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:
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”!
Ontario’s Medical Officer of (Ill)Health has exerted pressure on physicians not to write letters of accommodation for medical, religions or conscience. His is doing is nothing short of an abuse of authority, breach of public trust, a violation of the Hippocratic oath and criminal intervention in the patient-physician relationship. Who will fact check him? Who elected him? Who will discipline and dismiss him? Doug Ford? Hardly! Justin (This-is-the-only-way-out) Trudeau? We know where Trudeau stands on the law and public policy of consent: he has brushed these guaranteed protections aside to satisfy the globalist anti-state sovereignty agenda.
But, what is the law and policy of consent regarding research ethics and medical therapies/treatment?
To begin with, I encourage readers to read the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans (Canada) issued by the federal, yes, that is what it says, the FEDERAL government of Canada:
Canadians and their loved ones have been coerced, induced and threatened by the prime minister and provincial and municipal ‘leaders’ to undergo and experimental and therapeutic medical procedure. This came/comes at the expense of their incomes, ability to move freely and to congregate. So what is the law and policy that are used to justify not only the draconian overreach of the prime minister and his provincial lackeys but also which is supposed to guide the practice of the medical establishment? I decided to check whether the College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario (CPSO) has any hidden policy directive that intimidates and threatens physicians from their obligation to: a) provide free and informed consent to treatment, b) abide by the decisions of their patients and c) to provide letters of accommodation upon request. The person I spoke to at the CPSO Friday April 1, 2022, told me there is NO such directive to physicians from the CPSO. Again, I was told there are NO hidden CPSO policies to limit the autonomy of physicians in respect to patient consent, patient rights and letters of accommodation.
I was, moreover, told that if I have any concerns/questions about this messaging that I should contact the Ministry of (Ill)Health which sets public policy. It is worth noting that the minister, the medical officer and Ministry of (Ill)Health do not have the power to discipline physicians and surgeons – this is done by the tribunal of the CPSO where physicians who violate the law and conditions and terms of their licence. The reality is that the Ministry of (Ill)Health cannot, under any circumstances, supercede the law of consent derived from the 1945-1946 Nuremberg Trials which set out a code of medical ethics that is the framework for medical practice and research worldwide. No one outside the regulating body has the authority to direct physicians and surgeons as to how to practice medicine: not the Chinese dictatorship-loving Justin Trudeau (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVusYrv2jIU), Doug Ford or the Ontario Medical Officer of (Ill)Health. Physicians cannot withhold writing letters of accommodation UNLESS they have a clinical justification! In that case, the patient may seek a second, or even third opinion! And in all cases, patients can refuse treatment on clinical reasons, religion or conscience. To be clear, according to the representative at the CPSO I spoke to there are NO (secret) policies at the CPSO preventing physicians from writing letters of accommodation.
In this post, my aim is to demonstrate that the right of autonomy against coercive medical therapy is prohibited by law, conventions and professional ethics in Ontario and Canada (and, if one can have any confidence in the UN, everywhere else in the world for that matter).
Pages from the College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario.
Here are choice quotes DIRECTLY from the CPSO’s documents and the law of consent in Ontario to this effect:
Policies of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) set out expectations for the professional conduct of physicians practising in Ontario. Together with the Practice Guide and relevant legislation and case law, they will be used by the College and its Committees when considering physician practice or conduct.
Within policies, the terms ‘must’ and ‘advised’ are used to articulate the College’s expectations. When ‘advised’ is used, it indicates that physicians can use reasonable discretion when applying this expectation to practice.
Treatment: Anything that is done for a therapeutic, preventative, palliative, diagnostic, cosmetic, or other health-related purpose, and includes a course of treatment, plan of treatment, or community treatment plan.
Capacity: A person is capable with respect to a treatment if they are able to understand the information that is relevant to making a decision and able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision. Capacity to consent to a treatment can change over time, and varies according to the individual patient and the complexity of the specific treatment decision.
Policy
General Expectation
Physicians must be aware of, and comply with, all of the requirements in the
Health Care Consent Act, 1996 (HCCA).
Physicians must obtain valid consent before a treatment is provided…
Obtaining Consent
For consent to be valid, physicians must ensure that it:
Is obtained from the patient, if they are capable with respect to treatment, or from the patient’s SDM, if the patient is incapable with respect to treatment.
Relates to the specific treatment being proposed.3
Is informed.
Is given voluntarily and not under duress.
If physicians believe that consent is not being freely given, they must ensure that there has been no coercion.
Is not obtained through misrepresentation or fraud.
Physicians must be frank and honest when interacting with patients, including when conveying information about the proposed treatment.
