that comes from acknowledging that courts do not have the specialized expertise to casually second guess the decisions of public health officials…”
“We are disappointed in these decisions and in the unwavering deference accorded to public health officials,” stated Manitoba lawyer Allison Pejovic. “We are carefully reviewing the decisions and are considering an appeal.”
Whatcott “Hate Crime” Trial and Wuhan Virus Tyranny Update
The past week in Toronto has been quite surreal. While awaiting trial for my ministry to the Toronto Homosexual Pride parade in 2016, I overnight became a citizen who is now legally unable to participate in many activities that were once taken for granted.
Ontario’s so-called vaccine passport is now in effect. I visited 3 restaurants in the Toronto area and have been kicked out of all three of them. The truth is none of the restaurant workers wanted to kick me out. They are as much victims of this deceptive state sponsored coercion as I am.
After getting kicked out of three restaurants I decided to try my luck at a Tim Hortons and went with my friend Jack for a coffee and a Chili. We got to the till and gave our order without face diapers on and I actually thought I was going to be able to enjoy a coffee and snack with my friend just like any other citizen. Sadly, after we paid the young girl at the till asked for our proof of vaccination. It then occured to me that all sorts of gender confused men from Bruce Jenner to Ronan Oger claim to be women and they are never asked for proof. In fact in my BC human rights case my lawyer asked for proof from Mr. Oger that he was a woman (thinking truth might be a defense for me) and we were told by the adjucator that our request was outrageous and hateful and our request for proof Ronan was a woman was denied.
At that moment when the young lady asked for my proof of vaccination, in my mind I did understand that I was born a Pfizer vaccinated person, incorrectly born into an unvaccinated body. I explained to the lady I was a “transvaccinated person.” She looked at me and asked “what is that?” I explained to her that it is perfectly reasonable to assume “if Bruce Jenner is a woman, you should assume I am transvaccinated, and serve me my coffee without the need of me proving it.”
The young lady got the manager who demanded me and Jack put face diapers on and show proof of vaccination. He didn’t seem open minded enough to accept my argument that I feel like I am vaccinated and therefore I am, so sadly me and Jack were not able to enjoy our coffees and snacks indoors.
“We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”Romans 8:28
I am an unvaccinated Canadian, demonized by the media, and all three levels of government; banned from restaurants, and the target of a narrative that the vaccinated Canadian’s face diapers and two shots of Pfizer will only work so long as the unvaccinated get two shots of Pfizer and wear a face diaper. Rather than submit to this charade or get bullied into a shot we have concerns with, Jack and I discovered something better than going to Tim Hortons. We drove a few miles north of Toronto and trapped ourselves a nice squirrel.
Anyways, after gutting the squirrel we skinned it and then put it whole into a pressure cooker.
Bill and Jack’s recipe for squirrel soup: 1 1 litre of water in pot 1 Squirrel (after squirrel is skinned and cleaned, rub sesame seed oil and seasoning salt on carcas before putting into pot) 2 large potatoes (diced) 2 garden carrots (diced) 1 head of brocolli (dice to small pieces) 1 large yellow onion (diced) 8-10 cloves of garden fresh garlic (diced) 1 table spoon Himalyan salt 2 dashes Sriracha Sauce Pressue cook on high for 2 hours
To see the academic papers (warning this read is comprehensive and will take you a minimum of one hour) now being ignored by government and media that conclusively show wearing face masks do virtually nothing to inhibit the spread of Covid-19 click here: https://www.justfacts.com/news_face_masks_deadly_falsehoods
As for my trial it is scheduled to begin this coming Monday, October 4that 10:00 am. I have been informed by my lawyer that a Zoom link will be provided the day of my trial for those who wish to witness the proceedings.
If you wish to view the proceedings on Zoom please send me an e-mail or text request and please clearly spell the e-mail address in your written request that you want me to send the Zoom link to. I have a friend who will send you the link when we receive it Monday morning.
