Connect with us

COVID-19

$290 million lawsuit against Freedom Convoy participants designed to silence expression

Published

4 minute read

From the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

This lawsuit also seeks damages from citizens who donated to the peaceful protest.

Lawyers on behalf of Chris Barber, Tamara Lich, and other Freedom Convoy participants argue that the $290 million class action against them is designed to silence their expression–expression the public had an interest in hearing [Image by Dave Chan/AFP via Getty Images]

OTTAWA, ON: TheĀ Justice CentreĀ announces that lawyers representing Tamara Lich, Chris Barber and other defendants against a class-action lawsuit brought by Zexi Li and other Ottawa residents will be in court this Thursday, December 14, 2023. Tamara Lich and the other defendants have filed an application to dismiss Zexi Li’s $290 million class action as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)–a lawsuit designed to silence the expression of peaceful protesters.

In February 2022, Ottawa residents Zexi Li and Geoffrey Delaney, Happy Goat Coffee Company, and a local union commenced a $290 million class-action lawsuit against Chris Barber, Tamara Lich, and other Freedom Convoy participants, seeking damages against peaceful protesters for allegedly causing a nuisance. This lawsuit also seeks damages from citizens who donated to the peaceful protest.

Anti-SLAPP legislation serves to protect defendants against ā€œStrategic Lawsuits Against Public Participationā€ (SLAPP)–lawsuits designed to silence a defendant’s freedom of expression through threats of damages or costs. Anti-SLAPP motions are designed to end such lawsuits and are available to a defendant in any proceeding against them. Once an anti-SLAPP motion has been filed, the defendant must demonstrate that the proceeding against them arises from their expression that ā€œrelates to a matter of public interest.ā€ If the defendant can demonstrate that their expression does relate to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff must then demonstrate that their lawsuit has ā€œsubstantial meritā€ and that the defendant has no valid defence. A judge must then weigh the importance of the expression at stake against the importance of the plaintiff’s allegations of harm.

Lawyers in the Justice Centre network argue that the proceedings against Tamara Lich, Chris Barber and others do, in fact, arise from their expression. Donating to and participating in the Freedom Convoy amounted to an expression of support for the protest, and of disagreement with the Government of Canada’s response to Covid–matters of public interest. Further, lawyers argue that Zexi Li’s class-action lawsuit contains factual and legal weaknesses; it is not obvious that the proceeding against the defendants has ā€œsubstantial merit.ā€ Finally, lawyers argue that the defendants do have valid defences and that the value of the expression at issue outweighs the allegations of nuisance against them.

On Thursday, December 14, 2023, the parties will proceed to oral argument at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, arguing that the plaintiffs’ entire class-action lawsuit is, in fact, a SLAPP action disguised as a nuisance claim and that the lawsuit is merely intended to punish the defendants for participating in the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest. If successful, all or part of the class-action lawsuit will be dismissed.

Lawyer James Manson stated, ā€œZexi Li’s lawsuit engages the very purpose that ā€˜anti-SLAPP’ legislation was designed to address: an attempt to silence peaceful expression, and the right of defendants to participate in public debate.ā€

John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre, stated ā€œThe fundamentalĀ CharterĀ freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly must be vigorously protected and defended, whether they are attacked directly by government or indirectly through a misguided civil action.ā€

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Study finds Pfizer COVID vaccine poses 37% greater mortality risk than Moderna

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

A study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause mortality after Pfizer vaccination compared to Moderna

A new study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality after Pfizer vaccination.

The study titled ā€œTwelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Floridaā€ was just uploaded to the MedRxiv preprint server. This study was headed by MIT Professor Retsef Levi, with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo serving as senior author:

Study Overview

  • Population: 1,470,100 noninstitutionalized Florida adults (735,050 Pfizer recipients and 735,050 Moderna recipients).
  • Intervention: Two doses of either:
    • BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
    • mRNA-1273 (Moderna)
  • Follow-up Duration: 12 months after second dose.
  • Comparison: Head-to-head between Pfizer vs. Moderna recipients.
  • Main Outcomes:
    • All-cause mortality
    • Cardiovascular mortality
    • COVID-19 mortality
    • Non-COVID-19 mortality

All-cause mortality

Pfizer recipients had aĀ significantly higherĀ 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — aboutĀ 37% higher risk.

