Chris Sky Calls for United Non-Compliance at Huge London Rally
LONDON, Ontario. October 16, 2021. It seemed like a NO MORE LOCKDOWNS rally had divine blessing. It had rained hard on Friday and was raining again Saturday morning. However, as the noon hour approached for the rally there were blue skies and a brisk Autumn wind. Organizers estimated that over 3,000 people from all over Southern Ontario attended the rally in downtown London’s Victoria Park.
The rally was called to support police who oppose forced vaccination and enforcement of the mandatory masks and, for many venues, vaccines, A dynamic star of the END THE LOCKDOWN movement, Chris Sky called for “united non-compliance” with the forced vaccination mandates. He urged people to ride public transit en masse on October 30, without masks or vaccine passports. “Just say NO,” he enthused. There are also plans to form civilian convoys to drive by four major airports in Canada to bring air travel to a halt. That’s the day the Trudeau government will require proof of double vaccination to board a plane. Yet, there will still be mandatory masking on the flights. Many airline employees oppose the vaccination requirement.
Mr. Sky believes that the government is running scared at the unexpected opposition it faces. “Listen to the quiver in Trudeau’s voice as he talks about the latest government forced mandate.. He is scared.” A number of speakers from various parts of Ontario spoke of local resistance to government. Derek Saulnier from Windsor said: “Medical without your consent is assault. Imposing a vaccine on an unwilling persons is cruel and unusual punishment.” He added that there are many medical professionals in Windsor refusing to take the vaccine. They have been threatened with firing.
The owner of Peterburgers in Peterborugh told of the struggle at his restaurant. “We opened three weeks before COVID struck,” he said. At first, the restaurant obeyed all the rules — the long lockdowns, the limited reopenings. However, when they were allowed to reopen recently, they decided there wold be no discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, masks or vaccine status. ” word spread, our business has tripled,” he said. Health authorities have harassed them and fined them $3,000 thus far for not enforcing masking and proof of vaccination.
In his talk, Chris Sky shouted: “We’re done with your masks; we’re done with your lockdowns and we’re done with your vaxx mandates!”
Almost ignored by the Fake News media is that END THE LOCKDOWN rallies are occurring regularly all over the province. A spokesman for the Grey-Bruce Freedom Fighters told of a rally in the town of Dundalk two weeks ago. |”We had 2,000 people attending in a town of 5,000,” he said.
For much of the afternoon a large drone, believed to be police surveillance, hovered just east of the rally. Many people turned around and gave the snoops the finger.
Arjun Singh: Left wing values have invaded Canada’s legal system and diminished our charter rights
Why Canada should abolish Section 1 Author of the article: Arjun Singh, Special to National Post Publishing date: Sep 23, 2021 • September 23, 2021 • 4 minute read • 370 Comments
By all accounts, vaccine passports are here. Quebec, with the most provincial chutzpah, first introduced them, and B.C. followed suit. As have Ontario and Alberta, after Doug Ford’s U-turn from his “Hard no” earlier this year and Jason Kenney’s similar opposition . Outside government, scores of businesses are mandating vaccinations for employees, with proof being required — else, they be terminated.
One would think, in governments’ cases, that the law would safeguard citizens’ freedoms. Indeed, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that Canadians have the “freedom of conscience and religion” (Section 2a), freedom of movement within Canada (Section 6) and “equal protection … before the law” (Section 15). At the very least, this would prevent the imposition of vaccine passport requirements on citizens — vaccinated or otherwise — for travelling, let alone while accessing basic services: for most charter rights are fundamental. Quebec’s programme and the Trudeau Liberals’ recent federal vaccine mandate for flights and trains, thus, ought to be dismissed.
But this is Canada: where, for years, left-wing Liberal values have slowly invaded our legal system. This was true for Trudeau’s father, Pierre Elliot, as it is now. Hence, in 1982, when the charter was introduced, its first section included the following proviso: “The Canadian Charter … guarantees the rights and freedoms set out subject only to reasonable limits … as can be justified in a free and democratic society.” In essence, the charter rights of anyone may be limited for what the state considers “reasonable.”
By itself, this clause is only partly dangerous. Absolute freedom, in any context — especially if causing physical harm — is undesirable; as the ever-pithy Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said, “the right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.” But, as most would agree, allowing the government to judge whether its own acts are “reasonable” is, itself, an invitation for power to abuse such privilege. From Quebec’s strict curfews to Ontario’s police crackdowns, the pandemic and its oppressive responses in the name of “science” have laid that truth bare.
