Sandra Finley

Jan 252024
 

Free speech victory: Charges against nurse who opposed vaccine mandates defeated

REGINA, SK: The Justice Centre is pleased to announce that the College of Registered Nurses of Saskatchewan (CRNS) has ruled in favour of nurse Leah McInnes following an October and November 2023 disciplinary hearing. The Investigation Committee of the CRNS had charged Ms. McInnes with spreading “misinformation” because she had voiced her concerns about vaccine mandates. The outcome vindicates her right to professionally advocate for medical ethics and evidence-based health policy.“This is a significant victory for free expression and democratic participation. Nurses, doctors, psychologists, teachers, lawyers, engineers and all Canadians who work in a regulated profession have the freedom to advocate for their beliefs and should not face threats from their own professional association or professional regulator,” stated John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre. Ms. McInnes had been charged by the CRNS’s Investigation Committee, which investigates and prosecutes professional misconduct complaints, for her social media advocacy and for protesting vaccine mandates. The Investigation Committee’s broad allegation against Ms. McInnes was that her advocacy, including her use of the common term “vaccine mandate,” amounted to “misinformation.” Ms. McInnes is a mother of two and has been a Registered Nurse in Saskatchewan since 2013.  Ms. McInnes’s advocacy was measured and balanced. She had supported vaccines as an important tool in Covid-management efforts while also pointing to emerging scientific evidence regarding viral loads and transmission, which showed that Covid vaccines did not eliminate transmission. Ms. McInnes opposed vaccine mandates as a violation of basic ethical principles of autonomy and informed and voluntary consent of each and every patient. When Covid vaccines were introduced and voluntarily received in the spring and summer of 2021, the question of vaccine mandates was publicly debated across Canada. On June 30, 2021, the Saskatchewan Government indicated that it would not enforce a vaccine mandate because doing so would pose a “potential violation of health information privacy,” and, later, that it would “infringe on people’s personal rights.” The Saskatchewan Government also stated that a vaccine mandate for provincial employees was not being considered and, on September 10, 2021, rejected a proof-of-vaccination system, stating that mandates create “two classes of citizens based on… vaccination status,” and would be a “divisive path for a government to take.” Similar sentiments were echoed by Alberta’s Jason Kenney and Ontario’s Doug Ford, who claimed it would lead to a “split society.”Around the same time, the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses was calling for the “mandatory immunization” of all healthcare workers–a demand repeated by many, including Saskatchewan NDP leader Ryan Meili and a group of Saskatchewan Health Authority’s Medical Health OfficersGuided by her conscience and professional ethics, notably, her respect for bodily autonomy and informed consent, Ms. McInnes vocally opposed vaccine mandates. She protested vaccine mandates by holding a sign that read, “RN against Mandates and Vax Passports.” According to the Investigation Committee of the College, this sign amounted to “misinformation” with an intention to deceive.   Shortly after Ms. McInnes’s advocacy began, the Saskatchewan Government changed course and imposed a vaccine mandate.

A fellow Registered Nurse filed a complaint, calling Ms. McInnes, “Leah aka anti-vaxxer.”The complaint resulted in charges, including the charge that Ms. McInnes knowingly spread misinformation on the basis that, purportedly, no “vaccination mandates” had ever been implemented. It appeared that, according to the Investigation Committee, only a policy of “restrain and vaccinate” qualified as a “vaccine mandate.”After an initial investigation, the Investigation Committee proposed an agreement that would have Ms. McInnes admit to professional misconduct, but she rejected this offer, choosing instead to stand up for her professional and Charter rights. The Investigation Committee charged her on March 28, 2023, and filed a Notice of Hearing, the details of which were later expanded after counsel for Ms. McInnes demanded clarity from the College as to what exactly the College alleged to be “misinformation”, “disinformation” or “misleading” information.Ms. McInnes’s expert witness, former Chief Medical Officer of Health of Ontario Dr. Richard Schabas, confirmed that the term “vaccine mandate” had, in the medical profession, no special meaning beyond its meaning in everyday language. In all contexts, “vaccine mandate” refers to a requirement to either get injected or lose certain rights or freedoms. “Ms. McInnes used the term ‘vaccine mandate’ just as nearly everyone else did in public discourse, including the Toronto Star, the CBCCTV, the Saskatoon Star PhoenixCKOM, the Saskatchewan Union of Nursesacademia, Occupational Health and Safety, Saskatchewan Health Authority, the Saskatchewan NDP, and governments,” stated Andre Memauri, co-counsel for Ms. McInnes. “But the Investigation Committee nevertheless forced Ms. McInnes through this painful process, causing her needless grief,” continued Memauri.The Investigation Committee also alleged that Ms. McInnes knowingly spread misinformation about Covid vaccines. Ms. McInnes had posted that vaccines did not provide sterilizing immunity, i.e., that vaccinated people could contract and transmit the virus. During the hearings that took place in 2023, experts, including the Investigation Committee’s own expert, testified that vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity, vindicating Ms. McInnes. Co-counsel to Ms. McInnes, Glenn Blackett, says, “It’s chilling to recall that this vitally important fact, that the Covid vaccine did not provide sterilizing immunity, was broadly censored while Canadians were supposedly debating the wisdom of vaccine mandates. Poor information makes for poor decisions.”Thankfully for Ms. McInnes and all Canadians who depend on an informed and ethical nursing profession, the Discipline Committee of the College accepted the evidence presented to them and found that Ms. McInnes had, in no way, misinformed the public.Mr. Blackett continued, “This is a hugely important decision, not just for Ms. McInnes, who embodies the ‘moral courage’ Canadians should expect of all health professionals. It is perhaps most important for upholding a nurse’s right to voice ethical and scientific dissent and to participate in democratic discourse. The importance of professional freedom of speech and conscience can hardly be overstated. Science, ethics and democracy simply do not operate without freedom to think and speak. If you can’t trust a professional, be it a nurse, doctor or lawyer, to tell you what they think is true, you can’t trust them at all.”As for Ms. McInnes, she sees this as a victory for free speech in the medical community which will only lead to better outcomes. “I very much value the right of my colleagues to express opinions different than mine and support them in their endeavours to seek change in healthcare and government policy they perceive to be in the public interest. I’m grateful that the CRNS Discipline Committee recognized my right to do the same, as it’s only in the collection of our opinions that the public truly benefits,” she stated. After hearings and submissions in October and November 2023, the College’s Discipline Committee published their decision on January 12, 2024, dismissing all charges against Ms. McInnes. In their decision, the Discipline Committee stated that the case against Ms. McInnes should not have even proceeded to a hearing.For media inquiries, please contact media@jccf.ca.