In Christ’s Service, Bill Whatcott
“The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness. ‘The LORD is my portion,’ says my soul, ‘therefore I will hope in him.’” Lamentations 3:22-24
The “experts” that our governments and the media have been insisting that we blindly trust for almost two years are now telling us that due to the Delta and other variants herd immunity to the bat flu is either unattainable or requires a much higher percentage of the population to have been immunized than was the case with the original strain of the virus. They are also telling us that the fourth wave of the bat flu, the one we are said to be experiencing at the present, is driven by the Delta variant and that those who, for one reason or another, have exercised their right to reject the vaccine either in full or in part – for those who have had one shot but opted out of a second, or in some jurisdictions have had two but have opted out of a third, for whatever the reason, including having had a bad reaction to the first shot or two, are categorized under the broad “unvaccinated” umbrella by those who think that it is our ethical duty to take as many shots as the government’s health mandarins say we should take – are responsible for this wave, which they have dubbed a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.
This, however, is a case of the guilty pointing the finger at the innocent.
Think about what they are now claiming. If herd immunity was attainable with the original virus if 70-80% of the population were immunized but with the Greek letter variants it requires 90% or higher if it is attainable at all, then the blame for the current situation, however dire it actually is – and it is probably not even remotely close to being as dire as is being claimed because the media, the medical establishment, and the governments have grossly exaggerated the threat of this disease from the moment the World Health Organization declared a pandemic – belongs entirely to those who insisted upon the “flatten the curve” strategy. Flattening the curve, which required massive government overreach and the dangerous suspension of everyone’s most basic human, civil, and constitutional rights and freedoms, prolonged the life of the original virus, giving it the opportunity to produce these new, reportedly more contagious, mutations. It was the public health orders themselves – not people resisting the orders and standing up for their and others’ rights and freedoms – that gave us the variants. It would have been far better to have taken measures to protect only the portion of the population that was most at risk, while letting the virus freely circulate through the rest of the population to whom it posed minimal risk, so that herd immunity could have been achieved the natural way and at the lower threshold while it was still available. Natural immunity, as even the “experts” now acknowledge, is superior to what the vaccines offer if this can be called immunity at all seeing as it conspicuously lacks the prophylactic aspect that traditionally defined the immunity granted by vaccines for other diseases. When you took the smallpox or the polio vaccine, you did so in order that you would not get smallpox or polio. When you take the bat flu vaccine, purportedly, it reduces the severity of the bat flu so that you are far less likely to be hospitalized or to die from it. When we consider that for those outside of the most-at-risk categories, the likelihood of being hospitalized due to the bat flu is already quite low and the likelihood of dying from it is lower yet, being a fraction of a percentage point, the so-called “immunity” the vaccines impart is not very impressive, making the heavy-handed insistence that everyone must take the jab all the more irrational.
For all the hype about the supposed “novelty” of the bat flu virus, it is now quite apparent that its waves come and go in a very familiar pattern. The first wave, which started in China late in 2019, hit the rest of the world early in 2020 during the winter of 2019-2020 and ebbed as we went into spring. With the onset of fall in 2020 the second wave began and the third wave took place in the winter of 2020-2021. It once again waned as we entered spring of 2021, and the current fourth wave is taking place as summer of 2021 moves into fall of 2021. Each wave of the bat flu, in other words, has occurred in the times of the year when the common cold and the seasonal flu ordinarily circulate, just as the lulls correspond with those of the cold and flu, the big one being in the summer. How many more waves do we have to have in which this pattern repeats itself before we acknowledge that this is the nature of the bat flu, that it comes and goes in the same way and the same times as the cold and flu, compared to which it may very well be worse in the sense that the symptoms, if you get hit by a hard case of it, are much nastier, but to which it is far closer than to Ebola, the Black Death, or the apocalyptic superflu from Stephen King’s The Stand?
The politicians, the public health mandarins and their army of “experts”, and the mass media fear pornographers do not want us to acknowledge this because the moment we do the twin lies they have been bombarding us with will lose all their hold upon us and become completely and totally unbelievable. The first of these lies is when they take credit for the natural waning of each wave of the virus by attributing it to their harsh, unjust, and unconstitutional public health orders involving the suspension of all of our most basic freedoms and rights. The second of these lies is when they blame the onset of the next wave of the virus at the time of year colds and flus always spread on the actions of the public or some segment of the public.
It is the second of these lies with which we are concerned here.
