Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Court to hear challenge to Saskatchewan’s Covid gathering limits

Published

6 minute read

News release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will hear the appeal of Jasmin Grandel and Darrell Mills on Tuesday, February 6, 2024, at 10 AM CT, at 520 Spadina Crescent East, in Saskatoon. Ms. Grandel and Mr. Mills challenge Saskatchewan’s former ban on outdoor gatherings of more than 10 persons as an unjustified violation of their Charter freedom of peaceful assembly and other Charter rights and freedoms.From March 17, 2020, until July 11, 2021, Saskatchewan imposed various prohibitions on outdoor gatherings, including limiting them to only 10 people. At the same time, Saskatchewan allowed more than 10 people to meet indoors. Jasmin Grandel and Darrell Mills attended various peaceful outdoor protests in 2020 and 2021, resulting in hefty fines for violating Public Health Orders.At the time, Jasmin Grandel was a kinesiology student at the University of Regina, with a young son in kindergarten. She was concerned with the inconsistency of the Public Health Orders and with their detrimental psychological and economic effects. She feared that the Orders would negatively impact small businesses, leading to unemployment and poverty for families.Darrell Mills, who also participated in peaceful outdoor protests, is a resident of Saskatoon with 30 years of experience in mechanical construction. He is certified in Mask Fit Testing and trained in supplied air breathing systems. He was concerned about the negative health impacts of improper mask use.While outdoor gatherings were restricted to a maximum of 10 persons for certain periods, the province permitted numerous public indoor gatherings that far exceeded 10 persons. At the same time, Saskatchewan Chief Medical Health Officer Dr. Saqib Shahab stated that “outdoor gatherings while observing physical distancing are better than indoor gatherings.” On June 5, 2020, then-Regina Police Chief Evan Bray, along with many other officers, attended a large Black Lives Matter rally in Regina with hundreds of people, thereby violating existing public health orders and garnering significant media attention. At the time, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said, “…my assumption is that the law enforcement officials have used their judgment with respect to this particular rally…” Dr. Shahab called it a “special event,” and no one was charged with breaching public health orders. Six months later, numerous Saskatchewan residents were charged and prosecuted for violating public health orders because they, like participants in the Black Lives Matter rally, had peacefully protested outdoors.In April 2021, lawyers provided by the Justice Centre filed a constitutional challenge to the restrictions on outdoor gatherings, on behalf of Ms. Grandel and Mr. Mills. The Originating Application challenges these restrictions for violating the Charter freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression, association and peaceful assembly. The Application also suggests that pro-freedom protests against government lockdown policies have been especially targeted by law enforcement.At trial, an eminent infectious disease specialist provided expert evidence that outdoor transmission of Covid was negligible, where physical distancing could be practiced and where single-day gatherings with no indoor component could take place. The government did not present evidence that Covid was transmitted at outdoor gatherings. Instead, they relied on the ‘precautionary principle’ put forward by its public health expert that lockdown measures should be taken even if “cause and effect” had not been fully established scientifically.“It appears that lockdown harms were not considered by the government or by the court, when applying this ‘precautionary’ principle. Neither the Saskatchewan government nor the lower court wanted to take precautions against the physical, mental, social, financial and economic harms that lockdowns inflicted on people,” stated John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre. On September 20, 2022, Justice D. B. Konkin of the Court of King’s Bench of Saskatchewan upheld the government’s restrictions on outdoor gatherings as justified violations of Charter freedoms. Justice Konkin assessed only the breach to freedom of expression, representing only one of the various Charter rights alleged to be breached by the Applicants. In his decision, he wrote, “In a state of public health emergency wreaking severe havoc on the health of Saskatchewan residents, Sask [sic] was burdened with the immense task of balancing multiple interests.”Andre Memauri, lawyer for Ms. Grandel and Mr. Mills, stated, “Our infectious disease specialist made it clear at trial that the outdoor transmission of Covid-19 was negligible, much like every other respiratory illness in history. There was no basis for the Saskatchewan government to impose greater restrictions on people’s rights to assemble, express themselves and associate outdoors as opposed to indoors. The rule of law means that laws should be enforced equally, but the Saskatchewan Government encouraged and supported Black Lives Matter protests outdoors in large numbers while ticketing people who six months later protested the violations of their Charter freedoms.”