Jan 252024
 
  1.   Federal Court rules that the Invocation of the Emergencies Act was Unconstitutional

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44FzcNs37mQ

  1. Keith Wilson aids interpretation of the Court Ruling:

Lawyers break down Federal Court verdict ruling Emergencies Act unconstitutional Keith Wilson, Chad Williamson

  1. Doctor/Lawyer Aris Lavranos takes us through the decision:

https://pairodocs.substack.com/p/canadian-federal-court-rules-invocation?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&publication_id=692649&post_id=141010612&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_medium=email&r=5olsj

 

A powerful tribute to the Freedom Convoy from jb24

Lawyers Keith Wilson and Chad Williamson break down a Federal Court decision that ruled Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s invoking of the Emergencies Act was unconstitutional and violated Canadians’ rights. Rebel News

These two lawyers, Keith in particular, are very good on the legal issues.  (Chad wasn’t in Ottawa and his clientele isn’t the same as Keith’s.)

https://www.rebelnews.com/lawyers_break_down_federal_court_verdict_ruling_emergencies_act_unconstitutional?utm_campaign=buzz_01_24_24&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel

 

Today, a Federal Court found Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government acted unconstitutionally when it invoked the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy in 2022.

In the decision, Justice Richard Mosley wrote that invoking the national security act in response to the anti-mandate protest did not “bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration.”

Further, Justice Mosley noted, the requirements to “declare a public order emergency were not satisfied.”

 

 

The ruling contradicts the findings of the Public Order Emergency Commission, which fulfilled a mandate within the Emergencies Act to review its use. Commissioner Paul Rouleau, who has close links to Trudeau, previously said the act was justified.

Liberal cabinet ministers pledged the government would appeal the decision, speaking to reporters from a cabinet retreat in Montreal.

Rebel News boss Ezra Levant hosted an emergency livestream to break down the stunning verdict, where he was joined by two lawyers closely linked to the Freedom Convoy, Keith Wilson and Chad Williamson.

Wilson, who worked alongside the convoy’s leadership in an attempt to broker a deal between the protesters and the city, told the audience how important one aspect of Justice Mosley’s decision was.

 

 

“Even if they met the test to invoke — which they didn’t — Charter rights were violated,” Wilson said. “Section 8 in particular, your right against unlawful search and seizure, relating specifically to the outrageous, tyrannical act of freezing hundreds of Canadians’ bank accounts and cancelling their credit cards.”

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, who oversaw the freezing of bank accounts in her role as finance minister, doubled down on the Liberals’ response to the convoy.

 

 

Freeland told reporters the use of the Emergencies Act was the “right” and “necessary” action to take.

Williamson, meanwhile, said Justice Mosley went to great lengths in writing this decision, explaining that judges in this position try to render verdicts that will be difficult to appeal.

“It will take some creative lawyering on part of the Liberal government to try and over turn this,” he said. Williamson represented protesters from the Coutts, Alberta, border blockade, which occurred at the same time as the demonstration in Ottawa.

Watch the full livestream below for more insight and analysis. Rebel News will continue to follow this important story as it develops.

Jan 232024
 

2024-01-23 Federal Court declares use of Emergencies Act UNCONSTITUTIONAL, Andrew Lawton, True North. First out of the gates with the news.

44,909 views Streamed live on Jan 23, 2024

It’s the two-year anniversary of the first leg of the Freedom Convoy setting out for Ottawa from Delta, British Columbia. Today, the Federal Court ruled that Justin Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable, unconstitutional, and outside the parameters of the act. True North’s Andrew Lawton discusses what this means for Canada

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2024-01-23 Lawyers break down Federal Court verdict ruling Emergencies Act unconstitutional 024-01-23 Lawyers break down Federal Court verdict ruling Emergencies Act unconstitutional, Aris Lavranos, Keith Wilson, Chad WilliamsonKeith Wilson, Chad Williamson.  Rebel News.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2024-01-24 A powerful tribute to the Freedom Convoy from jb24

 

 

Jan 212024
 

Jubilation!

