Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Peckford: Hallelujah! Supreme Court of Canada to hear Newfoundland and Labrador charter case

Published

14 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Peckford

This will allow the SCC to address novel questions about the scope of mobility rights in Canada and the extent to which the government can limit Canadians’ rights to move freely around the country.

In what can only be considered a surprise move the SCC has agreed to hear an appeal of a decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. Surprise because the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal refused to hear the appeal of this exact case.

For the Appeal Court it was the all too familiar excuse of the whole thing being too moot for the Court.

But now the SCC has agreed to hear the case. The parties, Kimberly Taylor and The Canadian Civil Liberties Association appealed to the court.

Here is a copy of the Civil Liberties Press Release dated April 26, 2024:

“Arbitrary travel restrictions infringe on the mobility rights of Canadians. CCLA’s challenge of Newfoundland government’s Bill 38 will continue before the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), so that Canadians have clear, predictable, and stable answers to fundamental questions affecting their basic mobility rights.”

Back in May 2020, CCLA challenged the constitutionality of the Newfoundland government’s Bill 38 before the province’s Supreme Court. This Bill provided for a travel ban between provinces and other restrictive measures in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. CCLA asked the Court to declare Bill 38 in violation of s.6 (mobility rights), as well as other Charter rights. CCLA also argued that the law could not be saved by s.1, which says that limits on rights must be reasonable and demonstrably justified. In September of 2020, the province’s Supreme Court found that the travel ban did violate the s.6 Charter right to mobility, but that such infringement could be justified under s.1. CCLA pursued this case before the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal. In August of 2023, the Court of Appeal refused to settle the merits of the appeal under the motive that it was moot, since the ban had been lifted. This was done despite all the parties urging the Court of Appeal to decide the appeal on the merits.

CCLA is pleased to learn that the SCC just granted its application seeking leave to appeal in this case. This will allow the SCC to address novel questions about the scope of mobility rights in Canada and the extent to which the government can limit Canadians’ rights to move freely around the country. CCLA is grateful for the excellent pro bono work of Paul Pape, Shantona Chaudhury and Mitchell McGowan from Pape Chaudry LLP in this file.”

Like the Association I am pleased that the highest court is going to hear the case. One can only assume that it will not just issue a silly moot decision given that they could have let the Court of Appeal decision of Newfoundland stand and not hear the case.

I hope the highest court considers the following given it is high time for the Constitution of This Country to be fairly applied and interpreted as written.

Courts have not the power to rewrite this sacred document. They are not omnipotent. That is for the people through its elected representatives as expressed in Section 38 of the Constitution Act 1982 in which the Charter is located—the Amending Formula.

The intent of Section 1 Of the Charter was that it could only be applied in a war, insurrection, the state being threatened circumstance. As one of the First Ministers involved and whose signature is on the original Patriation Agreement I submit this point of view was what was operative at the time of the construction of this section. All remaining First Ministers whose names are on that document are no longer with us. Sadly, no court has called me to provide my view.

This intent is clear In Section 4 (2) of the Charter:

 “In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.”

So, decisions that have been made concerning the Charter should only be made in this context. Numerous court deliberations here and in many western jurisdictions have considered intent in determining the legitimacy of legislation. This is not novel or new.

Hence, a glaring, fundamental mistake has occurred in interpreting our Charter. The blatant omission of considering the opening words of the Charter in any interpretation of legislation by the Courts is an abuse of the Charter, our Constitution. Where is the power provided the courts to engage is such omission? Those words are:

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”

The one reference of which I am aware in the Courts literature to any consideration of the opening words relating to God was by an Alberta Judge in a lower court foolishly indicated that the creators of the words did not identify God as being a Christian God. All the creators, the First Ministers, were Christians —that’s all. What an insult to our history and traditions and the authors?

And this has been allowed to stand?

And what about the rule of law? Little if anything has been done in considering and interpreting this point.

As for Section 1 itself of the Charter. If one can get past the previous points, which is impossible, but let’s speculate: the court in question in Newfoundland, like the courts across the land, have disfigured, misinterpreted the wording of this section —-

Rights and freedoms in Canada

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

What is of crucial importance is ‘demonstrably justify ‘and a free and democratic society ‘—-is it not? Many try and evade confronting these concepts by emphasizing ‘reasonable ‘. But ‘reasonable ‘is qualified, if you will, with ‘as can be demonstrably justified ‘and ‘in a free and democratic society.’ This was deliberate by the creators and authors of this section.

So, as we all know such reasonable demonstration would be a cost benefit analysis, a tool used frequently by Government in considering new policies or programs —and this case especially when sacred rights enshrined in the constitution were to be taken way!!! Yet, there was none!  And what about the Provincial Emergency Management organizations that were already established in all the provinces with immediate expertise. Were they consulted? Not one!

