DO NOT COMPLY!


As children return to schools and the cold and flu season approaches, rumours are swirling about a return to covid restrictions.

The propaganda machines are starting to spin back up.


I remember these strategies.

First they start to normalize fear through the media, then the government recommends things like masks and boosters, then mandates and restrictions follow.

They’ve even started making up scary new terms like “tripledemic”–three simultaneous pandemics of the flu, RSV, and covid.

And I can already see it’s working. I see more people wearing masks out and about every day.

The government is also in the process of approving three new vaccines for new strains of covid, and refuses to disclose how many doses it has preemptively acquired.

I don’t mean to fearmonger, but it seems like a distinct possibility that we may be returning to Orwellian restrictions in the coming months.

I have a simple message for you today.

DO. NOT. COMPLY.

Last time it took years for enough Canadians to wake up, or muster the courage to stop complying with unnecessary and unjust restrictions such as mask mandates and vaccine passports.

We can’t go through that again. We’re still recovering from the last time.

This time, we can’t give them an inch.

Every one of us has a role to play in rejecting these tyrannical policies.

Don’t think for a second that you as an individual are not significant enough to make a difference. We must stand together. We saw the power unity has during the Freedom Convoy.

Do not wear the masks. Do not let them force masks on your children. Do not get the boosters. And do not close your businesses.

We know how useless and destructive these policies are. We won’t fall for them again.

Pierre Poilievre coasted on the populist fury generated by the Freedom Convoy to take leadership of the so-called Conservative Party.

But really, he’s done the bare minimum when it comes to rejecting covid authoritarianism.

He’s silent when it comes to standing up for the unvaccinated and the vaccine injured.



He used the Freedom Convoy as nothing more than a photo opportunity.

He criticized Trudeau for not ensuring vaccines were forced on Canadians faster, while supporting Trudeau’s reckless spending throughout the covid years.

So as a return to more restrictive covid mandates looms on the horizon, who do you trust to stand up for you?

I hope you have my back. I will always have yours.

Help me fight returning covid restrictions with a $10 donation today!

Cheers,
-Max

P.S.: If you have trouble finding where you can donate, you can just click this link! https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/donate

Share

________________________
People’s Party of Canada
Follow the PPC on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Rumble, Odysee, Gab, and Telegram. Follow Max on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Rumble, Gettr, and Telegram.
To make a donation with a cheque, please use this address: Suite 700, 1 Nicholas St, Ottawa, Canada, K1N 7B7. The cheque must be made payable to People’s Party of Canada. To make an online donation, please visit our website: www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca. Thank you!


Public Health NOT Public Harm

Public Health NOT Public Harm
Gail Y. Davidson LL.B., Dr. Matthew Cockle, Dr. Steven Pelech

The threat of COVID-19 has passed. But the threat of COVID-19 policy remains for the thousands of healthcare workers terminated as a result of their decision to refuse the COVID-19 genetic vaccines. And the threat of COVID-19 policy also remains for all British Columbians who wish to preserve our essential right to informed consent, and our essential freedom to refuse both unwanted medical interventions and non-consensual experimentation. To be perfectly clear, COVID-19 restrictions are not over in BC—not by a long-shot. On the contrary, the temporary restrictions brought in ostensibly to deal with COVID-19 are now formalized. In other words, these emergency measures, which flagrantly violated the rights and freedoms of British Columbians, have been written into BC law on a permanent basis.

Unvaccinated BC Healthcare workers have been stripped of their right to employment since October 2021. Hailed as heroes the year before, thousands of vitally important healthcare professionals have been fired, with nearly half of these in the Interior and Northern Health regions. Rural hospitals throughout BC are unable to operate their emergency departments due to staffing shortages. And just as the province is experiencing a healthcare crisis—fuelled by this staffing shortage—continuing COVID-19 restrictions are forcing highly trained and experienced health care workers to leave BC for work in other provinces or take early retirement

BC’s Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry has issued a series of catastrophically harmful and apparently unlawful public health orders. The most recent of these, released on April 6, 2023, mandates COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment for healthcare workers and as a condition of enrollment in training for healthcare professions. When rights restrictions are imposed upon a population in the context of a public emergency, there is a legal requirement that the restrictions be necessary, legitimate, proportionate, and temporary. To begin with, this public health order is utterly unjustified, because there is no COVID-19 emergency in BC. Even worse—showing a blatant disregard for the law—this particular order is not only unnecessary, illegitimate, and disproportionate, but it has no termination date.

