Nine months after being sentenced to the maximum — one year in prison — for writing satire and violating Canada’s notorious “hate law (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) YOUR WARD NEWS editor Dr. James Sears has had his bail conditions amended. Nine months of labour brought to good doctor, less totalitarian conditions. Pending appeal of his conviction and sentence, he was originally effectively gagged, forbidden to speak to the press or to make any public statements.
On June 3, a Toronto judge revised these conditions. He may now speak publicly and speak to the press but he must not ascribe negative characteristics to Jews or women by dint of their membership in these groups. [Making privileged groups immune to serious criticism has always been the goal of mischievously named “anti-hate” laws.]
Dr. Sears’ sole condition now is”Do not make any public statement, or make publicly available, directly or indirectly, any statement or material, ascribing negative qualities or behaviour to women or Jews by their membership in either identifiable group”
Four Hundred People Stress Loss of Freedoms in “END THE LOCKDOWN” Protest at Queen’s Park, Toronto The “END THE LOCKDOWN” protests in Toronto started two weeks ago at Queen’s Park with about 50 people. The premier denounced these concerned citizens as “a bunch of yahoos” who were reckless. Many now wear the term “yahoo” as a badge of honour. A week ago, the protest had swelled to 200. On a frigid, windy May 9 — yes, it must be global warming — there were 400 protesters of all ages in Queen’s Park. CAFE (the Canadian Association for Free Expression’s) contingent, marching under the Red Ensign quadrupled from the week before. The protesters emphasized several concerns — the lies we’ve been told (3,500-13,000 deaths in Ontario by the end of April — actually fewer than 500); the insane closing of parks and other facilities; the worries about 5G technology and concerns about the danger of vaccines and the terror or compulsory vaccination. Most of all protesters stressed the outrageous loss of individual rights — freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech. Several repeated an important warning: “Quarantine is when you restrict movement of sick people. Tyranny is when you restrict the movement of people.” Independent candidate (Brantford-Brant) in last fall’s federal election Les Bory took the following video. It includes interviews with many protesters, including Paul Fromm, Director of CAFE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3FpG4NB9c There will be another protest next Saturday from noon to 3:00 p.m. and until the lockdown and trampling of our civil rights end.
Following on the success of our past May 30, 2020 Kelowna rally, we are again organizing our next Saturday, June 6, 2020 rally in Kelowna, B.C. at Stuart Park, 12:00–2:30 p.m. or so, and longer if you wish.
At
this point, we would really like to express our gratitude to Ross,
Suzanne and Donna for their sacrifices and help to deliver our flyers
this past Thursday. It
was an enjoyable experience that resulted in success, with many new
people participating in, and expressing their support for our cause on
Saturday.
We
would also like to express our gratitude and appreciation for our
friend Glen, who was kind enough to bring his amp and microphone,
greatly increasing our ability to reach everyone in our group. With
Glen’s support, we are working right now to get on increasing our
ability to get our information out to many others. I will keep you
posted on this over the next couple of weeks.
We
would also like to stress our gratitude and appreciation for all those
who have recruited others, either during our rallies or online, and
helped to educate others. Without your support and efforts, we could
not have grown this far. And our objective is to grow and obtain
further community support to put sufficient pressure on our Government
and officials, to cancel this absurd lockdown, social distancing and
masks policies that have created pure and unreasonable fear and panic in
the majority of people in our province, and destroyed our social trust.
May 30, 2020 Update
WOW!We had 120 people at Saturday’s rally,and we received an incredible amount of public support, including from the police, bus and ambulance drivers passing by.
I wish to again encourage everyone to please bring as many friends and family members as you can for our June 6, 2020 rally. Especially
the younger adults and high schoolers, as they are the ones who stand
to lost the most if any new normal is imposed. They are the ones who
stand to have their DNA recorded for life, who face the longest time
periods of harm after forced vaccinations, who will not know the real
meaning of true social interaction and many other stressful effects of
these unconstitutional actions by our gov’ts.
We
also urge you to reach out to churches and business owners and
employees to join us. They too are the victims of this fraud.
If
you can think of any solutions you wish to advance, including local
solutions, please send them to me and I will make note of them to
discuss on Saturday.
As
usual, I will open our rally with some comments and updates. I will
also discuss the effects that our gov’ts actions have caused, are
causing and will cause in the foreseeable future, if they are permitted
to continue.