In response, one would expect the courts, upon petition, to step in and stop government overreach, being the constitution’s supposedly “non-partisan” referees. Until 1986, in Canada, that was true — until left-wing jurists, after rewriting the law, captured the judiciary that interpreted them. That year the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by Trudeau appointees, established the Oakes Test in R. v. Oakes to determine what restrictions on charter rights were “reasonable.” Among others, it allowed the curbing of charter freedoms in the name of “a commitment to social justice and equality” and “respect for cultural and group identity.”
With this decision, a faction of activist judges — seeing the constitution as a ‘living tree’ to be pruned without the people’s consent — reset the foundations of freedom overnight, bending them towards progressive politics. Instead of having minimal restraints for public order, all charter freedoms could now be legally impeded in the name of contested left-wing concepts like “social justice” and protecting “group identity.”
Worse, neither did the court define what these terms meant, enabling the left — via its dominance of social science academia — to influence their meanings, suiting the moment’s political objectives. As its late Chief Justice, Antonio Lamer, himself said, Section 1 empowered judges to “make essentially … a political call.” In effect, the constitutional “referees” changed the rules mid-game, to ensure their side would always win.
Thus, with Oakes, the dangers of Section 1 were fully unleashed, and have since beat a toll on Canadians’ civil liberties — capturing our constitution for the supremacy of “woke” social mores. “Whoever would overthrow a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech,” said Benjamin Franklin; and, true to form, it was one of the first casualties. In the Keegstra and Andrews decisions, the Supreme Court used Section 1 to allow the criminalization of speech “inciting hatred” — an ambiguous offence, at best, which effectively curbs free speech for the sake of hurt feelings. Once more, in the Little Sisters case, Section 1 rubber-stamped the Chretien Liberals’ banning of LGBTQ books’ import for their “obscenity.” This spate has continued, with governments and courts in concert over the years using Section 1 to curb the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (R. v. Stone), conservatives’ participation in elections (Harper v. Canada) and, most recently, to ban travel by citizens during COVID-19 (Taylor v. The Queen).
In defending such overreach on the charter, the progressive establishment has often asserted the notion of “collective rights” as the reason for restraining individuals, e.g., “safe spaces” precluding free speech to avoid public offence. There are few greater absurdities than this; “rights” exist to protect individuals and minorities from tyranny of the majority, which — with strength in numbers — needs no further safety in a democracy. By claiming a “collective right” of any kind, the Canadian left turns the very notion of rights on its head. It is legal fiction at best, and a neo-Marxist praxis at worst — a desperate attempt to stir up “class conflict” between the majority and minority where none ought to exist.
In the future, it’s highly likely that Section 1 will be used again to uphold encroachments upon citizens’ rights — from vaccine passports to online censorship (e.g., Bill C-10) and others. Canadians must, hence, stand on guard for thee and expunge this threat — regardless of the high bar for constitutional change. If Section 1 is the end of charter rights, we must end it, first.
Arjun Singh is a recent graduate of political science from the University of Toronto.
ALERT: Ontario “Human Rights Commission” CANCELS YOUR RIGHTS for refusing the vaccine! — Email them today!
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has issued an official statement on vaccine mandates, adding to an epidemic of intrusive, unconstitutional government requirements that gnaw away at Canadians’ civil liberties and medical autonomy.
And — shockingly, but not surprisingly — their position is not supportive of genuine human rights…
While repeatedly (and laughably) claiming that receiving the jab is “voluntary,” the OHRC makes the stunning pronouncement that “a person who chooses not to be vaccinated based on personal preference does not have the right to accommodation under the Code.”
Translated: Your basic human rights are cancelled if you fail to comply with the government’s demand that you get vaccinated.
This is absolute madness. There’s just no other way to put it.
That’s why we’re asking you to send a strong message to the OHRC (CC’ed to Ontario’s MPPs, AG and PM), expressing your outrage that pandemic politics has taken priority over actual human rights — a blatant contradiction of the organization’s supposed purpose for existing at all.
Can we count on you to email the OHRC today, and remind them that human rights do NOT have an expiration date, even in the midst of a worldwide viral outbreak?
You can reach the OHRC in one easy step using this simple contact form (see right) that we’re making available here on LifeSite’s Action Center.
With one click, your message is sent directly to the OHRC without having to look up any contact details yourself.
Then, please SHARE this important information with your friends and family members to spread the word across Ontario!
Human rights do NOT come with an asterisk.