When we examine this order, we see that the Public Health Officer has formally terminated all of BC’s unvaccinated healthcare workers, even those who practice alternative medicines such as acupuncture, homeopathy, naturopathy and chiropractic medicine, to list a few. There is essentially no recourse for these healthcare professionals and support workers. Stripped of income, not eligible for unemployment insurance, and not eligible for legal aid, our terminated healthcare workers have no means to effectively challenge the lawfulness of this order.

The order, Issued by Bonnie Henry on April 6, 2023, should be terminated immediately. Furthermore, those deprived of employment by the order should be reinstated and receive fair compensation for loss of income and other consequential damages. There is no justification whatsoever for a vaccination, or a vaccination status requirement for healthcare workers. Even the World Health Organization has announced, on May 5, 2023, that COVID-19 no longer constitutes a pandemic. Public health orders that coerce individuals to accept a medical treatment not voluntarily chosen can arguably never be considered lawful, even in a state of public health emergency. Orders, such as that of April 6, 2023, that use the coercion of job loss to compel involuntary submission to injection with a pharmaceutical product that is either ineffective, unsafe or properly considered experimental, are always unlawful and prohibited by both Canadian and international law during normal and emergency times.

In addition to blatant disregard for the law, the public health order of April 6 ignores established scientific facts. The order fails to acknowledge that COVID-19 genetic vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of disease. The last date that the BC Centre for Disease Control released data linking COVID-19 vaccine status to hospitalizations and deaths was on June 23, 2022. During the period of January 2 to June 18, 2022, some 74% of British Columbians who were hospitalized and 81% of those who died with COVID-19 were double or triple vaccinated.

The April 6 order completely ignores the proven effectiveness of natural immunity. This is indefensible. One would expect levels of natural immunity to be very high in these healthcare workers in view of their increased exposure to COVID-19 patients during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The vast majority of people in BC have now acquired both natural and vaccine-induced immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Unvaccinated health care workers simply do not pose a greater risk to patients than their vaccinated colleagues.

The April 6 public health order also ignores mounting evidence available in government vaccine injury reporting systems such as VAERS in the US, EudraVigilence in Europe and the World Health Organization’s VigiAccess databases. These databases show more vaccine injuries, hospitalizations, and deaths from the COVID-19 genetic vaccines than from the 80 other vaccines combined over the past 30 years. The risks of these injuries has been well documented to be unacceptably high for a vaccine given to healthy adults. For example, published data from the BC Centre for Disease Control shows a risk for symptomatic myocarditis or perimyocarditis in about 1 in 1900 males aged 18 to 29 years after the second inoculation with the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Mandating COVID-19 vaccination puts the health of healthcare providers at risk, and endangers the health of all people in our province.

The April 6 order also prohibits unvaccinated and non-disclosing students, faculty, and staff, in post secondary institutions, from any work in healthcare settings. The order thereby prevents unvaccinated students from completing training in the health care professions and other occupations. This is particularly egregious given that there is no factual basis for assuming that unvaccinated students pose any COVID-19-related risk to those in health care facilities. Furthermore, by barring admission to healthcare premises, this order also effectively prevents unvaccinated and non-disclosing staff and faculty from remaining employed. 

The April 6 order bans already certified and desperately needed health care workers from employment. It thereby further reduces timely access to competent health care in BC even as patients suffer life-threatening health care delays because of short staffing. And for those who are not yet aware, BC is indeed facing a health care crisis. More than 35 emergency room physicians in Surrey have warned BC authorities that patients are going without timely care and even dying due to a shortage of staff, acute care beds and adequate hospital accommodation.

