To see the actual article, go to the above link.
It wasn’t only secret recordings pertaining to war and crimes-against-humanity that Wikileaks published, based on the heroic work of Chelsea Manning who downloaded thousands of secret US military files. A slew of cables Assange published revealed massive U.S. government attempts on behalf of Monsanto to coerce governments to allow foreign corporate land ownership, and with it genetically engineered agriculture throughout the world, and to squelch opposition to GMOs, breaking down existing laws prohibiting the genetic engineering of agriculture.
The cables revealed U.S. officials applying financial, diplomatic, and frequently military pressure on behalf of Monsanto and other biotech corporations.
These cables were followed by revelations that U.S., the World Bank and IMF loans “opened up Ukraine to major corporate inroads,” writes Joyce Nelson in The Ecologist and also in Counterpunch. “Loan conditions are forcing the deeply indebted country to open up to GMO crops, and lift the ban on private sector land ownership. U.S. corporations are jubilant at the ‘goldmine’ that awaits them.”(1)
The information, under the radar here in the U.S., reveals stipulations in the terms of the US’s massive arms financing of Ukraine going back for more than a decade.
And on April 28, 2020, President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a bill into law authorizing the sale of farmland in Ukraine, lifting a moratorium that had been in place since 2001. This bill is part of a series of policy reforms upon which the IMF conditioned its $8 billion loan package.(2)
Wikileaks’ revelations about agriculture became the basis for understanding the mechanisms imperialism uses. The U.S. exerts its muscle on other countries to allow Monsanto et al. to take over huge tracts of land in Ukraine, bypassing direct purchase by foreign companies. Foreign ownership of land had been prohibited by law in Ukraine — a sudden realization that so-called internet “fact checkers” have been relying on to “debunk” news stories on the privatized dispersal of agricultural land there. But the “debunkers” ignore the many mechanisms utilized by foreign corporations to gain ownership and control of the land and skirt the law. So we find massive U.S. corporate investments in Ukrainian companies, controlling the kinds of seeds planted and how they are grown.
In a 2007 cable marked “confidential,” Craig Stapleton, then U.S. Ambassador to France, advised the U.S. to prepare for economic war with countries unwilling to introduce Monsanto’s GM corn seeds. He called for retaliation, to “make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices. In fact, the pro-biotech side in France [has] told us retaliation is the only way to begin to turn this issue in France.”(3)
The U.S. diplomatic team recommended that “we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits.”(4)
In another cable, this one from Macau and Hong Kong, a U.S. Department of Agriculture director requested $92,000 in U.S. public funds for “media education kits” to combat growing public resistance to genetically engineered foods. It portrays attempts to mandate the labeling of GMOs as a “threat” to U.S. interests, and seeks to “make it much more difficult for mandatory labeling advocates to prevail.”
The cables released by Wikileaks revealed that officials in the Obama administration, particularly in
Hillary Clinton’s State Department, intervened at Monsanto’s request “to undermine legislation that might restrict sales of genetically engineered seeds.” Under Hillary Clinton, the U.S. State Department was so gung-ho to promote GMOs that Mother Jones writer Tom Philpott called the agency she presided over “the de facto global-marketing arm of the ag-biotech industry, complete with figures as high-ranking as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mouthing industry talking points as if they were gospel.”(5)
The New York Daily News reported that State Department officials under Hillary Clinton were actively using taxpayer money to promote Monsanto’s controversial GMO seeds around the world.
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promoting Monsanto’s interests in Kenya in 2009. [Source: motherjones.com]
U.S. officials recommended pro-biotech and bio-agriculture DVDs be sent to every high school in Hong Kong.(6)
The cables reveal the joint strategic planning of Monsanto and the U.S. government. In one series, Monsanto concluded that northern Thailand would be an ideal location to cultivate genetically engineered corn for export to other countries, due to the area’s very low labor and infrastructure costs.
In this cable released by Wikileaks, one country, Peru, is mentioned as recipient, and the U.S. official suggests that even with transportation expenses across two oceans included, it would nevertheless be more profitable to grow and ship GMO corn from northern Thailand than from neighboring Argentina or Brazil, since U.S. “diplomatic efforts” would be used to drive down the cost of production in northern Thailand. The U.S. would press Thailand to drop its opposition to GM cultivation, and the country would be rewarded.
The cables provide a fascinating (and terrfying) glimpse into the seemingly mundane mechanisms of global imperialism and consolidation of control of world agriculture on a very localized level.
