Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Supreme Court of Canada Fails to Defend Freedom by Refusing to Hear Travel Mandate Cases

Published

3 weeks ago

5 minute read

From The Opposition with Dan Knight

The Court’s Refusal to Hear Vaccine Mandate Challenges Shows a Troubling Endorsement of Government Overreach

Let’s call this what it is: a shocking abandonment of judicial duty and a blatant disregard for Canadians’ fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has just refused to hear two critical cases that challenged the federal COVID vaccine travel mandate. This isn’t just a legal technicality. It’s a clear message from the highest court in the land: “We’re not interested in defending your freedoms. We’d rather sidestep controversy and protect government overreach.”

The cases in question, Peckford et al. v. Canada and Hon. Maxime Bernier v. Canada, were crucial tests of the limits of government power. The Honourable Brian Peckford, the last living signer of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, stood up to challenge the draconian mandates that the Trudeau government imposed. These mandates effectively barred unvaccinated Canadians from traveling — a blatant violation of mobility rights under the Charter. Yet, the Supreme Court has chosen to declare these cases “moot,” arguing that since the mandates have been lifted, there’s no point in reviewing their legality.

Judicial Evasion: A Dangerous Precedent

Let’s be clear: the court’s decision to duck out of these cases isn’t just a mistake; it’s a dangerous precedent. By labeling the cases moot, the Supreme Court has effectively allowed the government to evade scrutiny of its actions. This is nothing short of judicial cowardice. The government can impose sweeping restrictions, violate Charter rights, and then simply withdraw those measures to avoid legal accountability. It’s a dirty trick, and the Supreme Court just endorsed it.

Consider this: the vaccine mandate was not based on any scientific evidence or medical advice. This isn’t speculation; it’s fact. Under cross-examination, a government bureaucrat admitted as much. The mandate was a political decision, plain and simple, driven by the whims of Justin Trudeau and his Cabinet. And now, the Supreme Court has decided that Canadians don’t deserve to know whether these actions were lawful.

A Government Out of Control

At the heart of this issue is a government that believes it is above the law. The Trudeau administration imposed these mandates without proper justification, effectively restricting the movement of millions of Canadians and trampling on their rights. The Minister of Transport even threatened to reinstate the mandates “without hesitation” — an ominous warning that should have alarmed every freedom-loving citizen.

The applicants in these cases argued that the doctrine of mootness should not apply when emergency orders are designed to evade judicial review. They were right. Emergency orders, unlike legislation, are decreed by the Cabinet and protected by Cabinet privilege. This means Canadians are kept in the dark about the real reasons behind these decisions. The Supreme Court had a duty to shine a light on this abuse of power, but it chose darkness instead.

A Call to Action

This decision isn’t just a legal defeat; it’s a moral failure. It’s a signal that in Canada, your rights can be violated, and the government won’t be held accountable. Canadians should be outraged. If the courts won’t defend our freedoms, who will? The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has been one of the few voices standing up for Canadians’ rights, but they can’t do it alone. It’s time for every Canadian to demand better — from their government, from their courts, and from their country.

We cannot allow this to stand. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear these cases damages not just the legal system but the very fabric of Canadian democracy. This is not the end of the fight; it is only the beginning. The question remains: will Canada continue down this path of unchecked government overreach, or will the people rise up to reclaim their rights?

One thing is clear: the stakes have never been higher. We must hold our leaders and our courts accountable. Freedom is not just a word — it’s a way of life. And it’s a way of life that’s worth fighting for.

For the full experience subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight . 

Upgrade to paid

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
Addictions / 1 hour ago

BC NDP, Conservatives’ drug policies converge in close election

Economy / 2 hours ago

Trudeau has more than doubled Canada’s debt while Canadians get poorer

Daily Caller / 5 hours ago

East Anglia educated environmental scholar says it’s time to “Scrap Green Energy Handouts Once And For All”

COVID-19

Canada approves Moderna’s latest experimental COVID shot starting after 6 months old

Published on September 18, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Health Canada’s decision to approve the shots follows a bombshell study of Pfizer and Moderna COVID shots that shows “self-assembling nanostructures.”

Health Canada approved Moderna’s new MRNA COVID-19 vaccine for all Canadians over six months of age.

On September 17th, Moderna announced that its latest COVID-19 vaccine, targeting the KP.2 variant of SARS-COV-2, was approved by Health Canada, despite overwhelming evidence of the dangers of the shots.

“With vaccines ready, Moderna will begin delivery of updated doses to the Public Health Agency of Canada, ensuring supply is available in time for provincial and territorial vaccination campaigns,” the company said in a news release.

“Receiving the most recently updated COVID-19 vaccine is expected to provide a better immune response against circulating COVID-19 strains compared to earlier vaccines,” Moderna claimed. “It is especially important for those at increased risk for COVID-19 infection or severe COVID-19 illness.”

The promotion of the experimental shot comes over three years after government officially declared a COVID “pandemic” and forced Canadians to take the vaccine. Additionally, there has been no outbreak of COVID for several years.

