Nov 162024
 

Freedom and Justice .ca  is another Canadian organization (small)  that is intent on taking back what the Governments are taking away.   Their call to action for the Lawsuit in Toronto (below) begins with:

We need a MASSIVE turnout online to send a clear message to the court and the government that there is SUBSTANTIAL public interest in this case. We had close to 20K members of the public register to attend our appeal hearing via Zoom, the most people to attend a Federal Court hearing ever in Canadian history.

BACKGROUND

Rupa Subramanya  wrote up excellent background (August 2, 2022). Click on his name to read it.  It’s another of those  “I can’t believe this is happening”.   Canadians are SO fortunate to have people who are in there, fighting.

Court Documents Reveal Canada’s Travel Ban Had No Scientific Basis

In the days leading up to the mandate, transportation officials were frantically looking for a rationale for it.  They  came up short.

 

= = = = = = =  = = = = =

TRAVEL MANDATES LAWSUIT: URGENT MESSAGE

 

**REGISTER FOR THE COURT ZOOM**

 
Due to the overwhelming amount of e-mails they’ve received from the public requesting to attend our motion hearing via Zoom and in person on Monday November 18th, the (Canadian) Federal Court has now set up the hearing as a webinar to accommodate a much larger number of attendees.
We need a MASSIVE turnout online to send a clear message to the court and the government that there is SUBSTANTIAL public interest in this case. We had close to 20K members of the public register to attend our appeal hearing via Zoom, the most people to attend a Federal Court hearing ever in Canadian history.
 
**After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar
 
In person attendance: Federal Court – Courtroom 4A 180 Queen St W, Toronto, ON M5V 1Z4
 
All donations to our legal fund are much needed and greatly appreciated.
Thank you all once again for your continued support.

Travel Mandates Case

On August 13, 2021, the Canadian government announced that anyone who hadn’t been vaccinated against Covid would soon be barred from planes and trains inside Canada or out of Canada (the “Travel Ban”). The Travel Ban took effect on October 30, 2021. As a result, roughly six million unvaccinated Canadians were barred from visiting loved ones, working or otherwise traveling.

Karl Harrison and Shaun Rickard launched a judicial review that challenged the basis of Travel Ban. Throughout the summer of 2022, parties underwent extensive cross-examination to assess the strength of the evidence that supported the Travel Ban. On June 14, 2022, and in the middle of the 1.5 month cross-examination, the Canadian government announced – out-of-the blue – that they were suspending the Travel Ban. Thousands of pages of evidence was amassed notably that the agents that enacted the Travel Ban had no formal education in public health, that likely a senior official directed that the Travel Ban must be imposed and that days before implementing the Travel Ban transportation officials were seeking rational to support the Travel Ban. Within days, lawyers for the Canadian government filed a motion to shut down the Travel Ban Case on grounds that the case was moot.

View the Examination Transcripts.

In September 2022 the parties went before Associate Chief Justice Gagne challenging the Canadian governments motion that the Travel Ban Case is moot.

On October 20, 2022, Justice Gagne decided (Gagne decision) in favour of the Canadian Government and stated:
these Applications will be struck as moot. The air and rail passenger vaccine mandates were repealed, as have other related public health measures. The Applicants have substantially received the remedies sought and as such, there is no live controversy to adjudicate.
There is no important public interest or inconsistency in the law that would justify allocating significant judicial resources to hear these moot Applications.
Finally, it is not the role of the Court to dictate or prevent future government actions.

Harrison and Rickard have appealed Justice Gagne’s decision (Notice of Appeal) (Memorandum of Fact) arguing that the principle of mootness in the Canadian courts needs to be reviewed and that it is squarely the role of the courts in Canada to hear cases that challenge government policies on the basis of whether they are found to be unconstitutional, discriminatory and egregious. The Attorney General filed the following response to the appeal on May 29, 2023 (AG response)

= = = = = = = = = =

There are 477 Comments on Rupa Subramanya ‘s  article (substack).   The first two:

Aug 2, 2022·edited Aug 2, 2022

What should frighten people today, isn’t the authoritarian governments of China and Russia, but the authoritarians in our midsts. It is terrifying that such a retrograde philosophy has taken root amongst so many western leaders…including among the Democrats in the US.

They know these policies (like the travel ban in Canada) will have no discernible effect, but that isn’t the point. The point is control…do what we say you little plebs or we will crush you.

This is only possible because of a largely compliant media…which is why I am so thankful for places like Common Sense which give alternative (non-government) narratives a voice.

PS – if you’re interested in my writings on freedom and other important topics…check out my substack

https://gordoncomstock.substack.com/

Reply
Share

Thank you to these two men for standing up to tyranny. And thanks Rupa for your reporting. I’ve been enjoying watching your interviews.

Two things that I believe need to change in regards to government overreach in the US, in Canada, etc.:

1. Typically US courts don’t decide the merits of a policy, but rather if an official or agency has the authority to make that policy. So political leaders can just say they are following the science, without having to support their arguments with actual science. But in murder cases or civil cases, there is typically a battle of the experts. Denying freedoms should be the absolute last type of public policy / law and if the science is unequivocal, then political leaders should be able to defend it in court.

2. And actually more important, when implementing policies to deny freedoms granted in the US Constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, political leaders should have to defend their position in court BEFORE the restrictions are implemented. Citizens shouldn’t have to sue to get their freedoms back. Freedoms shouldn’t be denied without a just and defensible cause. Otherwise, our governments are stealing our freedoms and our most precious time, time that we can never get back. And I submit that they do not have that right.

 

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)