The Freedom Pushback is Spreading: Signs Seen on Danforth Avenue
Author Archives: admin
Randy Hillier’s Son Tasered and Arrested by OPP for Coming to Aid of a Maskless Friend Trying to Enter a Pub
Randy Hillier’s Son Tasered and Arrested by OPP for Coming to Aid of a Maskless Friend Trying to Enter a Pub
Ontario Independent MPP Randy Hillier is an outspoken opponent of the Tory government’s lockdown and forced masking policies. It appears his son was targetted in a revenge arrest. Hillier (Kingston-Lennox & Addington) tweeted: “@OPP_ER tasered my son in the back tonight in Perth. The crime, my sons friend went to the bar to order a beer wasn’t wearing a mask. the owner of the Arrow pub called the cops. My sons stood up & explained their friend is exempt from mask wearing, they’re both in jail #onpoli“
twitter.com/randyhillier/status/1335080111079624707
We live in a snitch society. Pub owners like this collaborator should be picketed or, at least, boycotted by those who believe in freedom. Make no mistake, we live in a Medico-Stalinist tyranny!
University of Chicago Refuses to Punish Professor Who Opposed Anti-White “Diversity” Policies
FANTASTIC: A WHITE PROFESSOR STANDS UP: A VICTORY: UChicago refuses to punish professor protested for criticizing diversity, equity and inclusion efforts
(001709.97-E004822.34NNORLOACC20V)
[Finally a White man stands up, a scientist. We need this BADLY. BADLY. The universities are dominated by Jews, and their evils know no bounds. The insanity is beyond imagination. Here is a professor who went on to social media and did his thing. This is what many white doctors and experts have done in the insane covid year of 2020. I hope this is the first of many. It’s about time Western intellectuals, scientists and academics stood up to this Jewish insanity. This gives me hope and this is why I say: WORSE IS BETTER, just keep your head down and keep on fighting forward. DON’T STOP. Educate other Whites and get stuck into the fight folks. Jan]
‘To anyone who is reading this, I would say: don’t be afraid. If you see something wrong, speak out about it,’ embattled professor tells The College Fix
The University of Chicago has refused demands to punish a science professor for speaking out against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
Associate Professor Dorian Abbot recently took on the push to hire women and underrepresented minorities rather than select the best candidate for the job, bias against Chinese and Christian students, and other hot-button topics, drawing the ire of protesting students who said the scholar made them feel unsafe.
But their efforts to get him sanctioned failed at the University of Chicago, considered the best university in the country for free speech.
“I’m just a simple physical scientist. The way I’ve always approached my life is to tell the truth and try to do what is morally right,” Abbot wrote in an email to The College Fix. Abbot is (and it looks like he will continue to be) a professor of geophysical science at the university.
After Abbot cut a series of videos in which he listed his specific grievances with diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, “58 students and postdocs of the Department of Geophysical Sciences, and 71 other graduate students and postdocs from other University of Chicago departments,” published a letter calling for Abbot to be sanctioned, according to a petition in support of the professor.
“The contents of Professor Dorian Abbot’s videos threaten the safety and belonging of all underrepresented groups within the department and serve to undermine Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion initiatives,” the letter stated.
University President Robert Zimmer would not bow to their demands, however.
“We believe universities have an important role as places where novel and even controversial ideas can be proposed, tested and debated. For this reason, the University does not limit the comments of faculty members, mandate apologies, or impose other disciplinary consequences for such comments,” he wrote in a Nov. 29 statement to the community.
Abbot praised the decision in his email to The Fix.
“President Zimmer has a long-standing commitment to academic freedom and this is a central part of the UChicago brand. Critically, our commitment to academic freedom has been codified many times, most recently in the ‘Chicago Principles,’” he wrote.
The “Chicago Principles” he references were also mentioned by Zimmer in his statement. Defined in 2014, they constitute the university’s “fundamental commitment … to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.”
“The current ‘cancel culture,’” Abbot told The College Fix, “has a powerful chilling effect on faculty, who fear for their jobs if they speak their minds on critically important issues affecting the future of our universities and our society.”
As such, “I feel that it is my duty to express my opinion on important matters,” he said.
“What concerns me is that recently we have been trying to fix bias problems by building new biases into selection processes,” Abbot writes in his first video.
According to a personal account from Abbot, the university’s Title IX office wanted to investigate some of his claims, and the comment sections of the videos became a battleground where “a productive conversation was not occurring.” As a result, he took them down.
While the videos have since been deleted from YouTube, the petition in support of Abbot managed to save the slides from them.
