THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN
Technocracy Triumphant — Manitoba Court Cancels The Charter Rights You Thought You Had
Gerry T. Neal
October 29, 2021
Taking the attitude “who am I to judge” is, under many circumstances, appropriate and admirable. There is one circumstance, however, when it is extremely inappropriate and reprehensible. That is when you are a justice of Her Majesty’s bench before whom one person or group has brought another person or group, complaining that the latter has injured them in violation of the law and asking you for redress of their wrongs. If you happen to be in that situation then your job – your only job – is to hear the case, weight the evidence, and issue a ruling, in short – to judge. To plead humility as an excuse for not doing so is to abandon your duty.
Earlier this year, in the late spring, Chief Justice Glenn Joyal of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba heard evidence that lawyers representing the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms presented on behalf of the Gateway Bible Baptist Church in Thompson, along with six other congregations, two ministers and one other individual in two related but distinct constitutional challenges to the provincial bat flu public health orders. (1) One of these challenged the sweeping powers with insufficient accountability that had been given to the Chief Public Health Officer. The other challenged portions of the public health orders themselves on the grounds that they violated the fundamental freedoms named in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in such a way as could not be justified by the “reasonable limitations” clause of the Charter’s Section 1. The evidence in these challenges was heard in May. After taking the summer to deliberate or take a vacation or go for the world’s record in thumb twiddling or whatever, last week on the twenty-first of October Chief Justice Joyal finally ruled in these cases. For the purposes of distinction the ruling with regards to the constitutionality of the powers of the Chief Public Health Officer, will be called “the first ruling” and the ruling, with regards to the constitutionality of portions of the orders will be called “the second ruling”.
The Chief Justice ruled against the applicants in both cases. In one sense, however, the second ruling could be called a non-ruling. In paragraph 292 we find the following:
I say that while recognizing and underscoring that fundamental freedoms do not and ought not to be seen to suddenly disappear in a pandemic and that courts have a specific responsibility to affirm that most obvious of propositions.
This is very good and right. The problem is that the next sentence begins with a “but.” Apart from the bad grammar involved – Chief Justice Joyal is old enough to have still had the rule never to begin a sentence with a conjunction like “but” drilled into him in grade school – buts have this nasty habit of leading into material that completely negates everything that precedes the “but”. Here is what followed:
But just as I recognize that special responsibility of the courts, given the evidence adduced by Manitoba (which I accept as credible and sound), so too must I recognize that the factual underpinnings for managing a pandemic are rooted in mostly scientific and medical matters. Those are matters that fall outside the expertise of courts. Although courts are frequently asked to adjudicate disputes involving aspects of medicine and science, humility and the reliance on credible experts are in such cases, usually required. In other words, where a sufficient evidentiary foundation has been provided in a case like the present, the determination of whether any limits on rights are constitutionally defensible is a determination that should be guided not only by the rigours of the existing legal tests, but as well, by a requisite judicial humility that comes from acknowledging that courts do not have the specialized expertise to casually second guess the decisions of public health officials, which decisions are otherwise supported in the evidence.
This constitutes an abdication of the very responsibility he had just acknowledged. If fundamental freedoms still exist in a pandemic, and it is the court’s special responsibility to affirm this, this means that the court cannot defer to the public health authorities, the medical experts, on the question of whether their own measures are reasonable and justified. If civil authority A is accused of trampling on the public’s fundamental freedoms, and the court defers to the expertise of civil authority A on the question of whether the latter’s actions are reasonable and justified, this translates into “civil authority A can do whatever he sees fit, there are no limits on his powers to which the court will hold him accountable”. Indeed, saying that courts should be guided not just by the “rigours of the existing legal tests” but a “humility” that forbids them to “casually second guess” the decisions of public health officials is tantamount to saying that medical science is a higher authority than the law. (2)
In the sections of the ruling that immediately follow the paragraph from which we have quoted, we see what this “judicial humility” looks like in practice. In these pages Chief Justice Joyal considers the question of whether the public health orders meet the standards of the Oakes test. The Oakes test was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1986 to determine whether legislation or other government action that infringes upon Charter rights and freedoms is nevertheless permitted under the “reasonable limitations” clause. To pass, the infringement must first be shown to serve a “pressing and substantial objective”. Second, the infringement must be show to be proportional, which means that it must a) be shown to be rationally connected to the objective, b) be shown to only minimally impair the right(s) and/or freedom(s) in question and c) be shown to provide a benefit to the public that is greater than the harm done by impairing the right(s) and/or freedom(s). (3) For each of the stages of this test, the Chief Justice essentially takes the position that because Brent Roussin decided, after weighing all the information available to him, that each public health order he issued was what was necessary at the time, therefore the orders meet the standards of the test. Such a ruling in effect declares that Brent Roussin, as Chief Public Health Officer, is above the law insofar as he is acting in the capacity of his office. If the court defers to him as to whether his actions in the capacity of his office meet the standards of constitutionality set in the Oakes test or not, then he is above the Oakes test and the Charter and cannot be held accountable to either.
The ramifications of this extend far beyond the issues pertaining to the public health orders and the pandemic. What it means is that while we remain in form the country that we were, governed by a parliament under the reign of a constitutional monarch, in which Common Law and Charter nominally protect our rights and freedoms, in actual practice we have become a medical technocracy.
Anyone inclined to think that this is a good thing, or even a tolerable thing, is invited to consider the words of C. S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. (God in the Dock, 1948)
This description fits the rule of medical technocrats to a tee.
That a de facto medical technocracy is inimical to the freedom that permeates our parliamentary form of government, our constitutional monarchy, and the Common Law is the real issue at the heart of the other challenge. This was the challenge to the constitutionality of the provincial legislature’s having named Brent Roussin dictator, with Jazz Atwal as his Master of Horse, for the duration of the pandemic, which had to be framed, of course, as a challenge to the sections of the Manitoba Public Health Act (2009) which provided for this situation. These are sections 13 and 67. Section 67 empowers the Chief Public Health Officer to take special measures if he “reasonably believes” that “a serious and immediate threat to public health exists because of an epidemic or threatened epidemic of a communicable disease” which “cannot be prevented, reduced or eliminated” without the special measures. Section 13 allows him to delegate his own power under the Act to a deputy.