Do not fall into the trap of believing that it is only because of the Gov’t’s social distancing/masks demands that stores can now begin to slowly open. To
the contrary, it is directly because of the Gov’t’s actions that we
have sustained tens of billions of dollars in economic losses, permanent
job losses, and incurred further health care costs resulting from
cancelled tests and surgeries, and actually placed thousands of people’s
health and lives at risk. Communist PM Trudeau, Premier
Horgan, Health Minister Dix, and Public Health Officer Bonnie Henry are
the true cause of these problems and short of a public apology and
immediate cancellation of the lockdown and social distancing policies,
must be voted out of office next election, or fired for Ms. Henry.
I
think that it would be a good idea to maybe spend a few minutes on the
boardwalk, prior to walking to Harvey St., handing out flyers and
personally talking to people. Having seen the success of last Saturday,
I think we should continue to make our presence known and get the
support of as many people as possible, personally and from people
traveling in their cars.
B.C. Doctors Interview?
I
put feelers out on Saturday. We need to get some B.C. doctors/nurses
who are willing to speak anonymously, both visually and in audio, as to
what is truly happening behind the scenes, from a medical perspective
and a political perspective in the medical community. We need to have
local doctors/nurses providing accurate facts in relation to this issue.
If
you know any doctors or nurses who would be willing to be interviewed
anonymously, and with guaranteed power to review the interview prior to
release, please contact me as soon as possible, and let’s see what we
can arrange. U.S. doctors are still medical professionals, but we need
local facts to support our cause.
Doing
a video of BC medical people would really strengthen our demands on
Premier Horgan and allow us to attack them – instead of waiting while
they attack us.
Any other ideas on how to attack them (legally of course), are very much welcome.
If you know anyone “in the system” who can provide us anonymous tips and/or documents, we need all the help we can get. Please let me know.
————————————————————-
Preliminary notes:
Please
post the attached Circular and Flyer here to any Facebook account or
website you may have, and send out to your email list. Increasing our
rally numbers is critical for our support.
See Youtube and/or Bitchute videos with:
Dr. Mikovits on
exposing the false pandemic, Dr. Fauci’s history of corruption, success
of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 and the dangers of wearing
masks.
Dr. Rashid Buttar on
the true medical nature of COVID-19, patents filed years ago for
coronavirus and the people behind this, and the virus getting killed by
Vit C and heat.
For the success of Vit C therapy in killing all viruses, check out this site of registered doctors from around the world:
Canadian Dan Dicks and his awesome efforts and sacrifices in reporting the truth on COVID, the Vancouver rallies, and many other issues.
Also, check out: North Patriots Free, for ongoing updates on rallies all across Canada.
And don’t forget to read: THE LAW, by Frederick Bastiat. If
you do nothing else to learn of freedom issues, you MUST read this
awe-inspiring 70 page, 200 year old book!! It will be the best
investment of time you will make.
You
may also wish to read: The Politics of Obedience, by Etienne de la
Boetie, for an awesome read on the reasons why people not only agree to
being enslaved by governments, but actually demand to be enslaved! This
will provide a fascinating insight into why people still do what gov’ts
tell them to do, even if the orders are morally, ethically, legally and
Constitutionally, wrong.
—————————————————–
Our
fundamental law for over 1 200 years in our common law history, is
based on the supremacy of the individual, NOT THE COLLECTIVE.
This is the biggest threat to our way of life and standardof living in our history. Not the flu – but the over reactionfrom corrupt and/or dishonest opportunist Gov’ts.
It is a complete destruction of our common law.
Hello Everyone
See the attached, “End the Lockdown Now” flyer for details of our upcoming event.
We need YOURparticipation!
For the first time, Canadians are starting to realize the hidden gov’t agenda. And we’re angry!
CLEAR
is joining other patriots across the world who value their rights and
freedoms and know that our/their gov’ts are lying to us. With the help
of international subversive organizations such as the WHO.
When Communist Trudeau states: “If you want life to get back to the way it was exactly before, it won’t.”,
you know these are code words that the State is planning more spying
and privacy invasions, more restrictions on our fundamental rights and
freedoms, and using this flu virus as the basis for the destruction of
our way of life and standard of living.
People need FACTS.
The Canadian Gov’t has repeatedly admitted that this is a “mild form of the flu”.
