Event was well-attended, we estimate 3000 souls.
The first one on 20 April had twice that many, but this one was more …
well, organized. I think the fact that a second rally occurred really
unnerved the Communist Dictator. A whole bunch of Counties got re-opened
yesterday that were going to stay “closed” for an extended period.
Not
perfect, but we did the best we could. There was a threat-in-the-air to
try and disperse the demonstrators, that probably discouraged another
3000 participants. But the police kept their distance … even more so
than last month’s rally. We get the feeling that local “Law Enforcement”
is tired of the BS and not so fond of Comrade Wolf
We
made three passes in our vehicle and each “on-station” period lasted
about fifteen minutes. We recognized several dozen cars and trucks that
made “the circuit” with us three times. The main-opposition State
Senator made a REALLY good impassioned speech. In general, people were
PISSED OFF
“Sloppy” Joe Baconburger was the owner of a restaurant. It was an
independent eatery called the Celestial Carnivore. As you have
probably deduced it catered to a meat-eating clientele. Barbecue ribs,
steaks grilled to perfection, pork chops, and prime rib – these were
the staples of the supper menu. Its hamburgers, fried chicken and
chili con carne were all popular. The pizza section of the menu had but
a single entry and that was for “Meat Lovers”. The Carnivore was most
famous, however, for a sandwich.
This sandwich was a multi-layered spectacular. Forget the mere
clubhouse or even the triple-decker. This sandwich had separate layers
for roast beef, roast pork, roast turkey, and roast lamb. Each layer
also contained a hearty portion of ham and bacon and slices of various
sorts of cheese. If you wanted, vegetable fillers such as lettuce,
tomato, and cucumbers would also be added, but these were optional. It
was served smothered in chili and gravy. Naysayers called it “the
heart attack waiting to happen” but every day people would come from
near and far to order it.
One day something strange happened. Like any other day, “Sloppy” Joe
arrived at the Carnivore early, pulled into his parking spot, got out of
his car, and headed towards the door. Then he ran into a wall. Or at
least it felt like a wall. Whatever it was he could not see it.
There was nothing there to the visible eye but something was blocking
his path to the entrance.
Baffled by the invisible barrier and uncertain of what to do about it,
“Sloppy” Joe turned around and took a step in the direction of his car.
He was unable to go any further, however, because he found his path
impeded yet again by the unseen wall. Turning to his left and right,
he discovered that he was boxed in on all sides.
Uttering something that need not be put down in print, “Sloppy” Joe
looked around and saw his neighbour Bob walking down the sidewalk on the
other side of the street. He called over to Bob, asking him to go for
help, but Bob just kept walking along. “Sloppy” Joe called louder, but
there was still no response. He then screamed at the top of his lungs
but Bob did not seem to hear him. Whatever was keeping him from
leaving or entering his business was apparently also trapping all sound.
Eventually Bob looked around and saw “Sloppy” Joe at which point
“Sloppy” Joe began to gesture as best he could within the confines of
his transparent cage. Bob shook his head and said “Better stick to
cooking Joe, that pantomime act is never going to sell.”
Soon thereafter one of his employees arrived for her morning shift.
She waved to “Sloppy” Joe and said hello as she moved toward the
restaurant entrance but did not seem to notice anything was amiss. When
she got as close to the door as “Sloppy” Joe was, however, a look of
surprise came over her face and then, as she turned in all directions,
one of panic. “Sloppy” Joe realized that she was trapped too. One by
one, his employees showed up, and each in turn got trapped within an
invisible box.
“What will happen when my customers start to show up?” “Sloppy” Joe asked himself.
He did not have long to wait. The first customer, one of his regulars,
showed up like clockwork at the time the restaurant normally opened its
doors to the public. He too found himself stuck between the
mysterious unseen walls. The same happened to every other customer
that arrived after him.
Before long the area around the restaurant was surrounded by people,
trapped in place by invisible boxes. There was approximately six feet
of space between each of them.
All of a sudden, a loud maniacal cackle came descending upon them from
above. Looking up, they saw a man standing on top of the restaurant,
holding a device that resembled a cross between a machine gun and a
video camera. Groaning inside, “Sloppy” Joe recognized the man as Dr.
Tofu Veggiebrain the notorious mad scientist and leader of an animal
rights/environmentalist activist group that wanted to make veganism
mandatory and which had been targeting him and his restaurant with
harassment of various sorts for years.
“How do you like my latest invention, ‘Sloppy’ Joe?” Dr. Veggiebrain
asked. “I call it the Insta-Mime. Soon you and all others who murder
and eat our animal brothers and sisters will be trapped between
invisible walls in the world’s most despised form of performance art
forever.”
It looked like he might be right. Within an hour the police, fire
department, and other emergency services had been called in and they
could find no way of releasing anyone from the invisible boxes. The
police wrote “Sloppy” Joe and each of the others a ticket for breaking
the by-law against public displays of pantomime and then took off.