News just in!  Andrew Lawton (True North)

  1.   Federal Court rules that the Invocation of the Emergencies Act was Unconstitutional

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44FzcNs37mQ

2.    Keith Wilson aids interpretation of the Court Ruling:

Lawyers break down Federal Court verdict ruling Emergencies Act unconstitutional Keith Wilson, Chad Williamson

3.   Doctor/Lawyer Aris Lavranos takes us through the decision:

https://pairodocs.substack.com/p/canadian-federal-court-rules-invocation?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&publication_id=692649&post_id=141010612&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_medium=email&r=5olsj

A powerful tribute to the Freedom Convoy from jb24

= = = = = = = = = = = =

The last “For Your Selection” was for December 2023  (link at the bottom).

I am encouraged:

  1.   Important video.  Bret Weinstein with Tucker Carlson  quickly passed three million views a day after its release  on January 8th.

2024-01-08 Watch: ‘A Terrible Truth’: COVID Response Was About Profits and Power, Bret Weinstein with Tucker Carlson. With many thanks to CHD.

2.    Continuing progress in legal challenges:

2024-01-11  Peckford, Bernier take covid travel restrictions to Supreme Court of Canada

Update on the Detective Helen Grus (Ottawa Police Dept) story:

2024-01-13  Witness intimidation accusation mires misconduct hearing for Ottawa cop (Helen Grus) who probed child deaths during covid.  By Jason Unrau, True North.

3.    Young Bright Lights.  The corruption of the Universities has long been a serious problem.  I suspect that the floodgates are opening:

2024-01-03 “Autism Tsunami” republished in the journal Science, Public Health Policy, & the Law. By Toby Rogers.

2024-01-04 “The Conservative Mastermind Behind Claudine Gay’s Ouster” (Gay is the deposed President of Harvard University)

 

4.    Learn to recognize “emergent, radically self-organizing social movement”:

2023-12-21 Meet the woman behind the petition calling for the end of the Trudeau government. 386,698 signees in 30 days.

2023-12-15   Quotes from David Korten’s “When Corporations Rule the World” added to “Could Tamara Lich & Chris Barber have organized millions of people internationally?”. Or was it an “emergent, radically self-organizing social movement?”

5.  2023-12-13 Canada Reports 300% Increase in ‘Unspecified Causes’ of Death, Sparking Calls for Investigation

6.  023-12-15 Lawmakers Dodge U.S. Sovereignty Question During House Hearing on WHO Reform. The connection to Bill 36 in British Columbia.

7.  For Your Selection December, 2023

Jan 212024
 
  • The court cases,
  • the National Citizens Inquiry, and
  • the War Crimes Tribunal looking into the conduct of the American Defense Contractors

need all the attention we can muster.

In globally-turbulent times, it will become ever more important to have a justice system that does what is expected:  hold people to account.  Awareness of what’s happening and citizen engagement are essential.  I don’t think there’s a place on the planet where we can run and hide.  Stay calm in rough seas.

Previous was    For Your Selection November, 2023. Sent during the last week of Nov.  

It was dedicated to the National Citizens Inquiry (NCI)

NEW:  The NCI Final Report is available for download:  https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/commissioners-report/

NEW:  2023-12-01 ‘We Cannot Allow This to Happen to Our Children and Grandchildren’: National Citizens Inquiry Report Blasts Canadian Government Response to COVID

NEW:   Laura Jeffery, embalmer, testimony to the NCI. (You will understand why the NCI and others say: stop the vaccines NOW!).  An interview with Dr. Ryan Cole on the science of the “blood clots” encountered by embalmers is included.

The November Selections included links to testimonies of

  • Leighton Grey,  justice system
  • Rodney Palmer, journalist (specific – newsgathering versus propaganda)
  • Col. David Redman,  Govts refused to use plans in place for pandemics
  • Gail Davidson, International Laws apply
  • Deanna McLeod, re kids
  • Bruce Pardy, re the Administrative State
  • Rick Nicholls, MPP
  • Laura Jeffery, embalmer (added)

NOTE:  The preceding 8 testimonies are excellent, and not in any order.  There are more and equally important testimonies on the NCI website.   As well as the Final Report.

Blog Postings since the November Selections:

The Government relies on people not knowing:

2023-12-06   Bill 36 (B.C.) is the Health Professions & Occupations Act. First class tyranny. Help the Canadian Society for Science & Ethics in Medicine.   Spread the word.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of Bill 36.  The battle is STILL on-going.   It is B.C. Legislation – – it will come to other places, if we can’t torpedo it here.

The Act was passed a year ago.  Read the 8 points at the link.  The legislation is fascist.  Outrageous.

It has the look of being a trial balloon.

DO YOU REMEMBER “Swift Current”?

2023-03-14 The Swift Current video. Govt Vans (StatsCan). Harassing Folks For Blood, Saliva & Urine Testing. Paying $100, $150, $175  if you do the survey (give more info – 3 hours’ worth, receive more money).  Personal Information Banks (PIB’s). History, Lockheed Martin partnered with StatsCan.

I think “SWIFT CURRENT” was a trial balloon.  The setup was scheduled to go to other communities across Canada.  I have not heard that that happened.  People in Swift Current mobilized against it.  Maybe the Feds got the idea that they are not popular, not even welcome with their money.

Bill 36 is perhaps a trial balloon, too.  The difference?  It’s for a whole province.

– – – – – – –

The War Crimes Tribunal investigation into select American Defense Contractors is introduced in (1 of 2).  Lt Col Wilkerson’s testimony at the Tribunal is (2 of 2).  It is exceptional.

2023-12-06 (1 of 2) Notice of the War Crimes Tribunal investigation into Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing. And I am condemned without notice.