With the second worst wait times for cancer patients in all of Canada, BC’s provincial government has announced that starting May 29, 2023, the province will pay to send patients currently awaiting radiation therapy in BC to the US for treatment. The financial costs for this program will be enormous. Additionally, it will place increased stress upon patients with an attendant decrease in positive outcomes. At the same time, patients unable to travel for treatment will be faced with increased risk of death due to further treatment delay. In a particularly sad twist of irony—considering both the terrible cost of cross border radiation treatment and the groundless prohibition of employment for unvaccinated healthcare workers in BC—vaccination is no longer required for healthcare workers in Washington state!

By limiting the pool of trained health care workers allowed to serve the critical needs of cancer patients—even as BC cancer treatment centres are being plagued by staff burnout—the April 6 order compounds the problems that BC’s healthcare system is facing. It requires no great flight of the imagination to see that this public health order will inevitably lead to enormous harm for the people of British Columbia—particularly those in need of urgent care.

Apart from Nova Scotia and BC, none of the other provinces require mandatory COVID-19 vaccination of healthcare workers at this time. In contrast to BC, public health authorities in many other countries, including Australia, Denmark, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, no longer even recommend COVID-19 vaccinations for healthy adults and children. It is time for the BC Ministry of Health to acknowledge what has become plainly obvious to health authorities elsewhere—COVID-19 is no longer considered a threat, and the harms of these genetic vaccines outweigh their benefits. Healthcare workers should not be coerced into submitting to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination their training and experience does not support.

“The April 6, 2023 Public Health Order must be terminated immediately. Our healthcare workers must be reinstated with compensation. Unlawful orders, such as this, must never again be imposed upon the people of British Columbia. Those responsible must be held accountable.”

The April 6, 2023 Public Health Order must be terminated immediately. Our healthcare workers must be reinstated with compensation. Unlawful orders, such as this, must never again be imposed upon the people of British Columbia. Those responsible must be held accountable.

~Ω~

Punished for Doing the Right Thing? The Battle for Ethical Medicine in Ontario

Punished for Doing the Right Thing?

The Battle for Ethical Medicine in Ontario

By Dr. Matthew Evans-Cockle

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) continues to pursue disciplinary proceedings against three Ontario doctors for providing vaccine exemption letters and making allegedly “misleading” statements questioning the health benefits of CPSO policy on COVID-19. The stakes are high for Doctors Crystal Luchkiw, Patrick Phillips, and Mark Trozzi; with their medical licenses indefinitely suspended, they are risking their right to practice medicine, their income, and their reputations as health care professionals in a struggle over both the right of patients to receive personal health care and advice from their physicians, and the right of physicians to debate medical matters of public concern. For Dr. Mark Trozzi, it all comes down to following the golden rule of doing no harm, and the Hippocratic oath to uphold the medical profession’s ethical standards. The ethical practice of medicine is simply the non-negotiable means and end of being a real doctor. For Dr. Crystal Luchkiw, the ethical and effective practice of medicine depends upon doctors’ freedom to make independent clinical judgments based on the doctor’s knowledge of both the relevant medical domain and the patient’s unique needs. It is imperative that such judgements proceed from both expertise and cornerstone medical fundamentals, and that they be exercised free from any and all coercive external interference.

According to Doctors Luchkiw, Phillips, and Trozzi, the COVID-19 related restrictions that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has imposed upon doctors in Ontario are not only unethical and contrary to best medical practice, but they are also unlawful. As Dr. Patrick Phillips has explained, none of the policies imposed by the CPSO have any formal legal “force or effect to lawfully prosecute physicians.