Alberta

Trudeau “Played Doctor” With Children

Published on

Conspiracy Facts With Jeffrey Rath

Alberta Health hides data against the wishes of Premier Danielle Smith

Prior to the vaccine roll-out for children, PFIZER’s OWN DATA in Table 14 of its Emergency Use Authorization, admitted that COVID would only notionally kill 1 child per million from original virulent strain COVID but PUT 34 CHILDREN PER MILLION INTO ICU WITH MYOCARDITIS. Pfizer in that same table made the remarkable, but highly questionable statement that they posited 0 DEATHS in children from the vaccine. The table claiming no children would die from the vaccine also only focused on myocarditis and ignored potential deaths from transverse myelitis, anaphylaxis, and RSV which are all well-known potential side effects of the Pfizer COVID shot. Trudeau, Tam, Kenney and Hinshaw were all personally warned by the author of this Substack of those risks. Did they pause the childhood COVID injection roll-out to even investigate if the concerns about the shots killing more children than COVID were accurate? Of course not. It has become apparent that Trudeau’s obvious Narcissistic Personality Disorder leaves no room for self-reflection or ever admitting that he is wrong.

Don’t forget that from a “vaccine” approval perspective if Pfizer put any digit other than “0” on the “DEATHS FROM VACCINE” column the Pfizer shot could not be approved for use in children. Even admitting to 1 death per million from the vaccine would mean that the vaccine was as deadly or more deadly than COVID and could not be approved or justified for an age cohort at statistically zero risk of COVID Mortality. Also, the recent high powered JAMA Cardiology Study referred to below shows that the Moderna shot has an almost 300% greater risk of increased myocarditis risk in children than the Pfizer shot that already increases myocarditis risk in children by 500%. The mixing of the shots which “Doctor Trudeau” recommended exponentially increased the risk of IN-PATIENT myocarditis in children by a shocking 3600%.

Appendix 6 of The “ALBERTA COVID 19 PANDEMIC RESPONSE Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Data Review Task Force FINAL REPORT” reads in part as follows :

“Nordic countries have restricted use of vaccines in children, referencing a large Nordic population-based study which showed that the 28-day risk of IN-PATIENT MYOCARDITIS wash higher in the vaccinated component compared with the unvaccinated. For males aged 16-24 years the risk of myocarditis was 5x higher following 2 doses of Pfizer, 14x higher following 2 doses of Moderna and 36x higher WITH A PFIZER FOLLOWED BY A MODERNA VACCINE.”

This study was massive. It reviewed health outcomes post COVID vaccine roll out for 23.1 million people. It can hardly be dismissed as “misinformation.”

The same Appendix of the Alberta Government Task Force report notes:

“A US Lancet-published study assessing the long-term health quality of life effects of adolescents and young adults diagnosed with myocarditis following vaccination found that they were unable to complete their usual activities (21%), had pain (20%), and had anxiety or depression (46%) in the 90 days following their diagnosis.” …

The ALBERTA GOVERNMENT TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT In APPENDIX 3 of Chapter 8 on vaccines cites that other well-known source of “anti-science”, “misinformation” and “anti-evidence, the JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS in a 2023 Bullen, Heriot and Jamrozik article on “Herd Immunity, vaccination and moral obligation” showing data at Table A3.2 that demonstrate that in children, COVID related “severe adverse events” were orders of magnitude higher in vaccinated children as opposed to children who just got COVID and recovered.

The TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT is now being attacked by self-appointed “expert” Gary Mason in the Globe and Mail on February 4th, 2025 as being “misinformation” that “is an insult to health care workers and officials”.

Notably Mr. Mason’s scientific credentials are unknown. It is also notable that Mason attacks a reference to a Substack in the Task Force report without acknowledging that the Substack author was likely better educated and accomplished than Mr. Mason or that the Substack in question was simply citing government published data and reports. None of the critics of the TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT including the AMA, CMA, or Trudeau pal “Little Timmy” Caulfield EVER identify specifically what they allege is “anti-scientific”, “anti-evidence”, “misinformation” that takes us back to the “dark age”.

This is reminiscent of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta persecution of Dr. Eric Payne. Last year, the CPSA quietly dismissed “misinformation” complaints brought against Dr. Payne. This followed 4 years of the CPSA steadfastly refusing or being unable to identify a single statement made by Dr. Payne that CPSA or its “investigators” and “experts” could identify as “misinformation”.

Gary Mason in the Globe and Mail takes the same “drive by smear” approach and goes so far as to suggest that:

“Dr. James Talbot an adjunct professor at the University of Alberta School of Public Health, told the Edmonton Journal that Ms. Smith’s Government was sitting on data that showed who got immunized, how many of them developed COVID and whether any developed any rare medical conditions after being inoculated. Yet that information remains a state secret.”