Health Canada’s decision to approve the shots follows a bombshell study of Pfizer and Moderna COVID shots that shows “self-assembling nanostructures.”

According to the report, researchers in Korea observed what appear to be “self-assembling,” “synthetic” nanostructures such as spirals and tubes that form within the contents of the COVID Pfizer and Moderna mRNA shots over the course of months.

Canada’s promotion of the vaccine also comes as Canada’s program to compensate those injured by the COVID vaccines has reached $14 million, but the vast majority of claims remain unpaid.

Despite the need for a federal program to address those injured by the vaccines once mandated by the Trudeau government, Health Canada still says “it’s safe to receive a COVID-19 vaccine following infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. Vaccination is very important, even if you’ve had COVID-19.”

The federal government is also continuing to purchase COVID jabs despite the fact the government’s own data shows that most Canadians are flat-out refusing a COVID booster injection.

Some people who were successful in getting payouts from VISP have said that the compensation awarded was insufficient considering the injuries sustained from the COVID shots.

As reported by LifeSiteNews last year, 42-year-old Ross Wightman of British Columbia launched a lawsuit against AstraZeneca, the federal government of Canada, the government of his province, and the pharmacy at which he was injected after receiving what he considers inadequate compensation from VISP.

He was one of the first citizens in Canada to receive federal financial compensation due to a COVID vaccine injury under VISP. Wightman received the AstraZeneca shot in April 2021 and shortly after became totally paralyzed. He was subsequently diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

Wightman was given a one-time payout of $250,00 and about $90,000 per year in income replacement but noted, as per a recent True North report, that he does not even know if those dollar amounts “would ease the pain.”

LifeSiteNews has published an extensive amount of research on the dangers of receiving the experimental COVID mRNA jabs, which include heart damage and blood clots.

The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

US medical center refusing COVID shots for employees but still promoting to public

Published on September 17, 2024

By

Exert from Medical Musings by Dr. Pierre Kory

Major Covid mRNA policy reversals and awakenings occurred this week within a major U.S health system, a large U.S state, a South American country, and in the UK. The dominoes are starting to fall.

This week a nurse reached out with disturbing descriptions of some major changes she has witnessed inside the Ohio State University Medical Center (OSUMC) system.

OSUMC s a large and comprehensive healthcare organization, with a significant presence in Ohio and a strong focus on research, education, and patient care. It is a massive institution with over 23,000 employees, including:

  • Over 2,000 physicians
  • More than 1,000 residents and fellows
  • Nearly 5,000 nurses

Lets start off with this screenshot of a webpage from OSUMC’s website which provides information to the public as to where they can get Covid-19 vaccines. Check out the highlighted sentence at the bottom of the page:

Wait, what? Ohio State is suddenly no longer offering the Covid-19 vaccine to any of their employees but they are happily offering to inject them into the public? How can such a policy be justified? Why was this change in policy done and why was it done so quietly?

Let’s get this straight. Ohio State’s leadership is now making an institutional decision that employees should not be offerred access to any Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. I am (pretending to be) confused. I mean, if the vaccines could protect patients from being infected by staff members and they were safe to give to staff members, why wouldn’t you do everything possible (like a mandate) to ensure they receive them?

The only possible reason for the action above is that either OSUMC leadership recently discovered that the vaccines: a) do not work or b) are not safe. I think you would agree that, of the two possible answers, the only one that makes sense to explain this abrupt change in policy is B) they are not safe. I say this because if they were safe but instead just didn’t really work very well, Ohio State would not have the incentive to divorce themselves so abruptly and strongly from the recommendations of our benevolent federal government. I believe such an action would pretty quickly and negatively impact federal research funding by the NIH. It is my belief that agency’s money kept the nations 126 major academic medical centers in line throughout Covid, as those CEO’s and Deans are well aware that NIH retaliation in terms of rejecting grant funding if they “dissent” is real and happens (inflated reimbursements from the gov’t was another one of course).

I asked the brave browser AI, “why is Ohio State Medical Center no longer offering Covid-19 vaccines to its employees?” Two sentences jumped out:

  • “Based on the provided search results, it appears that Ohio State Medical Center did offer COVID-19 vaccines to its employees at one point.”
  • “Without further information or clarification from Ohio State Medical Center, it’s difficult to provide a definitive answer on why they may not be offering COVID-19 vaccines to their employees.”

So it must be the case that Ohio State leadership somehow found themselves a stronger financial disincentive to subjecting employees to Covid-19 vaccine injection. Where would such a disincentive come from? Answer: lawsuits. I also suspect that fear of worsening staff shortages from disability and/or death further disrupting operations played a role as well (as you will learn below).

This new policy action (taken very quietly) is absolutely dam breaking to me in terms of progress towards the truth about the mRNA platform getting out to the public. It is also appears ethically reprehensible, i.e. the institution made the decision to keep jabbing the public with a toxic and lethal vaccine while becoming aware that same vaccine is either exposing them to unmanageable legal risks and/or is disrupting their operations by negatively impacting the health of their workforce. Welcome to dystopia.

To see the rest of this article click here.

Continue Reading

Trending

X