WikiLeaks “acquired” and published a searchable database and unabridged text of the secret 2015 TransPacific Partnership, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and Trade in Services Agreement.(7) By publishing the secret text of the agreement, Assange exposed the U.S. government’s pressure on other countries to purchase and plant Monsanto’s patented genetically engineered seeds, which required the concomitant purchase of Monsanto’s patented pesticides, in order for the crops to grow.
The treaties limited the ability of one country to legally challenge environmental depradation in trade with another, making it abundantly clear that environmental issues could not be successfully addressed in piecemeal fashion, but must be seen as integrated political, technological, economic, and scientifically packaged warfare. To succeed, movements would be compelled to not only examine the dangers of each pesticide du jour, but the underlying mechanisms by which corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta, Novartis, BASF and other pesticide and pharmaceutical manufacturers have come to determine government policies overall, as well as those of global regulatory agencies, which in turn allow them to get away with masking the truth about their products and outright lying about their danger.
While socialist and ecology activists have always exposed the collaboration between government and corporate expansion, the details revealed by WikiLeaks’ published documents are nothing short of astounding. They reveal the need for ecological movements to develop far more radical strategies for dealing with the immense destruction by capitalism in practice, and not just in theory nor in a piecemeal fashion. For this largely unknown contribution by Julian Assange, ecological activists, along with antiwar radicals motivated by Assange’s publishing of the now infamous “Collateral Murder” video (obtained from Chelsea Manning), owe Assange a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid.
Today, Julian Assange is locked away in a British prison and is fighting for his life. The U.S. government seeks to bring this Australian citizen to the United States for a show trial and then lock him up forever, if they don’t assassinate him en route, as the CIA and U.S. State Department had discussed. (8) The sacrifices Julian Assange has made are profound, and his contribution to ecological as well as antiwar movements is enormous. It is incumbent on all to demand an end to his incarceration and torment by the U.S. and British governments.
And yet, despite worldwide exposure of glyphosate’s dangers and its designation as a “probable carcinogen,” only a handful of governments throughout the world have joined with environmental activists and health professionals in banning Monsanto’s Roundup. We need to turn up the volume:
Free Julian Assange NOW.
“No” to GMOs and the planet destroyers
———————————-
Many thanks to Patricia Dahl, an organizer with Stand with Assange NY, for outlining some of the secret involvements of the U.S. government with Monsanto and other corporate polluters that were first brought to light by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. See Michael Ratner, Moving the Bar: My Life as a Radical Lawyer (New York: OR Books: 2021), for an extensive first-hand review of Assange’s legal case by his chief attorney, before he died of cancer in 2016.
NOTES
1. Joyce Nelson, “Monsanto and Ukraine,” Counterpunch, August 22, 2014, and also, Joyce Nelson, “Ukraine opens up for Monsanto, land grabs and GMOs,” The Ecologist, September 11, 2014.
2. Oakland Institute, “Walking on the West Side: the World Bank and the IMF in the Ukraine Conflict,” July 28, 2014; and also, Oakland Institute, Ben Reicher and Frederic Mousseau, “Who Really Benefits from the Creation of a Land Market in Ukraine?” August 6, 2021.
3. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html
4. Ibid.
5. Tom Philpott, “Taxpayer Dollars Are Helping Monsanto Sell Seeds Abroad,” Mother Jones, May 18, 2013.
6. Anita Katial, Senior Director Europe Operations at USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), is named as the responsible officer for the pro-biotech propaganda effort on behalf of the U.S. government. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09HONGKONG128_a.html ↑
7. https://wikileaks.org/tpp-final/
8. Julian Borger, “CIA officials under Trump discussed assassinating Julian Assange – report: Mike Pompeo and officials requested ‘options’ for killing Assange following WikiLeaks’ publication of CIA hacking tools, report says.” The Guardian, Sept. 27, 2021.
https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/with-the-wind-with-dr-paul-thomas/the-wrongful-termination-of-dr-paul-thomas/
Hosts: Dr. Paul Thomas
*The opinions expressed by the hosts and guests in this show are not necessarily the views of Children’s Health Defense.
episode 239
Sep 6, 2023
Guest attorney Stephen Joncus is behind Dr. Paul Thomas’ wrongful termination lawsuit against the Oregon Medical Board. In this week’s ‘With the Wind’ episode, attorney Joncus and Dr. Thomas discuss public health, litigation and more. Viewers won’t want to miss it!
live every Wed at 9:00 AM PDT
Science and medicine are at a crossroad and courageous health practitioners are standing up to ensure that humanity and integrity aren’t left behind in the name of ‘progress.’ Dr. Paul Thomas is one of those leading the way and amplifying the voice of brave scientists and health care practitioners who are willing to put their careers on the line to make sure ‘health’ and ‘care’ are restored to healthcare.