To ensure that consent is informed, physicians must:
provide information about the nature of the treatment, its expected benefits, its material risks and material side effects, alternative courses of action and the likely consequences of not having the treatment prior to obtaining consent, which includes:
providing information that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would require in order to make a decision about the treatment;
considering the specific circumstances of the patient, on a case-by-case basis, and using their clinical judgment in determining what information to provide; and
providing information relating to material risks that are relevant for a broad range of patients and those that are particularly relevant for the specific patient;
engage in a dialogue with the patient or the SDM (as the case may be) about the information specified in 7.a., regardless of whether physicians use supporting documents (such as consent forms, patient education materials or pamphlets) to facilitate the provision of this information;
provide a response to requests for additional information about the treatment; and
be satisfied that the information provided is understood and, as such, take reasonable steps to facilitate the comprehension of the information provided.
While a physician proposing treatment may delegate the act of obtaining consent to another health-care provider, they must be assured that the health-care provider has the knowledge, skill, and judgment required to obtain consent.
If unsure about whether the consent obtained is valid, physicians must not provide the treatment until assured that valid consent has been obtained.
The CPSO also provides this on their website: “COVID-19 FAQS FOR PATIENTS”:
CPSO strongly encourages all eligible Ontarians to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and booster shot(s) as recommended by your family physician. Immunization is widely recognized as one of the most effective interventions for reducing the impact of infectious diseases.
One notices immediately that physicians and surgeons are not given direction by the CPSO.
→ Nothing of relevance on this page pertains to consent or gives directives to medical practitioners
The law of consent in Ontario
The Ontario Health Care Consent Act lays out the specific grounds in law as to the issue of consent. The law can be found here: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/96h02.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario makes it plain that medical practitioners have a legal and moral responsibility with respect to free and informed consent to medical therapies and procedures: “Physicians must be aware of, and comply with, all of the requirements in the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 (HCCA)”. Part II is of particular relevance in establishing that patients have total and absolute right over their bodies and therefore any medical therapy or procedure.
Clearly the law of consent is nationwide, and, informed by the Nuremburg trial and codes and subsequent international conventions. It is for this reason that injections or oral vaccines CANNOT be made “mandatory”. There is NO such thing as a mandatory “vaccination”: not in law, ethics or morals in Canada! Not even the Constitution can or says anything about political or administrative authority overriding bodily autonomy and right of mind. In fact, these pre and political rights are ‘doubly institutionalized’ by law in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html.
Section 7 of the Charter is explicit 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”. And no “fundamental principle of justice” exists to coerece/compel a medical procedure, which if unconsented is assault by the Criminal Code of Canada. In fact, while upon arrest the police can harvest DNA swabs from the mouth, this does not rise to the matter of coercive treatment under formal detention. It is clear that sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter prevent medical assault, which is what unconsented medical treatment is according to the Criminal Code of Canada (see 216, 217 and 219 at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf):
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
The Criminal Code also specifies at s.19 that “Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing that offence”. One of the most fundamental principles of the so-called Rule of Law is that there are NO privileged exemptions from the application, enforcement and punishment by law. None are immune: not the Justin Trudeau and any in his cabinet; not any premiers; and certainly no one in an administrative capacity. All are bound by the principle of Command Authority not to obey immoral and illegal commands – no matter who from, in ‘peacetime’ or war!
EVERYTHING from the CPSO’s own website, and, from law the law of consent in Ontario, is absolute about your right to consent to ANY treatment. No amount of coercion, lies, manipulation and mystification by Justin Trudeau and all involved in this obscene crime against humanity and the imperative of state managers to abolish formal democracy acceptable.
See the links below on ethical guidance for physicians and for knowledge of all persons. Notice that CONSENT is at the core of the responsibility of physicians:
Given the policy and law of consent, it is astonishing that ethicists and law professors claim the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms have provisions that justify a so-called medical mandate, which is in effect medical assault and battery. About their ignorance of their own specialization more must be said by those more expert than myself. Nevertheless, the point of my commentary is unambiguous: Canadians MUST educate themselves about pre and political foundations for their absolute right of autonomy of body and mind from therapeutic state intervention.
“No attempt must be made to encase man, for it is his destiny to be set free”.
Frantz Fanon. 1977. Black Skin, White Masks.
“What societies really, ideally, want is a citizenry which will simply obey the rules of society. If a society succeeds in this, that society is about to perish”.
