COVID-19
Freedom Convoy judge allows some redacted internal police documents to be admitted as evidence

From LifeSiteNews
Justice Heather Perkins-McVey stated that in her view there is no reason not to disclose the redactions
On Day 26 of the Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber’s trial last Friday, Judge Heather Perkins-McVey ruled that certain sections of redacted internal police documents, which the defense has been asking to see, will be allowed to be viewed and then admitted as evidence to the court.
Perkins-McVey noted that while some information is protected by solicitor-client privilege, other parts are based on police officer statements and opinions, and thus will not be allowed as evidence.
“Regarding a duplication in the emails, Perkins-McVey states in her view there is no reason not to disclose these redactions,” noted the Democracy Fund, which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs on X (formerly Twitter) on Friday.
Lich and Barber’s lawyers had been waiting for a decision from Perkins-McVey regarding being able to view some internal police documents in full that were given to them but in a redacted form.
Last Wednesday, Perkins-McVey said that she would issue a decision regarding the “solicitor-client email disclosure issue on Friday, and it “will revolve around whether ‘some’ or ‘all’ of the email chain will be unredacted.”
Crown prosecutors did not want the information to be unredacted and tried to argue this case to the court.
The documents in question include a police email chain along with essential information from Ottawa Police Services (OPS) officers who had their cell phone data wiped after a so-called software update. The information on the cell phones was regarding important communications between the officers and protest organizers.
The court recently learned that a second police witness, Nicole Bach of the OPS Police Liaison Team (PLT), testified her police-provided phone was “wiped” of all information when asked by the judge if she had copies of vital information of conversations between her and protesters.
On Day 24 of the Freedom Convoy leaders’ trial, Perkins-McVey ordered the Crown to provide a unredacted document to the defense lawyers concerning internal police emails regarding a police officer phone upgrade that “wiped” the data of some devices.
The defense for Lich and Barber had a while ago made two defense disclosure applications requesting information from the Crown.
Lich and Barber’s defense had thus far only received completely blacked-out documents concerning the phone wipes of the OPS officers.
Lich and Barber are facing multiple charges from the 2022 protests, including mischief, counseling mischief, counseling intimidation and obstructing police for taking part in and organizing the anti-mandate Freedom Convoy. 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.
The Crown is trying to prove that Lich and Barber had somehow influenced the protesters’ actions through their words.
In early 2022, the Freedom Convoy saw thousands of Canadians from coast to coast come to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government enacted the Emergencies Act on February 14, the same day as “moving day.”
During the clear-out of protesters after the EA was put in place, one protester, an elderly lady, was trampled by a police horse and one conservative female reporter was beaten by police and shot with a tear gas canister.
Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23.
Lich and Barber’s trial has thus far taken more time than originally planned due to the slow pace of the Crown calling its witnesses. LifeSiteNews has been covering the trial extensively.
The trial is set to resume on November 8. However, dates beyond that have yet to be determined.
COVID-19
Former Australian state premier accused of lying about justification for COVID lockdowns

Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria
From LifeSiteNews
By David James
Monica Smit said she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Daniel Andrews based on ‘new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.’
The fiercest opponent of the former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews during the COVID crisis was activist Monica Smit. The government responded to her advocacy by arresting her for participating in anti-lockdown protests. When she refused to sign her bail conditions she was made, in effect, a political prisoner for 22 days.
Smit subsequently won a case against the Victoria Police for illegal imprisonment, setting an important precedent. But in a vicious legal maneuver, the judge ensured that Smit would be punished again. She awarded Smit $4,000 in damages which was less than the amount offered in pre-trial mediation. It meant that, despite her victory, Smit was liable for Victoria Police’s legal costs of $250,000. It was not a good day for Australian justice.
There is a chance that the tables will be reversed. Smit has announced she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Andrews and his cabinet based on “new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.”
The revelation that the savage lockdown policies made little sense from a health perspective is hardly a surprise. Very little of what happened made medical sense. For one thing, according to the Worldometer, about four-fifths of the people who tested positive for COVID-19 had no symptoms. Yet for the first time in medical history healthy people were treated as sick.
The culpability of the Victorian government is nevertheless progressively becoming clearer. It has emerged that the Andrews government did not seek medical advice for its curfew policies, the longest in the Western world. Andrews repeatedly lied when he said at press conferences that he was following heath advice.
David Davis, leader of the right wing opposition Liberal Party, has made public a document recording an exchange between two senior health officials. It shows that the ban on people leaving their homes after dark was implemented without any formal input from health authorities.
Davis acquired the email exchange, between Victorian chief health officer Brett Sutton and his deputy Finn Romanes, under a Freedom of Information request. It occurred two-and-a-half hours after the curfew was announced.
Romanes explained he had been off work for two days and was not aware of any “key conversations and considerations” about the curfew and had not “seen any specific written assessment of the requirement” for one.
He added: “The idea of a curfew has not arisen from public health advice in the first instance. In this way, the action of issuing a curfew is a mirror to the State of Disaster and is not occurring on public health advice but is a decision taken by Cabinet.” Sutton responded with: “Your assessment is correct as I understand it.”
The scale of the deceptions is becoming harder for most Australians to avoid if they are paying attention. The mainstream media, for example, is now running stories that the virus originated in a laboratory. Those who have memories will recall that in 2020 anyone suggesting that the virus was artificially made were accused of anti-China racism, especially the state broadcasters SBS and the ABC. Likewise, most politicians and academics dismissed the lab leak theory. To say the least, no one is holding up their hand to take responsibility for their errors.
The email exchange, compelling evidence of the malfeasance of the Andrews government, raises further questions. If Smit’s lawyers can get Andrews to respond under oath, one ought to be: “If you were lying about following medical advice, then why were you in such a hurry to impose such severe measures and attack dissenters?”
It remains a puzzle. Why did otherwise inconsequential politicians suddenly turn into dictatorial monsters with no concern for what their constituents thought?
The most likely explanation is that they were told it was a biowarfare attack and were terrified, ditching health advice and applying military protocols. The mechanism for this was documented in a speech by Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts.
If so, was an egregious error of judgement. As the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed, 2020 and 2021 had the lowest level of respiratory diseases since records have been kept. There was never a pandemic.
There needs to be an explanation to the Australian people of why they lost their liberty and basic rights. A private prosecution might achieve this. Smit writes: “Those responsible should face jail time, nothing less. The latest revelation of ‘document 34‘ is just the beginning. A public criminal trial will expose truths beyond our imagination.”
2025 Federal Election
Conservatives promise to ban firing of Canadian federal workers based on COVID jab status

From LifeSiteNews
The Conservative platform also vows that the party will oppose mandatory digital ID systems and a central bank digital currency if elected.
Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party’s 2025 election platform includes a promise to “ban” the firing of any federal worker based “solely” on whether or not they chose to get the COVID shots.
On page 23 of the “Canada First – For A Change” plan, which was released on Tuesday, the promise to protect un-jabbed federal workers is mentioned under “Protect Personal Autonomy, Privacy, and Data Security.”
It promises that a Conservative government will “Ban the dismissal of federal workers based solely on COVID vaccine status.”
The Conservative Party also promises to “Oppose any move toward mandatory digital ID systems” as well as “Prohibit the Bank of Canada from developing or implementing a central bank digital currency.”
In October 2021, the Liberal government of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced unprecedented COVID-19 jab mandates for all federal workers and those in the transportation sector. The government also announced that the unjabbed would no longer be able to travel by air, boat, or train, both domestically and internationally.
This policy resulted in thousands losing their jobs or being placed on leave for non-compliance. It also trapped “unvaccinated” Canadians in the country.
COVID jab mandates, which also came from provincial governments with the support of the federal government, split Canadian society. The shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects, such as death, including in children.
Many recent rulings have gone in favor of those who chose not to get the shots and were fired as a result, such as an arbitrator ruling that one of the nation’s leading hospitals in Ontario must compensate 82 healthcare workers terminated after refusing to get the jabs.
Beyond health concerns, many Canadians, especially Catholics, opposed the injections on moral grounds because of their link to fetal cell lines derived from the tissue of aborted babies.
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Mark Carney: Our Number-One Alberta Separatist
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Nine Dead After SUV Plows Into Vancouver Festival Crowd, Raising Election-Eve Concerns Over Public Safety
-
Opinion2 days ago
Canadians Must Turn Out in Historic Numbers—Following Taiwan’s Example to Defeat PRC Election Interference
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Columnist warns Carney Liberals will consider a home equity tax on primary residences
-
International1 day ago
Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre reportedly dies by suicide
-
2025 Federal Election22 hours ago
Canada is squandering the greatest oil opportunity on Earth
-
International19 hours ago
U.S. Army names new long-range hypersonic weapon ‘Dark Eagle’
-
Addictions9 hours ago
Four new studies show link between heavy cannabis use, serious health risks