In September, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced that the right to make one’s own choices about receiving vaccinations should be added to the Alberta Bill of Rights, stating: “No Albertan should ever be subjected or pressured into accepting a medical treatment without their full consent.”
Some argue that new laws to protect the right to bodily autonomy are redundant because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already protects citizens from government abuse.
In theory, the Charter protects bodily autonomy, including the right to make medical choices, under the right to “life, liberty and security of the person.” In theory, the Charter protects the right to decide for oneself, without any coercion or pressure, whether to get injected with a vaccine. In theory, governments must justify “demonstrably” with cogent and persuasive evidence that any health order that violates a Charter right or freedom is reasonable, rational, truly necessary, and bringing about more good than harm. In theory, judges should base their rulings only on the evidence placed before them in court by the parties in a dispute, to the exclusion of media reports. In theory, when judges state that party “A” has presented better and more persuasive evidence than party “B,” judges will explain why and how they came to that conclusion. In theory, when a judge upholds lockdowns or vaccine passports as justified violations of Charter rights and freedoms, the judge will explain why she or he believes that the government’s evidence is better and more persuasive. In theory, Canadians don’t need laws to be changed because the Charter already protects citizens from being forced, pressured, or manipulated into getting injected with a vaccine.
Using the words “in theory” seven times in the paragraph above is necessary, unfortunately. In reality, when Canadians have challenged governments in court over violating Charter rights and freedoms, some judges have upheld lockdowns and mandatory vaccination policies without providing clear reasons—or any reasons—as to why the judge preferred the government’s evidence over the evidence presented by the citizens. In some cases, judges have made assertions in their rulings that are not supported by any evidence at all; these assertions appear to be based only on what the media have stated repeatedly.
In Gateway Bible Baptist Church v. Manitoba, the judge described Covid as an “unprecedented” public health threat and “the worst global pandemic in over a century.” He did so without referencing any evidence to support his claim that Covid was more deadly than the1957–58 Asian Flu and the 1968–69 Hong Kong Flu, each of which claimed between one and four million lives, according to the World Health Organization. It appears that the judge’s assertion about Covid was based only on the repeated claims made by fearmongering, government-funded media.
In Alberta Health Services v. Artur Pawlowski, the judge ordered an outspoken pastor to proclaim the government’s narrative about Covid, lockdowns, and vaccines whenever the pastor addressed these topics in public. The judge ordered the pastor to state, among other things, that “Vaccinations have been shown statistically to save lives and to reduce the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.” When the judge issued this totalitarian order in 2021, the mRNA vaccine was still in clinical trials, and no long-term safety data was available about the impact of this new technology on people.
In O.M.S. v. E.J.S., the judge was so convinced of the truth of the government-and-media narrative about Covid and vaccines that he declared the vaccine to be “safe and effective” for everyone. In September 2021, he ordered a 12-year-old girl to get injected with the Covid vaccine, against her will and against the will of her mother. The judge declared that he could conclude without the necessity of any specific proof that Covid poses a “serious and significant” health risk to children. This amounts to declaring: “The media and politicians have been saying every day for the past 18 months that COVID seriously threatens adults and children. This claim must be true, because I have heard it repeated hundreds of times by politicians and journalists, often in combination with frightening pictures of sick, dying, and dead people. Repeated media assertions combined with disturbing visual images are a good substitute for evidence in court.”
If the judge had bothered to look at death statistics from any Canadian province, or any country in the world, he would have understood that children were as likely to die of Covid as they were to die of lightning strikes.
The judge in O.M.S. v. E.J.S. went on to take “judicial notice” of the “fact” that the Covid vaccine was “safe and effective” for use in both adults and children, because Health Canada and the Saskatchewan Health Authority had said so. The judge actually asserted in his ruling that no reasonable person would dispute the accuracy of a claim made by a government health authority!
Perhaps he has never heard of all the people damaged by thalidomide, a drug deemed safe and effective by health authorities in the 1950s. Doctors advised pregnant women to take thalidomide, resulting in miscarriages as well as babies dying at birth or shortly after. The babies who were not killed by thalidomide suffered life-long deformities and permanent damage to their limbs, brains, and other organs. All of this happened under the watchful eye of health authorities in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Germany, and other countries. But when the Saskatchewan Health Authority declared a vaccine that was still in clinical trials to be “safe and effective” for children, this judge happily embraced the government’s claim as gospel truth.
In Hillier v. Ontario, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the government’s total ban on all outdoor protests as a justified violation of the Charter freedom of citizens to assemble peacefully. The judge ruled in favour of the government without considering seriously the very real harms that lockdowns inflicted on millions of people. The judge completely ignored a lengthy and comprehensive report by medical anthropologist Dr. Kevin Bardosh. His expert report relied on 150 peer-reviewed Canadian studies representing hundreds of Canadian scholars, showing the magnitude of lockdown harms in Canada.
In Ontario v. Trinity Bible Chapel, the judge upheld the government’s violations of Charter freedoms while declaring proudly that she would not engage in a serious scientific analysis of the relevant issues: “My role is not that of an armchair epidemiologist. I am neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific debates and controversy surrounding Covid-19.” The judge further declared that “it is not my task to mediate or resolve conflicting views about Covid-19.” Wrong. Resolving conflicting views is a judge’s job description. The Charter requires that governments justify “demonstrably” with persuasive evidence any health order that violates one or more of our Charter freedoms. This judge lowered the bar for government, and merely asked “Was it open to Ontario to act as it did?”
In theory, the Charter protects Canadians from being forced, pressured or manipulated into getting injected with a vaccine. In light of recent court rulings that are more media-based than evidence-based, the sad reality is that legislation must be changed expressly to protect citizens from government abuse.