4. FREE SPEECH INFORMATION PLATFORMS AND SEARCH ENGINES
5. MEDICAL AND RESEARCH ETHICS
6. CANADIAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW RELEVANT TO ASSSAULT, MEDICAL
ETHICS, MEDICAL RESEARCH AND CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE
7. APPLICABLE CANADIAN LAW, PUBLIC POLICY, SUITS AND TRIBUNAL
HEARINGS
8. CANADIAN MISRULERSHIP CLASS’S COMPLICITY WITH FOREIGN POWERS
9. CASES, SUITS, TRIBUNAL DECISIONS AND LAWYERS: CANADA
10. CANADIAN BODILY SOVEREIGNTY AND MEDICAL ETHICS INITIATIVES
11. CANADIAN CRITICAL THINKING COVID-19 NEWS AND INFORMATION SITES
12. INTERNATIONAL CLINICIANS, SCIENTISTS AND VACCINOLOGISTS
13. INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL THINKING AND INVESTIGATION
14. COVID-RELATED INTERNATIONAL LAW, RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES
15. PLANDEMIC PLANNING AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
16. MAD SCIENTISTS: SARS 1 AND SARS 2, INJECTION BIOWEAPON AND GAIN-OF-
FUNCTION RESEARCH AND PATENTS
17. PCR FRAUD
18. CORPORATE/STATE MEDIA PROPANGANDA
19. WARFARE, SECRET RESEARCH OPERATIONS, LAB ‘LEAKS’, MEDICAL
EXPERIMENTATION, RACE AND EUGENICS
20. READINGS IN THE HISTORICAL-SOCIOLOGY OF THE ‘THERAPEUTIC STATE’
AND MEDICALLY-INDUCED TYRANNY
PREAMBLE
Nullius in verba (On the word of no one)! Denial (plausible or otherwise), disinformation, half-truths, misinformation and outright lies, as noted by Howard Becker, are prerequisites for governments and the administrative class of the deep state (let’s not forget the espionage agencies!) to rule the masses of people. As noted by Lewis Mumford, it has been this way since the predatory military elites, with the aid of their ideologists, the clerics (i.e., intellectuals), established the first proto-states over 5500 years ago. Since then, every state formation has been a running a protection racket as Charles Tilly argued. That central administration for imposing the will of the minority on the majority is aided and abetted by a cabal banksters, oligarchs, clerics and intellectuals, the warrior caste, monarchs and politicians –all existing in fractious collusion while trampling the masses. How and why these human predators are successful is a difficult, intricate and long-debated question. I will attempt to summarize the arguments in a future post.
For now, it can be said that all governments need help, to manufacture the fear needed to ‘persuade’ citizens to live as slaves in ‘safety’ rather than live freely with the risks and responsibility of governing themselves. But now as the corporate-owned media are exposed as stenographers for governments, the corporations (who own them) and the Finance-medical-military-industrial complex, we are truly in the midst of an information war on and for the minds, and therefore the actions, of humanity. The breadth of the criminality, deceit, fraud and malevolence with which the world’s governments (with the aid of the predator class) have tipped toward fascism and totalitarianism demands that each person doubt the claims of those in authority. To pursue truth, both hidden in plain sight and those concealed by the veil of secrecy that the predators upon humanity claim is the right of government in the name of ‘national security’, is now a key to a new, fully, human age.
Thanks to honest and truly independent thinkers, lawyers, citizen journalists, scientists, clinicians and physicians, politicians and everyday people from all walks of life who refuse to submit to medically-driven fascism, the narrative about the bio-weapon COVID-19 ‘pandemic’and mRNA injections, biopassports, social credit and total information awareness is in tatters. Why? Because a critical mass of people refuse to give up their inalienable right to be sovereign in mind, body, movements, livelihoods and privacy. The word is that these are peoples’ rights, not the property of global oligarchists and their creatures in government, administration, the universities and the media. As the propaganda war intensifies and the people resist by providing their own means to access the truth, an information guide that provides access to legal and critical thinking resources will be an important part of the struggle. It is for this reason that I have given organization to the information I have spent 14 months accessing. I have aimed to figure out for myself where truth exists and how to identify lies. I am not interested in being ‘right’. My aim is to affirm my capacity to establish for myself where and what is truth and never to be dogmatic since there are times when even truths, robbed of their context, are lies. The “sceptics’ guide to the COVID-19 ‘plandemic’’ aims to support access to information and truth for those whose conscience, minds and bodies are their own.
Finally, this is a ‘living’ document. It will periodically be updated as I continue my own education and make every effort to keep up with the rapidly changing events that will determine the future of humanity.
URGENT VIDEO/PDF VIEWS
First, the COVID Care Alliance of Canada recent analysis of the fraudulent trial practices of Pfizer:
Presearch is a community-powered, decentralized search engine that provides better results while protecting your privacy and rewarding you when you search.
We believe that the best way to compete with the massive, centralized and monopolistic corporation that currently dominates search is to build a framework that enables people from all over the world to collaborate to build an op
Within policies, the terms ‘must’ and ‘advised’ are used to articulate the College’s expectations. When ‘advised’ is used, it indicates that physicians can use reasonable discretion when applying this expectation to practice.
Definitions
Treatment: Anything that is done for a therapeutic, preventative, palliative, diagnostic, cosmetic, or other health-related purpose, and includes a course of treatment, plan of treatment, or community treatment plan.
General Expectations
Physicians must be aware of, and comply with, all of the requirements in the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 (HCCA).
Physicians must obtain valid consent before a treatment is provided.
Patients and substitute decision-makers (SDMs) have the legal right to refuse, withhold, or withdraw consent to a treatment, and physicians must respect this decision even if they do not agree with it.
Obtaining Consent
6. For consent to be valid, physicians must ensure that it:
a. Is obtained from the patient, if they are capable with respect to treatment, or
from the patient’s SDM, if the patient is incapable with respect to treatment.
b. Relates to the specific treatment being proposed.
c. Is informed.
d. Is given voluntarily and not under duress.
i. If physicians believe that consent is not being freely given, they must ensure
that there has been no coercion.
e. Is not obtained through misrepresentation or fraud.
i. Physicians must be frank and honest when interacting with patients,
including when conveying information about the proposed treatment.
7. To ensure that consent is informed, physicians must:
a. provide information about the nature of the treatment, its expected benefits, its
material risks and material side effects, alternative courses of action and the
likely consequences of not having the treatment prior to obtaining consent,
which includes:
providing information that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would require in order to make a decision about the treatment;
considering the specific circumstances of the patient, on a case-by-case basis, and using their clinical judgment in determining what information to provide; and
providing information relating to material risks that are relevant for a broad range of patients and those that are particularly relevant for the specific patient;
engage in a dialogue with the patient or the SDM (as the case may be) about the information specified in 7.a., regardless of whether physicians use supporting documents (such as consent forms, patient education materials or pamphlets) to facilitate the provision of this information;
provide a response to requests for additional information about the treatment; and
be satisfied that the information provided is understood and, as such, take reasonable steps to facilitate the comprehension of the information provided.
8. While consent can be either express or implied, physicians are strongly advised to
Obtain express consent, particularly when the treatment is likely to be more than
mildly painful, carries appreciable risk, will result in ablation of a bodily function, is a
surgical procedure or an invasive investigative procedure, or will lead to significant
changes in consciousness.
While a physician proposing treatment may delegate the act of obtaining consent to another health-care provider, they must be assured that the health-care provider has the knowledge, skill, and judgment required to obtain consent.
If unsure about whether the consent obtained is valid, physicians must not provide the treatment until assured that valid consent has been obtained.
Documenting Consent
20. Physicians must document in the patient’s record information regarding consent to
treatment where the treatment is likely to be more than mildly painful, carries
appreciable risk, will result in ablation of a bodily function, is a surgical procedure or
an invasive investigative procedure, or will lead to significant changes in
consciousness.
THE BELMONT REPORT.
Office of the Secretary Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research; The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research
1. Informed Consent. — Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.
While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.
2. Assessment of Risks and Benefits.
The Nature and Scope of Risks and Benefits. The requirement that research be justified on the basis of a favorable risk/benefit assessment bears a close relation to the principle of beneficence, just as the moral requirement that informed consent be obtained is derived primarily from the principle of respect for persons. The term “risk” refers to a possibility that harm may occur. However, when expressions such as “small risk” or “high risk” are used, they usually refer (often ambiguously) both to the chance (probability) of experiencing a harm and the severity (magnitude) of the envisioned harm.
c. If a participant withdraws consent, the participant can also request the
withdrawal of their data or human biological materials.
Application
(a) The voluntariness of consent is important because it respects human dignity and means that individuals have chosen to participate in research according to their own values, preferences and wishes. The approach to recruitment is an important element in assuring voluntariness. In particular, how, when and where participants are approached and who recruits them are important elements in assuring (or undermining) voluntariness. In considering the voluntariness of consent, REBs and researchers should be cognizant of situations where undue influence, coercion or the offer of incentives may undermine
the voluntariness of a participant’s consent to participate in research. Undue influence
Undue influence and manipulation may arise when prospective participants are recruited by individuals in a position of authority. The influence of power relationships (e.g., employers and employees, teachers and students, commanding officers and members of the military or correctional officers and prisoners) on the voluntariness of consent should be judged from the perspective of prospective participants, since the individuals being recruited may feel constrained to follow the wishes of those who have some form of control over them. This control may be physical, psychological, financial or professional, for example, and may involve offering some form of inducement or threatening some
form of deprivation. In such situations, the control exerted in a power relationship may place undue pressure on the prospective participants. At the extreme, there can be no voluntariness if consent is secured by the order of authorities.
REBs and researchers should also pay particular attention to elements of trust and dependency in relationships (e.g., between physician and patient or between professor and student). These relationships can impose undue influence on the individual in the position of dependence to participate in research projects. Any relationship of dependency, even a nurturing one, may give rise to undue influence even if it is not applied overtly. There may be a greater risk of undue influence in situations of ongoing or significant dependency.
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON BIOETHICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 2005.
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.
3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.
11 No civil remedy for an act or omission is suspended or affected by reason that the act or omission is a criminal offence.
Ignorance of the law
19 Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing that offence.
Breach of trust by public officer
122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of their office, commits fraud or a breach of trust, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person, is guilty of
an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Uttering threats
264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat.
→ “Trudeau warns of ‘consequences’ for public servants who duck COVID-19 shots”
380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not
exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a
testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence
exceeds five thousand dollars; or
(b) is guilty
(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years, or
(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction, where the value of the
subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.