He recounts experiences he had on selection committees for applicants. In many cases, although fewer women applied to the programs than men, the committee would select more women, implying preferential treatment, according to Abbot.
At one point, he claims that a dean once told members of a hiring committee on which he served that the only applicant that would be considered for the position would be “a woman or underrepresented minority.”
The second video sees Abbot claim that there have been instances of discrimination against Chinese students in his department. Other top universities, such as Harvard and Yale, have been accused of doing the same in their admissions processes.
Abbot also mentions a conservative Christian student of his.
“He is always being excluded,” Abbot says, “and his opinions and cherished beliefs are mocked and dismissed regularly.”
In the third video, Abbot discusses the Shills Report. Produced by a committee of UChicago scholars (including a Nobel Prize winner), the report catalogs the three main functions of modern universities: discovering new knowledge, teaching students that knowledge, and training students for future careers.
Abbot adds his own corollary to the Shills report, detailing what universities are not supposed to be doing:
(1) advocating particular political ideologies,
(2) religious instruction of the population,
(3) attempting to adjudicate and effect social justice, and
(4) providing for the national defense.
In the fourth and final video, Abbot paints the big-picture
implications of the current “cancel culture” debate, naming
“consequences of treating human beings primarily as members of
groups rather than as individuals worthy of dignity and respect.”
He specifically references the Holodomor, a famine in modern-day Ukraine. In its rush toward collectivization, the USSR forced peasant farmers they called “Kulaks” onto farming collectives. When the inefficiencies of the collectives brought about the famine, the government increased the peasants’ grain quotas, leading millions to starve to death.
Many scholars, along with the Ukrainian government, have classified the Holodomor as an act of genocide.
“The only way ‘cancel culture’ ends is for all of us to stand strong and when an attack comes, hold the line,” Abbot told The Fix.
“That said, try to understand the other side’s perspective and speak in a way that is as generous and loving as possible,” he advised. “Sometimes they will be unwilling to reason, and you will just have to say your piece and move on. If we all try our best to do that, then I am optimistic that we will get through this unfortunate phase in our society.”
“To anyone who is reading this, I would say: don’t be afraid. If you see something wrong, speak out about it.”
Abbot said he hopes that his good reputation on campus will be maintained. If not, he is prepared for what’s to come.
“To quote the old Kris Kristofferson song: ‘Don’t let the bastards get you down.’”
Full Gospel Outreach Church FINED $14,000 for SINGING without masks in Saskatchewan
Full Gospel Outreach Church FINED $14,000 for SINGING without masks in Saskatchewan
Just when you thought things couldn’t possibly get any worse in our ‘new normal’ — a church in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan has just received a staggering $14,000 coronavirus fine for singing without wearing masks.
The fine comes after congregants of the Full Gospel Outreach Church were caught singing without their masks on, and a small ‘outbreak‘ of COVID-19 was allegedly pinned on their multi-day evangelical event.
The mayor of Prince Albert, Greg Dionne, said clearly that he wanted to make an example of the church. Speaking to CBC, he said there had to be “consequences,” so they handed down a $14,000 fine.
While the mainstream media demonized him and his congregants, I travelled down to Prince Albert to speak with pastor Vernon Temple and get his side of the story.
The church isn’t wealthy by any means. But they clothe and house the homeless, feed those in need and provide services for individuals with addictions. It makes the fine they got for practicing their religion even more appalling.
Watch my video to see what pastor Vernon had to say about it.
Rebel News isn’t standing by. We are helping the Full Gospel Outreach Centre battle this outrageous fine — but we need your help. Please visit FightTheFines.com to pitch in a donation to help us cover the costs of the legal battle associated with trying to help this community-focused church stand up against the COVID bullies!
Adam Skelly, the Barbecue COVID Rebel, Thanks Supporters — ” I did not expect this kind of support and I am so fired up! I could feel the love from [my] cell.”
Today by Adam Skelly, Adam Skelly, the Barbecue COVID Rebel, Thanks Supporters — ” I did not expect this kind of support and I am so fired up! I could feel the love from [my] cell.”
Barry (McNamar), thank you so much for taking your time to set this up for me. It’s been a hectic week and it was a huge load off my shoulders knowing that this was in good hands.
I did not expect this kind of support and I am so fired up! I first found out the crowdfunding while I was in custody- the officers were updating me through the night. I could feel the love from the cell and it helped me get through the 30 hours in great spirits.
Thank you all for seeing through the collective hysteria and supporting our cause. I promise you I will fight this battle to the best of my abilities and honor your contributions.