Chief Justice Joyal ruled that this two-fold delegation of power, first from the legislature to the Chief Public Health Officer, second from the latter to his deputy was constitutional. In the course of explaining his decision he made a number of statements that suggest a troubling sympathy with the technocratic impulse of the age. He gave his approval to the province’s claim that with the “emergence of new threats such as SARS, West Nile, monkey pox and the avian flu” it was important that the government focus on the “modernization of the PHA”. The modernization of the Public Health Act, that is to say, bringing it in line with contemporary trends around the world, means making it more technocratic. In this context the Chief Justice asserted with regards to the centralization of the public health system in the person of the Chief Public Health Officer that:
the act sets out the powers afforded to public health officials to address communicable diseases and importantly, it also constrains those powers so as to ensure an appropriate balance between individual rights and the protection of public health (first ruling, 12).
Does it ensure such an appropriate balance? As this is the quod erat demonstrandum, this forthright assertion of it would seem to be a classic example of petitio principia, especially when we consider the weakness of everything that was then put forward in support of the assertion. After providing quotations from speeches in the legislative assembly at the time the new Public Health Act was being debated that show that the legislators acknowledged the need for such a balance, the Chief Justice finally specified the constraints this Act supposedly places on the powers it gives to the Chief Public Health Officer (first ruling, 17). Not a single one of these is a real check that prevents the office of the Chief Public Health Officer from being corrupted into a medical technocratic tyranny by the excessive emergency power vested in it.
The first of these is that the official must believe there is a public health emergency that requires special measures to be taken. The third is that the orders require the prior approval of the Minister of Health. The fourth is the stipulation in section 3 of the Public Health Act that the restrictions on rights and freedoms of the special measures be as few as possible, the equivalent to the “minimal impairment” requirement of the Oakes test. In practice, the attitude of deferral to the specialized medical expertise of the Chief Public Health Officer on the part of the Minister of Health ensures that none of these constitutes a real constraint. The sixth, which is that the Chief Public Health Officer must be a physician, is a limit on who the Minister of Health can appoint to the office not a limit on use of the powers of that office by the officeholder. The seventh and final “constraint” pertains only to the secondary matter of the sub delegation of the Chief Public Health Officer’s powers to his deputy. This leaves the second and fifth, both of which warrant special comment and so have been reserved for last.
The second “constraint” is that under subsection 2 of section 67 “the types of orders that can be made are clearly delineated”. This is true, but the types so delineated are so extensive that this is not much of a limitation even without taking into consideration how much further deferral to the expertise of the Chief Public Health Officer would stretch them.
The fifth is the stipulation in subsection 4 of section 67 that “an order requiring a person to be immunized cannot be enforced if the person objects.” Although this looks like a real constraint on the Chief Public Health Officer’s powers, for several months now he has gotten away with making a total mockery of this stipulation by doing everything short of strapping objectors down and forcing the needle into them to compel them to be “immunized”.
Therefore, quite to the contrary of what Chief Justice Joyal claims (first ruling, 18) these constraints provide no real protection against the danger of the powers the Public Health Act confers upon the Chief Public Health Officer in a public health emergency being used to run roughshod over our rights and freedoms. Whatever the intention of the legislators in 2009, the Public Health Act fails to provide an appropriate balance between individual rights and the protection of public health. Instead, it places all the weight on the side of the latter.
It needs to be stated here that the need for an appropriate balance between individual rights and freedoms on the one hand and the public good on the other is a truism. The art of statecraft – politics in the best sense of the word – could be said to reduce to finding just this balance. The problem, at least in Canada, is that for decades now we have only ever seemed to have heard this truism trotted out whenever someone is insisting that individual rights and freedoms need to make cessions to the public good. Balance requires that there also be cessions from the public good to individual rights and freedoms. Indeed, since the vast majority of decisions that need to be made in any complex society have to do with the good of individuals and small groups, rather than the good of the society as a whole, and it is individual rights and freedoms that ensure that those making such decisions are the ones most competent to do so, which with only rare exceptions means the individuals and small groups directly concerned, balance arguably requires far more cessions to individual rights and freedoms from the public good, than the other way around.
The basic assumption of technocracy is contrary to all of this. This is the assumption that technical knowledge – the kind of specialized knowledge in any field that qualifies one as an expert – renders one competent to make decisions for other people if the expert’s field at all touches upon those decisions. This assumption is laughably false – technical expertise in one field does not translate into technical expertise in another field, much less all fields, and it is rare that a decision requires information from only one field. The most technical knowledge ought to qualify an expert for is to advise people in the making of their own decisions, not to make those decisions for them. Indeed, were we to assume that the greater an individual’s expertise is in one specialized field, the greater his ignorance will be in all others, and the more utterly incompetent he will be at making decisions for himself, let alone other people, our assumption would be wrong, but a lot less wrong than the assumption inherent in technocracy.
Technocracy is odious enough when it takes the form of the army of civil servants, passing the endless regulations that boss people around and tell them what to do in their own homes and how to run their own businesses, by which Liberal Prime Ministers have so effectively circumvented the constraints of our Crown-in-Parliament constitution in order to impose their will upon Canadians. A medical technocracy enacted in a public health emergency is far worse. Throughout history, mankind has been much more often plagued by tyranny than by insufficient government power, by too many rules than by too few, and the exploitation of emergencies, real or manufactured, and the fear they engender in the public, is the normal means whereby a tyrant seizes unconstitutional power. For this reason it is imperative than in any emergency, those empowered to deal with the emergency be subjected to even greater scrutiny and held to even stricter accountability, than in ordinary circumstances. This is the opposite of the attitude of deference that Chief Justice Joyal contended for in 281-283 of the second ruling, and which he reiterated in the first sentence of 292, “In the context of this deadly and unprecedented pandemic, I have determined that this is most certainly a case where a margin of appreciation can be afforded to those making decisions quickly and in real time for the benefit of the public good and safety.” (4)
This deference is fatal to the court’s role as the guardian of fundamental freedoms. Chief Justice Joyal acknowledged (284), as, in fact, did the province, that these freedoms were violated, and that therefore the onus is upon the government to justify the violation. (5) When the court gives this “margin of appreciation” to “those making decisions quickly and in real time”, however, is it possible for the province to fail to meet this onus in the court’s eyes?
Consider the arguments that the province made that it met the “minimal impairment” requirement of the Oakes test. Chief Justice Joyal reproduced (303) the reasons the province offered in support of this contention from paragraph 52 of their April 12, 2021 brief. Reason c) begins with “Unlike some other jurisdictions, there was no curfew imposed or a ‘shelter in place’ order that would prevent people from leaving their home other than for limited reasons”. That you cannot validly justify your own actions by pointing to the worse actions of someone else is something that anyone with even the most basic of training in logical reasoning should immediately recognize. The same reason includes the sentences “It was still possible to gather with family and friends at indoor and outdoor public places, up to the gathering limit of 5 people” and “An exception was also made for people who live on their own to allow one person to visit.” Offering these as “reasons” why the public health order forbidding people to meet with anyone other than members of their own household in their own homes for over three months only “minimally impaired” our freedoms of association and assembly is adding insult to injury. That is called throwing people crumbs, not keeping your infringement on their freedoms to a minimum. “Minimally impair” is not supposed to mean to impair the freedom to the point that it is minimal.
Reason e) which pertains to freedom of religion is no better. The province declared that there was an “attempt to accommodate religious services”. The first example of this that they gave is that “Religious services could still be delivered remotely indoors, or outdoors in vehicles”. It seems rather rich of the province to offer the latter up as proof that they tried to only minimally impair freedom of religion when, in fact, the churches that offered such services had to fight to obtain that concession.
Had Brent Roussin forgotten that he had initially banned drive-in services when he ordered churches to close in the so-called “circuit break” last fall?
Or rather had he remembered that it was Chief Justice Joyal who on the fifth of December last year had ruled that drive-in services were in violation of the public health orders before he, that is Roussin, amended the orders to allow for these services?
Either way it is rather disingenuous of him to make this allusion in this context.
The next sentence is even worse. “As well, individual prayer and reflection was permitted.” So, because he didn’t ban people from praying by themselves in the privacy of their own homes, which even officially Communist countries never attempted, he is to be credited for only “minimally impairing” our freedom of religion by forbidding us to obey God’s commandment to forsake not the assembly of ourselves, forbidding us to sing God’s praises as a community of faith, and forbidding us from partaking of the Holy Sacrament? Indeed, what this sentence tells us is that the person who wrote it thinks a) that individuals need the permission of government to pray and reflect in private, b) that it is within the powers of government to withhold such permission and forbid private prayer and reflection, and c) government’s not having done so means that their violations of our freedom of religion and worship have been minimal and reasonable.
Any sort of cognitive filter that allows a Chief Justice to look at this sort of nonsense and conclude from it that the province has met its onus of justifying its impairment of our fundamental freedoms as the minimum necessary under the circumstances is clearly a dysfunctional filter that ought to be immediately discarded.
Indeed, the province’s arguments illustrate the point made above about technocracy being inimical to freedom, constitutional government, and the balance between individual right and public good. Technical knowledge or specialized knowledge in a field of expertise, as stated above, does not translate into expertise in another field, much less expertise in all fields. Indeed, it tends towards a certain kind of deficiency in general reasoning that could be regarded as a sort of tunnel vision. It is called déformation professionelle in French and is similar to what is called the Law of the Instrument, illustrated in A.M’s [censored. A.T.] proverb about how if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. A physician’s technical expertise is in the field of medicine – treating sickness and injury and promoting health. He will therefore be inclined to subordinate everything else to the goals of his profession. In an epidemic or pandemic, this inclination will be all the more exaggerated. To a medical expert in such a situation, the answer to the question of what public health orders constitute the minimal necessary restrictions on fundamental freedoms will look very different than it does to those who do not share this narrow focus.
Consider the words that George Grant, in his important discussion (Technology and Justice, 1986) of the implications of the increasing technologization of society, identified as encapsulating the spirit of technological thought, J. R. O’s [censored. A.T.] “when you see that something is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it.” The significance of these words is that the technological mind is inclined to reject external limitations, such as those of ethics, that stand between it and the actual doing of whatever it finds itself capable. Modern medical thinking is thoroughly technological and O’s thought, translated into that of a physician and epidemiologist overseeing a pandemic, would be “when you see that you can slow the spread of the disease by doing A, you go ahead and do A”. “A” might have a thousand other effects, all negative, but the mind that prioritizes slowing the spread of an epidemic over all other concerns can acknowledge this and still come to the conclusion that the benefit outweighs the harm, demonstrating that its ability to make calculations of this sort is seriously impaired. (6)
It is absolutely essential that those charged with the duty of protecting our fundamental rights and freedoms and holding government to its constitutional limits, recognize how the very nature of medical expertise tends towards the skewing of the medical expert’s perspective in this way and that therefore he is the last person to whose opinion government ministers and judges should defer in determining whether public health orders infringing upon fundamental freedoms are constitutionally justified out of necessity.
For the courts to fail to recognize this is for the courts to shirk their duty and acquiesce as our country succumbs to the tyranny of technocracy. (7)
(1) The applicants were the churches: Gateway Bible Baptist Church (Thompson), Pembina Valley Baptist Church (Winkler), Redeeming Grace Bible Church (Morden), Grace Covenant Church (Altona), Slavic Baptist Church, Christian Church of Morden, Bible Baptist Church (Brandon); ministers: Tobias Tissen (pastor of Church of God, Restoration in Sarto, just south of Steinbach) and Thomas Rempel (deacon of Redeeming Grace Bible Church); and individual: Ross MacKay.
(2) Tom Brodbeck’s editorial commenting on these rulings for the local Liberal Party propaganda rag – or paper of record, depending upon your perspective – was given the headline “Case Closed, Science Wins”.
(3) There is an unfortunate tautology here in that proportionality is the term used for both all three stages of the second step of the test taken together and the third stage of the same.
(4) The pandemic is “unprecedented” only in the sense that the measures taken to combat it have been unprecedented in their extremity. The Spanish Flu which ended about a century before the bat flu pandemic began killed between 25-50 million people. The bat flu has killed about 5 million over the course of a similar span of time. Not only is the total of the Spanish Flu much larger than that of the bat flu, it represents a much larger percentage of the world’s population which was considerably smaller at the time. It took place at a time when health care and medical treatment options were far more limited than they are today, and yet public health orders never came close to what they are today, despite the earlier pandemic having started in a time of war when people were already accustomed to emergency restrictions.
(5) Many of the news articles reporting on these rulings have been extremely misleading. Several have reported that the Chief Justice ruled that no Charter rights were violated. This is true only in the sense that there is a distinction between rights and freedoms and that the Chief Justice ruled against there having been a violation of Section 7 and Section 15 rights. With regards to Section 2 fundamental freedoms, however, he ruled – and the province admitted – that these had been violated, and that therefore there was a burden of justification on the government to prove these violations to be constitutional in accordance with Section 1. As the discussion of Section 2 was by far the most important part of the case, to summarize the entire ruling as if it were all about the Sections 7 and 15 challenges, is to utterly distort it.