I detest Canada’s silence on the Assange file. What a bunch of weak-kneed nothings we have.
I first posted re Julian Assange in 2010; we’ve followed his case for 13 YEARS.
contains a quote by Hermann Göring. He was interviewed in his jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes trials.
EXCERPT FROM THE POSTING: (and then on to today’s posting, with gratitude to Joe Lauria)
“On-line Vigil for Assange.” I thought of
Chelsea Manning naturally came up.
I did not think “WARS“. That is a take-away for me, I needed to be reminded. The connection to WARS.
There is more in the “Vigil” that I want to listen to (selectively) – – what did Ray McGovern have to say?
– – – – – – – –
The PURPOSE of the Vigil is to protect Julian Assange.
I don’t know who we’re protecting, Julian Assange or ourselves. We do it by making sure that our friends and neighbours receive the information.
If we allow the Publisher, Julian Assange, to go on trial for doing what Publishers in a democracy are SUPPOSED to do, to safeguard the democracy, I have no sympathy for us.
Janet E sent this (Feb 2015):
From an an interview with Göring in his jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946). Göring’s statement about dragging people into war bears repeating given present day fears.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring
Göring: Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
IT WAS a little more than perplexing. US secretary of state Antony Blinken, on Australian soil, left no doubt about how his government feels about one of Australia’s most prominent citizens.
‘I understand the concerns and views of Australians,’ Blinken said in Brisbane on July 31 with the Australian foreign minister at his side. ‘I think it’s very important that our friends here understand our concerns about this matter.’ He went on:
‘What our Department of Justice has already said repeatedly, publicly, is this: Mr Assange was charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country. So I say that only because just as we understand sensitivities here, it’s important that our friends understand sensitivities in the United States.’
In other words, when it comes to Julian Assange, the US elite cares little for what Australians have to say. There are more impolite ways to describe Blinken’s response. Upwards of 88 per cent of Australians and both parties in the Australian government have told Washington to free the man. And Blinken essentially told them to stuff it. The US won’t drop the case.
A few days before Blinken spoke, Caroline Kennedy, the US ambassador to Australia and daughter of slain president John F Kennedy, was also dismissive of Australians’ concerns, telling Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio:
‘I met with Parliamentary supporters of Julian Assange and I’ve listened to their concerns and I understand that this has been raised at the highest levels of our government, but it is an ongoing legal case, so the Department of Justice is really in charge but I’m sure that for Julian Assange it means a lot that he has this kind of support but we’re just going to have to wait to see what happens.’
Asked why she met with the parliamentarians at all, she said: ‘Well, it’s an important issue, it has, as I’ve said, been raised at the highest levels and I wanted to hear directly from them about their concerns to make sure that we all understood where each other was coming from and I thought it was a very useful conversation.’
Asked whether her meeting with the MPs had shifted her thinking on the Assange case, Kennedy said bluntly: ‘Not really.’ She added that her ‘personal thinking isn’t really relevant here.’
Blowback
AUSTRALIA has too often behaved as a doormat to the United States, to the point where Australia is threatening its own security by going along with an aggressive US policy towards China, which poses no threat to Australia.
But this time, Blinken got an earful. Prime minister Anthony Albanese reiterated that he wanted the Assange case to be dropped. Certain members of parliament brusquely gave it back to Blinken.
Assange was ‘not the villain … and if the US wasn’t obsessed with revenge it would drop the extradition charge as soon as possible,’ Independent MP Andrew Wilkie told The Guardian‘s Australian edition.
‘Antony Blinken’s allegation that Julian Assange risked very serious harm to US national security is patent nonsense,’ said Wilkie said.
‘Mr Blinken would be well aware of the inquiries in both the US and Australia which found that the relevant WikiLeaks disclosures did not result in harm to anyone,’ the MP said. ‘The only deadly behaviour was by US forces … exposed by WikiLeaks, like the Apache crew who gunned down Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists’ in the infamous Collateral Murder video.