FYI- 170k has cleared and a transfer to a trust account is pending. The legal fund is safe from attack.
Adamson BBQ Legal Defence Fund Reaches $310,209 — Organizer Refuses Leftists’ Ploy of Dividing & Criticizing Supporters & Resists Censors’ Efforts to Pressure GoFundMe to Shut Down These Freedom Fighters
Adamson BBQ Legal Defence Fund Reaches $310,209 — Organizer Refuses Leftists’ Ploy of Dividing & Criticizing Supporters & Resists Censors’ Efforts to Pressure GoFundMe to Shut Down These Freedom Fighters
Good morning folks,
Well, here we are at $303,000!
Thank you sincerely for all that you have done to make this effort a success.
Now, over the past days, I have been asked to comment on various rumours and perceived controversies.
Well, I won’t do it.
From the beginning I have asked you to fund the fight to challenge asymmetric COVID regulations in the courts.
I have asked you to do that by contributing to the Adamson BBQ Legal Defence Fund.
And you have all responded in kind.
Today I want to stand by that ask.
And thank all of you for your extremely generous support, with the utmost sincerity.
During my career, I have found myself outside the good graces of the compact majority.
Not often, but enough for it to matter.
It is the nature of having a successful career in politics and policy. Well, any successful career really.
I have been the subject of rumours, media scrutiny and even legal claims that were, at the end of the day, exposed as utter bullshit and were withdrawn without prejudice.
But not before they took their toll on my interpersonal relationships with my children, my spouse, my friends, my colleagues and my clients.
And I will never use any platform to do that to another man.
Nor will I use any platform to perpetuate those claims.
Why? Because at the end of the day, they exist to weaken our resolve and encourage us to just give up.
Public relations is war. Right now, we are engaged in a war with the most powerful adversary there is— government.
This is an institution with the power to use our own money against us.
So today I want to express to you all that I stand by Adam in his fight for the fair treatment of small business.
Really, if we do not have the courage to stand by our convictions when the going gets tough, then we have no business in the fight.
I will be ceasing the campaign within the next week.
Before I do, I would really love for us to hit that $350,000 target.
This is going to be a tough battle and I would hate to see it stall out for lack of resources.
For those of you, like me, whose resolve has only been strengthened by the recent petition campaign to “defund” our fight, I hope you will give one last time.
If each of us who receives this update contributed just $7 today, we would reach our goal.
Are you with me? Do you #standbyadam?
Tell me again about the right to freedom of opinion and critical enquiry that ‘authoritarian’ societies don’t have — Australian Court Upholds Sacking of Academic for Criticizing US and Israeli Militarism
Centre for Research on Globalization
Australian Court Upholds Sacking of Academic for Criticizing US and Israeli Militarism
By Mike Head Asia-Pacific Research, December 04, 2020 World Socialist Web Site 3 December 2020 Region: Oceania Theme: Justice
3 4
23
A Federal Court judge last week set a chilling and far-reaching precedent for the further overturning of basic democratic rights and academic freedom, especially to express political or other dissenting views.
The ruling backed the University of Sydney’s February 2019 dismissal of Dr. Tim Anderson, an economics department senior lecturer, primarily on the basis of allegations that his criticisms of US militarism and Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people were “offensive.”
The court decision is another warning of the poisonous and repressive atmosphere being whipped up to silence opposition to the preparations for Australian involvement in potentially catastrophic US-led wars against China or other perceived threats to the global hegemony asserted by Washington since World War II.
Significantly, the University of Sydney hosts the US Studies Centre, which was established in 2006, with US and Australian government funding, for the express purpose of overcoming popular hostility to US militarism after the massive protests against the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The court’s judgment also exposed the fraud of claims by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) that its enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs) with universities protect the essential principle of academic freedom.
Justice Thomas Thawley ruled that the university’s EBA with the union, which is similar to those at most universities, “does not recognise the existence of, or give rise to, a legally enforceable right to intellectual freedom.”
In particular, Thawley declared that EBA “academic freedom” clauses do not protect university workers from being sacked for making comments—even on their private social media accounts—that managements deem in breach of their employee codes of conduct. Instead, EBA commitments to academic freedom were “purely aspirational.”
University of Sydney Institute Building, where United States Studies Centre is located (Photo source: Wikipedia)
This thoroughly anti-democratic decision comes on the back of a similar result in another case taken to the courts by the NTEU. In July, the Full Federal Court upheld the dismissal of James Cook University academic Dr. Peter Ridd, for expressing his views, as a climate-change sceptic, that cut across the university’s reputation.
Anderson’s case demonstrates how far university managements, working in league with governments and the corporate media, can victimise academics, especially those who oppose the wars of US imperialism and its allies, including the Zionist regime in Israel.
Among the charges the University of Sydney made against Anderson was that he tweeted, on his own Twitter account, criticism of the university hosting an address by US Senator John McCain. Anderson described McCain, a backer of every US military intervention for the past three decades, including the brutal neo-colonial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as “a key US war criminal.”
Other allegations included Anderson posting on his personal Facebook account a photograph of a group of friends eating lunch, one of whom wore an anti-Israel badge. Anderson was accused of “promoting racial hatred and/or racism” and charged with violating the university’s Code of Conduct even though he was on leave from the university at the time.
Anderson was further charged with posting to his Facebook and Twitter accounts a denunciation of a video news report by Channel 7 reporter Bryan Seymour that insinuated that Anderson supported racism and the North Korean regime. Anderson’s comment that “Colonial media promotes ignorance, apartheid and war” was declared “derogatory” toward Seymour.
Anderson was also cited for giving a lecture that allegedly featured an Israeli flag with the Nazi swastika superimposed on it, examined media coverage of Israel’s attack on Gaza in 2014, and encouraged students to seek independent evidence of claims of “moral equivalence” between Israel’s deadly aerial bombardments and primitive Palestinian rocket attacks.
This was judged to be “derogatory and/or offensive” and as “reasonably seen as racist towards or seeking to target and/or offend Israelis and/or Jewish people and/or Jewish victims of the Nazi regime.” Yet, critics of the Israeli government, including anti-Zionist Jews, have often compared its persecution of the Palestinian people to the actions of the fascist German regime.
Finally, Anderson was accused of breaching confidentiality orders barring him from even telling anyone that he was facing dismissal, and of failing to comply with “a lawful and reasonable direction” to delete his social media posts.
The judge agreed with the university management’s determination that Anderson’s posts and efforts to fight his dismissal amounted to “serious misconduct” under both the NTEU’s EBA and the university’s Code of Conduct, thus justifying his sacking.
Anderson’s dismissal followed a protracted campaign by senior figures in the federal Liberal-National Coalition government, the corporate media and university management, to demonise Anderson because of his denunciations of wars and military interventions by the US, Israel and other major powers.
In April 2018, Education Minister Simon Birmingham, who was in charge of university funding, demanded an investigation into Anderson for comments he made questioning US claims that the Syrian government was responsible for a sarin gas attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun.
The Murdoch-owned Sydney Daily Telegraph hysterically denounced Anderson as a “sarin gasbag” and the Sydney Morning Herald later reported that the university was taking disciplinary action against Anderson—a media disclosure that violated its own confidentiality regime.
Justice Thawley found Anderson’s dismissal as justified by the university’s Code of Conduct, which imposes requirements such as “the exercise of the best professional and ethical judgment,” “integrity and objectivity,” being “fair and reasonable” and treating “members of the public with respect, impartiality, courtesy and sensitivity.” The university’s employees must also “uphold the outstanding reputation of the University in the community.”
These formulations are so vague and value-laden that they could provide a pretext for sacking academics or other university workers for condemning government policies, denouncing corporate greed or accusing the US and Australian governments of military aggression or war crimes. Employees could be dismissed for criticising university policies, such as hosting pro-military think tanks.
Virtually every university campus across the country now participates in government-funded programs to tie academic research to the development of new military technologies. Australian universities are being integrated into a vast US-led military build-up, aimed at preparing for war with China and other powers.
The NTEU’s response to the court ruling, as it was to Anderson’s sacking itself, and the massive job cuts ravaging universities, is to oppose any mobilisation of university workers and instead appeal to the employers for a deal.
In a union media statement, NTEU New South Wales division secretary Michael Thomson said: “We call on all Vice Chancellors to come to the table to talk about how we can formulate a legally enforceable right, to provide the appropriate protections for university staff and to avoid these circumstances occurring in the future.”
The Federal Court’s support for Anderson’s victimisation is part of a deeper attack on fundamental democratic rights. It widens the impact of a High Court 2019 ruling that essentially abolished freedom of speech for workers, whether in government or corporate employment. With no dissent, the judges endorsed the sacking of a federal public servant for criticising—even anonymously—the country’s brutal refugee detention regime.
A warning must be sounded. The ruling class and its agencies, including university managements, are seeking to suppress dissent amid mounting social inequality, war preparations and deepening political discontent.