Soon, however, word of the strange impromptu mime session outside of the
Celestial Carnivore got out and within a couple of days it made its way
to the Marshmallow Monks (1) in the Carpathian Mountains. They
immediately contacted “Eddy” Johnson who rushed to the scene as Reaction
Man, (2) battled Dr. Veggiebrain, and freed everyone from their
invisible prison. Since this is not an actual episode in The
Adventures of Reaction Man but merely an essay illustration in which he
makes a cameo appearance, I will not elaborate on the details, but will
instead skip ahead to the aftermath of the trial of Dr. Veggiebrain.
After Dr. Veggiebrain was convicted criminally, “Sloppy” Joe filed a
civil action against him to recover the losses his business suffered
over the period in which he, his employees, and his customers had been
mimed. It was not difficult to obtain a ruling in his favour for the
law on the matter and the principle of natural justice underlying that
law are quite clear. If you deliberately harm somebody else’s business
he is entitled to compensation.
Things became complicated, however, when Dr. Veggiebrain said that he
would not contest the ruling and would gladly pay the damages – but only
on the condition that the Celestial Carnivore sign a statement of
agreement with his vegan values and convert to serving only plant-based
food.
Whereas most judges would not agree to such a stipulation, “Sloppy” Joe
was unfortunate enough to have Justice Bob Baddecision of the Ontario
Inferior Court hear his case. Judge Baddecision, who as we know is a
close friend of Lucy himself and is prone to live up to his last name,
(3) considered Dr. Veggiebrain’s stipulation to be entirely reasonable,
and ordered that it be carried out.
You have likely already figured out the point of this story. Therefore I will make my commentary brief.
A man’s business is his livelihood. If your actions are demonstrably
responsible for harming or destroying another person’s business, by the
laws of natural justice you are required to compensate him for this
damage. You do not get to hold the compensation to which he is
entitled hostage until he meets your demands. If you attempt to do so
you are guilty of a form of blackmail or extortion.
Over the past two months many people have seen their businesses suffer
to the point of insolvency. This was not due to substandard goods,
poor service, or other faults of their own. Nor can it be attributed
solely to causes which are outside human control and for which no human
agency can be held responsible. The coronavirus did not destroy these
people’s businesses. Government ministers and their health officers
did with their mandatory social distancing regulations, shelter in place
orders, and lockdown of so-called “non-essential” businesses and
services. This is why these businesses are entitled to government
assistance at this time. Such assistance is not a “bail out” nor is it
socialism, although it will have the same long term effect as these of
saddling generations to come with an unthinkable tax and debt burden.
It is certainly not the government being compassionate, no matter how
much Captain Airhead tries to dress it up in these terms. It is the
government paying compensation for damage it has itself inflicted.
This is why the government has no right to impose a values test on the
small businesses that apply for such compensation. Since the
government put these businesses in danger of bankruptcy, justice demands
that the government pay restitution. As the party that has committed
the injury, the government does not get to hold back this restitution
until the party that has sustained the injury agrees to support abortion
and the alphabet soup agenda. Its values test is a form of extortion.
Don’t let Captain Airhead get away with it.
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.”
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.
Daniel Crump / Winnipeg Free Press. Around a hundred people attend an anti-lockdown rally at the Manitoba Legislature. The event was hosted by a group called Winnipeg Aware People with a Passion for the Truth. May 9, 2020.
Two hundred and fifty people demand “END THE LOCKDOWN” & “END THE TRAMPLING OF OUR FREEDOMS” at Manitoba Legislature, May 9. CAFE had a contingent there.
Local press interviews organizer Dave LindsayPaul Fromm, Director of CAFE, lends a hand.
The “End the Lockdown Protest” in Kelowna, May 6, drew over 40 people from throughout the Okanagan. Led by Dave Lindsay of CLEAR and supported by CAFE, the protest decided on a follow up protest on Saturday May 16 at 11:00 at Stuart Park.
In a fiery speech to the protesters, Mr. Lindsay said: “Our rights are not negotiable.” Much of the information used to terrify people into compliance is false, he added. Several protesters noted that it is usually sick people who are quarantined, but present government “stay at home/shut down businesses” policy involves quarantining people who are healthy.
“Quarantine occurs when you restrict movement of sick people. But tyranny happens when you restrict the movement of healthy people. We don’t need a nanny state to tell people who to be careful.”
Lady Michèle Renouf’s trial in Dresden – due to begin on 15th May – has been postponed due to the impact of Covid-19.
Lady Michèle Renouf’s trial in Dresden – due to begin on 15th May – has been postponed due to the impact of Covid-19.
The trial is now rescheduled to begin on 16th October 2020 – again in Dresden’s District Court (Amtsgericht).
Charges relate to Lady Renouf’s impromptu speech on 17th February 2018
at a commemoration of the 1945 British and American terror bombing of
Dresden.
Lady Renouf’s attorney Wolfram Nahrath is continuing to build a detailed
rebuttal of these charges with the help of witnesses from several
countries. Further details will be released closer to the trial date,
and will appear on modeltrial.blogspot.com and related social media accounts.
The defence team thank all correspondents for their kind messages of support.
