The novel effect of World War II was the creation of formal, official – and lasting! – union between the intellectual and national government…The marriage of university and government took place then…
Robert Nisbet, The Twilight of Authority
Concerned for my colleagues, staff and students excommunicated by Brock University, and the well-being of those compelled to submit to a medical therapeutic, I posed some questions on January 18, 2022 to Dr. Lynn Wells, at the time Interim-President of Brock University. She did not reply. Undaunted, I resent the letter – still no reply. Finally, I sent the same letter to the newly installed President, Dr. Lesley Rigg, on December 19, 2022. This time, I Cc’d the VP of research, Dr. Tim Kenyon, and the Provost V-P Academic, Dr. Lynn Wells. Still, no reply.
Here, unaltered, is the text of my request for information:
Dear Dr. Wells,
I hope this message finds you well.
I am deeply disappointed at your compliance with the unlawful prime ministerial coercion of Canadians to submit to experimental drug treatment.
As a member of the Brock community and a Canadian citizen affirming my civil, criminal and human rights please provide responses to the following:
- Identify the Act of Parliament or statute law, which cannot be overridden by any provincial act or statute, that authorizes you to compel any member of the Brock community to submit to experimental medical treatment over and above protected rights not limited to:
- free and informed consent and freedom from coercion and inducement specified in the Tri-Council Policy Statement Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 2018 (https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique_tcps2-eptc2_2018.html
- privacy of the patient-physician relationship, and c) criminal code protection from physical assault and threats?
- On numerous occasions you have identified the contents of the COVID-19 experimental injection ‘product’ as “safe”. Please detail:
- the ingredients of the injections and any known adverse effects
- whether the ingredients are independently verified
- what reporting system your claim of “safety” is based on and
- if Brock University uses an active or passive adverse events reporting system?
- You have ensured students in residence through the “COVID-19 Informed Consent – Living in residence” of the risks of COVID-19 and their liability. Have you equally ensured members of the Brock community are provided knowledge of their right to informed consent and the right not to be subject to coercion, threat or inducement to take COVID-19 injections?
- You have threatened and have gone through with depriving members of the Brock community of employment, access to education and services. You have also contributed to discrimination and stigmatization of non-injected persons contrary to national and international human rights law. Please specify the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms you rely on to deprive members of the Brock community of employment, access to education and services?
Sincerely,
Tamari Kitossa, Ph.D.
As a place of advanced learning, research, and work, the University and academicians are in liberal democracies, but only in theory, a bulwark against state-sponsored tyranny and corporate malevolence. This proposition rests on the tradition of the (quasi) autonomous Medieval University, much like the chartered self-governing towns and the Church as sanctuary. Probably the most famous incident of an intellectual bucking political authority, that of King Henry II, but only to uphold another, that of Pope Alexander III, is the ‘turbulent priest’ Thomas Becket. Romanticism aside, academics no doubt owe to Becket the prerogative of tenure – which is the protected right to speak truth to power. Debate, free and open inquiry protected by academic freedom, and collegial governance, these are the hallmarks which, in principle, guarantee that the University serves more than the corporate class and the State and which expropriates tax tribute from citizens to fund it. To be clear, taken too far from context, this ideal of the University conceals its vital function as a site of clerical power which sustains the State in whatever its form (e.g., bureaucratic, capitalist, colonialist, imperialist, racist, theocratic), as shown by the likes of Robert Michels and Milovan Djilas.
Indeed, as noted by Linda McKay-Panos of the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, the University’s relationship to the Canadian State, as judged by the courts, is a complicated one. As Universities have capitulated to the federal Government’s medical dictatorship, which in any case exceeds its remit over the provincial responsibility of ‘health care’, it is an open question whether anything remains of Universities’ traditional prerogative of autonomy. There is no question that the lion’s share of that which the University produces first goes to Government, which then farms those benefits out to the far-flung reaches of the State: external (i.e., military) and domestic apparati of physical violence (i.e. police and prisons), the courts which maintain the status quo, various ‘service’ agencies for pacification by ‘caring’, and, not least public ‘education’ charged with propagandizing the young.
A sprawling, vast and constantly growing tenticular patchwork of bureaucracy, overseen by unelected administrators, serves the State in disbursing the benefits of knowledge generated by the University. Through dual action the State serves itself in the expropriation of knowledge and colludes with corporate interests and their big shareholders – making it now difficult to discern where the State ends and corporations begin. And to ensure the concentration of power and wealth – as much as an unsuspecting or uncaring citizenry will allow itself to be bamboozled by State racketeering – the range of freedoms and liberties gets smaller and smaller. This process is a self-evident fact as the global hegemons and their satellites collectively collude under the cover of an ‘emergency’ march in lockstep to ratchet-up tyranny. It makes no difference that a third global war is underway as this den of thieves race to grab for themselves what is left from their planetary depredation the past 150 years.