As was shown conclusively by defence witnesses in his September 2020 extradition hearing in London, Assange worked assiduously to redact names of US informants before WikiLeaks publications on Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010. US General Robert Carr testified at the court martial of WikiLeaks’ source, Chelsea Manning, that no one was harmed by the material’s publication.
Instead, Assange faces 175 years in a US dungeon on charges of violating the Espionage Act, not for stealing US classified material, but for the First Amendment-protected publication of it.
Labor MP Julian Hill, also part of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group, told The Guardian he had ‘a fundamentally different view of the substance of the matter than secretary Blinken expressed. But I appreciate that at least his remarks are candid and direct.’
‘In the same vein, I would say back to the United States: at the very least, take Julian Assange’s health issues seriously and go into court in the United Kingdom and get him the hell out of a maximum security prison where he’s at risk of dying without medical care if he has another stroke,’ Hill said.
Damage control
THE fierce Australian reaction to both Blinken and Kennedy’s remarks appears to have taken Washington by surprise, given how accustomed to Canberra’s supine behavior the US has become. Just two weeks after Blinken’s remarks, Kennedy tried to soften the blow by muddying Blinken’s clear waters.
She told The Sydney Morning Herald in a front-page interview published on Aug. 14 that the United States was now, despite Blinken’s unequivocal words, suddenly open to a plea agreement that could free Assange, allowing him to serve a shortened sentence for a lesser crime in his home country.
The newspaper said there could be a ‘David Hicks-style plea bargain,’ a so-called Alford Plea, in which Assange would continue to state his innocence while accepting a lesser charge that would allow him to serve additional time in Australia. The four years Assange has already served on remand at London’s maximum security Belmarsh Prison could perhaps be taken into account.
Kennedy said a decision on such a plea deal was up to the US justice department. ‘So it’s not really a diplomatic issue, but I think that there absolutely could be a resolution,’ she told the newspaper.
Kennedy acknowledged Blinken’s harsh comments. ‘But there is a way to resolve it,’ she said. ‘You can read the [newspapers] just like I can.’ It is not quite clear what in the newspapers she was reading.
Blinken is Kennedy’s boss. There is little chance she had spoken out of turn. Blinken allowed her to put out the story that the US is interested in a plea bargain with Assange. But why?
First, the harsh reaction in Australia to Blinken’s words probably had something to do with it. If it was up to the US justice department alone to handle the prosecution of Assange, as Kennedy says, why was the Secretary of State saying anything about it at all? Blinken appears to have spoken out of turn himself and sent Kennedy out to reel it back in.
Given the growing opposition to the AUKUS alliance in Australia, including within the ruling Labor Party, perhaps Blinken and the rest of the US security establishment is not taking Australia’s support for granted anymore. Blinken stepped in it and had Kennedy try to clean up the mess.
Second, as suspected by many Assange supporters on social media, Kennedy’s words may have been intended as a kind of ploy, perhaps to lure Assange to the United States to give up his fight against extradition in exchange for leniency.
In its article based on Kennedy’s interview, The Sydney Morning Herald spoke to only one international law expert, a Don Rothwell, of Australian National University in Canberra, who said Assange would have to go to the United States to negotiate a plea. In a second interview on Australian television, Rothwell said Assange would also have to drop his extradition fight.
Of course, neither is true. ‘Usually American courts don’t act unless a defendant is inside that district and shows up to the court,’ US constitutional lawyer Bruce Afran told Consortium News. ‘However, there’s nothing strictly prohibiting it either. And in a given instance, a plea could be taken internationally. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. It’s not barred by any laws. If all parties consent to it, then the court has jurisdiction.’ But would the US consent to it?
Were Assange to give up his legal battle and voluntarily go to the US it would achieve two things for Washington: 1) remove the chance of a European Court of Human Rights injunction stopping his extradition should the High Court in London reject his last appeal; and 2) it would give the US an opportunity to ‘change its mind’ once Assange was in its clutches inside the Virginia federal courthouse.
‘The US sometimes finds ways to get around these agreements,’ Afran said. ‘The better approach would be that he pleads while in the UK, we resolve the sentence by either an additional sentence of seven months, such as David Hicks had or a year to be served in the UK or in Australia or time served.’
Assange’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, told the Herald his brother going to the US was a ‘non-starter.’ He said: ‘Julian cannot go to the US under any circumstances.’ Assange’s father, John Shipton, told the same to Glenn Greenwald last week.