(2 of 2) Next Evidentiary Video: Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

– – – – – – –

2023-12-04 Pastor challenges Dr. Bonnie Henry over illegal discrimination between faith groups. From the JCCF.

2023-11-29 B.C.: Bonnie Henry named as defendant in class-action lawsuit over her role in COVID-19 vaccine mandate

2023-11-21 Ontario Police Officer Appealing his Conviction for Making a $50 Donation to the Freedom Convoy. With thanks to the JCCF.

– – – – – – –

2023-11-30 The Wuhan Cover-Up: EXCLUSIVE Interview With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – –  Book by same name.    

2023-12-01 Texas Sues Pfizer for ‘False’ and ‘Deceptive’ Marketing of COVID Vaccines, from CHD

Wishing you a season of warmth and light,

Sandra

= = = =  = = = = = = = =

From: Druthers News & Information
Sent: December 10, 2023
Subject: Finally, we did it!! Check this…
So many of you kept asking for it…

and I’m super stoked to announce that the new Druthers website is ready! What does that mean? I’ll tell you, but first, I need to promote our Neighbourhood Mail service as we still have about 40,000 newspapers ready to be delivered to your local community via Canada Post… and it’s a really good one!!

 

    ORDER IT FOR YOUR NEIGHBOURS    

 

3 easy steps:

I’m sure you are very busy, it’s that time of year, so I will make this as quick and easy as possible for us to get this important topic into the minds and discussions of the people in your community.

1. Choose the postal code area you would like Druthers delivered to.

2. Select how many homes in that area you would like to receive a copy of this month’s Druthers.

400 neighbours ($196)
800 neighbours ($352)

1200 neighbours ($468)
1600 neighbours ($624)
2000 neighbours ($780)
2400 neighbours ($936)
2800 neighbours ($1092)
3200 neighbours ($1248)
3600 neighbours ($1404)
4000 neighbours ($1560)
4400 neighbours ($1716)
4800 neighbours ($1872)
5200 neighbours ($2028)

3. Send an etransfer for the appropriate amount to admin@druthers.net and we will manually enter the order for you. You don’t even need to order on the website to make this happen. (Please include the postal code of the area you would like done in the etransfer notes)

That’s it! Order now and the newspapers will be delivered before Christmas by Canada Post. That ought to help inspire some interesting, much needed conversations around the dinner table this year.

THE NEW WEBSITE IS READY!!

As many of you know, this Druthers project was started by regular folks from the lockdown protests back in 2020 as a way to bypass all the insane amounts of censorship on the internet on important topics, news & information. We are not professional writers, publishers or web developers. We are just people who care and we decided to figure out how to make a difference.

Also, as you are likely aware, online censorship has continued to increase dramatically over the last 3 years, making Druthers more important than ever! We have now printed and distributed over 9.5 MILLION physical newspapers since this project began and it is entirely funded, written, promoted & distributed by concerned Canadians like you.

What’s great about the new website?

First, every single article we’ve published in the 3 years of papers (about 600 articles) are now online as stand alone posts. That means you can share your favorite articles in Druthers much more easily.

Another great thing about this new website?

Facebook and Instagram blocked druthers .net from being shared on their platforms since they deemed us as news and Canadian news isn’t allowed on their platforms now. But now with the new domain being Druthers.ca, anything on that website can now be shared on FB & IG. I don’t imagine this will last long as they are likely to flag this domain eventually too, but in the meantime, let’s milk it and share the new Druthers website and its articles everywhere you can, as quickly as you can.

Easier account changes.

We have over 2,100 postal subscribers and if you are one of those good follks, you can now more easily make edits to your subscription. Increase or decrease the number of papers you receive each month, change your mailing address, pause your subscription temporarily if needed, and more.

 

We are still going strong, because of you!

As this year wraps up, I would like to send my deepest heart-felt gratitude to the 10’s of thousands of Druthers lovers all across Canada (and beyond). While there is still a lot of work ahead of us to correct this tyrannical system we are currently living under, but we are making a tremendous difference. I can only imagine what the state of this country would be right now if there were not nearly 10 MILLION Druthers in circulation, planting important seeds of though into the minds of Canadians and helping more people see the bigger picture of the evil agendas at play.

It starts with awareness, for if people do not recognize there is a problem, they will not step up to change things. That’s where Druthers is playing such and important role in this Great Awakening that is happening right now. People are waking up faster than ever… I know… I have been consciously watching for nearly 20 years and I see we ARE waking up faster than ever before. That is highly exciting to me and I thank you all so much for seeing the bigger picture and caring enough to do something about it.

Without all of you, Canada would have fallen much further & harder by now. YOU are literally helping save this country and I am honoured to be able to provide Druthers to help you all in your mission.

