Connect with us

COVID-19

Trudeau gov’t use of Emergencies Act ruled ‘not justified,’ violation of Charter rights

Published

1 year ago

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre called for Trudeau to be ‘fired’ over his misuse of the Emergency Act. Poilievre argued that the current Prime Minister ’caused the crisis by dividing people. Then he violated Charter rights to illegally suppress citizens.’

The Canadian Federal Court has announced that the Trudeau government’s use of the Emergencies Act was ‘not justified’ and a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On January 23, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was ‘not justified’ in invoking the Emergency Act (EA) to shut down the 2022 Freedom Convoy which protested COVID regulations and vaccine mandates.  

“Having found that the infringements of Charter sections 2(b) and 8 were not minimally impairing, I find that they were not justified under section 1,” Mosley wrote.

“I have concluded that the decision to issue the Proclamation does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency, and intelligibility – and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration.”

According to the ruling, the EA is meant to be reserved as a last resort if all other means fail. It cannot be invoked unless all other measures have been exhausted.  

Furthermore, the ruling pointed out that there were other means to end the protest, such as provisions in the Criminal Code, which the province of  Alberta had argued at the time.  

The decision stated that, in addition to being an unnecessary measure,  the EA had violated Canadians’ Charter rights, specifically infringing on freedom of thought, opinion, and expression. 

The Freedom Convoy protest took place in early 2022 in Ottawa and featured thousands of Canadians calling for an end to COVID mandates by camping outside Parliament in Ottawa.  

In response, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government enacted the EA on February 14, 2022 to shut down the popular movement.  The measures included freezing the bank accounts of Canadians who donated to the protest.  

Trudeau had disparaged unvaccinated Canadians, saying those opposing his measures were of a “small, fringe minority” who hold “unacceptable views” and do not “represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other.”   

Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23 after the protesters had been cleared out. At the time, seven of Canada’s 10 provinces opposed Trudeau’s use of the EA .

Additionally, several organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Foundation, the CCF, the Canadian Frontline Nurses, four private applicants, lawyers for the Alberta Government, legally challenged Trudeau’s invoking of the measure.

They have now won their case, a decision immediately celebrated by Canadians on social media. 

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre called for Trudeau to be ‘fired.’ He argued that the current Prime Minister  “caused the crisis by dividing people. Then he violated Charter rights to illegally suppress citizens.” 

“As PM, I will unite our country for freedom,” he promised. 

Similarly, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms lawyer Eva Chipiuk wrote, “This is big! What does it mean for the federal government, elected officials and all those disparaged and defamed protestors, I do not know. But this is big news!” 

“Do not be afraid to stand up to your government,” she encouraged. “In fact, it is your job as a citizen in democracy. Your voice matters, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.” 

Additionally, the National Citizens Coalition celebrated the ruling, saying, “Trudeau and Freeland’s Emergencies Act was always ‘unreasonable.’ And of course they violated the Charter. Today’s judicial ruling is a win for all freedom-loving Canadians.” 

In response, Liberal Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland announced the Trudeau government disagreed with the ruling and planns to appeal the decision.  

 

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
COVID-19 / 7 hours ago

Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’

Business / 7 hours ago

Top Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create

Crime / 15 hours ago

Canada Blocked DEA Request to Investigate Massive Toronto Carfentanil Seizure for Terror Links

COVID-19

Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’

Published on May 3, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Conservative Treehouse

The director of National Intelligence revealed gain-of-function ties to US funding, which could indicate that the US helped bankroll the supposed COVID lab leak.

In this segment of a remarkable interview by Megyn Kelly, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard discusses the current Intelligence Community (IC) research into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (aka, COVID-19).

Gabbard talks about the U.S. government funding of “gain-of-function” research, which is a soft sounding phrase to describe the weaponization of biological agents.

Gabbard notes the gain-of-function research taking place in the Wuhan lab was coordinated and funded by the United States government, and the IC is close to making a direct link between the research and the release of the COVID-19 virus.

Additionally, Gabbard explains the concern of other biolabs around the world and then gets very close to the line of admitting the IC itself is politically weaponized (which it is but would be stunning to admit).

 

Continue Reading

COVID-19

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

Published on May 1, 2025

By

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 “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida” 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 a significantly higher 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — about 37% higher risk.

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

Cardiovascular mortality

Pfizer recipients had a 53% higher risk 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:
    ➔ +86.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.53 (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.540 (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)

COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients had nearly double the risk 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:
    ➔ +26.0 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.88 (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.882 (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)

Non-COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients faced a 35% higher risk of dying from non-COVID causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +203.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.35 (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.356 (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 been consistently reported 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 the 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 the McCullough Foundation and my personal accounton X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.

Continue Reading

Trending

X