Last fall, as the second wave was beginning, our governments blamed the wave on those who were disobeying public health orders by getting together socially with people from outside their households, not wearing masks, and/or especially exercising their constitutional right to protest against government actions that negatively impact them, in this case, obviously, the public health measures. There was an alternative form of finger-pointing on the part of some progressives in the media, who put the blame on the governments themselves for “re-opening too early”. This form of “dissent” was tolerated respectfully by the governments, a marked contrast with how they responded to those who protested that they could not possibly have re-opened too early because they should never have locked down to begin with since lockdowns are an unacceptable way of dealing with a pandemic being incredibly destructive and inherently tyrannical. Although there was much more truth to what the latter dissenters were saying it was these, rather than the former group, that the governments demonized and blamed for the rising numbers of infections. The governments and other lockdown supporters attempted to justify this finger-pointing by saying that the lockdown protestors, whom they insisted upon calling “anti-mask protestors” so as to make their grievances seem petty by focusing on what was widely considered to be the least burdensome of the pandemic measures, were endangering the public by gathering to protest outdoors. That their arguments were worthless is demonstrated by how they had made no such objections to the much larger racist hate rallies held by anti-white hate groups masquerading under banal euphemisms earlier in the year and, indeed, openly encouraged and supported these even though they had a tendency to degenerate into lawless, anarchical, rioting and looting that was absent from the genuinely peaceful protests of the lockdown opponents.
With the deployment of the rapidly developed vaccines that are still a couple of years away from the completion of their clinical trials under emergency authorization government public health policy has shifted towards getting as many people vaccinated as possible, with a goal of universal vaccination. At the same time, the finger-pointing has shifted towards the unvaccinated or, to be more precise, those who have not received however many shots the public health experts in their jurisdiction deem to be necessary at any given moment. This blaming of the unvaccinated is both a deflection from the grossly unethical means being taken to coerce people to surrender their freedom of choice and right to informed consent with regards to receiving these vaccines and is itself part of those means.
Perhaps “shifted” is not the best word to describe this change in the finger-pointing. While the less-than-fully-vaccinated are being blamed as a whole for the Delta wave the blaming is particularly acrimonious for those who both have not been sufficiently vaccinated to satisfy the government and who have been protesting the public health abuses of our constitutional rights and freedoms the latest of which is the establishment of a system of segregation based upon vaccine choice in which society and the economy are fully or almost fully re-opened to those who comply with the order to “show your papers” while everyone else is put back in lockdown. The CBC and the privately owned media, both progressive and mainstream “conservative” have gone out of their way to vilify such people, as have the provincial premiers and their public health mandarins whose vaccine passport system is obviously punitive in nature. The biggest vilifier of all has been the Prime Minister. In his campaign leading up to the recent Dominion election he was unable to speak about the “anti-vaxxers” – a term, which until quite recently, indeed, until the very eve of this pandemic, designated supporters of holistic medicine who object to all vaccination on principle and who were usually to be found among the kind of tree-hugging, hippy-dippy, types who support the Green Party, NDP, or the Prime Minister’s own party – without sounding like he was speaking about the Jews to an audience at Nuremberg in the late 1930s.
What we are seeing here is not a new phenomenon. When the ancient Greek city-states were faced with a crisis beyond human ability to control – such as a plague – they would choose someone, generally of the lowest possible social standing such as a criminal, slave or a cripple, and, after ritually elevating him to the highest social standing, would either execute him, if he was a criminal, or beat him and drive him out of their society, in either case as a symbolic sacrifice to avert disaster and save the community. This person was called the φαρμακός, a word that also meant “sorcerer”, “poisoner” or “magician”, although there is no obvious connection between this meaning and the usage we have been discussing and lexicographers often treat them as being homonyms. In some city-states this came to be practices as a ritual on a set day every year whether there was a looming disaster or not. In Athens, for example, the two ugliest men in the city were chosen for this treatment on the first day of Thargelia, the annual festival of Apollo and Artemis. Parallels to this can be found in almost every ancient culture as can the related practice of offering animal sacrifices. Indeed, the practice is generally called scapegoating, from the word used in the English Bible to refer to the literal goat over which the High Priest would confess the sins of the people on the Day of Atonement each year, symbolically transferring the guilt to the goat, which would then be taken out into the wilderness and sent to Azazel, a word of disputed meaning generally taken to refer either to a place in the desert, an evil spirit who dwelled there, or both.