(6) Suppose that a virus is spreading which, if unchecked, will cause 10 000 deaths. The public health officer, if he takes Action B, can prevent the epidemic and all of those deaths. However, Action B will itself cause 10 000 other deaths. The number of deaths will be the same whether action is taken or not. Should the public health officer take this action or do nothing? It would be odious to attempt to resolve the dilemma by comparing the value of the 10 000 lives lost the one way, with the value of the 10 000 lives lost the other. The person who makes the case for the public health officer’s taking Action B, therefore, would have to reason along the lines that since it is the public health officer’s duty to combat epidemics and save lives threatened by disease, and the intent behind Action B would be to save the 10 000 threatened by the epidemic not kill the other 10 000, Action B should be taken and the 10 000 lost to it considered collateral damage. The person who would argue the other side would point out that the 10 000 lost to the epidemic would die of natural causes, that the 10 000 lost as a result of Action B would die as the direct consequence of human action, and that the human moral culpability for taking an action that directly results in a death is greater than the human moral culpability for not taking an action that would prevent a death by natural cause, ergo it is worse to take Action B than to not do so. Which of these two arguments is the most persuasive? I would suggest that for people who are both normal and capable of rational, human, moral thought, the second of the two arguments is likely to be the most persuasive, and that those persuaded by the first of the two arguments are most likely to be found among medical experts.
(7) That technological science was leading us to a universal technocracy which would be the worst of all tyrannies was a warning sounded frequently throughout the Twentieth Century by such thinkers as Jacques Ellul (The Technological Society, 1954, Perspectives on Our Age, 1981), C. S. Lewis (The Abolition of Man, 1943, That Hideous Strength, 1945), and René Girard (I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning, 1999). In Canada, George Grant played the role of Cassandra on this theme, which runs through his entire corpus of work from Philosophy in the Mass Age (1959) to Technology and Justice (1986). It was central to the thesis of his 1965 jeremiad Lament for a Nation that by succumbing to the technologically driven capitalism of America, Canada was losing the pre-liberal traditions that informed her founding, and would be drawn like the rest of the world into the “universal homogenous state”, a technocracy that the ancients had predicted would be the ultimate tyranny. Technological science, as he argued in the first essay of Technology and Justice, begins as man’s mastery of nature, but progresses into man’s mastery of himself, which translates into his mastery of other people. He did not shrink from implicating modern medicine along with other more obvious culprits in this.
Open Letter to the Premier of British Columbia
Phoenix Rising Columnist
I encourage all Canadians to contact their premiers. Please feel free to copy and paste this letter, in part or whole, or send your own letter as soon as humanly possible. Let your voice be heard! It’s time we stood in solidarity for our children and their futures.
Attention: John Horgan,
Premier of British Columbia
“I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, House of Commons Debates, July 1, 1960.
“I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, House of Commons Debates, July 1, 1960.
I am writing this letter today, as I feel it is my duty and obligation to do so. I felt it was important to share with you how many Canadians are feeling. Our peace and safety are in dire threat and it is time for we the people to have our voices heard and actually be acknowledged by your government responding with positive and workable solutions that we can all be in agreement with.
The provincial NDP seems to have forgotten that we are all created equal in the eyes of God. We have been given the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which cannot be taken away by any man or institution without just cause. This cause must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In my opinion, as well as the opinion of millions of Canadians, the government has been guilty of instigating medical tyranny. This has created an atmosphere of incredible fear and division like never before. These mandates that you are supporting, have destroyed families, friendships and businesses to such an extent that some may never be repaired. These actions have callously and irresponsibly led people to their deaths or to be maimed for life. It is beyond reckless to push an entire population towards a detrimentally, dangerous and untested, unproven inoculation. By not allowing the important voices of opposing doctors and scientists to be heard you continue to cover up, censor and disparage vital information regarding these deaths and injuries.
True, informed consent means it is your duty to make sure the public is fully aware of what these so-called cures actually contain. We want a complete breakdown of the ingredients by an independent third-party lab. The public has been recently informed that these contain graphene oxide, a deadly poison. This could potentially result in millions of deaths or severe injuries. It’s bad enough that millions of Canadians have already been injected with this, but even worse, and totally unforgiveable, you are now getting ready to order people to inject their children with this venom. Explain to me, Mr. Horgan, how you or anyone else for that matter, could ever, in good conscious justify this for any reason whatsoever. I am totally disgusted by the lack of ethics and morals throughout this whole process, and even more so, when it comes to the children.
How dare you treat us and our innocent children as nothing more than cattle to be culled. Please tell me that we are more than just another day and another dollar for you. I really hope that is not how you feel and that this has all been just one giant mistake because we are much, much more than that. We are loving, intelligent and powerful beings created in the image of God. We are certainly not going to stand by and willfully be poisoned. You can try to brainwash us with your non-stop media programming but I’ve done my homework and I am not at all comfortable with what I have learned. I don’t just get my information off Facebook memes. I’ve listened to both sides like any responsible patient would. I listen to doctors and scientists all over the globe. They are my second opinion. There are thousands of them. Are you really going to tell me that they are all willing to risk their careers and reputations over this if there wasn’t any real danger? For what? What would be their motive? Please tell me, because I really want to understand. There continues to be more and more of us every day who find themselves in the exact same position; who are ready to stand and demand that you cease and desist these horrendous crimes against humanity and leave our children alone. Unless you can prove otherwise, this is exactly what it is looking like at the moment.
I want you to know that we do not fear you or your government and we will not comply to these ridiculous mandates. They lead to nothing more than the destruction of our health and way of life. The mask fiasco regarding the bad batches that came from China already prove that. For goodness sake you ordered those carcinogenic face diapers to be put on our children! Who is being held accountable for that? Any google search will find you that information. In fact, I believe the top result was “Health Canada issued an advisory in April asking all distributors selling masks with graphene or biomass graphene to recall their products over potential inhalation risks.” What the hell?? Graphene??? I’m sure lawsuits are coming. Speaking of lawsuits, we also demand that substantial monetary compensation and liability for harm be awarded to those whom you have coerced into taking this cocktail of poison. This is not to come from taxpayer’s money but rather from the pharmaceutical giants and vaccine manufacturers who have made, or stand to make, trillions from this poisonous medicine. I’m not sure even what to call it. I know many professionals have referred to it as a bioweapon. Considering the lies and deceit that were involved in the making of this concoction their protection from liability means absolutely nothing. In addition to compensation, we order you to gather a team of responsible, courageous doctors, virologists and scientists who cannot be bribed, manipulated or compromised, and immediately start working on a way to reverse the damage you have caused through these injections.