There have been ongoing false predictions from the very beginning to frighten everyone into compliance.
Gov’ts have admitted to purposely falsifying the numbers of deaths by including everyone who dies with the virus, as opposed to those who die because of the virus.
People are being recorded as COVID deaths in many places even without testing.
The mortality rate of this flu virus is virtually identical to that of previous flu seasons!!!
This a not just a major overreaction to a flu virus, it is, minimally, a fraudulent use of
the flu to invoke one of the largest rights and freedoms deprivations
in our history, and instill unwarranted and widespread fear and panic.
And for a flu virus that is demonstrably controlled by mega-doses of Vit C and/or Hydroxychloroquine.
Constitutional rights and freedoms exist and protect us exactly for these types of situations.
They are not rescindable at will by corrupt or dishonest, opportunist Gov’ts.
Our rights and liberties are Non-Negotiable. We will never accept these
rights and freedoms deprivations – now or in the future.
We visited Round The Clock Diner in East York on
Memory Lane this morning, ordered cheeseburgers, and consumed them while
seated in a booth. Revolutionary!
We
joined many dozens of other patrons actually ENTERING the dining room
of an open Restaurant in Pennsylvania! Against the “orders” of the Great
God Governor Tom Wolf.
This
was our first sit-down restaurant meal since 12 March. We consumed
food. Nobody died. Nobody was infected or otherwise incapacitated.
Nobody set the building afire or turned over cars in the parking lot. We
took off our idiot masks while dining. And put them back on to pay the
bill and exit.
Our
waitress confirmed that ownership gets frequent threats from “Law
enforcement” of license removal and other harshness. For daring to
prepare and serve food to paying customers!
It’s
sad that dozens of other restaurants in the vicinity simply refused to
resist and are now VACANT and DEAD! We counted at least ten permanent
shutdowns along our U.S. 30 route from New Oxford to East York. Three
diners, three family restaurants, Olive Garden, Denny’s, a Chinese food
place and an ice cream parlor. There are many more in the region.
No
swimming pools, no gyms, no workout clubs, no boys-club baseball. And
only ONE restaurant in all of SE Pennsylvania. Insanity AND cowardice
As I have said many times in the past, I am not an admirer of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is not because I disagree with
the “fundamental freedoms” listed in Section 2 or the basic legal and
civil rights listed in Sections 7 to 13. All of these rights and
freedoms, which are by far the most important rights and freedoms in the
entire document, Canadians already possessed as subjects of Her Majesty
under Common Law before 1982. The reason I dislike the Charter is
because the Charter, rather than making these rights and freedoms more
secure, as the Liberals who drafted it want you to believe, made them
less secure. It includes two extremely broad loopholes.
The clause “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as
can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” found in
Section 1 is the first of these. Who says what limits are “reasonable”
and who decides whether they are “demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society?” The government that seeks to place limits on
these rights and freedoms cannot be trusted to make this decision
itself.
The second loophole is Section 33, the Exception Section with its
notorious “notwithstanding clause”. This section allows the Dominion
and provincial governments to pass Acts which will operate
“notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15
of this Charter”, i.e., the sections about our fundamental freedoms and
basic legal rights. Although such Acts are required to sunset in five
years (subsection 3) they can be renewed (subsection 4). This second
loophole is the reason former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said, and he
was right to say it, that the “Charter is not worth the paper it’s
written on.”
This is not the only problem with the Charter.
Section 7 reads “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”, substituting
“security of the person” for “property” which is the third of the basic
rights under Common Law, in which the security of person and property is
the concise way of stating all three basic rights. Property is
nowhere mentioned in the Charter. This has long been criticized as one
of the chief failings of this document and has been thought to reflect
the Marxist inclinations of those who have led the Liberal Party,
arguably since Lester Pearson became leader in 1958, but especially
since Pierre Trudeau took over in 1968.
Subsection 2 of Section 4 allows a Dominion or provincial government
with a large enough backing in the House of Commons or the provincial
legislature – a supermajority of two-thirds – to suspend elections
indefinitely in a time of “real or apprehended, war, invasion or
insurrection.” Note the words “or apprehended.” The threat of war,
invasion or insurrection does not have to be real. Pray that neither
the Liberals nor any other party, ever obtain enough seats in Parliament
to put this subsection into effect.