Though it is overly-romantic and radically naïve, the image of the University as beacon on the hill is both potent and worth fighting for. This, especially now that it is fully captured by the State. In such a context, as noted by Robert Nisbet, the ideal of the ‘ivory tower’ is a myth propagandized by the clerisy of power who seek to stand off as philosophers, prostitutes really, offering ‘impartially’ generated knowledge (to the highest bidder – the State). To be sure, students and the professoriate across Canada are resisting: here and here among other places. Yet, nothing is more political than knowledge, and hence the University is a place of politics. But, contrary to the theatre and explicit political partisanship found in Parliament, it is by making the politics of knowledge explicit, while seeking to restrain partisanship that the University makes available to Canadians a forum where ideas, policies and practices can be scrutinized. The Republic of Letters and Nullius Inverba – “On No One’s Word” – are ideals of radical democracy that ought to indict the guilty conscience of those in academia who have capitulated the hard won prerogative of tenure. Let me be clear about my radical naïvité: I do not dispute the basic facts of what Charles Mills calls materializing race in Kehinde Andrews’s account in the New Age of Empire of how colonial and slavery provided the material lubricant for the development of the Western knowledge complex.
I suggested in my first post that Justin Trudeau’s CoVID-19 coercive measures amount to a declaration of war on the Canadian people, with the aim of abrogating the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, neither Canadian courts nor human rights commissions have defended the Constitution, Charter and the various laws and policies that are based on the non-negotiable ethical and legal framework set out by the Nuremberg Code of Medical Ethics. When corruption, cynical appeal to cherished values and tyranny breaks out in the State’s open warfare on citizens, who does the University serve? What is the vision and ideal of the university in the context of political tyranny? When and how is democratic restraint on runaway scientific inquiry – especially that of bioweaponry, ‘transhumanism’ and ‘compulsory moral bioenhancement’ – possible? This is not, after all, fascist Italy or Nazi Germany where the academic community by and large were complicit. Or is it?
Since the State has declared war on the citizenry, under the principle of ‘command responsibility’, what fiduciary obligation do University administrator’s owe faculty, students, staff and the Canadian people to resist the criminal and unconstitutional conduct of a State executive which issues unlawful commands and whose purpose is to abrogate constitutional democracy itself? If this question seems rhetorical, let me assert its practical relevance. At Universities across Canada, and indeed the world, that faculty members, staff and students have either died suddenly or have come down with debilitating and, in some cases, mysterious diseases. Whether and what role a bioengineered ‘virus’ and its countermeasure play requires transparency and free and open scholarly debate and inquiry. The question of responsibility cannot long be avoided. Whether this mortality and morbidity results from the federal Governments draconian anti-health policies, which includes the CoVID-19 injections, or ‘natural causes’ cannot be known since there is NO effort to establish the facts of the matter. Yet “excess” deaths from 2020 to 2022, which the Canadian government stopped counting in Week 34 of 2022 indicate something is amiss. The rise of deaths in Alberta due to ‘cause unknown’, the sudden rise of debilitating illnesses that are likely the result of ‘antibody-dependent enhancement’(ADE), the proliferation of myocarditis and pericarditis and fertility problems as suggested by Byram Bridle, among other things, raises serious questions as to risk/benefit for an entirely experimental therapeutic. Indeed, the British Journal of Medicine has called for an end to the injection campaign and lockdown measures. In an unsparing two-part series in the Journal of Insulin Resistance, Aseem Malhotra has destroyed the corrupt and expedient side-stepping of best research practice for safety and efficacy of the ‘novel’ mRNA therapeutic. He points to lockdowns, ‘regulatory capture’ and the inalienable right of free and informed consent here, here, and, here as causing inestimable harm.
For how long can the University administrators and Board of Trustees avoid answering for their complicity with the legalized criminality of Justin Trudeau’s federal government? Can they pretend for much longer that the lineal descendants of the Nuremburg Code – which in theory guides research at Brock and other Universities – means nothing? Are there not documents aplenty, some of them directly issued by the federal government which prohibit medical tyranny? (see: the Tri-Council Policy Statement for Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans on Research Ethics, the Brock University Responsible Conduct of Research Policy and Section III: C 2 of Brock University’s Faculty Handbook pertaining to Research Ethics). What will it take to bring these complicit administrators to their senses? Personal injury law suits against arising from “sudden deaths” and/or debilitating injuries? Though hopefully not, will it be from personal grief if the plague of corruption, as Judy Mikovits calls it, visits them?
Whatever the case may, there can be no pretense that Brock University, or any Canadian university for that matter, has manifestly failed their communities, the nation and the tradition of the Universities autonomy. The administrative class of the University, Boards of Trustees, faculty unions and associations and not a small number of the professoriate have marched in lock-step with the great ratchet-up. All is not lost, though. There is a way out of this morass to be taken by all the malefactors in the University – and this modest proposal will take us deeper into principle of the University as autonomous and firmly grounded in the non-negotiability of ethics and consent: apologize; confess; be transparent; repent; compensate those harmed; and, have the fortitude to ensure that “Never Again” MEANS “Never Again”!
The Professor's Corner 