This should not be a controversial statement, especially from the perspective of a government institution whose primary purpose is to ensure that Ontario’s Human Rights Code is upheld and administered faithfully — but, has has often been the case in Ontario and other provinces across Canada, these “Human Rights” Commissions have done more to defend radical leftist orthodoxy than the rights of Canadians.
To see this practice in action, look no further than the OHRC’s recent statement of support for intrusive, unconstitutional vaccine mandates, which are already wreaking havoc on countless people in our province and beyond.
The OHRC recently published a Policy Statement confirming its unabashed support for vaccine mandates, singing the praises of the requirements issued by Ontario’s provincial government by declaring that, yes, “[v]accination requirements [are] generally permissible.”
Moreover, the statement goes on to explain how such mandates are, by the OHRC’s estimation, permissible under the Ontario Human Rights Code so long as there are “protections” in place for those who are “unable” to receive the Covid-19 vaccine for reasons specifically alluded to in said Code.
But then, the OHRC goes on to conclude its statement by completely contradicting itself, effectively CANCELLING your Code-protected rights should you opt against getting vaccinated!
In doing so, any Ontarian’s failure to comply with the mandate would basically equate to a surrender of their most basic human rights…all with the full backing of the Ontario HUMAN RIGHTS Commission — the very government institution whose primary responsibility is to protect human rights in our province, not tear them down!
It should go without saying that Ontarians should be free to choose for themselves whether or not to get vaccinated for Covid-19, without such infringement against their rights and threats of discrimination for not complying plaguing their decision process.
But, as it seems, the OHRC holds government institutions with blatantly political priorities in higher esteem than it does the actual people it is responsible for protecting.
It’s time to let them know that their dereliction of duty and utter disregard for human rights in the wake of the Covid-19 outbreak is unacceptable, and that the people of Ontario will not stand idly by while their freedoms continue to be trampled on by the government.
Please take a few minutes to email the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) today, and express your disillusionment at their stunning betrayal of their own mission to protect human rights here in Ontario.
Faith, in Christian theology, is not the greatest of virtues – that is charity, or Christian love, but it is the most fundamental in the root meaning of fundamental, that is to say, foundational. Faith is the foundation upon which the other Christian theological virtues of hope and charity stand. (1) Indeed, it is the foundation upon which all other Christian experience must be built. It is the appointed means whereby we receive the grace of God and no other step towards God can be taken apart from the first step of faith. The Object of faith is the True and Living God. The content of faith can be articulated in more general or more specific terms as the context of the discussion requires. At its most specific the content of the Christian faith is the Gospel message, the Christian kerygma about God’s ultimate revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ. At its most general it is what is asserted about God in the sixth verse of the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, that “He is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him”.
Whether articulated in its most general terms or its most specific, the faith Christianity calls for us to place in God is a confidence that presupposes His Goodness and His Omnipotence. This has led directly to a long-standing dilemma that skeptics like to pose to Christian believers. It is known as the problem of evil. It is sometimes posed as a question, at other times it is worded as a challenging assertion, but however formulated it boils down to the idea that the presence of evil in a world created by and ruled by God is inconsistent with God’s being both Good and Omnipotent. The challenge to the Christian apologist, therefore, is to answer the question of how evil can be present in a world created by and ruled by a Good and Omnipotent God. This dilemma has been raised so often that there is even a special word for theological and philosophical answers to the dilemma – theodicy.
Christian orthodoxy does have an answer to this question. The answer is a complex one, however, and we are living in an era that is impatient with complex answers. For this reason, Christian apologists now offer a simple answer to the question – free will. This is unfortunate in that this answer, while not wrong, is incomplete and requires the context of the full, complex answer, to make the most sense.
The fuller answer begins with an observation about how evil is present in the world. In this world there are things which exist in the fullest sense of the word – they exist in themselves, with essences of their own. There are also things which exist, not in themselves, but as properties or qualities of things which exist in themselves. Take redness for example. It does not exist in itself, but as a property of apples, strawberries, wagons, etc. Christian orthodoxy tells us that while evil is present in the world, it does not exist in either of these senses. It has no essence of its own. Nor does it exist as a created property of anything that does. God did not create evil, either as a thing in itself, or as a property of anything else that He created. Just as a bruise is a defect in the redness of an apple, so evil is present in the world as a defect in the goodness of moral creatures.
If that defect is there, and it is, and God did not put it there, which He did not, the only explanation of its presence that is consistent with orthodoxy is that it is there due to the free will of moral creatures. Free will, in this sense of the expression, means the ability to make moral choices. Free will is itself good, rather than evil, because without it, no creature could be a moral creature who chooses rightly. The ability to choose rightly, however, is also the ability to choose wrongly. The good end of a created world populated by creatures that are morally good required that they be created with this ability, good itself, but which carries with it the potential for evil.
