Tamari Kitossa, PhD
September 13, 2021
Obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose. It is the dispositional cement that binds men to systems of authority. Facts of recent history and observation in daily life suggest that for many people obedience may be a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed, a prepotent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct. Stanley Milgram. Obedience to Authority: An experimental view. 2009, p. 1
This essay is a radical socio-legal analysis of COVID pandemic psychosis in Canada. There are two parts to my thesis, and these correspond to two parts of this essay. First, federal, provincial and municipal chief officers, supported by the corporate executive class and the ‘mainstream’ news media supported by some union executive committees, are using the COVID crisis to turn Canada into a lawless nation-state. Biko Agozino has called such expropriations of democracy in Africa “executive lawlessness”. I suggest, his concept applies now to Canada. By citing government policy documents and Acts of Parliament, I show that the so-called vaccine mandate has no basis in law and is therefore not enforceable except by the totalitarian abrogation of the law itself. Second, complicit with the manipulation of an unrelenting campaign of fear, panic and scapegoating, particularly of unvaccinated persons, the mass of Canadians have conceded to throwing both their inalienable and state guaranteed rights at the feet of the executive branch’s illegal and reckless abrogation of civil, legal and human rights. This is called participatory totalitarianism. This second part of the essay uses the skill of formal logic applied to critical thinking and the use of inferential reasoning to demonstrate rational resistance and to judge one’s impulse to be obedient to authority. I demonstrate the limits of the nonsensical idea of “conspiracy theory” which is weaponized to promote obedience to authority. In doing so, I rely on the most well-placed experts in virology and immunology who help us to judge how to parse the opinions of experts. I conclude by arguing that resistance and disobedience to authority is the only thing that will preserve the rational exercise of authority.
Election or not, Canadians must ask tough questions about how the public health strategy for COVID-19 has enabled politicians and enterprises to trash the Constitution and brush aside civil liberties, legal rights and human rights. The basic question is this: By what Act of Parliament or authorization guaranteed by the Constitution of Canada can the Prime Minister, Premiers, Mayors and enterprises in Canada:
- compel Canadians to undergo a medical procedure (i.e., experimental COVID-19 vaccination) against their conscience, though permitting exemptions for medical, creed and religious grounds?
- discriminate against conscientious objectors and authorized non-vaccinated persons by means of intimidation and threats to deny goods, services, termination of labour contracts and freedom of movement?
- subject Canadians, by means of threat and intimidation of denial of Constitutional guarantees and human rights protections to genetic harvesting (i.e., PCR test) irrespective of medical, creed or religious exemptions?
In addition to these legal questions, are Canadian governments and business enterprises that are coercing Canadians against the sovereignty of their person contravening the principles of the Nuremburg Code and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights?
My opinion is that with this baseless, illegal and unauthorized intrusive mandate, the guarantees of liberal democracy are revoked before our eyes, while some of us, scared out of our wits, cheer on totalitarianism. In this, Canada and other liberal democracies such as Australia are no different from China which, in a general regime of social control, conditions access to goods, services and employment on total obedience to authority.
Guaranteed by a) the Canadian Constitution, b) there being NO Act of Parliament suspending the Constitution and c) various Acts and policies affirming Constitutional Supremacy, the rule of law holds in Canada. All and sundry, therefore, are barred from exercising dictatorial power currently exercised through a so-called vaccine mandate. It must be made clear that this so-called mandate is fictitious and has no force of law to compel conformity nor to punish.
So, in the first instance two things must be considered, and both rest on the rule of law.
First, Health Canada’s 1997 Communicable Disease Report Supplement Canadian National Report on Immunization, 1996 establishes the following, which I italize, bold and underline for effect: “Unlike some other countries immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution”. If this is not unambiguous enough, the Report adds that “It must be emphasized that…exceptions are permitted on medical or religious grounds and reasons of conscience; legislation and regulations must not be interpreted to imply compulsory immunization”. Though a general statement, this latter phrase is given emphasis in the 1997 Report because, at the time, three provinces established a legislative and regulatory regime for K-12/13 students be vaccinated. Ontario and New Foundland required proof of diphtheria, measles, mumps, polio, rubella and tetanus. Manitoba required measles, but it subsequently did away any such requirement. As currently noted on the Manitoba government health website: “No, immunizations are voluntary in Manitoba”.