Anthropologists have, of course, long discussed the origins and significance of this phenomenon. While going into this at great length is far beyond the scope of this essay, a well-known summation of the discussion can be found in Violence and the Sacred (1977) by French-American scholar René Girard as can the author’s own theory on the subject. Later in his Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World (1987), Girard, a practicing Roman Catholic, returned to his theory and discussed how it related to Christian theology and to contemporary expressions of violence. He put forward an interpretation of the Atonement that could in one aspect be understood as the opposite of the traditional orthodox interpretation. While there have been numerous competing theories as to how the Atonement works, in traditional Christian orthodoxy the relationship between the Atonement and the Old Testament sacrificial system was understood to be this: the former was the final Sacrifice to end all sacrifices, and the latter were God ordained types of Christ’s final Sacrifice. By contrast, Girard argued that sacrifices were not something instituted by God but arose out of man’s violent nature. When division arose in primitive communities, peace was restored through the scapegoat mechanism, whereby both sides joined in placing the blame on a designated victim who was then executed or banished, and built their renewed unity upon the myth of the victim’s guilt and punishment. The sacrificial system was the ritual institutionalization of this practice. As societies became more civilized the institution was made more humane by substituting animals for people. The Atonement, Girard, argued, was not the ultimate sacrifice but rather a sort of anti-sacrifice. It was not designed, he said, to satisfy the demands of God Who has no need for sacrificial victims, but to save mankind from his own violent nature as manifested in the scapegoat mechanism and sacrificial system. In the Atonement God provided bloodthirsty man with One Final Victim. That Victim offered to His immediate persecutors and by extension all of sinful mankind forgiveness and peace based not upon a myth about His guilt but upon the acknowledgement of the truth of His Innocence and the confession of man’s own guilt.
What is most relevant to this discussion, however, is not how Girard’s understanding of the Atonement contrasts with the more traditional orthodox view, but where both agree – that it brought an end to the efficacy of all other scapegoats and sacrifices. This does not mean that the practice ceased but that it no longer works. One implication of this pertains to the choice that the Gospel offers mankind. If man rejects the peace and forgiveness based upon the truth of the Innocent Victim offered in the Gospel, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26), and so his violence, which the scapegoat mechanism/sacrificial system can no longer satisfy, increases. This means that in a post-Christian society the sacrificial and scapegoating aspect of human violence would reassert itself with a vengeance. Interestingly, Girard interpreted the New Testament Apocalyptic passages, both those of the actual book of Revelation and those found in the words of Jesus in the Gospels, that speak of disasters, calamities and destruction to fall upon mankind in the Last Days, as describing precisely this, the self-inflicted wounds of a mankind that has turned its back on the peace of the Gospel rather than the wrath of God (see the extended discussion of this in the second chapter entitled “A Non-Sacrificial Reading of the Gospel Text” of Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World). Certainly the twentieth century, in which the transformation of Christendom into secular, post-Christian, “Western Civilization” that was the main project of the liberalism of the Modern Age came to its completion, saw a particularly ugly resurgence of scapegoating on the part of secular, totalitarian regimes.
I alluded earlier to one such example, the scapegoating of the Jews by the Third Reich, of which it is unlikely that there is anyone living who is not familiar with the tremendous violent actions it produced. Another example can be found in the early history of the Soviet Union and this is for many reasons a closer analogy to what we are seeing today. In Hitler’s case, the group designated as the scapegoat was a real religious/ethnic group the identity of which had been well-established millennia prior to the Nazi regime. When, however, the Bolsheviks, a terrorist organization of mostly non-(ethnic)-Russians who hated the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian Tsar, and the Russian people, most likely in that order, led by V. I. Lenin and committed to his interpretation of Marxist ideology, exploited the vacuum created earlier in 1917 when republicans forced the abdication of Russia’s legitimate monarch in order to seize power for themselves and form the totalitarian terror state known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, they created their own scapegoat.