One problem with the short answer is the expression “free will” itself. It must be carefully explained, as in the above theodicy, because it can be understood differently, and if it is so understood differently, this merely raises new dilemmas rather than resolving the old one. Anyone who is familiar with the history of either theology or philosophy knows that “free will” is an expression that has never been used without controversy. It should be noted, though, that many of those controversies do not directly affect what we have been discussing here. Theological debates over free will, especially those that can be traced back to the dispute between St. Augustine and Pelagius, have often been about the degree to which the Fall has impaired the freedom of human moral agency. Since this pertains to the state of things after evil entered into Creation it need not be brought into the discussion of how evil entered in the first place although it often is.
One particular dilemma that the free will theodicy raises when free will is not carefully explained is the one that appears in a common follow-up challenge that certain skeptics often pose in response. “How can we say that God gave mankind free will”, such skeptics ask us, “when He threatens to punish certain choices as sin?”
Those who pose this dilemma confuse two different kinds of freedom that pertain to our will and our choices. When we speak of the freedom of our will in a moral context we can mean one of two things. We could be speaking of our agency – that we have the power and ability when confronted with choices, to think rationally about them and make real choices that are genuinely our own, instead of pre-programmed, automatic, responses. We could also, however, be speaking of our right to choose – that when confronted with certain types of choices, we own our own decisions and upon choosing will face only whatever consequences, positive or negative, necessarily follow from our choice by nature and not punitive consequences imposed upon us by an authority that is displeased with our choice. When Christian apologists use free will in our answer to the problem of evil, it is freedom in the former sense of agency that is intended. When skeptics respond by pointing to God’s punishment of sin as being inconsistent with free will, they use freedom in the latter sense of right. While it is tempting to dismiss this as a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic, it may in many cases reflect genuine confusion with regards to these categories of freedom. I have certainly encountered many Christian apologists who in their articulation of the free will theodicy have employed language that suggests that they are as confused about the matter as these skeptics.
Christianity has never taught that God gave mankind the second kind of freedom, freedom in the sense of right, in an absolute, unlimited, manner. To say that He did would be the equivalent of saying that God abdicated His Sovereignty as Ruler over the world He created. Indeed, the orthodox answer to the problem of evil dilemma is not complete without the assertion that however much evil may be present in the world, God as the Sovereign Omnipotent Ruler of all will ultimately judge and punish it. What Christianity does teach is that God gave mankind the second kind of freedom subject only to the limits of His Own Sovereign Rule. Where God has not forbidden something as a sin – and, contrary to what is often thought, these are few in number, largely common-sensical, and simple to understand – or placed upon us a duty to do something – these are even fewer – man is free to make his own choices in the second sense, that is to say, without divinely-imposed punitive consequences.
Today, a different sort of controversy has arisen in which the arguments of one side confuse freedom as agency with freedom as right. Whereas the skeptics alluded to above point to rules God has imposed in His Sovereign Authority limiting man’s freedom as right in order to counter an argument made about man’s freedom as agency, in this new controversy man’s freedom as agency is being used to deny that government tyranny is infringing upon man’s freedom as right.
Before looking at the specifics of this, let us note where government authority fits in to the picture in Christian orthodoxy.
Human government, Christianity teaches, obtains its authority from God. This, however, is an argument for limited government, not for autocratic government that passes whatever laws it likes. If God has given the civil power a sword to punish evil, then it is authorized to wield that sword in the punishment of what God says is evil not whatever it wants to punish and is required, therefore, to respect the freedom that God has given to mankind. Where the Modern Age went wrong was in regarding the Divine Right of Kings as the opposite of constitutional, limited, government, rather than its theological basis. Modern man has substituted secular ideologies as that foundation and these, even liberalism with all of its social contracts, natural rights, and individualism, eventually degenerate into totalitarianism and tyranny.
Now let us look at the controversy of the day which has to do with forced vaccination. As this summer ends and we move into fall governments have been introducing measures aimed at coercing and compelling people who have not yet been fully vaccinated for the bat flu to get vaccinated. These measures include mandates and vaccine passports. The former are decrees that say that everyone working in a particular sector must either be fully vaccinated by a certain date or submit to frequent testing. Governments have been imposing these mandates on their own employees and in some cases on private employers and have been encouraging other private employers to impose such mandates on their own companies. Vaccine passports are certificates or smartphone codes that governments are requiring that people show to prove that they have been vaccinated to be able to travel by air or train or to gain access to restaurants, museums, movie theatres, and many other places declared by the government to be “non-essential”. These mandates and passports are a form of coercive force. Through them, the government is telling people that they must either agree to be vaccinated or be barred from full participation in society. Governments, and others who support these measures, respond to the objection that they are violating people’s right to choose whether or not some foreign substance is injected into their body by saying “it’s their choice, but there will be consequences if they choose not be vaccinated”.