Hence the federal police raids on journalists for publishing leaks exposing government and military crimes, the prosecution of the whistleblowers involved and the bipartisan backing for the persecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Dr. Tim Anderson (Photo source: Facebook)
German Political Prisoner Ursula Haverbeck faces the Inquisition… again!
German Political Prisoners Ursula Haverbeck faces the Inquisition… again!
Posted by Monika in Free Speech, Germany, Truth and Justice for Germans, Uncategorized, Ursula Haverbeck, WW II Revisionism
What does the state have to hide when they relentlessly persecute a 92-year-old peaceful woman who has never done anything that we normally associate with “criminal”, never did anything violent, never stolen, never vandalized, never defrauded anyone, BUT has asked an inconvenient question over and over again. This woman has just been released from jail, having spent 2&1/2 years behind bars, and less than 2 weeks later was in court in Berlin for more charges. Her name is Ursula Haverbeck. The Law is the infamous Par. 130.
This 16-minute video (in German) by the Volkslehrer (Folk Teacher) was sent my way recently by an English-only speaker, who wondered what was said. What follows is by no means a word-for-word translation, but a description giving the gist of it. I highly recommend viewing at least the first 8 minutes of the video even if you do not speak German, because it is beautifully put together especially the music and scenes at the beginning, followed by the interesting scene of reporters chumming outside the courtroom… excluding the independent journalist-reporter Nikolai Nerling the Volkslehrer – producer of this video.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~https://volkslehrer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2020-11-17_Haverbeck.mp4
The Volkslehrer asked Ursula Haverbeck for an interview before court began, but she explained that she was not allowed to speak to anyone at this time.
Then you see the throng of reporters outside the courtroom awaiting entry, all friendly with each other, laughing and joking, until one masked woman asks “who are you?!” to Nikolai. He introduces himself, shows his press pass, explains that he has been a journalist for the last 3&1/2 years. Condescendingly, she scoffs at him, accuses him of having made up his press pass himself (effectively calling him a liar), says this is nothing, it is not from uh.. uh.. a proper organ of the press, and then natters about putting the mask on properly. He answered that it had just slipped down.
After she disappears with his press pass, she returns, again delegitimizing him by saying his press pass has not been issued by a recognized institution. She cackles about not coming too near and that his mask is slipping yet again.
He read her the Grundgesetz – the foundational law which stipulates freedom of the press, to no avail. Nikolai Nerling was NOT allowed in, and was forcibly taken out of the building.
Next, Ursula Haverbeck was in fine spirits when she came out of the building. The remainder of the video is the interview with Haverbeck’s Attorney, Wolfram Nahrath.
Nahrath tells how Ursula spoke so clearly, so honestly, with dignity, with grace, brilliantly really, and made her case in court that day. She spoke about how she came to her present understanding of what really happened in WW2. It began in the 1960’s, as she was investigating the nuclear industry on account of her concern for the environment. She read much, researched much, which led her to question the official narrative of WW2.
She emphasized that she never denies anything, but that she has repeatedly asked the question over the years, to which nobody could ever give her an answer. Nahrath referred to that famous question which she still asks, but did not describe it in this interview. [The question is “where did the crime (the 6 million…) take place?”]
Ursula went on to say that actually there is nobody in the courtroom who would be capable of denying anything, because nobody was there to witness what happened. So if they don’t know what it is that happened (because they did not see it themselves), then none of them are in the position to “deny” it either.
[It is an interesting logic, because in German the word for deny is “leugnen”, and by the German definition, you cannot “leugne” something that did not happen. It is impossible. ~ MS]
Then Nahrath went on to say that Ursula had said all these things with a clear mind and spirit, and that she demonstrated that she has no guilt-awareness or better said, no guilt feeling. In all the 10 different trials she has been through, that not a single prosecutor nor judge nor anybody could answer her question. Nor did anybody attempt to answer her question. They simply declared her guilty.
[When they declared her guilty in the past, they proclaimed that Frau Haverbeck knows the holocaust took place, and yet she denies it (leugner). So she is guilty. ~ Evidently the judges and prosecutors engage in mind-reading. ~ MS]
We will see what the verdict is on December 4th, he says. He fears it might be as previous verdicts. Then it is far from over. There is another count that she is charged with in Berlin for which the prosecutor appealed because the 6-month sentence was not deemed stiff enough. Then there are the court proceedings in Hamburg still underway in which the prosecutor asked for 10 months.
