Connect with us

COVID-19

Supreme Court of Canada Fails to Defend Freedom by Refusing to Hear Travel Mandate Cases

Published

2 weeks ago

5 minute read

From The Opposition with Dan Knight

The Court’s Refusal to Hear Vaccine Mandate Challenges Shows a Troubling Endorsement of Government Overreach

Let’s call this what it is: a shocking abandonment of judicial duty and a blatant disregard for Canadians’ fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has just refused to hear two critical cases that challenged the federal COVID vaccine travel mandate. This isn’t just a legal technicality. It’s a clear message from the highest court in the land: “We’re not interested in defending your freedoms. We’d rather sidestep controversy and protect government overreach.”

The cases in question, Peckford et al. v. Canada and Hon. Maxime Bernier v. Canada, were crucial tests of the limits of government power. The Honourable Brian Peckford, the last living signer of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, stood up to challenge the draconian mandates that the Trudeau government imposed. These mandates effectively barred unvaccinated Canadians from traveling — a blatant violation of mobility rights under the Charter. Yet, the Supreme Court has chosen to declare these cases “moot,” arguing that since the mandates have been lifted, there’s no point in reviewing their legality.

Judicial Evasion: A Dangerous Precedent

Let’s be clear: the court’s decision to duck out of these cases isn’t just a mistake; it’s a dangerous precedent. By labeling the cases moot, the Supreme Court has effectively allowed the government to evade scrutiny of its actions. This is nothing short of judicial cowardice. The government can impose sweeping restrictions, violate Charter rights, and then simply withdraw those measures to avoid legal accountability. It’s a dirty trick, and the Supreme Court just endorsed it.

Consider this: the vaccine mandate was not based on any scientific evidence or medical advice. This isn’t speculation; it’s fact. Under cross-examination, a government bureaucrat admitted as much. The mandate was a political decision, plain and simple, driven by the whims of Justin Trudeau and his Cabinet. And now, the Supreme Court has decided that Canadians don’t deserve to know whether these actions were lawful.

A Government Out of Control

At the heart of this issue is a government that believes it is above the law. The Trudeau administration imposed these mandates without proper justification, effectively restricting the movement of millions of Canadians and trampling on their rights. The Minister of Transport even threatened to reinstate the mandates “without hesitation” — an ominous warning that should have alarmed every freedom-loving citizen.

The applicants in these cases argued that the doctrine of mootness should not apply when emergency orders are designed to evade judicial review. They were right. Emergency orders, unlike legislation, are decreed by the Cabinet and protected by Cabinet privilege. This means Canadians are kept in the dark about the real reasons behind these decisions. The Supreme Court had a duty to shine a light on this abuse of power, but it chose darkness instead.

A Call to Action

This decision isn’t just a legal defeat; it’s a moral failure. It’s a signal that in Canada, your rights can be violated, and the government won’t be held accountable. Canadians should be outraged. If the courts won’t defend our freedoms, who will? The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has been one of the few voices standing up for Canadians’ rights, but they can’t do it alone. It’s time for every Canadian to demand better — from their government, from their courts, and from their country.

We cannot allow this to stand. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear these cases damages not just the legal system but the very fabric of Canadian democracy. This is not the end of the fight; it is only the beginning. The question remains: will Canada continue down this path of unchecked government overreach, or will the people rise up to reclaim their rights?

One thing is clear: the stakes have never been higher. We must hold our leaders and our courts accountable. Freedom is not just a word — it’s a way of life. And it’s a way of life that’s worth fighting for.

For the full experience subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight . 

Upgrade to paid

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Automotive / 20 mins ago

Ford Files Patent to Surveil Drivers

espionage / 2 hours ago

Chronic Counter-terrorism Lapses at the Border

Addictions / 3 hours ago

WATCH: “Government Heroin” documentary exposes safer supply scandal in London, Ontario

COVID-19

US medical center refusing COVID shots for employees but still promoting to public

Published on September 17, 2024

By

Exert from Medical Musings by Dr. Pierre Kory

Major Covid mRNA policy reversals and awakenings occurred this week within a major U.S health system, a large U.S state, a South American country, and in the UK. The dominoes are starting to fall.

This week a nurse reached out with disturbing descriptions of some major changes she has witnessed inside the Ohio State University Medical Center (OSUMC) system.