END THE LOCKDOWN PROTEST in Kelowna draws 40 people.
[More pictures & report will follow.] Informed resistance is spreading. “FREE SPEECH AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE.” — David Lindsay, Organizer. https://www.kelownanow.com/watercooler/news/news/video/#fs_85854
Press Release More Kelowna “End the Lockdown” events!
There will be NO NEW NORMAL!
Following upon public demonstrations across Canada and globally, CLEAR (The Common Law Education and Rights Initiative), will be joining in solidarity with patriots across Canada and the world, holding another public gathering opposing the ongoing COVID-19 lockdown in Kelowna on May 6, 2020 at 11:00 a.m., across from Kelowna City Hall, at Stuart Park.
CLEAR members and supporters take the well documented view that governments, including here in British Columbia have, knowingly or through wilful blindness or even recklessness, instilled an unjustified false sense of mass fear and panic in our society, and closure of most of our economy and social activities. There is no pandemic – it is a Scamdemic.
The demonstrable results of further rights and freedoms deprivations, encouraged social distrust and fining Canadians in the exercise of lawful activities, and the promotion of a “new normal” of same, is strictly opposed to by the vast majority of Canadians who are aware of the true underlying factual situation.
Through manipulation of recorded deaths and other statistics, our governments, with the support of compromised or ignorant medical personnel, have destroyed our social trust, created mass unemployment for which many will not recover, created unreasonable restrictions and inconveniences in our lives, and continue to advocate further destruction of our Constitutional rights and liberties. Governments are using the PCR testing procedure for COVID-19, despite the fact that the inventor of this procedure has repeatedly warned scientists and governments, it is not to be used as a method for testing for viruses – it was not designed for that purpose as it is unreliable for this, and will yield false results.
Death statistics are grossly inflated by encouraging and/or compelling doctors and others to record deaths as being COVID-19 simply because the deceased allegedly had the virus upon death no matter what the true cause of death was – not because the virus caused the death. True death stats for COVID-19 are significantly lower than those being promulgated. Governments fail to consider that there is an estimated 50% or more number of people who have caught the virus and it is not reported, due to minor symptoms and no testing. Combined, the true mortality rate of COVID-19 is virtually the same as with all other flu viruses. Governments admit it is a mild form of the flu.
With over 50% of patients in nursing homes and similar places with a high risk, and with one ore more existing serious medical problems, protection activities need to be focused on these locations only, not the general public.
No such actions have taken place during previous flu seasons with similar mortality rates and the classification by the WHO that COVID-19 is a pandemic, is false, misleading and self-serving to those who stand to benefit the most – vaccine manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies.
There are inexpensive, proven and effective treatments that governments and doctors are withholding from patients. Mega-doses of Vit C have been proven time and again to kill ALL viruses, known since the 1940s. Over 64 000 studies have been done on the effectiveness of Vit C. Hydroxychloroquine has been recently proven in a study of over 1000 patients, with a 92% success rate in a maximum of 10 days.
Our governments have unconstitutionally shut down almost our entire civil court system, virtually preventing the public from taking necessary and immediate legal action to hold them accountable.
This is unprecedented in our law. Former C.J. McEachern correctly ruled in 1983, upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, and answered his own question in the negative: Let me say again that my only intention is to ensure universal free and unfettered access to the courts by those persons who wish or are obliged to enter the law courts of this province. I also wish to say that it is the intention of the judges to carry on as best they can with or without staff to discharge their constitutional responsibilities during these difficult times, and no one should think that the courts of justice are not functioning if he needs them, or that he may decline to attend in court if he is obliged to do so during these difficult days. The rule of law has not been suspended in this province. The question arises whether it is proper or permissible for anyone, individually or collectively, deliberately or accidentally, or directly or indirectly to interfere with the business of the courts of justice or to interfere with or impede the absolute right of access all citizens have to the courts of justice. British Columbia Government Employees’ Union (Re), 1983 CanLII 572 (BC SC)
To Premier Horgan and our Communist Sympathizing Prime Minister Trudeau, this is not a request to return us back to normal – it is a Demand and an Order.
The facts do not exist to support this lockdown nor your prohibitions against public gatherings and violations of our Constitutional right to socialization, association and assembly. Constitutional rights and liberties were intended to exist exactly in this very situation, not to be denied at the very time they are most required.
There will be NO NEW NORMAL! We demand our restaurants, bars, stores, and all businesses be instructed they can immediately re-open and to return to normal operating procedures and times.
We further demand that there are no more restrictions on the rights and liberties of all people, including socialization. All social distancing orders be immediately cancelled, children are returned to schools, and truthful and accurate statistics be henceforth issued in relation to this flu virus. Reinstate all our cancelled markets, summer festivals and concerts. End the Lockdown NOW
CLEAR is an Okanagan based freedom activist group, with focus upon holding governments, the judiciary and public officials accountable for their actions and protection of our fundamental and Constitutional rights, powers, privileges and liberties. clear2020@pm.me David Lindsay 778 801-9513