Lastly, Nahrath goes on to say that Frau Haverbeck is in no way-shape-or-form agitating to incite. She operates on an intellectual level, searching for answers. He laments the fact that they are dragging a 92 year-old through the court. He of course makes the point that this Par. 130 should not exist at all, but really emphasizes how terrible it is that they drag an elderly woman through this. He talks about how at this age her health could take a turn at any time, and also that if she goes back to jail after these legal battles, there is naturally the possibility that she could be brought back out under a sheet directly to her grave. The fact that she is willing to seek answers at the age of 92, in full knowledge of the personal consequences — it rings forth – yeah – respect!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nahrath’s emotions could be felt coming close to the surface when he said those things. The whole affair is such a travesty. But if they do put Ursula Haverbeck back in jail, do they not just show their desperation to protect their lies? Evidence is forbidden. Independent reportage is forbidden. They read the accused’s mind to say she KNOWS something only to deny it with the intention to incite hatred. How absurd.
How is it not blatantly obvious to every thinking man and woman?
The house of cards is tumbling down!
More Medico-Stalinism: Prince Albert Pastor Fined $14,000 for Singing
| Donte |
| , Pastor Vern Temple does what other people won’t do. He helps the lowest of the low — homeless people, hungry people. He’s up in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, so a lot of his work is with people from the nearby Indian band. It’s one of the poorest churches I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen the churches in Iraq that ISIS torched. But the local mayor, a bully named Greg Dionne, just can’t stand the church. He’s always after it for something. And he finally found a way to try and bring it down — a ludicrous $14,000 fine for singing. I’m serious. For singing in a church. Here, watch Pastor Vern tell you himself: No-one can afford a $14,000 fine. Certainly not one of the poorest churches in Canada, one that already spends every dollar it has to feed the poor and house the homeless. Imagine the moral compass of a mayor who permits a casino to stay open during the pandemic, but cracks down on a church for doing the same. Pastor Vern and his congregants can’t afford the fine. They can’t afford a lawyer, either. He’s between a rock and a hard place. But that’s where we come in — you and me. Rebel News has hired a great lawyer for Pastor Vern — a freedom-fighting civil liberties lawyer named Sarah Miller. I almost feel bad for that bully mayor. He’s not going to know what hit him! We’re not going to pay the fine. We’re going to fight the fine. And if you want to support our fight, go to www.FightTheFines.com and chip in to help us crowdfund this top-notch lawyer. That’s where you can check out our other cases, too! If you know someone who needs a lawyer to fight a pandemic fine, tell them to go to our site and fill out the form — we’ll try to have a lawyer reach out and help them. And if you don’t know someone who needs help, maybe you can be someone who gives it by joining our crowdfunding campaign and pitching in a few dollars. On behalf of Pastor Vern — thanks. Yours truly, Sheila Gunn Reid Chief Reporter, Rebel News P.S. Have you noticed how the lockdown bullies seem to be picking on Christian churches? Not on casinos, liquor stores, cannabis stores, or even Wal-marts and Costcos. They’re picking on churches. In this case, they’ve issued the largest fine in Canada — a whopping $14,000. Time to fight back! |
Free Speech Activist Gordon Watson Launches A Human Rights Complaint for Discrimination by Fountain Diner Because He Was Not Masked
Free Speech Activist Gordon Watson Launches A Human Rights Complaint for Discrimination by Fountain Diner Because He Was Not Masked
is the opening skirmish in my campaign to have one aspect of the KronaMadness scrutinized in a court of law. Starting with a tiny, apparently in-significant incident. My technique, is = bundle-up your complaint so someone who knows nothing about it can grasp it, then put it in front of someone who can do something about it.
I am no fan of the BC Human Rights Commission. Yet it is a proper starting-point up the ladder of Court … getting a ruling on the legitimacy of Commissar Farnsworth’s “mandate” for muzzling British Columbians = particularly, the exemption which is expressly set out in his Ministerial Order.
Gordon S Watson
Justice Critic, Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think for Ourselves & Be Our Own Politicians
……………………
December 1st 2020
British Columbia Human Rights Commission
This is my complaint that on November 30th 2020 employees of the Fountain Diner restaurant in Langford British Columbia unreasonably denied me a service normally available to the public, contrary to the BC Human Rights Code.
01 since
about June 2020, I have been paying attention to the issue of the imposition of
regulations under the Emergency Program Act and also
Public Health Act . In August 2020,
I received from the office of the Ombudsman a copy of his report “Extraordinary Times
Extraordinary Measures”. That
report is available at the URL on the internet website URL
https://bcombudsperson.ca/investigative_report/extraordinary-times-extraordinary-measures/
Over-simplified, the opinion of lawyer Jay Chalke, is
: the administration which had
been in power prior to the election of 2020, exceeded its authority, so that powers it presumed to
enshrine in law, are un-constitutional ab initio. UN-learned in the law as I am, I say that >
Orders predicated in those Acts, made consequent to illegal amendments to them,
are each invalid.
