COVID-19
Freedom Convoy Diary – How a young Central Alberta family found themselves in Ottawa protesting mandates
When Cody Borek refers to “the road” he isn’t typically thinking about the highway. For Cody and his wife Evalena, “the road” usually means Main Street in Settler, or Lakeshore Drive at Sylvan Lake. That’s because the Boreks are not truckers. Cody and Evalena run a couple of unique small businesses in Central Alberta. Sweet Home on Main Street in Settler is a ladies boutique and clothing store. They sell locally crafted vendor items. There’s even a cafe with on-site baking. Sweet Home on the Lake at Sylvan Lake is the same type of operation, charming, homey, even trendy. Certainly not the kind of place that comes to mind when you think of people who might drive across the country in support of something called the Freedom Convoy.
But before you make your judgement (I know.. you already have) just hear the Borek’s out a bit. Maybe you’ll understand why they so desperately want to do anything they can to end this two year stretch of restrictions and division. Maybe you’ll understand why they loaded up their 3 children under 5 for a cross country trip promising as much risk as adventure. Cody knows there’s a price to pay. So far about a thousand people have ‘unfollowed’ them on social media. Some have even returned items to their store because of their stance. That opposition just proves the incredibly sad state of affairs the Boreks are so desperate to leave behind.
Cody and Evalena bought their businesses in 2018. For more than half of the time they’ve owned the stores, they’ve had to juggle covid restrictions on top of all the other challenges new business owners face. Days ago, their neighbouring cafe owner came over to tell them he can’t do it anymore. He closed on the last day of January. One more piece of data. Another business done in by pandemic restrictions. For their part, the Boreks feel terribly uncomfortable asking customers for health information. They know it’s a small price to pay for protection, but they feel like it’s becoming a permanent problem and they know it’s leaving some people on the outside.
They’ve also been raising three children. For more than half their young lives, those children have not seen the smiling faces or enjoyed a ‘high-five’ with the people they come into contact with. The youngest doesn’t know that world even exists. Cody and Evalena aren’t sure exactly what that will mean to the way their children think about the world and community, and ‘others’, but they know they don’t like it. Then there’s the other end of the family. The Boreks lost a grandfather in the midst of covid. Like so many Canadians, they know the tragic heartbreak of not being there when someone they love dies, alone. Their last contact with grandpa, was through a window.
In the end, the Boreks don’t see this ending. The cycle of covid waves has the world heading in a direction they do not want their kids to grow up in. That’s why they decided even though they aren’t truckers, they wanted to join the Freedom Convoy. As of Tuesday, they’re still in Ottawa. Here’s a diary, tracking that trip, written by Cody Borek, and posted to his facebook page. We have exerts and photos here posted with Cody’s permission.
January 25 – Leaving Stettler for Ottawa
This morning our family starts our drive to Ottawa The last 2 years have been some of the most mentally challenging of our life.
Family and friends have battled depression, business closures, jobs lost and there have been enough tears shed.
We do understand the first rule of business is to not get involved with politics. But we truly feel that this is so much more then that. Our 3 kids under 5 don’t know or hardly remember a life where strangers don’t wear masks. A life where you greet your neighbors and fellow community members with a smile.
We are taking this journey with our kids because it gives us hope. Seeing so much of our country come together brings tears to my eye.
Some of you will strongly disagree with us taking this journey and making this stance. We can respect that, but it is something that we needed to do.
January 27 – Why we’re doing this
January 28 – On the road with the Freedom Convoy
January 28 – Canadians come out in support
January 29 – Moved to tears
January 30 – Eyewitness report from Parliament Hill
January 30 – The media narrative vs my lived experience
January 31 – PM’s comments will ensure both sides double down in division
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
Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed
From LifeSiteNews
By David James
‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.
A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.
The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.
Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”
Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”
Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.
The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.
This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.
Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.
READ: More scientists are supporting a swift recall of the dangerous COVID jabs
It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.
The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.
During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.
The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.
READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll
-
Alberta13 hours ago
Proposed $70 billion AI data centre in MD of Greenview could launch an incredible new chapter for western Canadian energy
-
COVID-192 days ago
Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed
-
Business1 day ago
Massive growth in federal workforce contributes to Ottawa’s red ink
-
Alberta9 hours ago
Your towing rights! AMA unveils measures to help fight predatory towing
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day ago
False Claims, Real Consequences: The ICC Referrals That Damaged Canada’s Reputation
-
COVID-192 days ago
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich calls out Trudeau in EU Parliament address for shunning protesters
-
COVID-191 day ago
Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation
-
National1 day ago
When’s the election? Singh finally commits. Poilievre asks Governor General to step in