Subsection 2 of Section 15 nullifies what subsection 1 says about how
every individual is “equal before and under the law and has the right to
the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without
discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race,
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or
physical disability.”
I am not particularly keen on the wording of subsection 1 either.
Saying that everyone has a right to “equal protection and equal benefit
of the law without discrimination” can be interpreted in two ways. It
can be interpreted as binding the State, preventing it from practicing
said discrimination in its administration of the law and justice. I
would not have a problem with that interpretation. It can also be
interpreted as empowering the State to interfere in our everyday
interactions to make sure we aren’t discriminating against each other.
I have a huge problem with that – it is a form of totalitarian thought
control.
Consider the Canadian Human Rights Act which was passed five years prior
to the Charter. Although the expression “human rights” is thought by
most people to mean rights which all human beings possess by virtue of
their humanity and which only bad governments violate, and the phrase
“human rights violation” is ordinarily understood to refer to
governments incarcerating people for indefinite periods without a trial,
torturing them, murdering them, and the like, this Act places limits on
individuals not the State, which it empowers to police the thoughts and
motivations of Canadians in their private interactions with each other.
The second subsection of Section 15 states that the first subsection
“does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object
the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups
including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or
ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical
disability.” In other words, the State is allowed to practice
discrimination on the basis of race, rational or ethnic origin, colour,
religion, etc., if that discrimination is the type sometimes called
reverse discrimination, that is to say, discrimination against white
people, especially those of British and French stock, Christians, males,
etc.
Section 15 as a whole, then, appears to authorize the State to interfere
in our private affairs to prevent us from discriminating against each
other, while allowing the State to practice a form of discrimination
itself.
Other flaws in the Charter itself could be pointed out but those that I
have mentioned here are by far the worst. Worse, in my view, than any
actual flaw in the Charter, however, is the attitude towards the Charter
and the set of false notions about it that the Liberal Party has
encouraged us to hold ever since 1982. There are many, for example,
who refer to the Charter as if it were our constitution and claim that
Pierre Trudeau gave us our constitution. This is not a claim the
Charter makes for itself and it is no such thing. The Charter has been
a part of our constitution since 1982, but it is not the
constitution itself. Indeed, even the British North America Act of
1867, which was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867 during the
repatriation process which gave us the Charter but remains in effect, is
not the whole of our constitution. Most of our constitution is in
fact, unwritten, or, to put it another way, written in prescription and
tradition rather than paper and ink. As our greatest constitution
expert, the late Eugene Forsey used to say to those who made the absurd
claim that Pierre Trudeau had given us our constitution, we still have
the constitution we had in 1867, albeit with a new name, and bells and
whistles added.
Even more common is the strange notion that the Charter itself gave us
our rights and freedoms. Admirers of the Charter tend to view it this
way. Some critics, such as William Gairdner (The Trouble With Canada, 1990) and Kenneth McDonald (The Monstrous Trick, 1998, Alexis in Charterland,
2004) have argued that the Charter is an example of continental-style
charter law, like the Napoleonic Code, intended to replace our Common
Law system of rights and freedoms. The reality is more nuanced than
that. Before explaining the nuance and what really happened, we need
to understand the difference between the two systems and why this would
indeed be a “monstrous trick” if it were in fact true.
Under continental-style charter law, everything is imposed from the top
down, from the law itself, to the rights and freedoms that exist under
it. Therefore, under this kind of law, you only have the specific
rights and freedoms that are spelled out on paper in black and white.
The question, under this system of law, is whether or not I have
permission to do something.
Under Common Law, the law is not imposed from the top down, except in
the sense of the underlying natural law being laid down by God, and even
then this raises the much-debated theological question of whether God’s
law and justice are expressions of His character or of His will.
Don’t worry. I will not attempt to answer that question here as it is
quite extraneous to this discussion. The Common Law is not imposed by
the State. Although the Sovereign authority, the Queen-in-Parliament,
has the power to add to, subtract from, and otherwise alter the Law, the
Law is not the creation of the Sovereign authority. The law arises
out of natural law and justice, through a process of discovery in the
courts, where disputes are brought to be arbitrated on the basis of
fairly hearing all the evidence on both sides. Rights and freedoms,
under Common Law, are not limited to those that are spelled out in black
and white. The question, under this system of law, is whether or not I
am prohibited to do something. If not, I am free to do it.