OSUMC s a large and comprehensive healthcare organization, with a significant presence in Ohio and a strong focus on research, education, and patient care. It is a massive institution with over 23,000 employees, including:

  • Over 2,000 physicians
  • More than 1,000 residents and fellows
  • Nearly 5,000 nurses

Lets start off with this screenshot of a webpage from OSUMC’s website which provides information to the public as to where they can get Covid-19 vaccines. Check out the highlighted sentence at the bottom of the page:

Wait, what? Ohio State is suddenly no longer offering the Covid-19 vaccine to any of their employees but they are happily offering to inject them into the public? How can such a policy be justified? Why was this change in policy done and why was it done so quietly?

Let’s get this straight. Ohio State’s leadership is now making an institutional decision that employees should not be offerred access to any Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. I am (pretending to be) confused. I mean, if the vaccines could protect patients from being infected by staff members and they were safe to give to staff members, why wouldn’t you do everything possible (like a mandate) to ensure they receive them?

The only possible reason for the action above is that either OSUMC leadership recently discovered that the vaccines: a) do not work or b) are not safe. I think you would agree that, of the two possible answers, the only one that makes sense to explain this abrupt change in policy is B) they are not safe. I say this because if they were safe but instead just didn’t really work very well, Ohio State would not have the incentive to divorce themselves so abruptly and strongly from the recommendations of our benevolent federal government. I believe such an action would pretty quickly and negatively impact federal research funding by the NIH. It is my belief that agency’s money kept the nations 126 major academic medical centers in line throughout Covid, as those CEO’s and Deans are well aware that NIH retaliation in terms of rejecting grant funding if they “dissent” is real and happens (inflated reimbursements from the gov’t was another one of course).

I asked the brave browser AI, “why is Ohio State Medical Center no longer offering Covid-19 vaccines to its employees?” Two sentences jumped out:

  • “Based on the provided search results, it appears that Ohio State Medical Center did offer COVID-19 vaccines to its employees at one point.”
  • “Without further information or clarification from Ohio State Medical Center, it’s difficult to provide a definitive answer on why they may not be offering COVID-19 vaccines to their employees.”

So it must be the case that Ohio State leadership somehow found themselves a stronger financial disincentive to subjecting employees to Covid-19 vaccine injection. Where would such a disincentive come from? Answer: lawsuits. I also suspect that fear of worsening staff shortages from disability and/or death further disrupting operations played a role as well (as you will learn below).

This new policy action (taken very quietly) is absolutely dam breaking to me in terms of progress towards the truth about the mRNA platform getting out to the public. It is also appears ethically reprehensible, i.e. the institution made the decision to keep jabbing the public with a toxic and lethal vaccine while becoming aware that same vaccine is either exposing them to unmanageable legal risks and/or is disrupting their operations by negatively impacting the health of their workforce. Welcome to dystopia.

To see the rest of this article click here.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Trial for Freedom Convoy leaders ends, verdict may take 6 months

Published on September 16, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does ‘not know’ when a decision will be rendered in the Freedom Convoy leaders’ trial.

The trial for Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, which was supposed to have been only 16 days long, has now concluded after over a year, with the presiding judge observing that determining a verdict, which could take up to six months, will be “daunting” task.  

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does “not know” when she will “be in a position to give my decision,” adding that coming up with a verdict will be “a little daunting.” 

The judge has promised that on November 26, she will be providing an update as to when a decision could be forthcoming.  

The trial has been ongoing for over one year and began on September 3, 2023. As reported by LifeSiteNews, both Lich and Barber face a possible 10-year prison sentence for their role in the 2022 Freedom Convoy.

In an X post on Friday, Lich shared her thoughts on the trial finally wrapping up.  

“Well, that’s a wrap to the Longest Mischief Trial of All Time,” she wrote. 

“The Crown really disappointed me today. His remarks about the Event That Shall Not Be Named (Freedom Convoy) being nothing more than a weekend party are indicative of a level of smugness and elitism that I can never and will never understand,” added Lich.

Both Lich and Barber had attended the hearings in person, travelling from their homes in Alberta and Saskatchewan respectively. Last Friday, however, they attended via video.

The Crown prosecution has held steadfast to the notion that Lich and Barber somehow influenced the protesters’ actions through their words as part of a co-conspiracy. This claim has been rejected by the defense as weak. 

It has also been asserted “that the absence of violence or peaceful nature of the protest didn’t make it lawful, emphasizing that the onus was on the Crown to prove the protest’s unlawfulness.” 

The reality is that Lich and Barber collaborated with police on many occasions so that the protest remained law abiding.  

The Democracy Fund, which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs, noted in one of its last legal updates of the trial that it expected the Crown would try to prove the leaders were “co-conspirators,” meaning that accusations placed against one leader automatically apply to the other.

As reported by LifeSiteNews at the time, despite the non-violent nature of the protest and the charges, Lich was jailed for  weeks before she was granted bail. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X