Particularly: the diktat of
Commissar Farnsworth re compulsory wearing of face coverings = Ministerial
Order M425 made November 24 2020 =
is of no force nor effect.
A copy of that order is enclosed as Item
ONE of Materials to be
relied-upon
02 in
the fall of 2020, I began requesting copies of the Orders made by Chief Medical
Health Officer Henry as they were advertised in the newsmedia. Each time I called the main office of
the Ministry of Health, asking for a hard copy of the most recent Order, I was
told “it’s not available”. Then about a week later, it would be posted on the
internet. Point being : in the
meantime, lacking proper NOTICE, the Chief Medical Health Officer had not
complied with that Act ergo her Order was not in effect in that timeframe
03 After
studying this topic for the last few months, my position today is = the Covid 19 phenomenon is a HOAX of
the first order. It is the worst
medical mistake in modern history.
Included as Item TWO and integral to this my complaint, is the
transcript of remarks made by Dr Roger Hodkins buttressing my opinion. Also : Item THREE of Materials to be
relied upon is the article by the past president of the Ontario Medical
Association Mask Laws Necessary or Nonsense?
04 Item
FOUR of Materials to be relied upon, is, a batch of pertinent pages from the
Kaplan Report. It is crucial that the Human Rights Commission know and take in
to consideration, that in her official capacity as a health officer in British
Columbia Bonnie Henry md gave evidence to the Kaplan Commission re the efficacy
of wearing masks to prevent transmission of contagious disease in hospital
settings. I have good reason to
believe and I verily do believe, that in the labor arbitration carried on
between the BC Nurses Union and the Health Sciences Association re the issue of
whether or not nurses were compelled to wear masks in hospital settings Bonnie Henry in her capacity
as Chief Medical Health Officer for British Columbia signed a Memorandum of
Understanding in which she acknowledged that the wearing of masks was irrelvant
to transmission of contagious disease, particularly, the influenza virus. The
labor arbitration was settled behind closed doors, in December 2019. That Memorandum is now improperly
hidden from the public.
It is crucial for the purpose of this my complaint against the Fountain
Diner that the Human Rights Commission compel Dr Henry to produce that
Memorandum of Understanding – or whatever that document is titled – as evidence
in this my complaint.
05 Also Item FIVE of the Materials to be relied upon, the interview COVID-19: Americans are in ‘delusional psychosis’. It is crucial that the Human Rights Tribunal appreciate that section 103 of the Public Health Act RSBC provides for a categorical defence to a prosecution under it, if the accused had a sincere belief as to the veracity a certain set of facts.
06 On or about September 2020, in my investigation of the Corona Madness, I came upon the letter of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, informing Translink as to the legality of compulsion to wear the face muzzle. A copy of that letter is Item SIX of the Materials to be relied-upon. When I learned about the exemption card offered by Translink, I immediately published that image around the internet, and handed it to people whom I encountered in what we used to call “the real world”, recommending that they get it and use. Dozens of people went to the Translink offices and got the card, for free, or printed it out from my email message. Feedback I got from them tells me that Translink drivers do acknowledge that that card is valid for the sake of exempting the bearer from wearing a muzzle. It is important that the Human Rights Commission appreciate that that policy was in effect on November 30th 2020, the day I was denied entry to Fountain Diner. Around that same time, I came upon the image of a card which declares that the person using it is exempt from compulsion to wear a “mask”. A photocopy of the front and back of that card is Item SEVEN of the Materials to be relied upon. Ironically, when I came back home to compose this complaint, I saw a bus go by in which the driver was NOT wearing a muzzle. Shocking, eh? !