No such attempt was made, and the Governments did not conduct even a cursory cost benefit review and the courts eagerly accepted the one-sided Government narrative.  Yet experts like Lt. Colonel David Redman, who had been involved in Emergency Management and had written extensively on it were never consulted!

And ‘free and democratic society? Was there any meaningful engagement of the Parliament of Canada or the Legislative Assemblies —-not really, ——only to delegate power to unelected bureaucrats and relieve the politicians of direct responsibility. Where were the Parliamentary Committees? The sober consideration of all points of view in an open public session? Of independent science? Does not free and democratic society entail such deliberations?

And to those courts / governments who talk about little time—in this Newfoundland case it was 6 months before The Supreme Court of the Province ruled and 15 months for the Court of Appeal to issue a non-decision! So much for serving the people!

As for the concept of ‘mootness ‘that has been most dramatically used by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal and The Court of Appeal in Newfoundland? This is a construct of the court not the Constitution.

It denies a citizen the right to know whether a government action to which a citizen was subjected violates the Charter.  Should a court idea of mootness, refusing to rule on whether a government action of only months before overruling the people’s right to know if their rights and freedoms were violated? Is this not the role of the Court? To protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens from Government overreach? That was and is the whole point of the Charter.

Whether the Government action is presently operative or not should be irrelevant, especially when millions of citizens were involved and especially when it involved rights and freedoms protected under the Charter, our Constitution. There may be a role for mootness if a frivolous matter is established but by any measure what we are discussing is anything but a frivolous matter, even though The Newfoundland Court of Appeal in calling the whole thing ‘moot ‘had the gall to find the Government’s action of denying rights ‘fleeting.’ Courts have abdicated their solemn responsibilities to the people in the exaggerated use of such Court constructed procedures.

So the highest court can go back to ‘first principles’, and examine intent and the opening words of the Charter and place them in full context in any interpretation of the Charter. If this were done then Section 1 of the Charter would not even be in play. Constructing a hypothetical i.e. considering Section 1 of the Charter during the so called ‘covid emergency’, well, even if we do, the Government and Court reasoning would have failed as demonstrated above.

There is an opportunity through this case as well as the one in which I am involved for our highest court to get it right——to return to the full constitution and re-establish the ‘supremacy of God and the rule of law, ‘the legitimate role of Parliament, to the plain meaning of demonstrably justify, and the importance of intent in interpreting our Charter.

Is the Supreme Court of Canada up to the challenge?

Will our Constitution, our democracy be restored?

The Honourable A. Brian Peckford P.C. is the last living First Minister who helped craft the Canadian Charter of Rights

Watch –  Leaders on the Frontier: Brian Peckford on Saving Canada’s Democracy | Frontier Centre For Public Policy (fcpp.org)  January 20, 2022

Before Post

Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

Brownstone Institute

The Most Devastating Report So Far

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By Jay BhattacharyaJayanta Bhattacharya 

The House report on HHS Covid propaganda is devastating. The Biden administration spent almost $1 billion to push falsehoods about Covid vaccines, boosters, and masks on the American people. If a pharma company had run the campaign, it would have been fined out of existence.

HHS engaged a PR firm, the Fors Marsh Group (FMG), for the propaganda campaign. The main goal was to increase Covid vax uptake. The strategy: 1. Exaggerate Covid mortality risk 2. Downplay the fact that there was no good evidence that the Covid vax stops transmission.

The propaganda campaign extended beyond vax uptake and included exaggerating mask efficacy and pushing for social distancing and school closures.

Ultimately, since the messaging did not match reality, the campaign collapsed public trust in public health.

The PR firm (FMG) drew most of its faulty science from the CDC’s “guidance,” which ignored the FDA’s findings on the vaccine’s limitations, as well as scientific findings from other countries that contradicted CDC groupthink.

The report details the CDC’s mask flip-flopping through the years. It’s especially infuriating to recall the CDC’s weird, anti-scientific, anti-human focus on masking toddlers with cloth masks into 2022.

President Biden’s Covid advisor Ashish K. Jha waited until Dec. 2022 (right after leaving government service) to tell the country that “[t]here is no study in the world that shows that masks work that well.” What took him so long?

In 2021, former CDC director, Rochelle Walensky rewrote CDC guidance on social distancing at the behest of the national teachers’ union, guaranteeing that schools would remain closed to in-person learning for many months.

During this period, the PR firm FMG put out ads telling parents that schools would close unless kids masked up, stayed away from friends, and got Covid-vaccinated.

In March 2021, even as the CDC told the American people that the vaxxed did not need to mask, the PR firm ran ads saying that masks were still needed, even for the vaxxed. “It’s not time to ease up” we were told, in the absence of evidence any of that did any good.

In 2021, to support the Biden/Harris administration’s push for vax mandates, the PR firm pushed the false idea that the vax stopped Covid transmission. When people started getting “breakthrough” infections, public trust in public health collapsed.

Later, when the FDA approved the vax for 12 to 15-year-old kids, the PR firm told parents that schools could open in fall 2021 only if they got their kids vaccinated. These ads never mentioned side effects like myocarditis due to the vax.

HHS has scrubbed the propaganda ads from this era from its web pages. It’s easy to see why. They are embarrassing. They tell kids, in effect, that they should treat other kids like biohazards unless they are vaccinated.

When the Delta variant arrived, the PR firm doubled down on fear-mongering, masking, and social distancing.

In September 2021, CDC director Walensky overruled the agency’s external experts to recommend the booster to all adults rather than just the elderly. The director’s action was “highly unusual” and went beyond the FDA’s approval of the booster for only the elderly.

The PR campaign and the CDC persistently overestimated the mortality risk of Covid infection in kids to scare parents into vaccinating their children with the Covid vax.

In Aug. 2021, the military imposed its Covid vax mandate, leading to 8,300 servicemen being discharged. Since 2023, the DOD has been trying to get the discharged servicemen to reenlist. What harm has been done to American national security by the vax mandate?

The Biden/Harris administration imposed the OSHA, CMS, and military vax mandates, even though the CDC knew that the Delta variant evaded vaccine immunity. The PR campaign studiously avoided informing Americans about waning vaccine efficacy in the face of variants.

The propaganda campaign hired celebrities and influencers to “persuade” children to get the Covid vax.

I think if a celebrity is paid to advertise a faulty product, that celebrity should be partially liable if the product harms some people.

In the absence of evidence, the propaganda campaign ran ads telling parents that the vaccine would prevent their kids from getting Long Covid.

With the collapse in public trust in the CDC, parents have begun to question all CDC advice. Predictably, the HHS propaganda campaign has led to a decline in the uptake of routine childhood vaccines.

The report makes several recommendations, including formally defining the CDC’s core mission to focus on disease prevention, forcing HHS propaganda to abide by the FDA’s product labeling rules, and revamping the process of evaluating vaccine safety.

Probably the most important recommendation: HHS should never again adopt a policy of silencing dissenting scientists in an attempt to create an illusion of consensus in favor of CDC groupthink.

You can find a copy of the full House report here. The HHS must take its findings seriously if there is any hope for public health to regain public.

Author

Jay Bhattacharya

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a physician, epidemiologist and health economist. He is Professor at Stanford Medical School, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, a Faculty Member at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute, and a Fellow at the Academy of Science and Freedom. His research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. Co-Author of the Great Barrington Declaration.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Dr. McCullough praises RFK Jr., urges him to pull COVID shots from the market

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

“I am behind what’s happening right now,” he said, of the likely inclusion of RFK Jr. and other “disruptors” such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in the new administration. “I think the whole nation feels that we are finally getting back on track.”

In a video published November 15, prominent mRNA “vaccine” critic Dr. Peter McCullough responds to the Make America Healthy Again manifesto promised by the incoming Trump administration.

Welcoming the “tremendous … team selection” behind Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been nominated to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, McCullough also pressed the need for deep reform of a “corrupt” system.

“The pandemic has called for a sweep of corruption out of [U.S. government] agencies,” he said, warning viewers that “we don’t want health to be as political as other areas.”

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been described as a “vaccine skeptic” and charged with being unsuitable for the leadership of the U.S.’s main health agency.

“He is really just a person without a health background who’s already caused great damage in health in the country,” Georges C. Benjamin, former executive director of the American Public Health Association, told the BBC.

The incumbent administration, by contrast, considers the transvestite Richard Levine as unquestionably qualified to be assistant secretary of health.

Levine was described as “a dangerous man spewing potentially deadly information” in support of “the idea that children can change their sex.”

Jennifer Bilek, the leading critic of the “transgender” cult of “synthetic sexual identities,” says Levine is a “quack” who was placed in his influential position by the powerful “Big Pharma” lobby.

Levine, who calls himself “Rachel,” is described by Bilek as “a man dressed as a woman who wants your kid to do what he did.”

His tenure is a case in point of the deep corruption which McCullough says must be swept out by the new administration. McCullough also mentions the growing evidence that so-called “transgender care” is “increasing mortality” – ending lives, despite its supporters claims that puberty blockers and mutilation saves them.