Minimum punishment
When a person is prosecuted on indictment and convicted of one or more offences referred to in subsection
(1), the court that imposes the sentence shall impose a minimum punishment of
imprisonment for a term of two years if the total value of the subject-matter
of the offences exceeds one million dollars.
Affecting public market
(2) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not
it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, with intent to defraud, affects the public market price of stocks, shares, merchandise or anything that
is offered for sale to the public is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Duty of persons to provide necessaries
215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty
(a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries
of life for a child under the age of sixteen years;
(b) to provide necessaries of life to their spouse or common-law partner; and
(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person
(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other
cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and
(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.
Offence Infraction
(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning
of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if
(a) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(a) or (b),
(i) the person to whom the duty is owed is in destitute or necessitous circumstances, or
(ii) the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is
owed, or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be endangered
permanently; or
(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)
(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is
owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured
permanently.
Punishment
(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (2)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
five years; or
(b) is guilty
Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous to life
216 Every one who undertakes to administer surgical or medical treatment to another person or to do any other lawful act that may endanger the life of another person is, except in cases of necessity, under a legal duty to have and to use reasonable knowledge, skill and care in so doing.
Duty of persons undertaking acts
217 Every one who undertakes to do an act is under a legal duty to do it if an omission to do the act is or may be dangerous to life.
Duty of persons directing work
217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.
Criminal negligence
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard
for the lives or safety of other persons.
Causing bodily harm by criminal negligence
221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of
an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years;
or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Homicide
222 (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.
Kinds of homicide
(2) Homicide is culpable or not culpable.
(3) Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence.
Culpable homicide
(4) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide.
Idem
(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,
(a) by means of an unlawful act;
(b) by criminal negligence;
(c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do
anything that causes his death; or
(d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.
Exception
(6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, a person does not commit homicide within
the meaning of this Act by reason only that he causes the death of a human being by
procuring, by false evidence, the conviction and death of that human being by
sentence of the law.
When child becomes human being
223 (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.
Killing child
(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth
as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.
Death that might have been prevented
224 Where a person, by an act or omission, does any thing that results in the death of a human being, he causes the death of that human being notwithstanding that death from that cause might have been prevented by resorting to proper means.
Death from treatment of injury
225 Where a person causes to a human being a bodily injury that is of itself of a dangerous nature and from which death results, he causes the death of that human being notwithstanding that the immediate cause of death is proper or improper treatment that is applied in good faith.
Acceleration of death
226 Where a person causes to a human being a bodily injury that results in death, he causes the death of that human being notwithstanding that the effect of the bodily injury is only to accelerate his death from a disease or disorder arising from some other cause.
Exemption for medical assistance in dying
227 (1) No medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits culpable homicide if they provide a person with medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.2.
Killing by influence on the mind Homicide
228 No person commits culpable homicide where he causes the death of a human being
(a) by any influence on the mind alone, or
(b) by any disorder or disease resulting from influence on the mind alone, but this
section does not apply where a person causes the death of a child or sick
person by wilfully frightening him.
Murder
229 Culpable homicide is murder
(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
(i) means to cause his death, or
(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death,
and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause
Him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless
whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another
human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily
harm to that human being; or
(c) if a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that they know is likely to
cause death, and by doing so causes the death of a human being, even if they
desire to effect their object without causing death or bodily harm to any human
being.
Classification of murder
231 (1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder.
Planned and deliberate murder
(2) Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.
Contracted murder
(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), murder is planned and deliberate
when it is committed pursuant to an arrangement under which money or anything
of value passes or is intended to pass from one person to another, or is promised by
one person to another, as consideration for that other’s causing or assisting in causing
the death of anyone or counselling another person to do any act causing or assisting in
causing that death.
Conspiracy
465 (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:
(a) every one who conspires with any one to commit murder or to cause another person to
be murdered, whether in Canada or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
a maximum term of imprisonment for life;
(b) every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence,
knowing that they did not commit that offence, is guilty of
(i) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10
Years or an offence punishable on summary conviction, if the alleged offence is
one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to be sentenced to
imprisonment for life or for a term of not more than 14 years, or
(ii) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five
years or an offence punishable on summary conviction, if the alleged offence is
one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to imprisonment for less
than 14 years;
(c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided
for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same
punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on
conviction, be liable; and
(d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary
conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) [Repealed, 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 61] (2) [Abrogé, L.R. (1985), ch. 27 (1er suppl.), art. 61]
Conspiracy to commit offences
(3) Every one who, while in Canada, conspires with any one to do anything referred to in
subsection (1) in a place outside Canada that is an offence under the laws of that
place shall be deemed to have conspired to do that thing in Canada.
Idem
(4) Every one who, while in a place outside Canada, conspires with any one to do
anything referred to in subsection (1) in Canada shall be deemed to have conspired
in Canada to do that thing.
Jurisdiction
(5) Where a person is alleged to have conspired to do anything that is an offence by
virtue of subsection (3) or (4), proceedings in respect of that offence may, whether
or not that person is in Canada, be commenced in any territorial division in Canada,
and the accused may be tried and punished in respect of that offence in the same
manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.
Conspiracy in restraint of trade
466 (1) A conspiracy in restraint of trade is an agreement between two or more persons to do or to procure to be done any unlawful act in restraint of trade.
Definition of trade combination
Definitions
467.1 (1) The following definitions apply in this Act.
Criminal organization means a group, however organized, that
(a) is composed of three or more persons in or outside Canada; and
(b) has as one of its main purposes or main activities the facilitation or commission of
one or more serious offences that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or
indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group or by
any of the persons who constitute the group. It does not include a group of persons
that forms randomly for the immediate commission of a single offence.
Serious offence
means an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more, or another offence that is prescribed by regulation.
Facilitation
(2) For the purposes of this section, section 467.11 and 467.111, facilitation of an offence
does not require knowledge of a particular offence the commission of which is
facilitated, or that an offence actually be committed.
Commission of offence
(3) In this section and in sections 467.11 to 467.13, committing an offence means being a party to it or counselling any person to be a party to it.
Regulations
(4) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing offences that are included in the definition serious offence in subsection (1).
Participation in activities of criminal organization
467.11 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five
Parliament recognizes that the provinces are responsible for the delivery of health care to
Canadians and that the Government of Canada collaborates with provincial governments to support the health care system and health research International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY AND SUPERIOR ORDERS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY – A CENTURY OF EVOLUTION
Canadian judges, in one forum or another, have, since 1990, considered the doctrines of command responsibility, and superior orders on at least three locations. One of these was a determination in the Supreme Court of Canada. [265] the second a decision by the Canadian Court Martial Appeal Court[266] and the third, a Commission of Inquiry subsequent to the 1992 deployment of Canadian Forces into Somalia. [267]
This Court, however, at the same time, took a somewhat unusual position by noting that where the situation is so outrageous that it would not be reasonable to permit the defence of superior orders to be used at all. In this regard the Supreme Court of Canada accepted the rationale of the Israeli court and noted:
That there is nothing unfair in not permitting superior orders as a defence where the act is ‘manifestly unlawful’ is evident when one considers the nature of the manifestly unlawful order as it appears in Ofer v Chief Military Prosecutor (the Kafr Qassem case [Appeal 279-283/58, Psakim Judgments of the District Courts of Israel), vol. 44 at p 362] cited in appeal before the A Military Court of Appeal, Pal. Y. B. Int’l L. (1985) vol. 2 p.69 at 108 where the Military Court of Appeal approved the following judgment:
The identifying mark of a ‘manifestly unlawful’ order must waver like a black flag above the order given, as a way of saying, ‘ forbidden’. It is not unlawfulness, hidden or half-hidden, not unlawfulness that is detectable only by legal experts, that is important issue here, but an overt and salient violation of the law, a certain and obvious unlawfulness that stems from the order itself, the criminal character of the order itself or the act it demands to be committed, and unlawfulness that pierces the eye and agitates the heart, if the eye be not blind or the heart corrupt. That is the degree of ‘manifest’ illegality required in order to annul the soldier’s duty to obey and render him criminally responsible for his actions.[271]
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
Article 9
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
Article 7. No one shall bе subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.
Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article 7
Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the
following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack
directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial,
national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other
grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international
law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime
within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great
suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
Article 8
War crimes
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when
committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of
such crimes.
2. For the purpose of this Statute, “war crimes” means:
(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of
the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions
of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i) Wilful killing;
(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
APPLICABLE CANADIAN LAW, PUBLIC POLICY, SUITS AND TRIBUNAL HEARINGS
2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press
and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Mobility of citizens
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent
resident of Canada has the right
to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Limitation
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than
those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of
present or previous residence; and
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification
for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
Life, liberty and security of person
7. 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.
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute
An Act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
WHEREAS the safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government;
AND WHEREAS the fulfilment of those obligations in Canada may be seriously threatened by a national emergency and, in order to ensure safety and security during such an emergency, the Governor in Council should be authorized, subject to the supervision of Parliament, to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times;
AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;
Definitions
5 In this Part,
declaration of a public welfare emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 6(1);
National emergency
3 For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and
territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other
law of Canada.
public welfare emergency means an emergency that is caused by a real or imminent
(a) fire, flood, drought, storm, earthquake or other natural phenomenon,
(b) disease in human beings, animals or plants, or
(c) accident or pollution and that results or may result in a danger to life or property, social disruption or a breakdown in the flow of essential goods, services or resources, so serious as to be a national emergency.
Declaration of a public order emergency Proclamation
17 (1) When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency, the Governor in Council, after such consultation as is required by section 25, may, by proclamation, so declare.
Effective date
18 (1) A declaration of a public order emergency is effective on the day on which it is issued, but a motion for confirmation of the declaration shall be laid before each House of Parliament and be considered in accordance with section 58.
(2) A declaration of a public order emergency expires at the end of thirty days unless the declaration is previously revoked or continued in accordance with this Act.