” According to the most recent amendment of the Medicine Act of 1991, legally binding regulations may only be made by the CPSO’s council “subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and with prior review by the Minister [of Health].“ The CPSO’s COVID-19 policies do not have the Lieutenant Governor’s approval and were not reviewed by the Minister, and they do not, therefore, meet the criteria of legally binding regulations. The point might seem insignificant at first glance, but it is of major importance. Essentially, if the COVID-19 policies imposed by the CPSO have no legally binding power, then the CPSO has no grounds for launching investigations against Doctors Luchkiw, Phillips, and Trozzi, no grounds for disciplinary proceedings and charges against them, and no grounds for suspending their medical licenses.

A recent hearing panel at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario rejected a motion to dismiss the CPSO investigations and disciplinary proceedings against Doctors Luchkiw, Phillips, and Trozzi. This means that all three of these highly qualified and ethically conscientious doctors continue to have their licenses suspended. In spite of this disappointing outcome, the hearing panel did result in several significant victories for the trio of physicians. In fact, the CPSO conceded that its restrictions on speaking out against public health orders, on prescribing off-label lifesaving treatments for COVID-19, and on writing exemptions for vaccines are only suggestions “properly characterized as guidance documents, not binding rules.” Now clearly, there is tremendous irony in this concession. The hearing panel has essentially exonerated all three doctors by admitting that the CPSO’s COVID-19 restrictions are recommendations that do not have the force of law and are not mandatory. At the same time, the panel refused to dismiss the CPSO’s disciplinary proceedings against Doctors Luchkiw, Phillips, and Trozzi, and their licenses to practice medicine remain suspended.

As Dr. Patrick Phillips has explained, what he and his two colleagues are facing, in the ongoing litigation with the CPSO, should be of major concern to all Ontarians and to all Canadians. What is at issue is, firstly, the right of all Canadians to receive personalized medical advice, treatment, and care; secondly, who determines the nature of that care; and thirdly, what advice and opinions medical doctors can express privately to patients and publicly to their communities. By depriving physicians of the freedom to treat and to communicate with patients in accordance with their medical experience and expertise and knowledge of individual patients’ needs, the CPSO effectively prohibits the basis for informed consent and compels patients to accept whatever advice is promoted by the CPSO in lieu of proper personalized care. 

The threat to Doctors Luchkiw, Phillips, and Trozzi’s continued medical practice constitutes a real crisis in Canadian medicine that needs to be addressed immediately. The crux of the problem is that the colleges have been given virtually unlimited power to investigate, discipline and de-license doctors. Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “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.” This section of the Charter should protect Canadian citizens from both investigations that are unconstrained by fact-based allegations, and from punishments being imposed before the allegations have been determined. Contrary to common sense, however, courts have ruled that section 7 does not apply to investigations related to professional licenses. Alarmingly, this restriction of section 7 rights and freedoms grants regulatory bodies like the CPSO unreasonably broad powers to investigate and to suspend medical practice licenses prior to a hearing. As Dr. Patrick Phillips writes, this means that the College “can charge anyone for absolutely anything and get away with it.” 

The hearing panel at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario chose to schedule a hearing of the allegations against Doctors Luchkiw, Phillips, and Trozzi, even after conceding that the CPSO’s statements upon which the proceedings are based–regarding speaking out against CPSO COVID-19 policies, prescribing off-label lifesaving treatments for COVID-19, and providing individual vaccine exemption–were only ever suggestions and not binding rules. For a great many Canadians following these proceedings, it must surely appear self-evident that such suggestions should not be used as grounds for suspension, investigation or punishment of any doctor. Indeed, it seems highly questionable whether the CPSO panel has acted in good faith during the hearing. To wit, the CPSO hearing panel refused even to address Doctors Luchkiw, Phillips, and Trozzi’s key submissions that the CPSO “Registrar, Dr. Nancy Whitmore, did not have reasonable and probable ground to order [their] investigations [… and that] the College … failed to establish that [they] had violated a standard of practice.” Quite frankly, to ignore these submissions has all the earmarks of hubristic folly, appearing contrary to the principles of fundamental justice and the spirit of law in Canada. Dr. Patrick Phillips has expressed the matter succinctly–”In a free and democratic society, citizens are protected from laws that are so broad you can’t know if you’re violating them beforehand.”