“This is gone now,” said McCullough, citing President Trump’s statement that Medicare and Medicaid will no longer fund “transgender care.”

“We are not going to have children subjected to this,” said McCullough. He concludes by saying that not only should the public be protected from the harmful dominance of health by Big Pharma, but “protecting children from ‘transgender health’” is also a laudable priority for the new administration.

McCullough, who is the chief scientific officer at the Wellness Company and world-leading expert on internal medicine, cardiovascular diseases, and clinical lipidology, stresses the need for leadership of Health and Human Services which can bridge the political divide in America – rather than reinforce it.

“For Health and Human Services – which is Medicare, Medicaid, NIH, CDC, FDA – we want somebody who is going to be able to work with both political leanings,” he said.

He says the new health leadership must work for the American people – and their health – against the vested interests of “Big Pharma.”

McCullough believes the “disruptive force” of RFK Jr. will play a “big role” in restoring the confidence of the American public in its discredited institutions.

“I am behind what’s happening right now,” he said, of the likely inclusion of RFK Jr. and other “disruptors” such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in the new administration.

“I think the whole nation feels that we are finally getting back on track.”

McCullough puts the issue of the COVID-19 “vaccines” at the top of his list of priorities for RFK Jr.’s health leadership.

He reminds viewers that the “current ones on the market are not FDA-licensed,” explaining that “Biden ended the COVID-19 emergency years ago,” and so there is no public health reason to promote them.

“Nobody in America thinks we have an emergency,” he said, and “COVID-19 is like the common cold, so the vaccine boosters are not clinically indicated.”

Aside from being “medically unnecessary,” McCullough restates the so-called “vaccines” have had “great safety concerns, with injuries, disabilities and deaths.”

He notes that “sadly, the people who are in a sense forced to take them are sadly children – in order to fulfill the vaccine schedule and go to school.”

He called for the new government to “convene a safety review,” with “Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax at the table” with academics and former U.S. health agency leaders. What would be the message?

“They are coming off the market” is what McCullough says should be said about the experimental injections.

“I think America would be overjoyed,” he explained, if these so-called vaccines were taken off the market “for the reasons I have outlined.”

McCullough goes on to say that the issue is not restricted to the novel mRNA treatments, in demanding the removal of legislation which protects all scheduled vaccines from claims of injury.

This, he says, would compel vaccine manufacturers to have to “stand behind their products,” echoing RFK Jr.’s own claim that what he wants to see is the transparent and scientific review of all scheduled vaccines.

McCullough also notes that with the precursor supply chain for U.S. medicines captured by China, a Trump administration could repatriate drug manufacture to the U.S., providing a verifiable and secure provenance for American prescription drugs in future.

His endorsement of Kennedy marks the redemption arc of a man still labeled by U.S. and U.K. regime media as a “crank” for his criticism of the corruption of U.S. healthcare – and the dangers this represents to the American public.

Lambasted as an “anti-vaxxer” for refusing Dr. Anthony Fauci’s advice to “stick with the science” on vaccines, RFK Jr. was described by a former director of the CDC as “more science-oriented than a lot of his critics,” as what Kennedy is seeking is an evidence based review of vaccine safety.

Kennedy’s former campaign manager Dennis Kucinich said, “[RFK Jr.’s] position is to protect the people, to put people above profit.” 

Kucinich explained, “Kennedy is not opposed to vaccines, he’s for vaccine safety. He’s concerned about the health effects of pesticides, about GMOs, which are now populating our agriculture.”

Kennedy warned in a tweet of June 2021 about a published link between myocarditis and pericarditis and the Pfizer and ModeRNA “vaccines.”

In 2023, he followed up with an an extensive list of injury concerns for the same injections, which included Bell’s palsy, blood clotting, and death.

A video from November 10, 2024, saw him explain his position on vaccines to NewsNation.

“I think most people don’t know what my stance is on vaccines. I’ve never been anti-vaccine. And I’ve said that hundreds and hundreds of times, but it doesn’t matter, because that is a way of silencing me,” he said.

RFK Jr. went on to explain how and why he was silenced and stigmatized – a method familiar to any “vaccine skeptic”: “Using that pejorative to describe me is a way of silencing or marginalizing me.”

He said his position was simple – and universally popular.

“I think virtually every American would agree with my stance on vaccines, which is that vaccines should be tested like other medicines.”

Donald Trump’s election victory has delivered a mandate for change, strongly desired by the public, which McCullough welcomes for its potential to safeguard the American people, and their children, from an industry captive to profit and protected by censorship and propaganda.

Continue Reading

Trending

X