If you were not aware of the ingredients and the potential harm that this injection could cause you should step down. In any case, you should at least admit that you have been criminally negligent towards we the people, your employers. This should have already been rectified. If you are to mandate an entire population to take an untested, so-called cure, without researching it from top to bottom then you do not deserve to be in the position of Premier of B.C. The same applies to any other politician or health official recklessly pushing this narrative. If you honestly believe that you were right in these mandates then we want a debate with top doctors and scientists on both sides to come forward with the proof they have for or against this argument. We the people, will choose the doctors and scientists who are to be involved in this debate. You must also have proof that the Coronavirus was without a doubt isolated. After all, it is your reason for mandating these jabs in the first place. All of this is to be aired live on national TV. Considering that this is something that is affecting all of us in such a negative way I am sure that we all would deem this as an obvious and necessary step to take. If you refuse to agree to this sensible solution that only begs the question why?
We are not asking, but insisting, that you honour our right to choose what may, and what may not be, injected or delivered in any way, shape or form into our bodies. The Nuremberg Code was put into place for a reason and we require you start acknowledging it. Our individual liberties and rights are not up for debate. All restrictions are to be dropped immediately so we the people can get back to repairing the damage you have caused to our personal lives as well as to our communities. We are sovereign men and women and we will remain so. This government has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt why it is imperative that we hold onto our individual freedoms and never again become complacent, or blindly trust those in power.
With the federal election happening tomorrow we will see whether or not these vital concerns that I have expressed to you and your government will be dealt with more fully on a national level. We will be closely watching this election. Of that you can be sure. We insist on an investigation and full disclosure of global interference and foreign policies that directly affect our country. We do not consent to the global reset. We will not comply with tyranny in any shape or form. We will not hand our country or our properties over to any government or tyrannical globalists whose main objective appears to be greed and corruption of power.
As a Canadian, it is your duty to remember and honour the words to our national anthem, “Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee, God, keep our land glorious and free.” Be on the right side of history because in the end, good always wins. It’s time our premiers do their jobs or stand down and let someone else take over who has the guts to do the task properly and in a way that befits our beautiful free country and its people. We did not send our sons and daughters to sacrifice their lives just so an incompetent, seemingly corrupt government could hand it over to the highest bidders. This country belongs to the people and to the blood of our soldiers. It is not for sale and it will remain that way. You, of all people Premier Horgan, ought to be in the forefront by standing up for the people and righting the wrongs that have been done to our beloved Canada and its people.
Sincerely standing up with love for the rights of myself, my family, my children, my grandchildren, community and with compassionate concern for all my fellow Canadians,
QUESNEL AGAINST HEALTH PASS GROUP
RESISTS HORGAN & HENRY VAX MANDATE
Arthur Topham – Reporter
Quesnel, BC] – The last straw in the BC NDP’s ongoing attempts at locking down and controlling the citizens of British Columbia may just have broken the backs of countless citizens and small business owners across the province who are finally beginning to see through all the government and media propaganda and smoke and mirrors and realizing that the pending ultimatum regarding forced jabs of experimental, untested poison vaccines is not the way to deal with this massive global scamdemic.
Thanks to the courage, insight and initiative of a group of local concerned citizens in the Quesnel area a private members group on Facebook known as “QUESNEL AGAINST HEALTH PASS” was formed and its membership is expanding faster than the Lone Ranger’s proverbial “speeding bullet”.
Informed minds and creative thinking and collaboration with an older group known as RISE UP QUESNEL which was formed back in March of 2021 in response to the then World Wide Rally For Freedom that took place on March 21st has resulted in a very proactive group of conscientious resisters to all the Covid madness that’s been disrupting the lives and safety of people everywhere.
One of the more recent events was a Rally to protest the NDP’s impending vaccine passport mandate held on Saturday, August 28th at the old Footbridge across the Fraser River where the Waterwheel is located across from the historic Hudson’s Bay Trading Post store. The turn-out was great even though the weather was not the best but rain these days, after months of sweltering heat and smoke from the wildfires, is practically a pleasurable event in itself. The following photo montage will give viewers a good idea of event and the messages that the citizens are sending out to the passing public and to the government and mainstream media.
Rain or shine Quesnel will be out on the street informing citizens of their rights and freedoms.
People of all ages were in attendance and declaring their God-given rights.
“Teach your children well” is a lesson that the 1960’s coined in music and it’s a maxim that’s still very relevant today.
Without freedom of choice the people are nothing but pawns in the games that corrupt governments and orgs like the World Heath Organization (WHO) play with the global community. This MUST end and end soon.
Tami Viktil founder of RISE UP QUESNEL is a dedicated trooper in the battle to retain our rights and freedoms and her booth and information is always available for interested citizens looking for truthful answers to many of the concerns people now feel about the experimental jabs and the masks filled with toxic graphene oxide.
The gathering also is a great way of getting petitions signed once interested parties can see what the issues are.
The messages are clear. The people must stand in solidarity against all these draconian, Orwellian mandates being heaped upon the citizenry without any input from those who are being impacted the most by these totalitarian measures.
Now that the MSM (mainstream media) has revealed itself to be nothing more than the mouthpiece for the likes of Gates and Fauci and the WHO and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and corrupt, subservient governments around the world maybe you’d “druther” enjoy reading one of the more popular hardcopy newspapers being sold across Canada.
There doesn’t appear to be any shortage of imaginative people when it comes to getting the messages across to the still slumbering masses who’ve been programmed all their lives by the endless, repetitive propaganda that emanates forth from the boob tube and radio and newspapers on a daily basis. A fleet of trucks like this one would certainly go a long way to draw attention to the issues of the day.
This foot soldier for freedom is ready to pass along information to any passer by be they mobile or walking. Behind her the sign says, “SUPPORT OUR NURSES”.
Gatherings like this also make great places for meeting new folks who share the same ideals and principles and it looks from this photo that there’s also the element of humour, an essential ingredient in any campaign to make the world a better place to live in.
This sign, “VACCINE MANDATES = MEDICAL TYRANNY” is an extremely important message for the general public to consider given the great rupture within society today between those who have taken the jab believing they could trust their health officials and government and those who have done their own research into these lethal injections that are literally killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people around the world.
It’s hoped that events such as these will grow in numbers and strength not only here in Quesnel but around the province and across the nation. It’s only when the people stand up in large numbers and demand that the tyranny stops that the politicians begin to take notice. God grant that this process will finally convince the “leaders” to come to their senses and start listening to those who elected them to be leaders rather than following the dictates of foreign entities who are more interested in maximizing their profits than in caring for the people and the Earth.