Discussions of legal proceedings rarely make for good reading. The plodding pace of legal arguments and the barrier posed by technical vocabulary inevitably get in the way of visceral understanding. That’s why it’s absolutely essential that, in closing, we return to the fundamental issues. Doctors Crystal Luchkiw, Patrick Phillips, and Mark Trozzi have lost their licenses, their careers are under threat, and their lives are being marred by the unpleasant necessity of enormously costly ongoing legal battles. The personal cost they are paying is no laughing matter, but that personal cost is not what’s driving them, and it’s not where the gravity of this situation lies. These doctors are fighting for the right to care for their patients in the best way they know how, as determined by their medical knowledge and the individual needs of each individual patient. In reminding us what is at stake with the COVID-19 related restrictions imposed upon doctors by the CPSO, Dr. Phillips pulls no punches:

Countless patients have needlessly died from COVID while being denied early treatments with life-saving medications. Countless patients have been deprived of informed consent around the risks of vaccines. Countless patients were denied exemptions even though they had horrendous adverse events after the first dose. Countless patients have been forced to take genetic therapy against their will and many of those patients have died or been maimed by that therapy.

Dr. Phillips, for one, has had enough–in view of the terrible harms associated with the CPSO’s unchecked power over medical care throughout the declared pandemic, he is calling for a “complete dismantlement of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario” and the subsequent creation of a new College, “one with leaders who respect the rule of law“ and whose power is “limited to prosecutions of offences that are in line with the charter and protect the rights of all.”

Dr. Evans-Cockle

Contact: Dr. Cockle dr.evans.cockle@gmail.com

~Ω~

Dr. Paul Marik on Dangers of Spike Protein Buildup—From Inflammation to Autoimmune Disease

Blessed are the Truth Seekers and the Truth Revealers. In many ways this short 81/2 minute interview with Dr. Paul Marik is frightening as hell when the scope of the repercussions involved with the Satanic spike protein are realized.

Of all the crimes ever committed against humanity this one has to top the list for its nefarious intent and diabolic effects on the bodies and souls of those who, believing in their governments, the WHO, their medical doctors and their mainstream media outlets, innocently and naively took the jab.

Do share this video with all you can. The Truth Shall Set Us Free!

Trust the truckers

Trust the truckers

Our freedoms ride with them

PROSECUTE ALL LEADERS PERSECUTING INNOCENTS

BLOCK THE SUPER BOWL

By
John Kaminski

The entire population of the world, minus all the paid off political puppets, already know what the deal is — it’s a no brainer. Trust the government? No way! Trust the truckers? Definitely.

Jail the so-called leaders, those disgustingly corrupt bureaucrats, working for Klaus Schwab’s beastly bribes? Absolutely.

Thanks to Ben Garrison

The people have spoken and the truckers are speaking for them while the limp wristed legislative liars bribed by Big Pharma’s crooked cash cowboys think they can tell the world what to do.

Well, the real men in the 16 wheelers have declared in no uncertain terms that they can’t, and the whole world of ordinary working class families standing by the side of the highways of the world waving their flags in freezing weather will never stop backing these upstanding family heroes against all the murderous might their demented governments can muster.

That cute little girl in the snowsuit speaks for all of us. Her sign said, “The trucks have come to save us!” And they have.

Truckers rolling worldwide

At this moment truck convoys are spreading worldwide. Finally, humanity is starting to assert itself. Even the U.S. government is now expecting American truckers to snarl Sunday’s Super Bowl by clogging the routes to the stadium.

Nobody needs to watch that pornographic halftime show and the rigged football game when the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world are on the line, victimized by the lies of Big Pharma murderers, hedge fund henchmen and jaded politicians fattened by foreign billionaires trying their best to obliterate the lives of everyone on the planet.

I say honk your horns for freedom, everyone, everywhere, and don’t stop ’til we get it.