The consequences referred to are not the natural consequences, whatever these may be, positive or negative, of the choice to reject a vaccine, but punitive consequences imposed by the state. Since governments are essentially holding people’s jobs, livelihoods, and most basic freedoms hostage until they agree to be vaccinated, those who maintain that this is not a violation of the freedom to accept or reject medical treatment would seem to be saying that unless the government actually removes a person’s agency, by, for example, strapping someone to a table and sticking a needle into him, it has not violated his right to choose. This obviously confuses freedom as agency with freedom as right and in a way that strips the latter of any real meaning.
What makes this even worse is that the freedom/right that is at stake in this controversy, each person’s ownership of the ultimate choice over whether or not a medical treatment or procedure is administered to his body, is not one that we have traditionally enjoyed merely by default due to the absence of law limiting it. Rather it is a right that has been positively stated and specifically acknowledged, and enshrined both in constitutional law and international agreement. If government is allowed to pretend that it has not violated this well-recognized right because its coercion has fallen short of eliminating agency altogether then is no other right or freedom the trampling over of which in pursuit of its ends it could not or would not similarly excuse. This is tyranny, plain and simple.
Whether in theology and philosophy or in politics, the distinction between the different categories of freedom that apply to the human will is an important one that should be recognized and respected. Agency should never be confused with right, or vice versa.
(1) Hope and charity, as Christian virtues, have different meanings from those of their more conventional uses. In the case of hope, the meanings are almost the exact opposite of each other. Hope, in the conventional sense, is an uncertain but desired anticipation, but in the Christian theological sense, is a confident, assured, expectation. It is in their theological senses, of course, that I mean when I say that hope and charity are built on the foundation of faith. — Gerry T. Neal
The Yukon candidate disqualified by the Conservative Party of Canada over opposition to vaccine passports and employer vaccine mandates will be running as an independent.
Jonas Smith, a mining industry advocate and former Conservative national councillor, was removed as a candidate last week over what the Conservative party said was an “unwillingness to support public health guidelines.”
Smith said it was about his “opposition to calls for implementation of mandated workplace vaccinations and vaccine passport requirements in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Smith ran for the Conservatives in 2019, but lost to Liberal Larry Bagnell by 153 votes. With Bagnell retiring, Smith was set to seek the seat for the Conservatives again when Canadians go to the polls Sept. 20. https://www.youtube.com/embed/8VpHAI0TnBw?feature=oembed
Sources connected to the Conservative Party of Canada tell True North the party’s National Candidate Selection Committee formally approved Smith’s disqualification on the weekend. The nomination rules allow a candidate to appeal disqualification to National Council, though Smith said this path would be fruitless.
“I have undergone some of the process available to me, but it’s clear to me that when the central campaign doesn’t want you on, then regardless of the outcome of any process, that sentiment remains,” Smith said in an interview with True North.
Smith said he’s optimistic he can win as an independent, noting that Yukon has elected members of parliament from all three major federal parties in the past. https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rb9FZ6ooGKg?feature=oembed
“This is an opportunity to represent Yukoners regardless of party stripe,” he said. “I’m doing this in response to the overwhelming outpouring of encouragement for me to do so. I narrowly lost the last election and I’ve got thousands upon thousands of supporters here in the territory that want me to do this.”
Smith pointed to Jody Wilson-Raybould’s success in 2019 as an independent candidate after being kicked out of the Liberal caucus, suggesting voters respond favourably to principled politicians.
“Integrity transcends politics,” Smith said.
The Conservatives have not yet named a replacement candidate in the Yukon riding. https://www.youtube.com/embed/xzzk3oACAl4?feature=oembed
We’re asking readers, like you, to make a contribution in support of True North’s fact-based, independent journalism.
Unlike the mainstream media, True North isn’t getting a government bailout. Instead, we depend on the generosity of Canadians like you.
How can a media outlet be trusted to remain neutral and fair if they’re beneficiaries of a government handout? We don’t think they can.
This is why independent media in Canada is more important than ever. If you’re able, please make a tax-deductible donation to True North today. Thank you so much.