Big thanks & lots of love to you all <3

Shawn Jason
& the entire Druthers Crew

Jan 132024
 

EARLIER ARTICLES RELATED TO PECKFORD’S WORK:

        1. 2022-07-07 Canada. The Constitutional law court challenge to the Covid mandates (the Brian Peckford et al constitutional case) was scheduled to be heard in September; has been POSTPONED to October 31st
        2. 2013-09-23 Newfoundland’s (then-Premier Brian Peckford’s) Contribution to the Patriation of the Constitution, Stephen Azzi, from the Canadian Encyclopedia
        3. 2022-01-27 Brian Peckford, Jordan Peterson, and the Charter
        4. 2022-02-29 Brian Peckford’s Speech at Convoy For Freedom 2022 Victoria BC (Official Video)
        5. 2021-10-20 The contributions of Brian Peckford, former premier of Newfoundland/Labrador to the Freedom Fighters. Conversation with journalist Andrew Lawton.
        6. 2021-12-18 More manoeuvering in US re covid mandates .. referred to Supremes (Sent to Brian Peckford. Esp for anyone interested in the Court Cases. NUMBERS of refusals & Ramifications for enforcement in U.S.)
        7. 2023-10-20 Are the failed court cases evidence of abuse of process? (unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings to further a cause.) Add: Refusal of Federal & Provincial Governments to do a Constitutional Reference
        8. 2023-09-14 (Covid): Timeline blowout: Crown pushes for 22 more witnesses in Barber and Lich trial, with thanks to Rebel News, Robert Kraychik
        9. 2021-11-03 re faith put in the Courts to uphold Charter Rights

 

UPDATE:  2024-01-11 Peckford, Bernier take travel restrictions to Supreme Court of Canada (covid)

OTTAWA, ON: The Justice Centre announces that the Honourable Brian Peckford, the Honourable Maxime Bernier, and other applicants seek to appeal their vaccine mandate challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada. These Applicants argue that vaccine mandates are an issue of national importance and that Canadians deserve to receive court rulings regarding any emergency orders that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In November 2021, the Government of Canada required all travelers of federally regulated transportation services (e.g., air, rail, and marine) to provide proof of Covid vaccination. These restrictions on the Charter freedom of mobility prevented approximately 5.2 million unvaccinated Canadians from traveling by air and rail.

In response to these restrictions, the Honourable Brian Peckford (last living signatory of the Charter and former Premier of Newfoundland), the Honourable Maxime Bernier (leader of the People’s Party of Canada), and other Canadians took the federal government to court in February 2022, arguing that the Charter freedoms of religion and conscience, assembly, democratic rights, mobility, security, privacy, and equality of Canadians were infringed by these restrictions. In addition, affidavits filed in this court action (e.g., the affidavit of Robert Belobaba at paragraph 19) attest that, in a country as large as Canada, prohibitions on domestic and international air travel have significant, negative impacts on Canadians.

In an affidavit (at paragraph 29), Jennifer Little, Director General of Covid Recovery at Transport Canada, provided her Covid Recovery Team’s October 2, 2021 presentation, entitled Implementing a Vaccine Mandate for the Transportation Sector. The presentation outlined options and considerations for the purposes of seeking the Minister of Transport’s approval of the travel vaccination mandate. Her presentation outlined (at pages 12 and 13) that the Canadian travel restrictions in question were “unique in the world in terms of strict vaccine mandate for domestic travel” and were coupled with “one of the strongest vaccination mandates for travelers in the world.” She admitted during cross examination (at paragraphs 162-163, PDF page 61) that she had never seen a recommendation from Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada to the Ministry of Transport to implement a mandatory vaccination policy for travel.

At the same time, Dr. Lisa Waddell, a senior epidemiologist and the knowledge synthesis team lead at the Public Health Agency of Canada, admitted during a cross examination (at paragraphs 300-305, PDF pages 91-93) that there was no recommendation from the Public Health Agency of Canada to impose vaccination requirements on travelers.

In June 2022, the Government of Canada announced that it would suspend the travel vaccine restrictions, but that it would not hesitate to reinstate the mandates if the government considered it necessary.

As a result, the federal government (the Crown) moved to have Premier Peckford’s constitutional challenge struck for mootness (irrelevance). The Crown argued that the travel restrictions were no longer a live issue because they had been lifted and should not, therefore, take up further court resources. The Crown brought this motion after each side had produced expert evidence, called on experts to testify under oath, cross-examined the other side’s experts and witnesses daily for six weeks, conducted significant legal research, and prepared substantive written arguments. Lawyers for both sides spent hundreds of hours placing all the evidence and legal arguments before the Federal Court for its consideration. The only remaining step in the trial process was the presentation of oral argument, scheduled for October 31, 2022. The Federal Court was fully and properly equipped to render a thoughtful decision as to whether the travel restrictions had been a justified violation of Charterfreedoms.

Even though the federal government can impose these same travel restrictions on Canadians again, without notice, the Federal Court granted the Crown’s motion on November 9, 2023, and dismissed this Charter challenge as moot. The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed this lower court ruling on November 9, 2023. Effectively, the courts determined that a constitutional challenge to the use of unprecedented emergency powers was neither sufficiently interesting to the Canadian public nor an appropriate use of court resources.

Premier Peckford, Maxime Bernier, and other Canadians now seek to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear their case. This involves a two-step process, whereby the applicants first ask whether the Court is willing to hear the appeal. If so, the appeal will then be scheduled for a hearing several months later. The applicants in this case argue that the issues raised in their case are of national importance and that Canadians deserve access to court rulings about policies that violate the Charter freedoms of millions of Canadians.

(See the January 8, 2024 Leave Application of Premier Peckford here. See the January 8, 2024 Leave Application of Maxime Bernier here.)

Further, Premier Peckford and the other applicants warn that all challenges to emergency orders risk being deemed irrelevant due to the simple fact that emergency orders are normally implemented only for short periods of time. In most cases, emergency orders will be rescinded by the time a constitutional challenge makes its way through the court process and all the relevant evidence, along with legal arguments, has been put before the judge. For this reason, the Applicants argue that the courts should provide guidance on how emergency orders should be handled in the context of the mootness doctrine.