Kulak, which is the Russian word for “fist”, was a derogatory term applied with the sense of “tight-fisted”, i.e., miserly, grasping, and mean to peasant farmers who had become slightly better off than other members of their own class, owning more than eight acres of land and being able to hire other peasants as workers. Clearly this was a loosely defined, largely artificial, category, enabling the Bolsheviks to hurl it as a term of abuse against pretty much any peasant they wanted. The scapegoating of the kulaks began early in the Bolshevik Revolution when Lenin sought to unify the other peasants in support of his regime by demonizing and vilifying those of whom they were already envious and confiscating their land. After Stalin succeeded Lenin as Soviet dictator in 1924 he devised a series of five-year plans aimed at the rapid industrialization and centralization of what had up to then been a largely feudal-agrarian economy. In the first of these, from 1928 to 1932, Stalin announced his intention to liquidate the kulaks and while this worded in such a way as to suggest that it was their identity as a class rather than the actual people who made up the class that was to be eliminated, that class identity, as we have seen, was already largely a fiction imposed upon them by the Bolsheviks and the actions taken by Stalin – the completion of the confiscation of kulak property, the outright murder of many of them and the placing of the rest in labour camps either in their own home districts or in desolate places like Siberia, clearly targeted the kulaks as people rather than as a class. The history of Stalin’s liquidation of the kulaks as well as that of the Holodomor, the man-made famine he engineered against the Ukrainians, is well told and documented by Robert Conquest in his The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror Famine (1986).
“Anti-vaxxer”, like “kulak” is mostly a derogatory term used to demonize people. The term itself ought to be less arbitrary than kulak. Assigning someone to a class of greedy, parasitical, oppressors simply because he is fortunate enough to own a few more acres of land than his neighbour is quite arbitrary and obviously unjust. Identifying someone as being opposed to vaccines on the basis of his own stated opposition to such is not arbitrary at all, although dehumanizing someone on this basis is just as unjust. In practice, however, the “anti-vaxxer” label is used just as arbitrarily. Look at all who have been turned into third-class citizens, denied access to all public spaces and businesses except those arbitrarily deemed “essential” by the public health officials, and whose livelihoods have been placed in jeopardy by the new vaccine mandates and passports. While those who have not taken the bat flu shots because they reject all vaccines on principle are obviously included so are those who have had every vaccine from the mumps to smallpox to hepatitis that their physician recommended but have balked at taking these new vaccines, the first of their kind, before the clinical trials are completed. So are people who took the first shot, had a very bad reaction to it, and decided that the risk of an even worse reaction to the second shot was too great in their instance. So are people who came down with the disease, whose bodies’ natural immune system fought it off, who thereby gained an immunity that recent studies as well as common sense tell us is superior to that imparted by a vaccine that artificially produces a protein that is distinctive to the virus, and who for that reason decided that they didn’t need the vaccine. There are countless legitimate reasons why people might not want to receive these inoculations and it is morally wrong – indeed, evil, would be a better word than wrong here – to bully such people into surrendering their bodily autonomy and their right to informed consent and to punish them for making what, however much people caught in the grip of the public health panic may wish to deny it, is a valid choice. It is even more evil to demonize, vilify, and scapegoat them for standing up for their rights. Ironically, those currently being demonized as “anti-vaxxers” by the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers include all who have been protesting against the vaccine passports and mandates, a number which presumably includes many who have had both of their shots and therefore are not even “unvaccinated” much less “anti-vaxxers” in any meaningful sense of the word, but who take a principled moral stand against governments mistreating people the way they have with these lockdowns, mask mandates, and now vaccine passports and mandates.
The Nazi scapegoating of the Jews, the Bolshevik scapegoating of the kulaks, and the as-we-speak scapegoating of the “anti-vaxxers” by all involved in the new world-wide medical-pharmaceutical tyranny, all demonstrate the truth of the implication discussed above of the Atonement’s abolition of the efficacy of sacrifices and the scapegoat mechanism, whether this is understood in the traditional orthodox way, as this writer is inclined to understand it, or in accordance with Girard’s interpretation. If people reject the peace and forgiveness offered in the Gospel and can no longer find it in the old sacrificial/scapegoat system the violence multiplies. In the ancient pre-Christian practices, the victims were singular or few in number (there were only two victims, for example, in the annual Thargelia in Athens). These modern examples of the scapegoating phenomenon involve huge numbers of victims. The sought objective – societal peace and unity – is still the same as in ancient times, but it is unattainable by this method since scapegoating millions of people at a time can only produce division and not peace and unity.