It was a good day for freedom of assembly when Tamara Morneau arrived at the Quesnel, B.C. Court House to attend her 2 p.m. appearance for having refused to pay a $2300.00 ticket which the RCMP issued her back on March 23, 2021.
Tamara had been one of a group of local Quesnel residence who had gathered in a local park back on March 20, 2021 when the first World Wide Rally for Freedom was taking place in cities and towns around the world.
The local RCMP had sent some of their officers to observe the event and then a couple of days after the peaceful gathering ended they showed up at Tamara’s doorstep to issue her with a ticket stating:
Count (1) of the DESCRIPTION OF OFFENCE(S) readS: “ORGANIZE OR HOST NON-COMPLIANT EVENT”. It was issued under the “Emergency Program Act” Section 4(1). The Ticket Amount read $2300.00.
Early in July Tamara received a letter from the B.C. Court notifying her that she was to attend a hearing on the 27th of this month.
As a reporter for the Cariboo Sentinel and knowing that there wouldn’t be a snow-ball’s chance in hell that the other community paper would cover her story I was there to see what might unfold. Arriving at the Court House a few minutes before 2:00 pm I could see that Tamara was there outside the building talking with some friends. When I approached her the first thing she said was, “It was stayed!” I could tell from the look on her face that she was pleased with the fact. Not seeing her name on the docket when she arrived she then went up to the Registrar’s Office to check and was informed by one of the court clerks that her hearing had been stayed.
As we were discussing the outcome some of her supporters arrived and they too were thrilled to find out the good news.
Asked if this was then end of her efforts to help stop all the government lockdowns and other curtailments of the people’s human rights she replied that she was not about to quit fighting for the freedoms that her and her family valued so much and that those who felt strongly about their fundamental rights would continue to gather every week and do their best to educate the general public about all the government disinformation and lies that were causing so much fear, anxiety, pain and death not to mention destroying the economy of the nation.
With young people like Tamara Morneau and others fighting hard to wake up the slumbering masses their dedication to retaining their rightful freedoms left me with a feeling of hope that the struggle to regain our basic freedoms was not in vain.
It’s time that the power was returned to the people everywhere.
[Editor’s Note: The following article on Canada’s Charter of Rights & Freedoms by Gerry T. Neal is essential reading for anyone interested in Canadian political affairs, especially in relation to the current global dilemma now facing not only Canadians but the world at large. Mr. Neal has captured the essence and the history of this controversial document and how it will likely play out in the days and months and years ahead. He clearly shows how it is connected to Canada’s Constitution and moreover his brilliant analysis of its fundamental flaws will give readers a heads up as to why their most cherished of human rights and freedoms document may not be the panacea that Canadians believe it to be when it comes to challenging both Federal and Provincial levels of government over their Orwellian dictates that are now threatening the very superstructure of our once basic freedoms.
This article is also very dear to me as well on a personal level. Having been in a running battle with Canada’s powerful foreign lobbyist censors now for the past 14 years and having incurred and endured their wrath plus the never-ending corporate media slander and maligning that automatically spews forth whenever someone is accused of the alleged crimes that Mr. Neal’s article analyses in great depth in his article, I am greatly indebted to the author for having clarified the overall picture with his cogent and colourful critique.
Just in my own case alone the lack of any firm legal precedents in the Charter that would have stymied the efforts on the part of the complainants who attacked my name, my person and my profession has cost the Canadian taxpayer close to 2 million dollars of their hard-won earnings and my case is still not settled to this very date.
As Mr. Neal clearly points out, our current Prime Minister “Captain Airhead”, is very fond of creating more and more laws that will protect his benefactors and himself from exposure and his latest ‘PET’ peeve Bill C-10 is one that every thinking Canadian should be very, very concerned about.
One final thing. Mr. Neal’s articles don’t usually include memes such as you’ll see here. The one’s that do accompany his article are my own and for the most part were created over the past 14 years of my struggle to retain our basic human rights.]
Freedom Under Siege
Gerry T. Neal
I have never thought very highly of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was added to our constitution in 1982. Note the wording there. The Charter is not itself our constitution but merely a part of it and a late addition at that. Those who make the mistake of calling the Charter itself our constitution have bought in to the American superstition that a constitution is a piece of paper that keeps a government from going bad through its magical powers. A constitution is a country’s system of law and government, the institutions that comprise it, and the traditions that inform their motions. The largest part of it is unwritten and this is true even in the American republic. Documents like our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the one the Americans call their Constitution are merely parts of the Canadian and American constitutions respectively. They are the laws that define and set limits to the power of government institutions. They have no power to keep government within those limits apart from the loyalty of those who hold public office in obeying them, the willingness of the courts to uphold them, and the faithful vigilance of the public.
My low estimation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not because I don’t like the rights and freedoms that are listed in that document. With a few exceptions, such as the “equality rights” written in Animal Farm style doublespeak in Section 15, these are rights and freedoms that I consider to be among the most valuable elements of our Common Law tradition. It is rather because the Charter has made these rights and freedoms less secure rather than more. In part this is due to flaws in the Charter itself such as the “notwithstanding clause” in Section 33 and the broad loophole in Section 1 which effectually nullify the Charter as far as the whole point of constitutionally protected rights and freedoms, that is to say that they are supposed to limit what the government can do so as to protect us from the abusive exercise of its powers, goes. The Charter’s loopholes and exceptions protect the government instead of us and for this reason former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was right to say that it is not worth the paper it is written on. It is also, however, because the Charter has encouraged a way of thinking about our rights and freedoms in a way that is the fundamental opposite of that which has historically belonged to our Common Law and traditional institutions of constitutional monarchy and parliament. It encourages us to think of our rights and freedoms as privileges bestowed upon us by government to be limited or taken away by government freely as it sees fit, rather than our own property.
The consequences of this way of thinking having become pervasive have been most evident over the course of the last year. Section 2 of the Charter identifies four freedoms as being fundamental. The first of these is freedom of conscience and religion. The third is the freedom of peaceful assembly. The fourth is the freedom of association. The whole point, remember, of having the Charter designate these freedoms as essential is to place limits on government power, to tell the government that it must keep its hands off of these things. Yet ever since the World Health Organization declared the spread of the Wuhan bat flu to be a pandemic last March, our provincial governments have treated these freedoms as if they were completely non-existent, much less fundamental and protected by constitutional law and the Dominion government has constantly been urging the provincial governments to clamp down on us in violation of these freedoms in even more severe ways.