The Charter of Freedoms does not actually replace Common Law with
continental-style charter law. It merely creates the impression of
having done so. The Charter does not identify itself as the source of
our rights and freedoms, nor does it say that we have only those rights
and freedoms it spells out. Indeed, it states the very opposite of
this. Remember that the addition of the Charter was part of a
constitutional repatriation process that required adopting an amendment
formula and which required the participation of the provincial
governments. Nine out of ten of the provinces are fully Common Law,
and it is the exception, which under the provisions of the Quebec Act of
1774 has a hybrid of Common Law criminal law and French civil law,
which dissented from the final product. The Liberals would never have
been able to get away with substituting continental law for Common Law
in this context in 1982. They, quite in keeping with their modus
operandi of never telling the truth when a lie will suffice, settled for
creating the impression that they had done so. Their totalitarian ends
would be met, as long as Canadians started to think in terms of “am I
permitted” rather than “is it prohibited.”
This is why the most important section in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is Section 26. Here it is in full:
The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall
not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or
freedoms that exist in Canada.
This is the Charter’s acknowledgement, tucked away in the miscellaneous
category towards the end rather than being placed in the very first
section as it ought to have been, that the Charter did not take us out
from under Common Law and cause all of our Common Law rights and
freedoms to disappear.
To illustrate what this means in application to a current hot topic, the
Supreme Court of Canada was entirely in the wrong when it said as part
of its ruling in R v Hasselwander
in 1993, that Canadians have no constitutional right to own guns. The
passing of the Charter, by its own admission in Section 26, did not
cancel our right, as subjects of Her Majesty, to have arms for our
defence, such as are allowed by law. This is a Common Law right, the
fifth right that Sir William Blackstone in the first volume of his Commentary on the Laws of England
(1765) identified as a necessary auxiliary to the basic and absolute
rights of life, liberty, and property, and which had been put into
statute in the Bill of Rights of 1689. This does not mean that
the Supreme Court of Canada was necessarily wrong in its ruling on this
case which involved the confiscation of a Mini-Uzi sub-machine gun. It
does mean, however, that it erred in saying that Canadians had no
constitutional gun rights. This was in response to the defence’s own
mistake of trying to argue based upon American law, but what they should
have said was that Canadians’ Common Law right to own guns is not
absolute, but is subject to the qualification “as are allowed by law.”
600 DailyThe White House • May 28, 2020BREAKING: President Trump signs order to fight online censorship
Moments ago in the Oval Office, President Trump signed an Executive Order to fight online censorship by technology corporations, including social media platforms. Tech bias is a major issue facing our democracy. It challenges the free exchange of ideas and public debate that protects our civil liberties. Every citizen—liberal, conservative, or otherwise—has a right to be heard and treated fairly online.
WATCH: President Trump announces executive action to fight online censorship In the next few hours, you may hear a lot about this Executive Order. Leftwing media will claim it addresses a fake problem because tech bias doesn’t exist. Democrats in Congress will say the President is exceeding his authority. Some in the Beltway establishment will say the order doesn’t do that much in the first place. All of these are lies. Here are a few of the key actions in President Trump’s order:
Makes it U.S. policy that platforms who selectively edit, censor, or are not acting in “good faith” with regards to content will not receive the liability protection included in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Directs the Commerce Department to petition the FCC to make clarifying rules on Section 230 in line with U.S. policy
Helps stop millions of taxpayer dollars from being wasted by federal agencies on advertising with biased social media platforms
Ensures the Justice Department will review more than 16,000 complaints about politically motivated censorship that were collected by the White House in advance of a Social Media Summit held last year
Mobilizes State Attorneys General—who have massive subpoena and consumer protection authorities—to ensure social media platforms are not engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices
Acts as federal law and lists the many ways in which tech platforms act with bias against viewpoints they disagree
Massive corporations that treat millions of American citizens unfairly shouldn’t expect special privileges and protections under the law. With President Trump’s Executive Order today, our country is one step closer to having an honest, fair public debate.
Read President Trump’s Executive Order on censorship here.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/nb-staff/2020/05/28/33-examples-twitters-anti-conservative-bias MORE: 33 Examples of Twitter’s Anti-Conservative BiasPhoto of the Day President Trump, joined by United States Attorney General William Barr, signed an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | May 28, 2020