Trust the truckers. Tell the police to stand down. Remind them they have families too. They can either stand on the side of real people or commit crimes for the criminals who pay them, judges appointed by perverted rich industrialists and elected officials who couldn’t tell the truth if their country depended on it, which it does.

Maybe in my lifetime there has never been a popular cause so pure, so motivated by goodness, so promoted by families waving their flags and opposed by tyrants counting their money, as the massive movement of big trucks to the Canadian capital for one purpose only, to say ‘Why are you doing this to us? Why have you taken away our freedom?’

And what does our cowardly government do? Leaders hide in their opulent apartments afraid to even speak to the people whose votes they begged for, promising justice and compassion but now delivering indifference and abandonment. These leaders are cowards. The people must abandon them much faster than they have abandoned us, and abandon them now.

This is not government of the people, this is the tyranny of the billionaire bastards who could care less about the naive natives dropping dead from poison vaccines or the freezing homeless too smart to forfeit their lives to money hungry doctors too selfish to behave honourably.

This is the people speaking, this is us speaking! Not some invisible wraith of corporate contempt, attempting to tell us they have to reconfigure everything to cover the crime of all the money they have already stolen from us.

When you realize this, it reveals the colossal scam that has been played on us, trying to ruin all our systems and herd us into prisons of purposeful poverty, totally controlled by people who want not only to control us but to eliminate us permanently.

Think about the well-meaning people who have died following government orders to get jabbed with a fatal bioweapon. Think of all those babies who never made it out of their jabbed mothers’ wombs because of smarmy executives insisting that their experimental jabs were perfectly safe.

Think of all those prissy politicians mandating experimental inoculations — a totally illegal act — and continuing to say those empty words as the death toll surpasses all previous totals.

Sabotaging the republic

Think about it. Biden the Buffoon opens the borders to let the world stroll in and deliberately overload all our financial systems — welfare, health, education, housing, you name it. Three hundred thousand new residents in a single year, no criminal or disease checks, most unable to speak English. They all get debit cards, while unemployed Americans watch their savings dry up from bills they can no longer pay.

This is a deliberate recipe for disaster. And the Communist psychos who stole the election and put up barbed wire around the White House? What an appropriate symbol to represent what the forces of evil have constructed around the American mind! Around the minds of the entire world.

Truckers have now blocked many of the major bridges to Canada. The bridge in Detroit is a jugular, especially because it has caused the major auto manufacturers to either close or restrict their operations due to lack of parts, which need to be brought in by trucks. Excellent.

Ambassador Bridge, Detroit, Michigan

The truckers haven’t wrecked the economy. The politicians have wrecked the economy, deliberately. End the mandates and the economy will come back, if the politicians let it.

For weeks now the patriotic citizens of Alberta have braved Arctic temperatures to block a border crossing to compel aberrant autocrats from mandating poison jabs for a disease that isn’t killing anybody with shots that are, wrecking businesses that never needed to be closed for a flu turned into a plague by pharmaceutical PR prostitutes.

Coutts, Alberta Canada Border Crossing

All over Canada, all over the U.S., soon throughout Europe and eventually in Australia, the trucks are coming to save us. Don’t let the government stop them, shut them off or shoot them down.

The trucks are coming to save us from governments demanding to turn us into robots. Ride with them. Bring them food and fuel as well. If they fail, we all fail. If they die, we all die.

~Ω~

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions from readers, please support his work by mail: 6871 Willow Creek Circle #103, North Port FL 34287 USA.

Contact John at: pseudoskylax@gmail.com

Nation Wide Trucking Convoy Heading to Ottawa!