So the US won’t be getting Assange on its soil voluntarily, and perhaps not very soon either. And maybe it wants it that way. Gabriel Shipton added: ‘Caroline Kennedy wouldn’t be saying these things if they didn’t want a way out. The Americans want this off their plate.’
Third, the US may be trying to prolong Assange’s ordeal for at least another 14 months past the November 2024 US presidential election. As Greenwald told John Shipton, the last thing President Joe Biden would want in the thick of his reelection campaign next year would be a high-profile criminal trial in which he was seen trying to put a publisher away for life for printing embarrassing US state secrets.
But rather than a way out, as Gabriel Shipton called it, the US may have in mind something more like a Great Postponement.
The postponement could come with the High Court of England and Wales continuing to take its time to give Assange his last hearing — for all of 30 minutes — before it rendered its final judgement, months after that, on his extradition. This could be stretched over 14 months. As Assange is a US campaign issue, the High Court could justify its inaction by saying it wanted to avoid interference in the election.
According to Craig Murray, a former British diplomat and close Assange associate, the United States has not, despite Kennedy’s words last month, so far offered any sort of plea deal to Assange’s legal team. Murray told WBAI radio in New York:
‘There have been noises made by the US ambassador to Australia saying that a plea deal is possible. And that’s what the Australian Government have been pushing for as a way to solve it. What I can tell you is that there have been no official approaches from the American government indicating any willingness to soften or ameliorate their position. The position of the Biden administration still seems to be that they wish to persecute and destroy Julian and lock him up for life for publishing the truth about war crimes…
So there’s no evidence of any sincerity on behalf of the US government in these noises we’ve been hearing. It seems to be to placate public opinion in Australia, which is over 80 per cent in favour of dropping the charges and allowing Julian to go home to his native country…
The American ambassador has made comments about, oh well, a plea deal might be possible, but this is just rubbish. This is just talk in the air. There’s been no kind of approach or indication from the justice department or anything like that at all. It’s just not true. It’s a false statement, in order to placate public opinion in Australia.’
Afran said a plea deal can be initiated by the Assange side as well. Assange lawyer Jennifer Robinson said in May for the first time on behalf of his legal team that they were open to discussion of a plea deal, though she said she knew of no crime Assange had committed to plead guilty to.
The US would have many ways to keep prolonging talks on an Assange initiative, if one came, beyond the US election. After the vote, the justice department could then receive Assange in Virginia courtesy of the British courts, if this the strategy the US is pursuing.
Consortiumnews.com, September 3. Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former UN correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers.
WITH SINCERE THANKS TO JOE LAURIA FOR THESE POSTINGS, 2018 to 2023 /Sandra
OTTAWA, ON: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that the charges against Steven Vardy for alleged mischief have been dismissed by the Ontario Court of Justice following a trial in Ottawa on August 29 and 30, 2023.
On February 19, 2022, five days after Prime Minister Trudeau had designated the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa a “national emergency,” Mr. Vardy was departing the downtown core of Ottawa in his car. He was stopped by a police officer. After allegedly failing to produce his identification documents, Mr. Vardy was arrested and charged with obstructing a public officer in the execution of his duties. Later, authorities conducted a search of Mr. Vardy’s social media activities and discovered video footage of events occurring at the Freedom Convoy, whereupon an additional charge of mischief was filed against him. Mr. Vardy asserted his innocence of all charges.
A trial for Mr. Vardy took place at the Ottawa Courthouse in downtown Ottawa on August 29 and 30, 2023. Prior to trial, the obstruction charge was withdrawn at the request of the Crown Prosecutor. At trial, the judge determined that the Crown could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the person speaking in the social media videos was Mr. Vardy himself. Further, the judge determined that, even if Mr. Vardy was the person speaking in the videos, narrating the events occurring in Ottawa did not amount to criminal mischief. All charges against Mr. Vardy have now been dismissed.
Lawyer Chris Fleury stated, “After almost 18 months of waiting, my client and I are thrilled with this result. We are pleased that the Court agreed with us that the alleged conduct did not amount to mischief and that Mr. Vardy can finally put these charges behind him.”
Justice Centre President John Carpay stated, “We are proud to have been able to support Mr. Vardy through this difficult ordeal, as well as supporting so many other courageous Canadians who peacefully exercised their Charter rights and freedoms in the face of unjust and unscientific lockdown measures imposed on Canadians by their own governments.”