Having trouble finding about the fact that no government in Canada can mandate vaccines nor punish you for not ‘voluntarily’ ceding your inalienable rights? Not surprising. Brian Peckford notes that
The Canadian National Report on Immunizations statement above was published in the May 1997 Canada Communicable Diseases Report (CCDR) by Health Canada. After the creation of the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) in 2004, the CCDR was transferred to them. The website and subsequent CCDR reports carry the PHAC designation.
But the difficulty is not only because this information is buried deep within the thicket of departments, it is also that NO government or enterprises illegally compelling Canadians is in a prominent way informing Canadians of the full range of their rights over their bodies.
Second, the Prime Minister, Premiers and business enterprises have unlawfully intimidated and threatened Canadians with “consequences” for not submitting to an unconstitutional and criminal violation of their section 7 legal rights under the Canadian Charter: “Life, Liberty and Security of the Person”. For those that refuse on grounds of conscience, which is a step removed from punitive action, one consequence is forced subjection to the PCR test which harvests their DNA to determine whether they carry the virus. Note, the vaccinated, especially given waning immunity and breakthrough infections (which they cannot get from the unvaccinated) are not subject to testing. But what does the law in fact say about life, liberty and security of the person down to our DNA? Here we refer to the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, but first it is necessary to define what a PCR test is.
According to the National Human Genome Institute,
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a common laboratory technique used in research and clinical practices to amplify, or copy, small segments of genetic material. PCR is sometimes called “molecular photocopying,” and it is incredibly accurate and sensitive. Short sequences called primers are used to selectively amplify a specific DNA sequence. PCR was invented in the 1980s and is now used in a variety of ways, including DNA fingerprinting, diagnosing genetic disorders and detecting bacteria or viruses. Because molecular and genetic analyses require significant amounts of a DNA sample, it is nearly impossible for researchers to study isolated pieces of genetic material without PCR amplification.
So clearly, the PCR is genetic harvesting. Whatever the reason it is for is irrelevant! Now here is how Canada’s Genetic Non-Discrimination Act defines a “genetic test”:
genetic test means a test that analyzes DNA, RNA or chromosomes for purposes such as the prediction of disease or vertical transmission risks, or monitoring, diagnosis
This is relevant because section 3 of the Act prohibits forced genetic testing as a condition of:
- providing goods or services to that individual;
- entering into or continuing a contract or agreement with that individual; or
- offering or continuing specific terms or conditions in a contract or agreement with that individual.
So no government, whatever, can force individuals to take a genetic test. The Act further prohibits punishment for refusing to undergo testing, refusal to disclose the results if one does submit to a genetic test and that the results of the test collected or disclosed without the individual’s consent. In doing so, the federal government, provincial governments and municipal governments imposing a coercive health treatment regime are in contravention federal and provincial human rights charters.
As to Rapid Antigen Tests which only identifies antibodies to the virus, it is does not seem like the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act is applicable. Yet, the issue of coercion, intimidation, threat and surveillance to undergo an invasive procedure seems to be relevant.
It is logical to assume the statute rests on three grounds. First, an affirmation that medical practice and research in Canada is guided by the post-Nazi Nuremburg Code of Ethics, now encoded in the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki – the gold standard for research and practice. Second, the demonstrable practices of Nazi Germany and the United States of America’s various secret national and extraterritorial medical experimentation programs that targeted minorities and neo-colonized countries. Finally, the prohibitions of the Act recognize the clear and present risks to individual and societal sovereignty posed by a fast moving world of market-based genomics research.