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 or prognosis.
Prohibitions
Genetic test
3 (1) It is prohibited for any person to require an individual to undergo a genetic test as a condition of
(a) providing goods or services to that individual;
(b) entering into or continuing a contract or agreement with that individual; or
(c) offering or continuing specific terms or conditions in a contract or agreement with that individual.
Refusal to undergo genetic test
(2) It is prohibited for any person to refuse to engage in an activity described in any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) in respect of an individual on the grounds that the individual
has refused to undergo a genetic test.
Disclosure of results
4 (1) It is prohibited for any person to require an individual to disclose the results of a genetic test as a condition of engaging in an activity described in any of paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (c).
Refusal to disclose results
(2) It is prohibited for any person to refuse to engage in an activity described in any of paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (c) in respect of an individual on the grounds that the individual
has refused to disclose the results of a genetic test.
Written consent
5 It is prohibited for any person who is engaged in an activity described in any of paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (c) in respect of an individual to collect, use or disclose the results of a genetic test of the individual without the individual’s written consent.
Exceptions: health care practitioners and researchers
6 Sections 3 to 5 do not apply to
(a) a physician, a pharmacist or any other health care practitioner in respect of an individual to whom they are providing health services; or
(b) a person who is conducting medical, pharmaceutical or scientific research in respect of an individual who is a participant in the research.
HEALTH CANADA 1997 COMMUNICABLE DISEASE REPORT SUPPLEMENT CANADIAN NATIONAL REPORT ON IMMUNIZATION, 1996:
Unlike some other countries immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution.
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”.
MANITOBA HEALTH – FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT VACCINES
“Face coverings will not stop you from getting COVID-19, but may help protect others”
→ Note: Ontario government provides no valid research evidence for this claim.
When you don’t have to wear a face covering
There are some situations when you do not need to wear a face covering.
You do not need medical documentation to support any of the exceptions below.
Children
Children do not have to wear a face covering indoors if they are younger than two years old.
Health and accommodations
You do not need to wear a face covering if you:
have a medical condition that inhibits your ability to wear a face covering are unable to put on or remove your face covering without help from someone else are receiving accommodations according to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 or the Human Rights Code
Workplaces
You do not need to wear a face covering when you are working in an area that allows you to maintain a distance of at least 2 metres from anyone else while you are indoors.
Immunization of School Pupils Act, R.S.O. 1990
→ Note: see changes over the years, especially the recent version of the law which
4 (1) The head of council of a municipality may declare that an emergency exists in the municipality or in any part thereof and may take such action and make such orders as he or she considers necessary and are not contrary to law to implement the emergency plan of the municipality and to protect property and the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the emergency area. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.9, s. 4 (1).
MEDICL TYRRANY AND THE CANADIAN MISRULERSHIP CLASS’S COMPLICITY WITH CORPORATE AND FOREIGN POWERS
Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada
World Economic Forum_Klaus schwab, trudeau and other young leaders
“Over the past many months and years now, Canadians have stepped up to protect each other; to protect our frontline workers; to protect our elders; to protect our young people; to protect people like truckers who are putting food on our grocery store shelves. Canadians have stepped up to the right thing to protect the freedoms and the rights of Canadians to get back to the things we love to do. We know the way through this pandemic is by getting everyone vaccinated. And the overwhelming majority, close to 90 percent of Canadians have done exactly that. The small fringe minority of people on their way to Ottawa or who are holding unacceptable views that they are expressing, do not represent the views of Canadians who have been for each other, who know following the science and stepping up to protect each other is the best way to ensure our freedoms, our rights, our values as a country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGehU1zszQs
Yes, we will emerge from this pandemic through vaccination. We know people who are still making up their minds, and we will try to convince them, but there are also people who are vehemently opposed to vaccination. These are extremists, who do not believe in science, who are often misogynists, often racists, too; it is a sect, a small group, but who are taking up space, and here we have to make a choice, as a leader, as a country. Do we tolerate these people? Or, do we say let see…because most people…Eighty percent of Quebecers did the right thing, that is, they got vaccinated; we want to get back to the things we like doing and these people are not going to block us now. Jan 8, 2022
Justin Trudeau Speaks with Reporters in Welland, Ont. – September 6, 2021
“Yes, there is a small, fringe element in this country that is angry, that doesn’t believe in science, that is lashing out with racist, misogynistic attacks, but Canadians, the vast majority of Canadians, are not represented by them. And I know will not allow those voices , hose special interests groups, those protesters who can…I don’t even want to call them protestors, those anti-vaxxer mobs, to dictate how this country gets throught this panic and how this country gets through this pandemic and how we re…[unclear]…from these lockdowns where people can get back to work and back to doing the things they want to do and keep our kids safe. They don’t dictate of this policy of this government (42:20 – 43:25)
This is essential for all workers. It does not constitute legal advice, but suggests strategies for legally enforcing employer responsibility and invoking the Criminal Code of Canada.
COVID 19 – Mandatory Vaccine Policies Legally Challenged through Grievance Arbitrations, November 25, 2021
A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products
see 13:15 – 2950 (mRNA injections are gene modification of human beings, not “vaccines”); 30:00 – 35:52 (unknown epigenics and potential modification of fetuses); 49:38 – 54:50 (oncogenesis and mRNA injections); 55:00 – 108:35 (fertility issues, pregnancy and post-partum); 1:09 – 1:15:10 (contaminants in injections)
World’s First Vaccine Murder case against Bill Gates, Adar Poonawalla filed in India’s High Court. [Kiran Yadav Vs. State and ors.Criminal Writ Petition (St.) 18017 of 2021]
International Criminal Court suit filed on behalf of UK victims of COVID-19 experimental injections by:
Hannah Rose – Lawyer and human rights activist
Dr Mike Yeadon – Qualified life science researcher with a degree in biochemistry in toxicology, and a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology, former Vice President and Chief Scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer
Based on the extensive claims and enclosed documentation, we charge those responsible for
numerous violations of the Nuremberg Code, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression in the United Kingdom, but not limited to individuals in these countries. Perpetrators:
Prime Minister for the United Kingdom BORIS JOHNSON, Chief Medical
Officer for England and Chief Medical Adviser to the UK Government CHRISTOPHER
WHITTY, (former) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care MATTHEW HANCOCK,
(current) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care SAJID JAVID, Chief Executive of
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) JUNE RAINE, Director-
General of the World Health Organisation TEDROS ADANHOM GHEBREYESUS, Cochair
of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation WILLIAM GATES III and Co-chair of the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation MELINDA GATES, Chairman and Chief executive
officer of Pfizer ALBERT BOURLA, Chief Executive Officer of AstraZeneca STEPHANE
BANCEL, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna PASCAL SORIOT, Chief Executive of Johnson and Johnson ALEX GORSKY, President of the Rockefeller Foundation DR RAJIV
SHAH, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) DR
ANTHONY FAUCI, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum
KLAUS SCWAB, President of EcoHealth Alliance DR PETER DASZACK
DARK WINTER: Bioterrorism Exercise Andrews Air Force Base. June 22-23, 2001
PROPERTY of Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense, Center for Strategic and International Studies, ANSER, & Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism
Official documents reveal enormous gap between what FDA and Pfizer would attest to, compared to what the public was told about the Pfizer COVID vaccine
A non-profit public trust established with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, The Commons Project Foundation builds and operates digital platforms and services for the common good. Our mission-driven structure is designed to attract world-class talent to build and sustain digital public services in a way that serves people’s interests above all. Beginning with health information, we are focused on empowering people to access and control their personal data and put it to use for their own benefit.
The Commons Project Foundation and its first project CommonHealth were founded in 2019. More recently, The Commons Project developed CommonPass, an application and data-sharing structure that enables individuals to securely prove their COVID-19 health status for travel and other purposes, without revealing other, extraneous personal data.
Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development
BIO-WARFARE, SECRET RESEARCH OPERATIONS, LAB ‘LEAKS’, MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION, RACE AND EUGENICS
Appel, J. M. 2009. Is All Fair in Biological Warfare? The Controversy over Genetically Engineered Biological Weapons. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(7): 429-432.
Black, Edwin. 2003. War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.
British Medical Association. 1992. Medicine Betrayed: The Participation of Doctors in Human Rights Abuses. London: Zed Books.
Conrad, Peter. 2007. The medicalization of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Conrad, Peter and Joseph W. Scheider. 1985. Deviance and Medicalization: From badness to sickness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
See ch. 9. “Medicine as an institution of social control: consequences for society
Honorof, Ida and Eleanor McBean. 1977. Vaccination, the Silent Killer: A clear and present danger. Sherman Oaks, CA: Cancer Book House.
Szasz, Thomas. 1997. The manufacture of madness; a comparative study of the Inquisition and the mental health movement. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
Vinciguerra, Mattia and Ernesto Greco. 2020. Sars-CoV-2 and black population: ACE2 as shield or blade? Infection, Genetics and Evolution
Washington, Harriet. 2006. Medical Apartheid: The dark history of medical experimentation on Black Americans from colonial times to the present. New York: Doubleday.
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…
Introduction Ontario’s Medical Officer of (Ill)Health has exerted pressure on physicians not to write letters of accommodation for medical, religions or conscience. His is doing is nothing short of an abuse of authority, breach of public trust, a violation of the Hippocratic oath and criminal intervention in the patient-physician relationship.…
“No attempt must be made to encase man, for it is his destiny to be set free”. Frantz Fanon. 1977. Black Skin, White Masks. “What societies really, ideally, want is a citizenry which will simply obey the rules of society. If a society succeeds in this, that society is about…
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…
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
Introduction
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.
PART I
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
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.
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
or prognosis.
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-DiscriminationAct 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,
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?
PART II
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.
Conclusion
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.
The Professor's Corner 