“If courts are going to affirm and uphold emergency orders that violate our Charter rights and freedoms whenever the emergency order is no longer in force, how can the Charter protect Canadians from government abuses?” asks John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre.

Emergency orders are not debated in, or approved by, federal Parliament or provincial legislatures. Rather, they are discussed confidentially in Cabinet such that ordinary Canadians are prevented from understanding the reasons for, or the legality of, emergency orders, such as mandatory vaccination policies that discriminated against Canadians who chose not to get injected. Therefore, it is only through court rulings that Canadians can learn whether a mandate or emergency order is constitutional.

“The Supreme Court of Canada has an opportunity to create an important precedent for how Canadian courts deal with all so-called ‘moot’ cases involving questions about the constitutionality of emergency orders,” stated lawyer Allison Pejovic, who represents Premier Peckford and Maxime Bernier.

“The public interest in this case is staggering. Canadians need to know whether it is lawful for the federal government to prevent them from travelling across Canada, or from leaving and re-entering their own country, based upon whether they have taken a novel medication,” continued Ms. Pejovic.

“The Court’s dismissal of constitutional challenges to Covid orders for ‘mootness’ has deprived thousands of Canadians from knowing whether their governments’ emergency orders were lawful or not. It is time for the Supreme Court of Canada to expand the legal test for mootness to account for governments’ use of emergency orders, which are devoid of transparency and accountability. Canadians have a right to know whether unprecedented mandatory vaccination policies, which turned millions of Canadians into second-class citizens, were valid under our Constitution,” concluded Ms. Pejovic.

Jan 132024
 

Witness intimidation accusation mires misconduct hearing for Ottawa cop (Helen Grus)

who probed child deaths. By Jason Unrau, True North.

Perjury, witness intimidation and obstruction of justice are among allegations the defence team for detective Helen Grus levelled at senior Ottawa Police Service personnel during week three of her disciplinary hearing, which adjourned on Thursday afternoon in Stittsville, Ont. but could stretch well into the year.

“Provided there’s not a mistrial for intimidation of a witness,” remarked Grus’ co-counsel Blair Ector, who had just filed a criminal incident report with Ottawa police against a senior Professional Standards Unit inspector for alleged witness intimidation.

Just as Grus was to testify in her own defence Wednesday afternoon, Ector announced to the tribunal that his client had received a suspect communication earlier in the day.

“It’s come to my attention today that Inspector Hugh O’Toole sent an email to my client stating that she cannot rely on any (Ottawa Police Service) documents,” said Ector, noting O’Toole had a law degree.

“That is witness tampering. That is intimidation. That is obstruction. This tribunal should be outraged. I am outraged.”

Exasperated that tribunal officer Chris Renwick denied his attempts to speak about O’Toole’s offending email, table it as evidence or even allow a brief statement on the matter, Ector, co-counsel Bath-Sheba van den Berg, and Grus stood together and faced Renwick.

“I am a witness of a crime and I’m filing a police report right now,” said Ector before the trio turned and exited the hearing room, conveniently located at the Ottawa police’s Huntmar Dr. detachment.

Grus stands accused of discreditable conduct, which hinges on alleged Ottawa Police Service policy violations she committed in her probe of a possible link between COVID shots and sudden infant deaths in the region.

Related activities have been described by prosecutors as an “unsanctioned…quality control project,” including allegations that she interfered in ongoing investigations by seeking the COVID vaccination status of the related mothers.

Throughout 14 hearing days to date, Renwick has ruled more often in favour of Stewart and the Ottawa police, in so doing suppressing seemingly key pieces of evidence like related autopsy reports and a notebook containing Grus’ last entry before she was suspended in February 2022 – items her lawyers argue could prove exculpatory.

This pattern of denying evidentiary disclosure reached new levels this week as Stewart insisted that Grus cannot use generic Ottawa police policy documents and job descriptions for her defence without express permission. In the coming weeks, Renwick must decide whether Grus can access such documents; he must also rule on a separate defence motion to have Stewart removed from the case for alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Buckling under the weight of these legal maneuvers, at points Renwick admitted that he was overwhelmed by adjudicating this administrative law matter now rife with constitutional implications. Renwick also lost his cool when the defence accused a police witness of committing perjury during his testimony, and ordered Grus’ lawyers to refrain from such accusations.

On Tuesday, Renwick threw in the towel on proceedings 30 minutes early stating he had to “end it here for today…I’m suffering from fatigue and I’m challenged in giving direction in running this hearing.”

Remarks like these from Renwick prompted van den Berg to remind the retired police superintendent that he had the opportunity to hire independent legal counsel to assist in managing the tribunal, but declined.

“I have a vast amount of experience in policing, but I’m not a lawyer. You as trained counsel have much more experience in these matters,” Renwick explained to participants during one legal impasse. “I feel like more of a referee function.”

Prior to the tribunal’s resumption on Monday Jan. 8, Renwick ruled in Nov. 2023 to deny all of Grus’ proposed expert witnesses, including three medical doctors whose statements indicate Grus’ concern about vaccines billed as safe and effective by public health officials was reasonable.

Family physician Gregory Chan noted in a questionnaire provided by the defence that COVID vaccines were not sufficiently tested, that a patient of his suffered a “chronological” stillbirth two months after receiving a COVID shot and the overall “lack of safety information generates questions/concerns.”