The peace, forgiveness, and unity offered in the Gospel is still available, of course, although the enactors of the new medical tyranny seem determined to keep as many people as possible from hearing that offer. They have universally declared the churches where the Gospel is preached in Word and Sacrament to be “non-essential” ordering them to close at the first sniffle of the bat flu and leaving them closed longer after everything else re-opened, although the number of churches that willingly went along with this and even took to enthusiastically enforcing the medical tyranny themselves raises the question of whether anyone would have heard the Gospel in them had they remained open. Which brings us back to what was briefly observed earlier about Girard’s interpretation of Apocalyptic passages as depicting the devastating destruction of human violence which the scapegoat mechanism can no longer contain when man has rejected the Gospel. Perhaps it ought not to surprise us that throughout this public health panic the medical tyrants have behaved as if the Book of Revelation’s depiction of the beast who demands that all the world worship him rather than God and requires that they show their allegiance to him by taking his mark on their right hand or forehead and prevents them from buying and selling without such a display of allegiance had been written as a script for them to act out at this time. — Gerry T. NealAdolf Hitler, Atonement, COVID-19, Joseph Stalin, Justin Trudeau, kulaks, pharmakos, René Girard, Robert Conquest, scapegoat, Stephen King, Thargelia, V. I. Lenin
Do our children really need vaccines? In addition to being contrary to section 17 of the B.C. Infants Act, forcing vaccines and masks on our children is assault and a criminal offense endangering their lives! Let us save lives instead and educate our children and young adults to not partake in the COVID death and destruction toll.
If you have to remove your children from the public school system to save their lives, then do so!
School mask mandates have caused great harm and the science is being ignored. Article
With over 500 members now, join us in our C.L.E.A.R. telegram group! Please remember: no foul language or vulgarity for any posts, keep posts relevant to today’s freedom issues, humour is fine, be respectful at all times, no government officials, agents or rep posts are accepted. Help us ensure all posts are verified for correctness. https://t.me/joinchat/SWxndPh1I9F2Iu-q
Up and coming Rallies to attend
Kelowna C.L.E.A.R. protest on Wed. Sept. 29th, 2021 @ Interior Health 505 Doyle10:00 am We will be going to a local business who continues to promote the vaxx passports. Bring your signs! Location TBA at protest. ______ Kelowna C.L.E.A.R. Rally on Sat. Oct. 2nd, 2021 @ Stuart Park12:00 noon Saturday will commemorate the 75th anniversary of Nuremberg, permanently recognizing that health care cannot be forced upon anyone against their informed, knowledgeable consent. If you know anyone who has been vaxx injured or knows someone that has, and wishes to tell their story, please let us know. Candace will also be speaking on the dangers of graphene present in the masks. ______ Vernon Rally Sat. Oct. 2nd, 2021 in Polson Park @ 12:00 noon
Say hi to Heather who is supporting the largest Northern Okanagan rallies. ______Kamloops Sat. Oct 2nd, 2021 in Riverside Park @ 12:00 noon Say hi to Glen and Corally supporting the rallies in the Kamloops area. _______ Penticton Sun. Oct. 3rd, 2021 @ Warren & Main St.12:00 noon Say hi to Mary-Lou supporting the largest rallies in the Southern Okanagan.
The great debate???
Both Mayor Basran and Bonnie Henry are not responding to the people’s request, despite remaining on notice as to a public debate on the science.
We continue to remain on hold for a response as promised from Darren Caul, Basran’s Chief Safety Director. There remains no communication response to date. Perhaps we need to take the narrative out of their (and media’s) hands and put it in the hands of the public where it belongs?