What Mr. Mason ignorantly refuses to acknowledge is the number of times that Dr. Gary Davidson an “Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Alberta” in good standing, repeatedly stated in the Report that a PUBLIC INQUIRY with subpoena powers is required. The reason for this is that a Government Task Force ORDERED BY THE PREMIER OF ALBERTA was repeatedly refused access to data by Alberta Health and Alberta Health Services bureaucrats who appear intent on continuing to play hide the ball on vaccine safety and efficacy. Mr. Mason also refuses to acknowledge data and tables scrubbed from the internet by these same ALBERTA BUREAUCRATS—opaque, nameless, faceless bureaucrats—which confirm the high-powered Cleveland Clinic study that demonstrates that the greater a person’s vaccine and booster uptake, the worse their health outcomes, including COVID related hospitalization and death.

The Mason hit piece and Talbot quote above demonstrates the degree of dirty propaganda being promulgated in the legacy press. The statement that “The Government was sitting on data that showed who got immunized, how many of them developed COVID and whether any developed any rare medical condition” is largely true. The problem for the pro-pharma propagandists is that the information is being withheld AGAINST THE STRICT INSTRUCTIONS OF PREMIER SMITH in the TASK FORCE MANDATE.

While it may be slimy and underhanded for these Vaccine Propagandists to try to smear Premier Smith’s reputation for integrity with these underhanded insinuations, its simple defamation to suggest that Premier Smith has anything to do with evidence being withheld from her own TASK FORCE.

There is absolutely no way that if AHS or Alberta Health bureaucrats had evidence to refute AHS tables showing increased hospitalization and death among the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated—confirmed by the 56,000-person Cleveland Clinic Study, JAMA Cardiology, Lancet and Pfizer Studies referred to in this column—those same self-serving, insubordinate, bureaucrats would have either gleefully provided the data to Dr. Davidson’s Task Force team or have leaked it to the media long before now.

Premier Smith and Dr. Davidson need to name by name the bureaucrats that are actively smearing both of their reputations by making scurrilous statements to the media that suggest that THEY are the ones hiding the truth as opposed to all the pro-vaccine cultists in AHS and Alberta health.

I know Premier Smith is really busy trying to save Alberta and Canada from the trade war provoked by Justin Trudeau’s despicable degradation of Canadian sovereignty. Howver, she needs to hold a press conference accompanied by Dr. Davidson to defend her own reputation against the faceless, disloyal minions in her own government who continue to hide the truth from Albertans by fraudulently parroting the words “safe and effective”.

Jeffrey R.W. Rath B.A. (Hons.), LL.B. (Hons.)

Foothills, Alberta

February 5th, 2025

Subscribe to Conspiracy Facts With Jeffrey Rath.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Trudeau government back in court to appeal ruling against its use of the Emergencies Act

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

“Legal thresholds do not bend, much less break, in exigent circumstances. We are putting this and future governments on notice: even in times of crisis, no government is above the law”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is again in court to claim its use of the Emergencies Act to stop the 2022 Freedom Convoy was warranted, in appeal of a ruling from last year which found its use of the act was unjustified.   

Today, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) noted in a press release that it is before the Federal Court of Appeal “to defend its historic victory for the rule of law.” 

“While the extraordinary powers granted to the federal government through the Emergencies Act are necessary in extreme circumstances, they also threaten the rule of law and our democracy,” said Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, who serves as the Director of the Fundamental Freedoms program at the CCLA. 

McNicoll said that the CCLA will be urging the “Federal Court of Appeal to reject the federal government’s attempt to relax the thresholds necessary for invoking the  Act’s extraordinary powers.” 

“Legal thresholds do not bend, much less break, in exigent circumstances. We are putting this and future governments on notice: even in times of crisis, no government is above the law,” concluded McNicoll. 

In January of 2024, Canada’s Federal Court announced that the use of the EA by the Trudeau government in early 2022 to shut down Freedom Convoy, which was calling for an end to COVID mandates, was a direct violation of the nation’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and thus was “not justified” and “infringed” on the rights of protesters.

The January 2024 decision by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley saw the judge write, “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.” 

Shortly after the court ruling, the Trudeau government announced that it would appeal Mosley’s ruling, claiming the federal court “erred in fact and law in declaring that the Regulations infringed subsection 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” 

Notably, in the Federal Court of Appeal, where the case is now being heard, 10 out of the 15 judges were appointed by Trudeau.     

The CCLA said that the government’s use of the EA “which had never been invoked before in Canada,” allowed the federal government to “enact wide-reaching orders without going through the ordinary democratic process—but only once stringent legal thresholds are met.” 

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, Trudeau’s government enacted the EA on February 14, 2022. 

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. 

In the lead-up 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.”      

In another Freedom Convoy court battle, protest leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber underwent a year-long criminal trial which concluded last September.

Both Lich and Barber will have their verdicts announced on March 12, 2025, as LifeSiteNews has reported.

Continue Reading

Trending

X