Pediatric neurology specialist Dr. Eric Payne’s expert statement also notes the dearth of safety data, particularly for pregnant women and babies.

“Pregnant women and babies less than six months of age have been excluded from all of the clinical trials. We also know that the spike protein product of these genetic vaccines can circulate widely throughout one’s body, including the reproductive organs, brain and heart (and)… has been found to distribute through breastmilk,” he wrote. He also indicated Grus was “astute” in her questioning and that there was “solid scientific and medical support for her inquiries.”

Though Renwick also denied retired Ottawa police Staff Sgt. Major Peter Danyluk the opportunity to appear as an expert witness for the defence, in a rare victory for Grus, Renwick allowed Danyluk to appear as a lay witness. He testified this week.

Danyluk, a retired member of both the Canadian Armed Forces and more recently the Ottawa Police Service, testified that he co-wrote the force’s ethics manual and in his expert statement indicated that he did not agree with the charge against detective Grus. He also testified that Grus had told him about her vaccine inquiries. He described her actions as “fact-finding” in nature and didn’t see anything amiss.

“She wasn’t asking my permission, she was just bouncing ideas off me like ‘I’ve seen the statistical anomaly.’ I think she said it was double the amount of SIDS (year-over-year 2020-21),” recalled Danyluk of their conversation.

“It’s so basic, it didn’t raise any red flags for me.”

In other testimony, Danyluk described Grus as “rational” and “articulate” and said that others who spoke about the detective, then part of the sex assault and child abuse unit, “had nothing but extraordinary things to say about her, her work ethic, her integrity, her honour.”

Before Renwick adjourned proceedings on Thursday afternoon, he agreed with Stewart’s motion to impose 14-day timelines for introducing new motions to the tribunal as well as a seven-day period for lawyers to respond.

Van den Berg described these new rules, introduced late in the proceedings, as financially onerous for Grus and would likely delay the disciplinary tribunal even further. It’s been almost 18 months since Grus was charged with discreditable conduct. While she was originally suspended with pay, the Ottawa Police Service has since brought her back as a detective in the robbery unit.

If Grus is found guilty, she could face demotion or termination.

 

 

Jan 092024
 

The video quickly passed three million a day after its release  on January 8th.

– – – – –

Interview  Bret Weinstein and Tucker Carlson.  From CHD (Children’s Health Defense).

The transcript is below.

RECOMMEND:  the one hour video is worthwhile. The excerpt below is just one part.

It looks as though (?)  Weinstein & Carlson don’t know that the Legislation Tedros refers to is already enacted and yes, it is OUR Law, not the WHO’s law (WHO = World Health Organization).   I submitted a correction, JUST IN CASE they don’t know:

REPLY SENT TO CHD, from their web-site:  January 9th

             IMPORTANT information

Tedros,  (Director-General of the World Health Organization since 2017) in an inserted small video in the Carlson-Weinstein interview says at [00:36:25] :

. . . The claim that the accord will cede power to W.H.O. is quite simply false. It’s fake news. Countries will decide what the accord says and countries alone and countries will implement the accord in line with their own national laws. No country will cede any sovereignty to W.H.O.

MY REPLY:   The Legislation is already in place.

It’s in the Health Professions and Occupations Act (HPOA), a.k.a. Bill 36.

The Provincial Government of British Columbia enacted it in November 2022.

We’re fighting hard

Read the 8th point.  The Legislation is already enacted to adopt the WHO agenda.  (“our own laws”).   Other jurisdictions in Canada may have the same or similar legislation in place, from the same source.  People in B.C. are mobilizing, spreading the word.   The Act needs to be repealed.

The next Provincial Election is Saturday, October 19, 2024.   If you know anyone in B.C., it’d be great if you let them know about the B.C. Health Professions Legislation.   They will not be deciding which health protocols they use.   If we can get enough awareness in B.C. and stop these insane people,  people in other parts of the country might be spared the same battle.

– – – – –

EXCERPT from the Transcript

…  Bret Weinstein [00:33:59] I call it the World Health Organization Pandemic Preparedness Plan. Right. And what is under discussion are some modifications to the global public health regulations and modifications to an existing treaty. But all of this makes it sound minor and procedural. What has been proposed are, and again, the number of things included here is incredible. It’s hard even for those of us who have been focused on this track, all of the important things under discussion and to deduce the meaning of some of the more subtle provisions.

But they, the World Health Organization and its signatory nations will be allowed to define a public health emergency. Any basis that having declared one, they will be entitled to mandate remedies. Remedies that are named include vaccines. Gene therapy technology is literally named in the set of things that the World Health Organization is going to reserve the right to mandate, that it will be in a position to require these things of citizens, that it will be in a position to dictate our ability to travel, in other words, passports that would be predicated on one having accepted these technologies are clearly being described. It would have the ability to forbid the use of other medications.

So this looks like they’re preparing for a rerun where they can just simply take ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine off the table. They also have reserved the ability. Dictate how these measures are discussed. That censorship is described here as well, the right to dictate that. Of course, misinformation is how they’re going to describe it.

Tedros [00:36:25]   Denial.

We continue to see misinformation on social media and in mainstream media about the pandemic accord that countries are now negotiating. The claim that the accord will cede power to W.H.O. is quite simply false. It’s fake news. Countries will decide what the accord says and countries alone and countries will implement the accord in line with their own national laws. No country will cede any sovereignty to W.H.O. if any politician, business person or anyone at all is confused about what the pandemic accord is and isn’t. We would be more than happy to discuss it and explain it.