Please join us this weekend if you are in Vancouver, BC where people will come together, plan and strategize, and have fun, all at the same time while focusing on creating a Canadian World Wide Independent (media) Network. This event will begin at 1pm with afternoon tea and refreshments. There will also be some live jazz, and followed with film showings & workshops. There will be a Q&A, door prizes, and a fantastic dinner buffet with comedy & dancing to compliment. Dinner will be served around 6-7:00pm. Dancing starts around 8pm until midnight. You can get your tickets early from Master of Ceremonies, Thomas in person or via e-transfer to firstname.lastname@example.org. Tickets are only $40.00 which includes both the dinner buffet & afternoon tea. Your ticket can be picked up before the event at the Art Gallery on Sunday, Sept 26, 1-3pm, and City Hall, Sept 29, 1-4pm under the blue canopy, where Master of Ceremonies,Thomas from the Canadian Sustainable Business Council will be. The venue is located at the Fraserview Assembly Hall, 8240 Fraser Street in Vancouver, BC. We will have a beautiful stage and dance floor. There is free parking for all attending. Don’t miss out and connect with your future. See you there!
Many of Kelowna’s finest, freedom activists!
VOID THE VAXX
With over 500 members now, join us in our C.L.E.A.R. telegram group! Please remember: no foul language or vulgarity for any posts, keep posts relevant to today’s freedom issues, humour is fine, be respectful at all times, no government officials, agents or rep posts are accepted. Help us ensure all posts are verified for correctness. https://t.me/joinchat/SWxndPh1I9F2Iu-q
Report on C.L.E.A.R. Mega Rally & Worldwide Freedom Rally in Kelowna, September 18 & Upcoming Freedom Protests in British Columbia
wWow! We had a remarkable CLEAR MEGA rally and World Wide Rally here in Kelowna this past weekend with over 1000 committed freedom activists! We are so thankful for all your support for freedom against both the unconstitutional Provincial and Federal orders and legislation.
Our incredibly successful rally featured Sibille, who provided us with her inspiring story on how she traveled to Europe and back without wearing masks or being quarantined!! With proper planning, it can be done.
We had Keith McIntire , here from Penticton, discussing the harms caused by doctors failing to properly instruct our children as required by law in s. 17 of the Infants Act, the media simply putting out press releases and admitting they leave it up to us to determine if it is correct or not, and the option of laying charges against the family doctor! A wonderfully inspiring speech.
Legal assistant to Lawyers4Truth, Edward Kallio, who traveled from the Kootenays, provided a great legal educational analysis of the problems facing present court actions. Many people finally learned why we haven’t had a successful court action so far, especially in relation to injunctions to stop this madness from continuing.
We greatly thank all our speakers for their dedication to freedom and sacrifices just to make it here for your benefit.
We’ve included some pix from our rally here as well.
Vancouver had over 7 000 or more people show up to their rally!!!
These World Wide Rallies had millions of people all over the world joined together in mutual opposition to the destruction or denial of our rights and freedoms. Additional anger is directed toward our controlled, and politically subsidized mainstream media.
All this was followed by a huge downtown march and highway rally, with our activists filling our streets and gaining the support of thousands of people. If you weren’t there, you missed a wonderful expression of freedom!
Two weeks ago, our CLEAR representative David discussed with our rally activists, the implications and content of a recent letter that went out to Bonnie Henry from local Okanagan, anonymous doctors. We’ve attached this letter here for everyone to read. We urge you to verify the sites they provide, and share this information with others.
It is a must read for anyone wanting information on all aspects of the COVID-19 lies being propagandized daily by our gov’t and MSM. Pay close attention to the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) and Infection Fatality Rate (IFR), as well as the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) compared to the more accurate, Absolute Risk Reduction, to see first-hand how Bonnie Henry and the pharma companies, are misleading you with inaccurate and incomplete information.
Friday September 24 7:00 pm Kerry Park Kelowna Lawyer John Carpay, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Saturday September 25 12:00 noon Stuart Park
CLEAR Weekly Rally, this week featuring local businessman Steve Merrill, on his successful refusal to support the Bonnie the Commie mask and vaccine orders in his business! You won’t want to miss his incredibly motivating story.
Vancouver Friday, Sept. 24th 5:00 pm Art Gallery Featuring: Respiratory Specialist Chris Schaefer and Dr. Roger Hodkinson
Vernon Sat. Sept. 25 Polson Park 12:00 noon
Kamloops Sat. Sept. 25 Riverside Park 12:00 noon
Penticton Sunday Sept. 26 Warren & Main St. 12:00 noon See everyone this weekend!!