In 1986 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the case of R v Oakes. David Oakes had been arrested with drugs in his possession and under what was then Section 8 of the Narcotics Control Act was presumed to be guilty of trafficking. He challenged the constitutionality of Section 8 on the grounds that it violated the presumption of innocence, a civil right spelled out in Section 11 (d) of the Charter and which had been long established as part of the Common Law tradition. That the provision of the NCA being challenged did indeed violate the civil right in question was easily demonstrated, but the Court then had to decide whether the violation was justifiable under the “reasonable limits” loophole in Section 1 of the Charter. The Court’s ruling established what has ever since been the litmus test for this question. The Court ruled that for a law which violates a Charter right or freedom to be justifiable under the “reasonable limits” clause, it first had to have a “pressing and substantial” goal. Second, it had to meet the three qualifications of a) being “rationally connected” to the goal of the law, b) only impairing the rights and freedoms in question minimally, and c) not overwhelming the benefit hoped to be achieved with its negative effects.
It is quite obvious that the public health measures fail to meet the second of the three qualifications of the second part of the Supreme Court’s Oakes’ test. When the public health officer tells you that you cannot have any visitors to your home, even if you meet outside, as is currently the case in Manitoba, he is clearly not trying to only “minimally impair” your freedom of association. What he is doing is disregarding freedom of association entirely. The provincial legislature is not allowed to do this constitutionally, nor can it delegate to the public health officer the authority to do so. The legislature cannot delegate what it does not legitimately possess itself. When the public health officer orders churches, synagogues, and mosques not to meet for the largest part of a year, cancels the most important festivals of these religions, and only permits re-opening at a severely reduced capacity that requires churches to betray the tenets of their own faith and turn worshippers away, he is similarly disregarding freedom of conscience and religion rather than making sure that his orders only “minimally impair” this freedom. There is also plenty of evidence that the public health orders fail to meet the third qualification of the Oakes’ test as well. The costs of lockdowns, measured in the destruction of lives due to the breakdown of mental health and the rise in substance abuse and suicides, the erosion of community and social capital, and the devastation of businesses and livelihoods, has been tremendous and far exceeds any questionable benefits of these insane, unjust, evil and oppressive restrictions. Indeed, I believe the case could be made that the public health measures fail every single element of the Oakes’ test.
The provincial governments have gotten away with all this stercus tauri because they have until fairly recently met with only minimal resistance on the part of the Canadian public. This can be attributed to a number of causes. One of these, of course, is the hysterical and irrational fear generated by the mainstream corporate media that have been deceitfully and despicably portraying a virus that produces no to mild symptoms in most people who contract it, from which the vast majority of people who actually do get sick recover, and which in many if not most jurisdictions has an average age of fatality that is higher than the average expected lifespan of the general public, as if it were the second coming of the bubonic plague. Another cause is the new attitude which has been encouraged among Canadians, especially by the Liberals, since 1982, of regarding our rights and freedoms as privileges bestowed upon us by the government in the Charter rather than what they are, our lawful property as free subjects of the Crown which it is the government’s duty to respect.
The assault on our freedoms of religion, peaceful assembly, and association have come from the provincial governments. At the same time the second of the four freedoms designated as fundamental in the Charter has come under attack from the Liberals who are in power in the Dominion government. This is the freedom of “thought, belief, opinion and expression”. Whereas our freedoms of religion, peaceful assembly, and association have never been this besieged before in Canadian history, our freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression has taken hits every time the Liberal Party led by a Trudeau has come to power in Ottawa. It has been less than ten years since we finally got rid of one of the vilest elements of Pierre Trudeau’s legacy, the notorious Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. While the entire Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977 is, in fact, an affront to freedom of thought because, despite its title, it has nothing to do with protecting our rights either as Canadians or human beings from government abuses, but is instead all about prohibiting the crimethink of discrimination on the part of individual Canadians, Section 13 was the Act’s worst provision by far. By defining any electronic communication of information “likely to” expose someone protected against discrimination “to hatred or contempt” as an act of discrimination it in effect forbade all negative criticism of groups protected against discrimination or individuals belonging to such groups, regardless of the truthfulness or justice of the criticism in question.
Section 13 was finally abolished during the premiership of Stephen Harper thanks to a private member’s bill repealing the foul section that received enough support from Conservative MPs and Liberal MPs of the pre-Trudeau variety – these had not yet been purged from the party – to pass Parliament. Neither Stephen Harper nor his Minister of Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, who is currently overseeing the throwing of pastors in gaol and the barricading of churches in Alberta, had much to do with this for although they had spoken out against Human Rights Tribunals and their unjust infringement upon freedom of thought and speech on their road to power, in office they betrayed most of what they had once stood for, apparently having sold their souls to get there. The demise of Section 13 has long been lamented by Pierre Trudeau’s son, Captain Airhead, and when he became Prime Minister in 2015 he dropped a number of hints that he would be seeking to revive it. The appeal of Section 13 to Captain Airhead was based on more than just the fact that it had been originally introduced when his father was in power. More than any previous Liberal leader, Captain Airhead has been of the mindset that once a progressive goal has been attained, all debate about it ought to cease. This was evident even before he became Prime Minister when he purged the party of its pro-life members. More than any previous Liberal leader, he has enthusiastically endorsed fringe progressive causes that could not possibly achieve widespread popular support on their own merits without measures that intimidate and suppress dissenters. More than any previous Liberal leader he has been prone to tell Canadians who disagree with him that they are not welcome in their own country. He has used the expression “there is no place for X in Canada” far more liberally than any previous leader and with a much wider range of Xs. (1) In all of this he has demonstrated the sort of sick, censorious, mindset to which something like Section 13 appeals. In December of 2019, after he won re-election in the sense that he managed to squeak out a plurality despite falling majorly in the polls from where he had been four years previously, he instructed his Cabinet that fighting online “hate speech” would be one of their priorities in the new session of Parliament. Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault was specifically charged with finding a way to force social media platforms to remove what the Liberals consider to be “hate speech” within twenty-four hours of being told by the government to do so. This would be Section 13 magnified to the nth degree.