Tucker [00:37:13] So he’s going to be more than happy to discuss and explain the misinformation that your now spreading.

Bret Weinstein [00:37:20] That is comforting. Well, on the one hand, I must say I had not seen that. And it is tremendously good news. Actually, what it means is that once again, we have managed to raise awareness of something in time that there is conceivably a better outcome still available to us.

Tucker [00:37:40] They are spooked enough to bother to lie about it.

Bret Weinstein [00:37:43] You couldn’t have said it more accurately. Yes. No, those were clearly lies. And of course, his saying that into a camera is supposed to convince you, you know, nobody could possibly lie so directly. So there must be some truth in what he’s saying, which is, of course, nonsense. And anybody who goes back through a compendium of various things that people have said into cameras over the course of COVID, that they then swear they didn’t say, you know once later, knows that these folks are very comfortable at saying totally false things into a camera that doesn’t cause them to think twice or sweat or anything. But. It’s great that we have managed to raise enough awareness that Tedros is actually addressing our spreading of what it actually is, is malinformation. You’re aware of this? Oh, it’s beautiful.

Tucker [00:38:35] I’m so old that I was still stuck in the truth or falsehood binary. Where what mattered was whether it was true or not.

Bret Weinstein [00:38:44] No, the malinformation is actually exactly what you need to know about to see how antiquated that notion is because this is actually the Department of Homeland Security actually issued a memo in which it defined three kinds of, I kid you not, terrorism. Mis, Dis and Mal information, misinformation are errors, disinformation are intentional errors, lies and malinformation are things that are based in truth that cause you to distrust authority.

Tucker [00:39:16] Oh, so mal information is what you commit when you catch them lying?

Bret Weinstein [00:39:20] Exactly. Yeah, it is, discussing the lies of your government is malinformation and therefore a kind of terrorism, which I should point out, as funny as that is and as obviously Orwellian as that is, it’s also terrifying because if you have tracked the history of the spreading tyranny from the beginning of the war on terror, you know that terrorism is not a normal English word the way it once was. Terrorism is now a legal designation that causes all of your rights to evaporate. So at the point that the Department of Homeland Security says that you are guilty of a kind of terrorism for saying true things that cause you to distrust your government, they are also telling you something about what rights they have to silence you. They are not normal rights. So these things are all terrifying. And I do think as much as.

Tucker [00:40:10] My jaw’s opened.

Bret Weinstein [00:40:11] The COVID pandemic caused us to become aware of a lot of structures that had been built around us, something that former NSA officer William Binney once described as the turnkey totalitarian state, the totalitarian state is erected around you. But it’s not activated. And then once it’s built, the key gets turned. And so we are now seeing, I believe, something that even outstrips William Binney’s description because it’s the turnkey totalitarian planet. I think the World Health Organization is above the level of nations, and it is going to be in a position, if these provisions passed, to dictate to nations how they are to treat their own citizens, to override their constitutions, despite what Tedros has told you. So that is frightening.

It’s not inherently about health. What I think is happened is the fact of a possible pandemic causes a loophole in the mind. It’s not a loophole in our governance documents. Our Constitution doesn’t describe exemptions from your rights during a time of a pandemic emergency. Your rights simply are what they are, and they’re not supposed to go anywhere just because there’s a disease spreading.

But nonetheless, people’s willingness to accept the erosion of their rights because of a public health emergency has allowed this tyranny to use it as a Trojan horse. And I think that’s also, it’s something people need to become aware of, that there are a number of features of our environment that are basically, they are blind spots that we can’t see past. Vaccine was one. And I know I was an enthusiast about vaccines.

I still believe deeply in the elegance of vaccines as they should exist, but I’m now very alarmed at how they are produced, and I’m even more alarmed at what has been called a vaccine that doesn’t meet the definition. That because many of us believe that vaccines were an extremely elegant, low-harm, high-efficacy method of preventing disease. When they called this mRNA tech technology a vaccine, many of us gave it more credibility than we should have if they had called it a gene transfection technology. We would have thought, wait, what? You know that that’s that sounds highly novel and it sounds dangerous. And how much do we know about the long-term implications? But because they called it a vaccine, people were much readily, much more willing to accept it.

Public health functions the same way, if you think about it, public health. Step back a second. Your relationship with your doctor, your personal health ought to be very important to you. But there are ways in which things that happen at a population level affect your personal health. And your doctor is not in a position to do anything about it. So somebody’s dumping pollution into a stream from which you’re pulling fish. You know, you might detect the harm at the population level. You might need a regulation at a population level in order to protect you. Your doctor’s not in a position to write you a pill to correct it.

So the idea that public health is potentially a place to improve all of our well-being is real. But once you decide that there’s something above doctors relative to your health, then that can be an excuse for all manner of tyranny. Public health has been adopted. It’s like, it’s like the sheep’s clothing that has allowed the wolf to go after our rights because in fury it’s trying to protect us from harms that we would like to be.

Tucker [00:44:12] And it generates such fear at such a huge scale that it weakens people’s moral immune systems, they will accept things they would never accept otherwise.

Bret Weinstein [00:44:21] Absolutely. And as you know, and as as I know, when we raised questions about what was being delivered to us under the guise of public health, we were demonized as if we had a moral defect. It wasn’t even a cognitive defect where we were failing to understand the wisdom of these vaccines. It was a moral defect where we were failing to protect others who were vulnerable by questioning these things.

– – – – – – – – –