It is my opinion that the Prime Minister and Parliament are making an end run around the constitution. To disparage and refute this opinion, the righteous may cast the slurs of ‘conspiracy theory’, ‘anti-vaxxer’, ‘COVID misinformation’, ‘vaccine hesitant’ and the like. Failing this, others invoke the claim that this is a global pandemic and so whatever measures the government takes to keep us ‘safe’ is justified.
The terms of stigmatization are little more than ad hominem attacks to comfort the intellectually slothful, majoritarian cultists and authoritarian knaves who would amplify the self-deception of those blindly obedient to authority. In the first instance, there is no such thing as a “conspiracy theory”, there is only the theory of conspiracy. A theory is a theory is a theory, and a theory might be a working hypothesis. We should not believe that theories which do not conform to majoritarian induced thinking are not valid. The issue is availability and quality of evidence to support a theory. We must be open to all theories and to be capable of using formal logic to judge, but not condemn the theory or its advocates. To the extent governments and the state are racketeer enterprises that routinely wrap malfeasance behind the secretive iron curtain of ‘national security’, we are left with the ironic endorsement of Justice Muldoon that,
Canadians may shudder to realize that the security needs of a free and democratic society are, in a few basic essentials, much the same as those which totalitarian societies arrogate unto themselves. Utter secrecy, subject to certain checks, in security intelligence matters is one.
There is then, every reason, where there is a pattern of practice of conspiracy in the halls of government and corporate boardrooms, for the public to infer conspiracy where concrete evidence is unobtainable. But in liberal democracies some conspiracies are so open and transparent, that this is what makes them conspiratorial: they invite us into the conspiracy, so we cannot see it as such. When Canadians are denied goods, services and deprived of work, are we not seeing a direct parallel to the Chinese government conditioning access to goods, services and employment to ‘good civic behaviour’. How is our present condition under the “vaccine mandate” any different?
The cause of the ‘emergency’ is not to be dispelled because COVID-19 is real, however much the virus is possibly the result of a ‘lab leak’ resulting from research admittedly authorized and funded by Anthony Fauci, who, through artful dodging, denies it was “gain of function” research. The Intercept, through an FOI, has found evidence for research that Fauci funded the joint effort of Chinese and US researchers, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health in the United States which developed pathogenic viruses that could infect human respiratory cells. To get around the fact that politics is being played with public health and science, the waters are muddied by a vast COVID vaccine indoctrination campaign led by Big Pharma (Astrazenica, Johnson, Johnson and Pfizer), investors such as Bill Gates and political toadies who will no doubt join the boards of Big Pharma to write public health policy in the future. There are others, such as Dr. Richard Fleming, who take the “gain of function” hypothesis to its logical conclusion, that it is bio-warfare either gone awry or as planned. And the “vaccine” is a perverse second level of warfare against the people of the world. Whether one is persuaded by claims resulting from concrete evidentiary citation, patterns of practice or inference, to dismiss these hypothesis out of hand or to be indifferent to them is to foreclose the opportunity of citizens to demand total knowledge about what their governments are spending their tax dollars on and then to assess whether bio-chemical warfare research is something they condone.
Thus implicated in this nefarious corporate-state-moral entrepreneurial takeover of people’s bodies are government elites and a vast assortment of moral entrepreneurs who lump together non-vaccers with anti-vaccers as idiotic and obtuse anti-science zealots. The former are conscientious objectors about this particular vaccine. Some of them include people who have not been vaccinated and those who are singly and doubly vaccinated. Their point is that it is a matter of inalienable conscience and bodily sovereignty for individuals to choose what goes into their bodies, having been fully informed of the risks and that this procedure is experimental. Anti-vaccers are persons who reject vaccines altogether. But here too this is a heavy brush. Some anti-vaccers object to modern vaccine technology given the non-disclosure of ingredients, the refusal of governments to carefully track injuries and that governments have waived liability for manufacturers. Others yet are anti-vaccine as a matter of creed and religious principle. Whatever the case may be, “anti-vaccer” is used as a slur by the righteous vanguards of orthodox secular religion disparage those who dare to resist market medicalization and state control in asserting their fundamental principles. These individuals are raising important questions because pharmaceutical corporations are indemnified from legal sanction if one dies or sustains injury from the COVID-19 vaccine. This begs what recourse in law individuals have if they experience severe, debilitating and life-altering side effects from a so-called “safe” COVID-19 vaccine?
