COVID-19
Ontario judge rules in favor of woman who refused COVID nasal swab test
From LifeSiteNews
‘I do decide that the nasal swab test, which the screening officer in this case required or demanded Ms. Fernando submit to, was an unlawful requirement or demand,’ wrote Ontario Court Justice Paul Monahan in his June 26 ruling.
An Ontario court has ruled in favor of a woman who was charged and convicted for refusing to submit to a COVID nasal swab test upon returning home to Canada in 2022.
In a June 26 ruling, Ontario Court Justice Paul Monahan decided in favor of Canadian woman Meththa Fernando, who was charged in 2022 for refusing a COVID nasal swab test when returning to Canada from abroad and subsequently found guilty. Monahan concluded that in Fernando’s case, requiring her to submit to such an invasive test was unlawful and ordered her conviction be overturned.
“I do decide that the nasal swab test, which the screening officer in this case required or demanded Ms. Fernando submit to, was an unlawful requirement or demand,” wrote Monahan in his ruling.
“Ms. Fernando’s refusal to comply with the requirement or demand was lawful on her part,” he continued. “Because the requirement or demand made of her by the screening officer was not lawful, Ms. Fernando should not have been found guilty by the Justice of the Peace.”
Fernando began her legal journey in 2022 when she refused a nasal swab at Pearson International Airport in Toronto, Ontario. Upon her return home to nearby Mississauga, a screening officer from the Canadian Public Health Agency randomly selected her to undergo the nasal test.
However, Fernando, who told the officer she was already vaccinated against COVID, refused the test. She was charged and later convicted of failing to comply with an order under Section 58 of the Quarantine Act and fined a total of $6,255.
Canada’s Quarantine Act was used by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to enact severe draconian COVID travel rules on all returning travelers to the country.
Fernando chose to take her case to an appeal court following conviction, arguing that the Quarantine Act did not “authorize a screening officer to use a screening test which involved the entry into the traveller’s body of an instrument or other foreign body.”
During the hearing, Monahan admitted that this argument had “merit” since Section 14 of the Quarantine Act states, “Any qualified person authorized by the Minister may, to determine whether a traveller has a communicable disease or symptoms of one, use any screening technology authorized by the Minister that does not involve the entry into the traveller’s body of any instrument or other foreign body.”
As LifeSiteNews previously reported there have been several instances of injuries after receiving the swabs, including leaking brain fluid due to the test puncturing the brain tissue.
“The prosecution raised the point that perhaps the insertion into the nasal cavity did not involve the entry into the body,” Monahan stated. “I disagree. The insertion of a nasal swab into the nasal cavity is most definitely an insertion into the body.”
“I am reversing the Justice of the Peace’s decision and entering a finding of not guilty,” he concluded. “Those are my reasons.”
Besides potential brain tissue damage, COVID-19 nasal tests have been flagged for seriously questionable accuracy rates. One study authored by British and American scientists last year found that PCR nasal swab testing has only around 63% sensitivity.
Several other studies, as well as federal guidelines, have identified major accuracy issues with PCR tests and other means of testing for coronavirus. The most common PCR testing protocol for COVID-19 also has come under fire in December, when a coalition of scientists called for the retraction of the original article detailing the method, due to a lack of a properly peer-reviewed report.
Pro-freedom lawyer Daniel Freiheit celebrated the decision, telling LifeSiteNews, “This ruling is a stark reminder that many laws may have been broken during COVID. I think this was caused by a collective fear of the unknown and a kind of mass panic.”
“In times like that, it’s utmost to rely on first principles: basic freedoms that I had always been taught would act as checks and balances: freedom to speak, freedom to associate, freedom to deny novel medical treatment, right to retain counsel,” he continued.
He explained that the ruling will give Canadians a sense of vindication since many knew the tests were invasive and unjust but complied out of fear.
“Many people knew it was wrong and unlawful at the time but had no choice except to comply,” he said.
“It was either that or face detainment at the border, harassment, fines, threats of more fines, threats of quarantine, etc,” Freiheit explained. “Submitting to this unlawful treatment was the easiest way out, especially for people coming into the country with medical conditions, tired children or frustrated travel partners.”
This ruling is not the first time actions taken by the Trudeau government during COVID were found to be unlawful.
In January, the Trudeau government’s use of the Emergencies Act to end the Freedom Convoy protest against COVID mandates was ruled to have violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley.
According to the January ruling, the EA is meant to be reserved as a last resort if all other means fail. In Mosley’s judgement, this threshold was not met and thus, the Trudeau government violated the rights of Canadians.