STONY PLAIN, AB: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that Pastor James Coates and GraceLife Church have been acquitted of all charges. This follows the consequential Ingram v. Alberta decision, in which Justice Barbara Romaine of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench determined that the Covid health restrictions imposed by the Government of Alberta were invalid.
Pastor Coates and the congregation of GraceLife church had been gathering for worship services throughout 2020 and 2021, exercising their Charter freedoms of religion, conscience, association and peaceful assembly. On February 15, 2021, after holding a church service the previous day, Pastor Coates was arrested by officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) for violating gathering restrictions. When he refused to sign an undertaking promising that he would obey Public Health Orders which unjustifiably violated his Charter freedoms, Pastor Coates was jailed in the Edmonton Remand Centre on February 16, 2021. Counsel for Pastor Coates filed an appeal to have him released before his trial, which had been set for May 3-5, 2021.
On March 22, 2021, after spending 35 days in jail, Pastor Coates was released from jail. At a June 7, 2021 hearing, Judge Robert Shaigec stated that Pastor Coates’ right to liberty had not been violated by his 35-day jailing since he could have complied with the undertaking and could have agreed to observe the Public Health Orders.
On July 31, 2023, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench released a consequential decision in Ingram v. Alberta: the Public Health Orders that Pastor Coates and GraceLife church had violated were found to be ultra vires the Public Health Act and were, therefore, invalid. The Act requires that all decisions with respect to public health orders must be made by the Chief Medical Officer of Health and not by the Alberta Cabinet. In her concluding remarks, Justice Barbara Romaine stated, “While involvement of elected officials in these important decisions may be desirable and even necessary, this involvement should have been structured in such a way as to mitigate the risk of political priorities interfering with the informed and well-qualified judgment of the [Chief Medical Officer of Health], as provided in the Public Health Act, without ignoring the underlying public interest.” (emphasis added)
As a consequence of this decision, all charges against Pastor Coates and GraceLife Church have been dismissed by the Crown, and the Crown will not be seeking a further jail sentence for Pastor Coates. Further, it is expected that the Alberta Crown will withdraw all Covid-related tickets and may reimburse all fines for violations of Covid-related public health orders paid by Albertans.
Justice Centre President John Carpay stated, “It has been, and remains, a great honour to assist and stand with courageous Albertans like Pastor James Coates, Sheila Annette Lewis, Pastor Tim Stephens, Ty Northcott, and so many other courageous Canadians who exercised their Charter freedoms when faced with unjust and unscientific lockdown measures.”
Lawyer Leighton Grey stated, “Pastor James Coates and GraceLife Church endured a great deal of vilification and abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was meted out by the media, the Kenney government, Alberta Health Services, the RCMP, many Albertans, and even the Alberta Courts. One Judge went so far as to accuse Pastor Coates of endangering the lives of many Albertans, without there being any evidence before the Court to substantiate that accusation. That same Judge even threatened to give Coates even more jail time than the 35 days he had already served. Another Judge told Pastor Coates that, despite having been jailed, his Charter right to liberty had somehow not been violated. In the end, all of the Covid lockdown restrictions were declared illegal. So, this is a day of justice for Pastor Coates and indeed for every Albertan who continues to support the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law.”
CALGARY, AB: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that all charges for violating Public Health Orders against Fairview Baptist Church have been withdrawn by Crown prosecutors. In early 2021, charges were laid against Pastor Timothy Stephens and Fairview Baptist Church for violating Public Health Orders, which included mandates regarding gathering limitations, masking, and social distancing. On May 6, 2021, Associate Chief Justice John Rooke of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench issued a restraining order that applied not only to the Whistle Stop Café but also to anyone acting independently of the Café anywhere in Alberta.This Order was amended by Associate Chief Justice Rooke on May 13, 2021. Its scope was restricted to the Café only and to those acting in concert with the Café. As a result of the amendment, the restraining order could no longer apply to Pastor Stephens or Fairview Baptist Church.Nevertheless, on May 16, 2021, the Calgary Police arrested Pastor Stephens at Fairview Baptist Church on the pretext of an irrelevant and over-broad restraining order. Pastor Stephens spent 18 days in jail but was released when provincial gathering restrictions were removed on July 1, 2021. Soon thereafter, four of the six charges laid against him were dropped by the Crown. On September 15, 2022, Pastor Stephens went to trial on two remaining charges of violating public health orders. On November 1, 2022, Judge Allan Fradsham determined that Pastor Stephens had not been guilty of the two remaining charges. On August 29, 2023, the Crown withdrew all charges against Fairview Baptist Church. This follows the consequential Ingram v. Alberta decision. The Public Health Orders that Fairview Baptist Church had violated were found to be ultra vires the Public Health Act and were, therefore, invalid. The Act requires that all decisions with respect to public health orders must be made by the Chief Medical Officer of Health and not by the Alberta Cabinet. In her concluding remarks, Justice Barbara Romaine stated, “While involvement of elected officials in these important decisions may be desirable and even necessary, this involvement should have been structured in such a way as to mitigate the risk of political priorities interfering with the informed and well-qualified judgment of the [Chief Medical Officer of Health], as provided in the Public Health Act, without ignoring the underlying public interest.” (emphasis added)“The Justice Centre is pleased to have been able to ensure that legal representation was provided to Pastor Tim Stephens, Pastor James Coates, Ty Northcott, and so many other courageous citizens who appropriately exercised their Charter rights and freedoms even when these were being unjustifiably violated by governments, from March of 2020 onwards,” stated John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre.
TDF = The Democracy Fund (NOTE: TDF has charitable status. Donations are tax-receipted — go to https://www.thedemocracyfund.ca/chris_scott_of_the_whistle_stop_caf_acquitted_of_charges_following_higher_court_decision)
Written by TDF’s Legal Team
August 28, 2023
The defiant restaurateur has been acquitted of breaching public health orders.
TORONTO: Christ Scott, the owner of the Whistle Stop Café, has finally been acquitted of violating public health orders after almost two years of uncertainty and a legal battle that pulled out all the stops.
Scott was charged with seven violations of the Public Health Act and one violation of the Gaming Liquor and Cannabis Act early in 2021 for refusing to close his restaurant during the pandemic. If convicted, he faced the possibility of imprisonment.
The Democracy Fund (TDF) retained Williamson Law to defend Scott against his charges.
The decision to acquit Scott came on the heels of the Ingram decision, which was released at the end of last month. In that decision, Justice Romaine of the Court of King’s Bench ruled that public health orders made during the pandemic were outside the jurisdiction of the Public Health Act because they were made by members of the Alberta cabinet instead of the Chief Medical Officer of Health.
Scott’s trial commenced prior to the release of Ingram but was adjourned in the middle of a defence cross-examination to allow Scott to seek disclosure of approximately 1000 pages of email correspondence that Alberta Health Services failed to disclose. After reviewing the disclosed documentation, Scott’s lawyers filed a Charter application alleging Scott was targeted for prosecution because of his outspoken disapproval of government action.
“Scott may have been convicted if he had a less tenacious legal team,” says Alan Honner, TDF’s litigation director. “The delay caused by Scott’s disclosure application ultimately gave the defence the benefit of the Ingram decision, which led to Scott’s acquittal.”
This victory would not be possible without the generous support of TDF donors. You can help people like Chris Scott by making a tax-deductible donation to support TDF.
About The Democracy Fund:
Founded in 2021, The Democracy Fund (TDF) is a Canadian charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty. TDF promotes constitutional rights through litigation and public education. TDF supports access to justice initiatives for Canadians whose civil liberties have been infringed by government lockdowns and other public policy responses to the pandemic.
MARTIN’S ADDRESS TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Please copy and paste one link or other. They disappear if I try to make a live link from my blog.
a. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJoi4hGpq
b. https://twitter.com/DrDMa (The same video but on TWITTER)
= = = = = = = = = = =
2. David Martin – – The Cabal is Already Dead.
I think this is worth listening to, to the end. I agree whole-heartedly with Martin’s advice,
which is also the advice of other people:
get together with people – – talk, discuss, work, do things, have fun! The beast is in its last throes. /Sandra
John Carpay – The Epoch Times
The suppression of free speech is almost always based on arrogance, and boils down to “free speech for me, but not for thee.” The College of Psychologists of Ontario demands that Dr. Jordan Peterson submit to mandatory re-education (the college calls it a “coaching program”) to make his public expression of opinion conform to the college’s progressive ideology.
The college claims that various political and cultural comments made by Dr. Peterson are “degrading, demeaning, unprofessional, disgraceful and dishonourable,” and that they pose “moderate risks of harm to the public” such as “undermining public trust in the profession of psychology.”
The world-famous author, podcaster, and political commentator has been registered with the college as a clinical psychologist since 1999 but stopped seeing patients in 2017. Nevertheless, the most famous Canadian on the planet has maintained his membership in the college and refers to himself publicly as a clinical psychologist.