07 For
context, it is worth noting the following anecdotes. On Monday November 23rd 2020 I was in Vancouver
at work in the STAPLES store on Seymour street downtown. The manager of the
store came about 20 feet from me and politely said “sir you have to have a
mask on”. I said to him “I’ve
got the exemption card”. He was happy with that and left. He did not ask to see the card
itself. Shortly thereafter, I
attended the Registry of the Lawcourts building at 800 Smithe Street. At the entrance, I was challenged by a
deputy Sherriff. I showed him the
exemption card. He glanced at it
but did not read it. He went
through the protocol questions with me, then directed me to go ahead and
enter. I filed a document with the
Registry Clerk, then left the premises. In Vancouver and in Burnaby and in Surrey, I
entered several other businesses including restaurants. When they politely
asked me to put on a mask, I showed them the card and had no problem. With one
exception. In that instance, I
simply ignored the fool who refused to acknowledge the declaration, continued to finish what I was doing –
photocopying – then left the premises. On Wednesday November 25th
2020 I came back to Swartz Bay on the ferry and had no problem with the staff
as I walked around, breathing freely un-muzzled. Despite relentless annoying messages over the public
address system about requirement to wear a mask, no one challenged me anywhere
on the ship.
08 On
the morning of November 26th 2020, at approximately 10:30 am, I
called the head office of the Ministry de Health : 250 952 1330 identified myself and told the telephone
receptionist that the Public Health Act Order of which I’d heard
rumors, was not available on the website of the office of the Chief medical
Health Officer. Recognizing my voice from the other times I’d called asking for
a copy of Orders which were pretended to be in force as of those days yet not
available, she said “we’ve had this converstation before.” I demanded her name and position. She
said “Angela patient client relations”
09 The Public Health Act RSBC dictates that a person subject to an order must be notified of that Order. I told “Angela” that I required a hard copy of that Order so that I could originate a Request for Reconsideration pursuant to its section 43 as I had done twice before. In both instances, there has been no reply from the Chief Medical health Officer nor anyone else in her Ministry. Even though in that exchange, I offered to drive downtown and pick up a copy were they to make it available Angela told me that there was no Order available via the internet nor anywhere else. Days later, I learned that the rumor about a “masking mandate” originated with Ministerial Order in Council M425 made – ostensibly – under the Emergency Program Act. Thus, the receptionist, in charge of advising the public what was going on for all things to do with the Ministry de Health was in ignorance about the state of the law
10 On Friday November 27th 2020 I went in to Langford. UN-muzzled, I went in to the place where I do banking. No one said a word to me about anything to do with a mask. I then went to the Canada Post outlet in the Westshore Town Centre mall. After noticing the headline on the Times-Colonist newspaper, I purchased a copy in the Fairways store. No one there said anything to me about not being muzzled. Reading the frontpage article headed At odds over whether doctor’s note required to not wear mask : item EIGHT of Materials to be relied upon, I noticed the quotation from the Emergency Management BC. In the Canadian Journalism style manual, such double quotation marks indicate that that is precisely what was said. I went over to the STAPLES store on McCallum Road. No one there said a word about me not wearing a muzzle, because I am a regular customer and have shown the exemption card to most of the employees, over the past couple of months. I cut the article out of the newspaper and fitted it on one sheet then made many photocopies. My intent was, to hand them out, for free, to people with whom I might come in contact so as to prompt discussion about the facts and logic to do with government policy to do with the so-called “pandemic”.
11 On
Monday November 30th 2020 I went up to the door of the Fountain
Diner at 102- 2800 Goldstream Avenue Langford British Columbia. I went inside the door and spoke to a
waitress. I gave her my name to
put on the list of customers waiting to get in. The look she gave me conveyed that she was unhappy that I
was not wearing a muzzle.
About 10 minutes later, she came out and called my name. When I stepped
up as though I would enter, she impeded me. She said “you
have to wear a mask”. I had in my
left hand quite obviously, the exemption card. Politely, I put
it closer to her face so she could get a good look. She glanced at it but did not read it. She said something like ‘it isn’t
from a government office’. I
said to her ‘read it. The Human Rights commission is a
government body.’ She turned
away saying she would get the manager.
12 A
few minutes later, another woman walked up to me saying she was the manager. She spoke but it was hard to understand
what she said through the cloth diaper she was wearing over her mouth. After another try, I
gathered her name was “Crystal”.
She told me she was refusing me entry because I did not have on a face
mask. I held out the
exemption card for her to inspect. She sneered at it. I pointed to the explanation on the back. She refused to
read it. In short order, it became perfectly clear that she was not going
to let me in.
13 I
warned her that if she was refusing to acknowledge the declaration on the card
as excuse to deny me service normally available to the public, I would make a complaint to the BC
Human Rights Commission. She
said “that’s your choice”. I responded “no, that’s your
choice. You chose not to serve me
contrary to the law
I left
I
hereby entreat the Human Rights Commission to haul the Fountain Diner folks in
to line …. educate them, as well as all citizens, as to their duty to obey
the law
Gordon S Watson
Post Office box 47034 Langford P O British Columbia V9B 5T2