  • Pfizer Risk: 847.2 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 617.9 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    āž”Ā +229.2Ā deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    āž”Ā 1.37Ā (i.e., 37% higher mortality risk with Pfizer)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    āž”Ā 1.384Ā (95% CI: 1.331–1.439)

Cardiovascular mortality

Pfizer recipients had aĀ 53% higher riskĀ of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 248.7 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 162.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    āž”Ā +86.3Ā deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    āž”Ā 1.53Ā (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    āž”Ā 1.540Ā (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)

COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients had nearlyĀ double the riskĀ of COVID-19 death compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 55.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 29.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    āž”Ā +26.0Ā deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    āž”Ā 1.88Ā (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    āž”Ā 1.882Ā (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)

Non-COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients faced aĀ 35% higherĀ risk of dying fromĀ non-COVID causesĀ compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    āž”Ā +203.3Ā deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    āž”Ā 1.35Ā (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    āž”Ā 1.356Ā (95% CI: 1.303–1.412)

Biological explanations

The findings of this study are surprising, given that Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine contains approximately three times more mRNA (100 µg) than Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). This suggests that the higher mortality observed among Pfizer recipients could potentially be related to higher levels of DNA contamination — an issue that has beenĀ consistently reportedĀ worldwide:

The paper hypothesizes differences between Pfizer and Moderna may be due to:

  • Different lipid nanoparticle compositions
  • Differences in manufacturing, biodistribution, or storage conditions

Final conclusion

Florida adults who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients.

Unfortunately, without an unvaccinated group, the study cannot determine the absolute increase in mortality risk attributable to mRNA vaccination itself. However, based on theĀ mountain of existing evidence, it is likely that an unvaccinated cohort would have experienced much lower mortality risks. It’s also important to remember that Moderna mRNA injections are still dangerous.

As the authors conclude:

These findings are suggestive of differential non-specific effects of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines, and potential concerning adverse effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. They underscore the need to evaluate vaccines using clinical endpoints that extend beyond their targeted diseases.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both theĀ McCullough FoundationĀ andĀ my personal accountonĀ X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Reprinted with permission fromĀ Focal Points.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Canada’s health department warns COVID vaccine injury payouts to exceed $75 million budget

Published on

Fr0m LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

A Department of Health memo warns that Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program will exceed its $75 million budget due to high demand, with $16 million already paid out.

COVID vaccine injury payments are expected to go over budget, according to a Canadian Department of Health memo.

According to informationĀ publishedĀ April 28 byĀ Blacklock’s Reporter, the Department of Health will exceed their projected payouts for COVID vaccine injuries, despite already spending $16 million on compensating those harmed by the once-mandated experimental shots.

ā€œA total $75 million in funding has been earmarked for the first five years of the program and $9 million on an ongoing basis,ā€ the December memo read. ā€œHowever the overall cost of the program is dependent on the volume of claims and compensation awarded over time, and that the demand remains at very high levels.ā€

ā€œThe purpose of this funding is to ensure people in Canada who experience a serious and permanent injury as a result of receiving a Health Canada authorized vaccine administered in Canada on or after December 8, 2020 have access to a fair and timely financial support mechanism,ā€ it continued.

Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP)Ā was launched in December 2020 after the Canadian government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding COVID-19 jab-related injuries.

While Parliament originally budgeted $75 million, thousands of Canadians have filed claims after received the so-called ā€œsafe and effectiveā€ COVID shots. Of the 3,060 claims received to date, only 219 had been approved so far, with payouts totaling over $16 million.

Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death forĀ less than 20 kids in CanadaĀ under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.

The COVID jabs approved in CanadaĀ have also been associatedĀ with severe side effects such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.

Additionally, aĀ recent studyĀ done by researchers with Canada-basedĀ Correlation Research in the Public InterestĀ showed that 17 countries have found a ā€œdefinite causal linkā€ between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots as well as boosters.

Interestingly, while the Department of Health has spent $16 million on injury payouts, the Liberal governmentĀ spentĀ $54 million COVID propaganda promoting the vaccine to young Canadians.

The Public Health Agency of Canada especially targeted young Canadians ages 18-24 because they ā€œmay play down the seriousness of the situation.ā€

The campaign took place despite the fact that the Liberal government knew about COVID vaccine injuries, according to aĀ secret memo.

Continue Reading

Trending

X