The complaints against Dr. Peterson are not about how he cared for his patients. Rather, complaints have come from people who disagree with his comments on cultural and political topics like racism, transgenderism, and feminism. A life-long student of totalitarianism as practised by the National Socialists in Germany (1933–1945) and by the international socialists (communists) in the Soviet Union (1917–1991) and other countries, Dr. Peterson has repeatedly warned of the dangers of slowly losing our freedom of expression.
As summarized by Justices Backhouse, Schabas, and Krawchenko, who are sitting as a Divisional Court panel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the comments to which the college objected include the following:
(a) A tweet on Jan. 2, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson responded to an individual who expressed concern about overpopulation by stating, “You’re free to leave at any point.” (b) Various comments made on a Jan. 25, 2022, appearance on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast, where Dr. Peterson is identified as a clinical psychologist and spoke about a “vindictive” client whose complaint about him was a “pack of lies.” Speaking about air pollution and child deaths, Dr. Peterson said (with sarcastic irony), “It’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways.” (c) A tweet on Feb. 7, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson referred to Gerald Butts as a “prik.” (d) A tweet on Feb. 19, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson commented that Catherine McKenney, an Ottawa city councillor who uses they/them pronouns, was an “appalling self-righteous moralizing thing.” (e) In response to a tweet about actor Elliot Page being “proud” to introduce a trans character on a TV show, Dr. Peterson tweeted on June 22, 2022, “Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.” (f) A further complaint about Dr. Peterson’s Jan. 2, 2022, tweet in which he responded to an individual who expressed concern about overpopulation by stating, “You’re free to leave at any point.” (g) Dr. Peterson’s tweet posted in May 2022, commenting on a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition plus-sized model, “Sorry. Not Beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.”
On Nov. 22, 2022, a disciplinary panel of the college ruled that Dr. Peterson “appeared to be engaging in degrading comments about a former client and making demeaning jokes” on the “Joe Rogan Experience.” The college felt that by referring to Elliot Page as “her” and by using Elliot’s former name, and “by calling Catherine McKenney an ‘appalling self-righteous moralizing thing’… Dr. Peterson may be engaging in degrading, demeaning, and unprofessional comments.” The college felt that referring to the physician who removed Elliot Page’s breasts as a “criminal” is “inflammatory and unprofessional.” The college regards the Gerald Butts and Sports Illustrated comments as “disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional.”
Predictably, the college has also asserted that it “in no way disagrees that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Dr. Peterson a right to freedom of expression.” The “professional standards and ethics” used by the college to censor Dr. Peterson happen to have been created by the college and are now interpreted and enforced by the college. If a psychologist says something the college dislikes, it can simply declare those comments to be “unprofessional” or “unethical” or both. That ends the debate. This makes it possible for the college to join so many other censors, presently and throughout history, who say: “I like free speech, as long as you say what I like.”
That the court sided with the college against Dr. Peterson is not surprising, considering the fact that Canada’s Chief Justice, Richard Wagner has stated publicly that he is “proud” of his Supreme Court being “progressive.” Many Canadian judges would reject this ideological bias, but a public declaration of this kind, from the leader of the highest court in the land, does set the tone for other courts.
The three-judge panel held that the forced re-education of Dr. Peterson is nothing to worry about because it is merely “remedial” and not “disciplinary,” and will have only a “minimal” impact on Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression.
The court split hairs by declaring that it “was not necessary to engage in whether Dr. Peterson’s comments were supported by facts or were his honest opinion, as the concern arises from the nature of the language used, not the validity of his opinions.” So, truth and facts don’t matter to this court; it’s all about some mysterious “nature of the language used” that empowers the college to censor the speech of psychologists.
It’s no different for nurse Amy Hamm, currently being prosecuted by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives for stating publicly that there are only two sexes, and that women deserve their own safe spaces (washrooms, changerooms, female-only sporting events, female prisons, etc.) where biological males may not enter.
In like manner, law societies across Canada are now monitoring the speech of lawyers, even forcing lawyers to express agreement with beliefs and goals that individual lawyers disagree with.
In this way, “professional standards” become the pretext for silencing Canadian doctors, nurses, psychologists, accountants, lawyers, teachers, engineers, and other professionals who espouse conservative, libertarian, traditionalist, classical liberal, or other non-woke, non-progressive opinions.