In response to this directive, Guilbeault came up with a bill that pursued the same goal as Section 13 through a different avenue. Last November he introduced Bill C-10, or “An Act to Amend the Broadcasting Act” into Parliament. This bill if passed would place internet media under the same regulatory authority of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) as older electronic media such as radio and television broadcasters. By going this route, Guilbeault could maintain that his goal was not to censor what individual Canadians post on the internet, but to ensure that the companies that make shows and movies available through online streaming follow the same Canadian content guidelines as other broadcasters, a goal consistent with his portfolio as Heritage Minister. That having been said, the Bill as originally drafted would have given the CRTC regulatory authority over individual Canadians’ user-generated content on social media. When objections to this were raised the Bill was amended to include an exception for individual user-generated content, but this exception was removed in committee late last month around the same time that the government moved to shut down debate on a motion that the Conservatives had introduced calling for a review of whether or not the bill violated the Charter. None of this inspires much confidence in the Heritage Minister’s claim that the aim of this bill is cultural protectionism and not censorship of thought. On Monday, faced with backlash over all of this, Guilbeault promised that they would make it “crystal clear” that the user-generated content will not be subjected to the same sort of regulatory control as television programming. Needless to say, he ought not to be taken at his word on this. Indeed, Michael Geist, the law professor at the University of Ottawa who has been one of the foremost critics of Bill C-10, has already said that the amendment the Heritage Committee proposed on Thursday evening fails to follow through on Guilbeault’s promises.
It is worth observing here that with Bill C-10, Captain Airhead and Steven Guilbeault have returned to the very first thing the original Trudeau Liberals did to control the minds of Canadians and limit their freedom of thought. At the very beginning of the first Trudeau premiership the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker pointed out how the Liberals were threatening freedom of thought through the powers of the CRTC. In a speech entitled “The Twilight of Liberty”, the second included in the collection Those Things We Treasure (Macmillan, 1972), Diefenbaker said:
The Trudeau Government seems to be dedicated to controlling the thinking of Canadians. Through the power being exerted by Pierre Juneau, as Chairman of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, (2) private radio and T.V. station proprietors in Canada are frightened to speak, fearful of being subject to the cancellation of their licences. One such station was CKPM in Ottawa, which dared to have an open line program critical of the Government. Pierre Juneau did come before a Committee of the House and he uttered lachrymose words in reply to the criticism leveled at him that he wishes to determine what Canadians shall hear, and to deny them the right to listen to what they will. His attitude was different when he spoke to the Association of Private Broadcasting Companies and in effect stated: “When I ope my lips, let no dog bark.” Under him the broadcasting network owned by the people of Canada is allowed to broadcast what he permits
Diefenbaker’s warning of decades ago has gone largely unheeded, perhaps because the CRTC’s official raison d’être is cultural protectionism which appeals to a much broader range of Canadians than its more covert purpose of limiting freedom of thought. Certainly right-of-centre Canadians of the more traditional variety, such as Diefenbaker himself or this writer, would have no objections to the idea that Canadian culture ought to remain Canadian. It needs to be pointed out, however, that the CRTC has been a total failure in this regards. Fifty-three years later, the Canada of 2021 is far more Americanized culturally than the Canada of 1968 was. Indeed, much of what Canadians regard as distinctly “Canadian” culture today, is merely Hollywood culture with a maple leaf stamped on it. Read the novels of Mazo de la Roche and Robertson Davies if you want a taste of the more authentic pre-CRTC Canadian culture. Since the CRTC failed in its official appointed task, probably because its real purpose was thought control all along, there is hardly grounds here for extending its reach over the new online media. Indeed, the scarcely disguised agenda of censorship and thought control behind the move to so extend its reach, is sufficient reason why this bill, amended or otherwise, must never be allowed to pass. It is also more than sufficient reason for voting the Trudeau Liberals who dreamed it up in the first place out of Parliament and never allowing them to resume power again. For as Rex Murphy pointed out earlier this week, “What is more galling and more threatening that the bill itself, however, is the set of mind behind it”, and that won’t go away even if the bill itself does.
Contact Gerry T. Neal at: firstname.lastname@example.org
(1) Disturbingly, the leaders of the other parties – including the present leader of the Conservatives – have taken to aping his example in this.
(2) The full name of this agency was changed into the awkward and absurd redundancy that it is now in 1976, but the acronym remains the same.
Like colourful blossoms of golden yellow dandilions in the Spring sunshine the Truth Seekers and Freedom Fighters of Prince George, British Columbia are fast emerging from their once snow-covered, frozen Earth to bring forth new signs for the times we’re now living in.
Their primary purpose in lining the roadways of BC’s hub city of the central north is to visually display and share information and ideas on how to fight the current lockdowns and public health orders that are restricting the personal Rights and Freedoms of Canadians guaranteed to everyone under the Canadian Charter.
“Covid (as the nascent Facebook Group states), has brought much division with it, this past year. Let’s endeavour to bridge the gaps and be understanding that everyone is at different places in their quest for truth. Be kind, patient and gracious with one another. Feel free to ask questions and share your opinions.”
Judging from the growing interest that the group has stirred up around the city their peaceful and colourful presentations are having a positive effect. According to one of the Group Moderators Trina Forbes the initiative to begin the weekend rallies was given a kick-start back on April 14, 2021 by local residents Jonathan Misch and Daniel Forbes. In following discussions with Trina about the rallies she told the QC Sentinel that their “first big one was the World Rally day, as well, and we’ve been going full steam ever since. It is really taking off, now the weather has gotten nicer. The police have gone out of their way to tell us we shouldn’t have any trouble from them, in our town… We changed the name of our group from “Prince George” to “Prince George and Area” because we wanted to include as many people as possible.”
From around 100 people or less in the Facebook group only a couple of weeks ago their numbers have grown to 541 as of the time this article is being published. Last Saturday’s Rally on May 1st had around 150 people attending and the previous Saturday as 100 so the numbers are quickly rising.
In conversation with other group members I enquired as to whether the local msm in P.G. was giving the group any coverage. The response was, “No media in PG has picked us up, that I’m aware of. I think there may have been some interest back in early March, but not sure as it was never followed up on. Our radio newscasters are so brutal, it’s wear a mask and get vaccinated every half hour on our stations!!! CBC is the worst.”
The messages that the group wishes to share with their fellow citizens are best expressed in their own words and with that in mind I will turn over that part of the article to the sign bearers and wish them all the best in their quest for greater understanding and an end to the injustices now plaguing every community across our great nation, be they tiny towns or the larger urban centres.
SIGNS OF THE TIMES
Editor’s Note: This is a very valuable and informative document covering all aspects of the current Covid-1984 deception and should be downloaded by anyone concerned about the health of themselves or their family and friends. The JCCF is a Canadian organization and deals with all aspects of this plandemic and offers sound, reasonable legal advice on issues to do with the lockdowns, the mask mandates, travel restrictions, vaccines and everything relevant to this global crisis.