[Editor’s Note: This initiative by Canada’s truckers could be the most important action taken thus far by Canadians to end all the lockdowns, mandates, forced jabs and increasingly deranged, criminal and psychotic behaviour of our federal and provincial governments that have been ongoing since the spring of 2020. Such an initiative is reminiscent of a century ago when workers around the world were attempting to extract from their NWO industrialists a measure of freedom and equality and they began to STRIKE en mass in order to accomplish their objectives. Those efforts back then succeeded. Today the nation is facing a similar and even more dangerous and totalitarian effort on the part of the world’s extreme rich to control (and destroy) the lives of millions, if not billions, of human beings on the planet in order to accomplish their heinous agenda for global control of the world. They will not stop willingly and as we’ve witnessed over the past two years the more the people try to comply with their wishes the more they add to their sinister plot. We know by now that the mainstream news media (who they’ve owned since 1922) is as complicit in their agenda as they are. Any form of trust between “them” and the people has been long past destroyed and their credibility no longer exists.

Support for Canada’s Truckers is crucial to bringing this destructive behaviour on the part of the Trudeau government to a head. Only “we the people” can and will support their united efforts so it’s up to you and me and every other Canadian who values their freedom and livelihood to contribute to this just cause. Please help fund the truckers by donating to the truckers freedom convoy. With this in mind please read the following plea from Tamara Lich, Truckers Convoy organizer.]

Tamara Lich, Truckers Convoy organizer states:

To our Fellow Canadians, the time for political over reach is over.  Our current government is implementing rules and mandates that are destroying the foundation of our businesses, industries and livelihoods.  Canadians have been integral to the fabric of humanity in many ways that have shaped the planet.

We are a peaceful country that has helped protect nations across the globe from Tyrannical governments who oppressed their people, well now its happening to us. We are taking our fight to the doorsteps of our Federal Government and demanding that they cease all mandates against its people. Small businesses are being destroyed, homes are being destroyed, and people are being mistreated and denied fundamental necessities to survive. It’s our duty as Canadians to put an end to this mandates. It is imperative that this happens because if we don’t our country will no longer be the country we have come to love. We are doing this for our future Generations and to regain our lives back.

We are asking for Donations to help with the costs of fuel, food and lodgings to help ease the pressures of this arduous task.
But it’s a small price to pay for our freedoms. We thank you all for your Donations and know that you are helping reshape this once beautiful country back to the way it was.

  • Money raised will be dispersed to our Truckers to aid them with the cost of the journey
  • Funds will be dispersed via e-transfer (preferred) but can also be sent by cheque if absolutely necessary
  • Funds will be spent to help cover the cost of fuel for our Truckers first and foremost, will be used to assist with food if needed and contribute to shelter if needed

https://www.gofundme.com/f/taking-back-our-freedom-convoy-2022?qid=90be481119036174f7c93f3b337ed653

The Genociding of Australians

[***Editor’s Note: Australia is under direct attack as I write these words. The N.W.O. psychopathic killers are hell-bent on murdering the aboriginal peoples (and the rest of the non-aboriginals as well) and the people are calling out (screaming might be a more apt way of putting it) to the rest of the world to DO SOMETHING to help stop these Stalinoid attacks upon them. The country was tricked with a false flag event (the infamous Port Arthur Massacre) back in the 90’s and they foolishly turned in all their weapons to the government thus leaving them in perpetual danger. That danger has now manifested BIG TIME in the form of the “Covid-19 Bio-weapon Scamdemic” which the Australian government is using to the max in order to fulfil their Gates/Fauci W.H.O. ‘mandate’ to depopulate the planet and take over all territories not presently under the globalist’s control. This video needs to be shared and shared and shared along with any and all the other information contained in it.

In the recent past we’ve watched this process unfolding in Gaza and at one point an international effort took place to stop the genociding of the Palestinian people by these same megalomaniacal low life sadistic maniacs. Now they’re starting it all over again in Australia and if they’re successful every other nation in the world who’s under the heel of criminal cartel behind all of this will be treated in the same manner. We MUST rise up and DO something while we still can and Australia is the place to begin.]

Technocracy Triumphant — Manitoba Court Cancels The Charter Rights You Thought You Had

THRONE, ALTAR, LIBERTY

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

Technocracy Triumphant — Manitoba Court Cancels The Charter Rights You Thought You Had

By

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.

 ~Ω~