To be clear, we do not deny that an urgent, responsive and science-based public health approach is needed. The question of the Canadian governments claim that both the COVID-19 gene therapy vaccine and that its one-dimensional Big Pharma approach to public health is the ONLY valid approach is best left to the medical clinicians and research scientists. But here too, the experts are not of one mind and, importantly, scientific debate and knowledge of injuries is being suppressed. There is significant and substantial differences of opinion and the scientific community is in uproar. Against those of the dominant paradigm, others such as Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA vaccine, Peter Doshi, editor of the British Journal of Medicine, insisting on a pause in the push to inoculate for COVID-19 with a gene therapy based vaccine that is inadequately researched and rushed to market. Indeed, Sucharit Bakhti, world leading microbiologist and virologist is sounding the alarm that the world is being subjected to a massive unethical experiment that amounts to a crime against humanity. Exaggeration? Maybe. Some science commentators downplay the evidence of dangerous side-effects using the VAERS in the US. Yet, others come to very different conclusions here and here looking at the same data. Indeed, Dr. Peter McCullough argues that the CDC – through statistical shenanigans, definitional bafflegab and outright subterfuge – is burying the data of deaths and injuries from COVID vaccines.
But there is no longer any debate – the data is in. Dr. Brian Brydle, a virologist at University of Guelph, warns that the extent of vaccine injuries have a time lag as we will not know for months or many years to come whether some of the vaccinated will be infertile, suffer myocarditis, experience unknown childhood diseases from infants drinking breast milk, birth defects, and the loosening of the body’s lock on viral diseases the immune system had kept in check. Among these experts whose credentials and reputation is impeccable and who are warning us we are at the lip of an event horizon from which there is no coming back is Geert Vanden Bossche. Our political and health system leaders are, he contends, and he is not alone, doing something far worse than lockdowns. The coercive roll out of a mass experimental vaccine during a pandemic is applying selection pressure to the pathogen, forcing it to be not only more pathogenic, but also unstoppable. In effect, like antibiotic resistant bugs, we are on the cusp of a super virus immune to any known medication – which of course catastrophic because of its global scope.
Whom to believe? My opinion is not whom to believe, since people will believe what they will, but that we are in a full-blown coup in Canada, aided and abetted by political leaders who have never seen a means of garnering more power they did not like. We need to take an ecological approach to politics, as we should take an ecological approach to publish health regimes that do not rest on the perverse incentivization of the medical industrial complex. Because, for example, the link between COVID-19 and pollution and fires ravaging our world is apparent, so too is the link between the willful destruction of our democratic ecology with corporate-state racketeer totalitarianism raging around the world. As much as a coalition of ruling elites are using COVID-19 as a pretext to achieve perverse ends, now is the time for local and global citizens to protect what little remains of democracy by demanding that their governments obey the law, or else – since they are not the only ones who can issue ultimatums!
Freedom of conscience and control of our bodies is inalienable. Freedom of information is essential to both. It is time Canadians informed themselves and asserted their rights and refuse to obey commands that have no force of law, for it is clear their leaders would prefer they were ignorant of the law.
Revolution of mind is the first step in the perpetual motion toward social democratic participation. It is essential that Canadians cultivate critical thinking that enable them to judiciously determine when it is appropriate to be dis-obedient to authority. Question the question. For the love of life as Chris Hedges says – ‘resist, resist, resist!’ By demanding accountability from holders of high office and their total obedience to the law of the people, we will restore sanity and demand more of liberal democracy than totalitarianism in democratic clothing.