John Carpay – The Epoch Times
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
2. Alberta Bill of Rights, several steps forward, one big step backward
- October 30, 2024
Introduced in the Legislature on October 28, Bill 24 improves the Alberta Bill of Rights by recognizing that “the position of the family in a society of free people and free institutions” should be honoured and respected.
Another positive addition is its assertion that human rights and fundamental freedoms are of foundational importance “including during times of emergency.” Bill 24 would amend the Alberta Bill of Rights to recognize expressly the individual’s right not to be coerced into receiving medical care, treatment or procedure (including a vaccine). Bill 24 strengthens property rights to include “the right not to be subject to a taking of property except to the extent authorized by law and where just compensation is provided.”
Bill 24 adds “the right to acquire, keep and use firearms.” However, this new right is rather vague, and possibly meaningless, because its exercise must be “in accordance with the law.” If a new provincial law unfairly or unreasonably restricts the use of firearms, would this new addition to the Alberta Bill of Rights be helpful to a firearms owner?
To stop judges from continuing to ignore the Alberta Bill of Rights (as some judges have done), a new provision declares that “any law of Alberta that is inconsistent with the provisions” of the Alberta Bill of Rights is “to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”
Sadly, the rights and freedoms recognized by the Alberta Bill of Rights are severely undermined by the addition of a new clause that mirrors Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill 24 expressly permits government to violate rights and freedoms by claiming that a law or government policy is a “reasonable limit” that can be “demonstrably justified” in a free and democratic Alberta.
These same words were used by judges across Canada to uphold lockdowns and mandatory vaccination policies under Section 1 of the Charter. In cases across Canada, governments admitted in court that they were violating Charter rights and freedoms, and judges happily accepted these violations as “reasonable limits” without bothering to take a hard look at the harms that lockdowns were inflicting on people. Why would judges interpret the Alberta Bill of Rights differently than the Charter, when the exact same language about “reasonable limits” would be added by Bill 24?
In Alberta Health Services v. Artur Pawlowski, the judge ordered an outspoken pastor to proclaim the government’s narrative about Covid lockdowns and vaccines whenever the pastor addressed these topics in public. The judge ordered the pastor to state, among other things, that “Vaccinations have been shown statistically to save lives and to reduce the severity of Covid symptoms.”
When the judge issued this totalitarian order in October 2021, the mRNA vaccine was still in clinical trials, and no long-term safety data was available about the impact of this new technology on people.
In O.M.S. v. E.J.S., Harper-appointed judge Michael Megaw ordered a 12-year-old girl to get injected with the Covid vaccine, against her will and against the will of her mother. In September 2021, he declared that Covid posed a “serious and significant” health risk to children, and that he needed no specific proof to support his conclusion.
If he had bothered to look at death statistics from Canada or other countries, he would have understood that children were as likely to die of Covid as they were to die of lightning strikes. The judge went on to take “judicial notice” of the “fact” that the Covid vaccine was “safe and effective” for use in both adults and children, because Health Canada and the Saskatchewan Health Authority had said so. This judge asserted that no reasonable person would dispute the accuracy of a claim made by a government health authority!
What about thalidomide, a drug deemed safe and effective by health authorities in the 1950s that killed and damaged so many babies across the globe?
In Hillier v. Ontario, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the government’s total ban on all outdoor protests as a justified violation of the Charter freedom of citizens to assemble peacefully. The judge applied Charter section 1 and ruled in favour of the government while completely ignoring a lengthy and comprehensive expert report by medical anthropologist Dr. Kevin Bardosh, that outlined the magnitude of lockdown harms in Canada.
These judgments in the Pawlowski, O.M.S. and Hillier cases are representative of how judges abused Section 1 of the Charter to place their stamp of approval on lockdowns and mandatory vaccination policies.
In theory, Bill 24 amends the Alberta Bill of Rights so as to protect Albertans from being forced, pressured or manipulated into getting injected with a vaccine, along with other new protections. However, in light of recent court rulings that used Section 1 of the Charter to violate human rights, the new protections that Bill 24 seeks to create may be illusory.
John Carpay – Western Standard
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
3. Steps forward, steps backward, in Bill 24 changes to the Alberta Bill of Rights
- October 28, 2024
The Justice Centre applauds various proposed amendments to the Alberta Bill of Rights in Bill 24, introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta on October 28, 2024, especially those which:
- Recognize the important “position of the family in a society of free people and free institutions”
- Recognize that freedoms are important “including during times of emergency”
- Ensure that Courts will actually apply the Alberta Bill of Rights to the laws and actions of the Alberta government
- Clarify that the Alberta Bill of Rights shall apply to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and to the Government of Alberta
- Recognize “the right of the individual with capacity not to be subjected to, or coerced into receiving, a vaccine without the consent of that individual”
- Increase protections for property rights
The Justice Centre is disappointed, however, that the proposed amendments subject the rights and freedoms of Alberta to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic Alberta.” This language, because it mirrors section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, affords the Government of Alberta and government entities in Alberta too much latitude to violate rights and freedoms, given the broad deference Courts have recently given government under that language to violate Charter rights and freedoms. In theory, this language could result in citizens’ rights and freedoms being protected from abuse by government, but in practice judges have interpreted these words to make it easy for governments to violate fundamental Charter freedoms.
The Justice Centre is concerned about proposed amendments that appear to offer weak protections against forced medical care and treatment outside of a context involving vaccines. If Bill 24 passes in its current form, Albertans could be coerced into receiving medical care, treatments, or procedures if it is believed that the “individual is likely to cause substantial harm to that individual or to others” by not receiving it.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
CARPAY: Between the rock of the status quo and the hard place of Bill 24