Shortly after the ruling, Trudeau announced that the government was appealing to the Federal Court of Appeal, a court where he has appointed 10 of the 15 judges.
COVID-19
Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation
From LifeSiteNews
By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net
Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.
Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.
Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”
The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.
On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”
Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.
The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”
The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.
Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.
COVID-19
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich calls out Trudeau in EU Parliament address for shunning protesters
From LifeSiteNews
Speaking as an invited guest, Tamara Lich recounted how during the Freedom Convoy protests in 2022 calling for an end to COVID mandates that authorities treated the protesters like a ‘drug cartel.’
Tamara Lich, leader of Canada’s 2022 Freedom Convoy, was invited to speak before the European Parliament and wasted no time blasting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for “hiding” from protesters instead of engaging in dialogue as he did with other activist groups.
“We have politicians calling us terrorists, domestic terrorists, racists, even accusing us of trying to burn down an apartment building,” she said during her address.
“This is not the Canada I grew up in.”
Lich was a guest at the EU Parliament by the Europe of Sovereign Nations group, which is a right-of-center faction. She was joined alongside MEP Christine Anderson to speak to the parliament located in Strasbourg, France.
Lich recounted how during the Freedom Convoy protests, which took place in January and February 2022 in Ottawa calling for an end to COVID mandates, authorities treated the protesters like a “drug cartel.”
“Our prime minister ran away and hid and refused to even send anyone out to talk to us. … As a matter of fact, he even said that he’s attended protests before but only those that he supports,” she said.
“In my opinion, the leader of a country leads all of their people, not just the ones who believe in the same ideology. That is his job, and he failed us. They all failed us.”
Lich in a later social media post to X noted how it was a “privilege and an honour to speak to the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group this evening about the treatment of hard-working, blue-collar Canadians and the brave truckers who stood up for all of us.”
“I was able to speak about the current political climate in Canada, the censorship of our media, lawfare and political prisoners (our beloved Coutts boys) and the freezing of bank accounts without Parliamentary oversight or court order from a judge among many other concerning and important issues we are facing as Canadians under this current regime,” Lich said. “Thank you to Madam Christine Anderson and the ESN Group for this amazing opportunity. I will never forget it.”
The Europe of Sovereign Nations thanked Lich for her testimony, saying in a social media post its group was out in “full force on the sidelines of the plenary session in #Strasbourg to hear Tamara Lich’s testimony regarding the #Canadian government’s handling of Covid, which showed no regard for individual freedoms.”
Lich still faces up to 10 years in jail for protesting government COVID mandates
Lich and co-leader Chris Barber’s trial concluded in September, more than a year after it began. It was originally scheduled to last 16 days.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Lich and Barber’s verdict will be announced on March 12.
Lich and Barber face a possible 10-year prison sentence. LifeSiteNews reported extensively on their trial.
During Lich’s speech, Lich noted how she was thankful for “support” Canadians showed to the Freedom Convoy “in the form of donations which were that we were going to receive.”
“We honestly thought we would just drive there, you know a small group of us,” she said. “But what we saw, as you guys obviously did too, on the sides of the roads and on the overpasses, was an overwhelming number of Canadians out there to support us who finally felt hope for the first time in years. Who finally felt proud to be Canadian for the first time in years.”
The $24 million raised by GoFundMe was frozen on the orders of the government.
“The first GoFundMe campaign that we started was taking in $1 million a day as we travelled across the country. (It) was frozen after the politicians contacted GoFundMe and told them that we were ‘domestic terrorists’ and that they were ‘fighting terrorism,’” Lich said.
She recounted how the problems facing Canada under the Trudeau government are not just an issue at home but around the world.
“This is what they are trying to do,” said Lich, adding, “I see it everywhere, it’s to demoralize and bankrupt you, but I’m here to tell you that they picked on the wrong woman, and we’ll keep fighting.”
In early 2022, thousands of Canadians from coast to coast came to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Trudeau’s government invoked the Emergencies Act on February 14. Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23.
The EA controversially allowed the government to freeze the bank accounts of protesters, conscript tow truck drivers, and arrest people for participating in assemblies the government deemed illegal.
-
National2 days ago
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy
-
National1 day ago
Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day ago
Christmas: As Canadian as Hockey and Maple Syrup
-
Business4 hours ago
Two major banks leave UN Net Zero Banking Alliance in two weeks
-
Business1 day ago
Comparing four federal finance ministers in moments of crisis
-
Daily Caller17 hours ago
Former FBI Asst Director Warns Terrorists Are ‘Well Embedded’ In US, Says Alert Should Be ‘Higher’
-
armed forces1 day ago
Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending