The big boys are coming after Kennedy

Wall Street Journal leads the pack, hit jobs have begun

In an affront to good journalism the Wall Street Journal, one of America’s leading newspapers, launches a tirade of vitriol at Robert F. Kennedy Jr in an editorial titled “The strange world of RFK Jr.”

As an internet subscriber of that newspaper I am appalled at the lack of fact in this editorial.

Without citing one study they condemn him on his views on vaccines and a host of other things including the herbicide Roundup. They even condemn the information of the Wakefield study on autism without citing one reference. This is journalism?

And they refuse to mention the many thousands of deaths and injuries that have been recorded by government agencies in America and Europe as a result of the covid vaccines.

They reluctantly state that the U.S. Government agencies were slow to act — how about governments exclaiming that the covid vaccines were safe and effective when they knew they were not safe and effective?

The paper is obviously afraid to read The Children’sHealth Defence website. Afraid to read the many books written about the covid government disaster. Or read The Brownstone Institute or Kennedy’s own books. Or mention leading researchers from Stanford University, Harvard University and Oxford University that authored the Barrington Declaration.

This is a hit job of the first order — and, of course, true to Big Pharma mantra – no evidence — no science.

The Journal standing behind companies that have already been fined billions of dollars concerning their drug products ?

Not funny is it that The Journal did not mention that Big Pharma gave campaign money to the majority of US Congress members — 72% of the Senators and 69% of the House of Representatives reported in Aaron Kheriaty’s Book ‘The New Abnormal’ — The Rise of The Biomedical Security State.

The National Library of Medicine reports $33 billion of finesbetween 2003 and 2016involving 26 pharmaceutical firms – like Glaxo Smith Klein with 27 penalties, Pfizer 18, Johnson and Johnson 17, just to name three of them.

Who was it that wanted to hide the results of the studies on the covid vaccines for decades?

The Journal did not carry the fact that most bio-medical research is very suspect; Aaron Kheriaty reports: “It is a scandal that the findings in roughly 85% of published biomedical research cannot be subsequently reproduced by other researchers.” This statement is backed up by a study by John P. A. Ioannidis, Professor at Stanford University, entitled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”

The Paper would not mention that none of the childhood vaccines have been fully tested —afraid to read the book ‘Turtles All The Way Down “—Vaccine Science and Myth – they might find some kernels of fact – like no tests have ever been done, even though requested many, many times, on the rate of autism in the vaccinated vs the rate of autism in the unvaccinated.

A few studies like this that Kennedy would like to do to get at the facts just might cause consternation in the Big Pharma world and bring some fake corporate giants crushing to the ground.

Why does the Journal think few people are now not interested in the covid vaccines?

The Big Question now is— Can Trump succeed with the citizens behind him, to bring about the massive change necessary?

Big Media sure won’t help – remember the fake “The Trusted News Initiative?”

24-11-15

More Canadian court violation

of our freedom of speech rights

If you are interested in what is happening to our constitution follow this: my article, lawyer Alexander’s response, my response, and Alexander’s final response that closes the discussion!

More Canadian court violation of our freedom of speech rights — Dr. Trozzi’s rights denied by Ontario Court Of Appeal!

This unbelievable, constitution breaking by our Courts!

Rebel News reports today:

“In a sobering decision, three Ontario court justices have upheld an October, 2023 tribunalrulingthat found Dr. Mark Trozziguiltyof professional misconduct and incompetence, which ultimately led to the revocation of his medical license. The justices determined that while Dr. Trozzi is free to express his views, his unrefuted claims on the COVID-19 science, coined “misinformation,” crossed a line that deserved severe professional consequences.

Dr. Trozzi, a now former emergency room physician, had been under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for his vocal opposition to public health measures and his claims about what he refers to as a "Criminal COVID Enterprise." Despite his legal team's efforts to defend his right to express his beliefs, the court upheld the tribunals decision in branding him “ungovernable.”

Michael Alexander, Dr. Trozzi’s lawyer exclaims as reported by Rebel News:

“Alexander contends that further legal battles are unlikely to succeed, given that the Court of Appeal appears indifferent to the right to free expression when it challenges politically-favoured narratives, and continues to unquestioningly uphold the "safe and effective" mantra promoted by pharmaceutical interests.

“They have already sent the message that we don’t want these COVID-19 loud mouth professionals messing up our administrative state,” says Alexander.

“If you’re somebody who speaks too politically like Jordan Peterson, the court of appeal is not going to hear whether somebody has trampled on your right to free expression.

If you’ve been discussing COVID science, you’re not going to get a hearing.

If you’re arguing that the college should never have proceeded against you because it didn’t have reasonable and probable grounds for its investigation, the court of appeal is not going to hear you.

We have a crisis of legitimacy in our court system now.”

“Blog Comment :

Alexander is right :The highest Court in our most populous Province has abused our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1, Section 2

“Fundamental freedoms

2Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a)freedom of conscience and religion;

(b)freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c)freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d)freedom of association.”

Source : Rebel News

Hi Brian,

Thank you very much for covering the Trozzi case, infra.

I wanted to provide some further information about my overall strategy in the Trozzi case and other physician cases I’ve argued. Please feel free to publish this reply, if you feel your readers might profit from it.

First, I am totally onboard with your own view that section 1 of the Charter was supposed to be reserved for truly extreme situations.

Having said that, my challenge was to find a way to rescue the Charter from section 1 in some measure. And, ironically, I found the way in the case that articulated the four-part section 1 test, R. v. Oakes (1987).

The key to unlocking the value of Oakes is to examine how the Court treated the final part of the four-part test, where a court is required to balance the good achieved by the statutory objective used to justify limiting a fundamental right against the harm done to the individual by the infringement of the right.

Under part four, the government was held to a high evidentiary standard — it had to provide “cogent and persuasive” evidence to succeed. Very clearly, this was a higher standard than the civil standard, which is the balance of probabilities. Setting the higher standard was consistent with the idea that the individual’s fundamental rights should take priority over the government’s objectives in most situations. However, in subsequent cases, the Court re-interpreted the “cogent and persuasive” standard in Oakes and equated it with the balance of probabilities. Under the lower standard, government has succeeded most of the time and the Charter has become, more or less, a worthless document.

Nevertheless, Oakes reveals an entirely different way of approaching section 1.

Oakes dealt with a Criminal Code provision relating to a drug offence, which had the effect of eliminating the presumption of innocence. In effect, the provision created an automatic finding that an individual in possession of drugs under certain circumstances was necessarily trafficking.

The Court ruled that the provision was unconstitutional because, in eliminating the presumption of innocence, it subverted section 11 (d) of the Charter, which guarantees the presumption of innocence, and also subverted the premise upon which the whole criminal law system is based, which, of course, is also the presumption of innocence. Thus, the Court did not weigh the government’s evidence of the good the provision secured against the harm done to the individual’s fundamental right because the provision subverted the core purpose of the right and was, therefore, wrong in itself.

This approach can be applied to a Charter analysis of freedom of expression. There is abundant case law reaching back as far as 1938 (the Alberta Reference case) to the effect that the core purpose of freedom of speech, and later freedom of expression, is the protection of minority and dissenting opinions, particularly in matters of public importance. Thus, any government attempt to censor expression merely because it reflects a minority or dissenting point of view must be wrong in itself and cannot stand. This approach eliminates balancing under section 1 and secures an absolute right to freedom of expression.

I rolled out this argument in the Trozzi case and the Court rejected it on the ground that professional regulation justifies placing limits on a doctor’s right to criticize public health policies and recommendations. This ruling cannot be squared with the fact that the Charter is the “Supreme Law of Canada.” Further, it cannot be reconciled with the fact that public health “policies” and “recommendations” do not have the force of law according to the Ontario Court of Appeal. How can a professional such as Dr. Trozzi be doing anything unlawful when he is merely criticizing instruments that themselves have no legal force or standing?

Michael:

Thanks for your response.

It seems, however, that the Courts in their dysfunctional state have decided to not just interpret law but make it and go so far as ignoring parts of the Constitution as they see fit.

For example, the opening words of the Charter have been ignored. Almost every single Charter decision has ignored serious consideration of this section, yet it is the framework that the authors established through which Charter decisions are to be considered.

In addition, many recent court decisions in interpreting Section 1 of the Charter have ignored ‘ demonstrably justify’ often using just the word justify or some times just the word reasonable. This is a complete twisting of the language of the Section.

And this is to say nothing of the intent of Section 1 being completely ignored or twisted.

So, I am not surprised that the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected your use of an argument from the Oakes Decision or ignoring your Supreme Law of Canada argument.

We are up against a judicial system that feels free to ‘manipulate’ the Constitution as it sees fit.

I fear nothing short of like minded people like ourselves being able to re-open the Constitution and change the wording accordingly will real ‘sense ‘ prevail and we know how unlikely that is ———but even if by some miracle that did happen we know that even then if a like judiciary and mind set exists as it does now ( can the mind set be changed?) what is written will be ignored and twisted again.

Brian

And finally Michael replies:

Totally in agreement, Brian. Thanks for your reply. The path forward is political, not legal.

MA

24-11-10

Prayer On Remembrance Day

does not violate our Constitution

Once again we are confronted with the spectacle of authorities saying no prayer at Remembrance Day ceremonies. The following is from Epoch Times of November 8.

They are wrong! Wrong!

I was there.

The opening words of our Charter say:

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

This was agreed to by all 11 first Ministers. They were all Christians. We only knew a Judaeo Christian God. Self evident.

The Courts have no business twisting the clear intent of this section of our Constitution.

Apparently this rule stems from a2015 Supreme Courtof Canada Decision against the City Council of Saguenay, Quebec that was saying a prayer at their Council meetings.

That Court decision is wrong – it violates the opening words of our Constitution.

Our history and traditions are being thrown in the garbage heap based on the twisted, progressive, woke thinking that has seeped right into the very sinew of our political body.

We must stand up!

If there is need to accommodate other religions in Remembrance day ceremonies then that should be accommodated.

But the Judaeo Christian God and its traditions and principles must remain.

Eliminating our Judaeo Christian traditions, principlesfrom official Remembrance Day ceremonies that were and are the backbone of who we are shows a disdain and a lack of respect. This is not Justice – this is imposing unconstitutional secularism upon our nation.

The Constitution Act of 1982 contains an Amending Formula.If there are those around who wish to change the constitution then there is a legitimate avenue provided by the First Ministers Of 1982.

24-11-09

More Canadian court violation

of our freedom of speech rights

This unbelievable, constitution breaking by our Courts!

Rebel News reported, “In a sobering decision, three Ontario court justices have upheld an October 2023 tribunalrulingthat found Dr. Mark Trozziguiltyof professional misconduct and incompetence, which ultimately led to the revocation of his medical license. The justices determined that while Dr. Trozzi is free to express his views, hisunrefutedclaims on the COVID-19 science, coined “misinformation,” crossed a line that deserved severe professional consequences.

Dr. Trozzi, a now former emergency room physician, had been under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for his vocal opposition to public health measures and his claims about what he refers to as a "Criminal COVID Enterprise." Despite his legal team's efforts to defend his right to express his beliefs, the court upheld the tribunals decision in branding him “ungovernable.”

Michael Alexander, Dr. Trozzi’s lawyer exclaims as reported by Rebel News:

“Alexander contends that further legal battles are unlikely to succeed, given that the Court of Appeal appears indifferent to the right to free expression when it challenges politically-favoured narratives, and continues to unquestioningly uphold the "safe and effective" mantra promoted by pharmaceutical interests.

“They have already sent the message that we don’t want these COVID-19 loud mouth professionals messing up our administrative state,” says Alexander.

“If you’re somebody who speaks too politically like Jordan Peterson, the court of appeal is not going to hear whether somebody has trampled on your right to free expression.

If you’ve been discussing COVID science, you’re not going to get a hearing.

If you’re arguing that the college should never have proceeded against you because it didn’t have reasonable and probable grounds for its investigation, the court of appeal is not going to hear you.

We have a crisis of legitimacy in our court system now.”

“My Comment:

Alexander is right:The highest Court in our most populous Province has abused our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1, Section 2

“Fundamental freedoms

2Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a)freedom of conscience and religion;

(b)freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c)freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d)freedom of association.”

Tamara Ugolini, Senior Editor, is an informed choice advocate turned journalist whose journey into motherhood sparked her passion for parental rights and the importance of true informed consent. She critically examines the shortcomings of "Big Policy" and its impact on individuals, while challenging mainstream narratives to empower others in their decision-making.

This is a serious contribution to understanding western medicine. The Hart Group — Health Advisory and Recovery Team ­– a UK organization. Its website www.hartgroup.org describes who they are.

“HART is a group of highly-qualified UK doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts.  We came together over shared concerns about policy and guidance recommendations relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. We continue to be concerned about the lack of open scientific debate in mainstream media and the worrying trend of censorship and harassment of those who question the narrative. Science without question is dogma.”

 

America’s Medical Monopoly

An Injection of truth, a failure to learn from history, or money talks?

HART recently posted an article titled “The Witch Hunt continues”, which discussed self-censorship of doctors, General Medical Council (GMC) overreach, and how medical professionals are being erased from the medical register, despite no wrongdoing. 

Yet this is not a new phenomenon. If we delve into the history of how our existing ‘medical monopoly’ was established, with its roots firmly in America, it is an all too familiar disturbing playbook of censorship, corruption and subversion of ethics that spans over 130 years in the making. The existing medical monopoly was contrived by the Rockefeller family and their many contacts, which has been so successful in its takeover of medicine in America. Herein, I discuss an excellent book by Eustace Mullins titled “Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America”. 

 

Despite the book’s off putting title, Eustace’s careful research spanning over 30 years provides a detailed and shocking account of how billionaire tycoons have waged tyranny, economic depressions, wars and revolutions as part of a wider plan to usher in a medical care system to enslave the public through an entirely controlled medical monopoly. The whole book is free to download here.

 

Until the late 19th century, doctors were freelance practitioners who assumed all the risks associated with their medical decision-making. 

 

In 1832, the British Medical Association was chartered and provided the impetus for a similar organisation to be established in the United States (US), namely the American Medical Association (AMA), which was founded in 1847 with its headquarters in Chicago. From its inception, the AMA had one objective: to create a total medical monopoly of the practice of medicine, and ensure allopathy was the basis of its practice. 

 

Allopathic medicine required practitioners to receive training in a recognised academic school of medicine, which relied heavily on surgical procedures as well as medicines. Allopathy was to rival homoeopathy, which promoted non-toxic doses of natural remedies; in the mid-1800s, homoeopaths outnumbered allopaths two to one in the US – a statistic that had to be overturned when the AMA was created. 

 

The reason this book is so pertinent in our troublesome times is that it catalogues the long, but very calculated and carefully planned demise of healthcare in America. It chronicles how the introduction of a monopoly through any means possible – including, racketeering, abuse, censorship and murder – enabled the takeover of health by federal agencies and governments, which were inextricably linked to industry and big pharma. 

 

How was such a monopoly to be achieved? It had to be orchestrated by the richest man in the world at that time, the monopolist John D. Rockefeller, who had triumphed in organising his oil monopoly. Backed by Rothschild and Wall Street colleagues, it was hoped the medical monopoly would provide even greater profits than oil, which has more than proved to be the case. Rockefeller appointed Frederick T. Gates (related to Mr Microsoft Bill Gates) as his ‘philanthropic’ agent, whose task was to dominate the entire medical education system. 

 

In 1907, the AMA requested the Carnegie Foundation to conduct a survey of all medical schools in the US; the Foundation appointed Abraham Flexner to lead the study of medical schools. Coincidentally, Abraham Flexner’s brother, Simon, was head of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research, so this was an intentional cosy and conflicted setup from the outset. Flexner, a graduate of Johns Hopkins University, which was founded by Daniel Colt Gilman, completed his report in 1910. The report and AMA decided there were too many doctors and the solution was to create a medical educational system so elitist that most students would be prohibited from considering such a career. The undergraduate training was constructed so that allopathic medicine was central to its teaching, and by 1920 the number of medical schools had declined from 650 to 50 in number. 

 

The book goes on to describe how ‘quackery’ was established, with three key players, Morris Fishbein, George Simmons and Albert Lasker, who all began their careers as journalists. Not one of them had any credentials of practising medicine, but their collective journalist and organisational talents propelled them to the heights of power, as full-time ‘quacks’. 

 

They utilised their connections with the corrupt AMA to stifle dissent and opposition. For instance, the AMA would grant pharmaceutical companies a ‘Seal of Approval’ for their products but only if they advertised in AMA-affiliated journals. Those that opposed this, such as Wallace Abbott, founder of Abbott Laboratories, soon found out the hard way that no products would be approved, and his reputation would suffer unless he ‘cooperated’. Simmons’ practices were particularly egregious, with one critic positing: “almost every branch of the Federal Government active in the field of medicine was completely dominated by the AMA”. 

 

Ultimately, the monopolists forced government agencies to act against anyone who posed a threat to their monopoly, including arrests and prison sentences. Simmons and Fishbein collectively controlled the AMA for over half a century, through raising money and using political clout. Fishbein had total control over all publications of the AMA and selection of personnel in various committees. Moreover the AMA was instrumental in concealing beneficial (but non-lucrative) therapies, with products of high value being rejected or their acceptance enduring unwarranted delays.

The extent of the corruption detailed in this history of American medicine is remarkable. Federal agents were solicited by charitable foundations to instigate police actions to hundreds of unsuspecting health practitioners throughout the US, in a ruthless operation to arrest and imprison people distributing leaflets about natural or herbal formulas, despite no evidence anyone had been injured or killed by these remedies. Terror raids against competitors were carried out, with heavily armed federal agents breaking doors and seizing any herbal stocks from people’s homes. 

 

The book describes terrorisation of anyone active in the alternative healthcare field. Thus, the AMA became an autocracy. Physicians were trained under the Rockefeller-based medical system, which had full control over the medical examination boards. 

 

So successful was this endeavour that Americans are now treated with expensive, overpriced, ineffective and potentially dangerous drugs, a corruption that has been routinely covered up by federal agencies. 

 

In 1940, a bill for health insurance was introduced; although it initially suffered setbacks, the seed was sown to create an industry whereby the AMA would fight ‘socialised medicine’, which was the forerunner for Medicare and Medicaid. 

 

In the 1960s, the next target for annihilation was the chiropractic sector. No level of intimidation of censorship was spared and many high-profile speakers were forced to cancel lectures and lobby groups were set up to sanction and apply pressure on the Council on Chiropractic Education to the extent that the AMA Joint Committee on Accreditation of Hospitals barred chiropractors and refused accreditation of hospitals that had such practitioners. The AMA also forced the Veterans Administration to refuse payments to veterans for chiropractic services. 

 

With their eyes set on further control, the medical monopolists realised that cancer was a lucrative endeavour and so established the next phase of the monopoly. 

 

In 1913, the same year President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, a group of doctors met at the Harvard Club in New York to establish a national cancer organisation, the American Society for the Control of Cancer (later renamed the American Cancer Society, ACS). The Rockefellers (with Rothschild and J. P. Morgan backing) funded the ACS. Similarly, funding for the Memorial Hospital (later to become the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) was also linked with the National Radium Institute, which stipulated that further funds be permitted, only assuming all cancers were treated with radium. 

 

By 1922, more than 100 radiologists had died from X-ray induced cancer. Alfred Sloan, the President of General Motors and Charles Kettering, an inventive genius of electrical systems and auto ignition were deployed. Mullins chronicles in detail how huge industry directors and partners were all interlinked with each other, such as Squibb, Bristol Myers, Johnson & Johnson, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Lehman Brothers, Chase Manhattan Bank and National Geographic. Collaborations with ‘elected’ presidents, industry players, defence industries, CIA, chemical and drug firms go hand-in-hand. 

 

Two key names in patent medicine and journalism were Albert Lasker and Elmer Bobst. One of Lasker’s greatest achievements was his national campaign to persuade women to smoke in public. Lasker became ill with cancer and died in 1952, but before his death, he set up the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation, which made Mary (Albert’s daughter) the most powerful woman in American Medicine. It is also no coincidence that 18 members of the ACS Board of Directors were executive officers of banks. Pat McGrady, who served as editor of the ACS for 25 years stated “Medicine has become venal, second only to the law”. Since “the fight against cancer” is totally controlled by the Rockefeller medical monopoly, much of cancer research is bogus and filled with falsified results, albeit by well intentioned and unsuspecting researchers. Since Elmer Bobst played a crucial role in making it possible for Nixon to become President, it was not difficult to persuade him to authorise a new and expensive “war on cancer” in 1971. 

 

The book explains how the ACS, AMA and FDA collaboratively staged a war of censorship and intimidation, preventing discussion of effective compounds, such as laetrile, for treating cancer. The ACS, for example, opposed the regulation of potential carcinogens, such as TRIS (trisaminomethane) and DES (diethylstilbestrol). Chemotherapy was promoted as a cancer treatment in the 1960s, despite evidence that it had many serious side effects and was shown to be highly toxic and carcinogenic in animal models, as well as immunosuppressive. Cancer is as much a disease of poor nutrition and one in which the multiplication of ‘simpler’ cells are unable to differentiate because the energy balance of the body is disrupted causing the disease. One of the Director’s of the National Cancer Institute is Mary Lasker, who has close ties with the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, which is not a coincidence. 

 

Mullins goes on to describe several instances of researchers who had discovered cancer cures either by detoxification or a diet low in salt, protein and fats, but the work was buried or destroyed to ensure the chemotherapy, radiation and surgical approaches to cancer were unchallenged. The Laskers built much of their fortune on the promotion of cigarette smoking. Although cigarette smoking is harmful and causes cancer, studies (cited in the book) have shown that there was no link between traditional air-dried tobacco and lung cancer. The tobacco industries, dominated by the Rothschilds, add chemicals and sugar to tobacco, which creates a carcinogenic substance in the nicotine tar. Air-dried tobacco lacks this carcinogen, as noted by the many primitive tribes who have smoked tobacco for thousands of years without any ill effects. Mullins explains that the ACS has vested interests in established forms of cancer treatment, for example owning 50% of the patent rights for the chemotherapy drug 5-fluorouracil. 

 

Dr Hardin James addressed the ACS in 1969, noting that “for a typical type of cancer, people who refuse treatment live an average of 12.5 years. Those who accepted surgery and other kinds of treatment, lived an average of 3 years. I attribute this to the traumatic effect of surgery on the body’s natural defence mechanisms.”

 

In the ‘holy church’ of allopathic medicine, there are what might be termed the four ‘holy waters’, which include immunisation, fluorination of water, use of fertilisers and contamination of the food chain. The practice of immunisation is the most pernicious in terms of its long-term effects. This practice goes directly against the discovery of modern holistic medical experts that the body has a natural immune defence against illness. The greatest heresy any clinician can commit is to publicly voice any doubt about any one of the four ‘holy waters’. The most deeply entrenched in the fabric of modern medical practice, as is glaringly apparent, is the vaccination programmes, as well as being one of the most profitable aspects of the medical monopoly. One physician, Dr Henry R. Bybee of Norfolk, Virginia, stated “My honest opinion is that vaccines are the cause of more disease and suffering than anything I could name.” Additionally, Dr Herbert Snow, a senior surgeon at a cancer hospital in London voiced similar concerns “In recent years, many men and women in the prime of life have dropped dead suddenly. I am convinced that some 80% of these deaths are caused by the inoculation or vaccination they have undergone.” 

 

The chilling accounts continue with another practitioner Dr W. B. Clarke of Indiana remarking “cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination when the cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least 200 cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person”. Is this not at least an observation worth exploring? It is unlikely modern medicine advocates will examine this alarming connection. Eventually, the outraged public will bring pressure to abandon the modern ritual of vaccinating children.

 

Another well-known practitioner from San Francisco, Dr J. M. Pebbles, revealed “The vaccination practice…has not only become the chief menace and the greatest danger to the health of the rising generation, but an outrage upon the personal liberties of the American citizen.” The book tells of how Wyeth laboratories was charged with $15 million in damages to an 8-year-old girl who suffered permanent brain damage after receiving a diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine. In the US, vaccines are actively and incessantly promoted as the solution for all infectious diseases. It is not a coincidence that federal agencies, such as the AMA, WHO, FDA, are in favour of the vaccine programmes given the revolving door that exists between Big Pharma and these agencies. It is well known that Edward Jenner ‘discovered’ the cowpox vaccine to purportedly prevent smallpox. However, smallpox was already declining before the introduction of the vaccine and many believe it would have disappeared by the end of the 19th century. 

 

After the cowpox vaccine became widespread in England, a smallpox epidemic ensued killing over 22,000 people. By 1872, 44,480 were killed, and the vaccine was finally banned in 1948. 

 

This trend is mirrored elsewhere: Japan introduced compulsory vaccination in 1872 and by 1892 there were 165,774 cases of smallpox resulting in nearly 30,000 deaths. Other European countries that submitted to compulsory vaccination saw similar high numbers of cases and deaths, whereas countries (such as Norway) who did not vaccinate had a fraction of the cases. 

 

Historians are reluctantly concluding that the 1918 ‘great flu epidemic’ was attributable to the widespread use of vaccines, as survivors were those who had refused the vaccines. 

 

The book chronicles how dissenters and researchers who spoke out lost their jobs, had their laboratory notes seized and burned, and laboratory animals destroyed. In the 1970s, the swine flu vaccination campaign was ushered in, but insurance companies refused to cover against lawsuits as there were inadequate studies. 

 

This prompted a propaganda campaign by the monopolists to trick Americans into saving themselves by taking the vaccines, which resulted in billions in damage claims. The next iteration by Dr Jonas Salk in the 1950s was the polio vaccine, which Simon Flexner helped to recommend. It is disturbing that a national conference in Washington in 1988 declared that “all the cases of polio in America come from the vaccine. The naturally occurring (or wild type) polio virus has not been shown to cause a single case of polio in the US since 1979”. Even back in 1955, the Surgeon General of the US highlighted in the AMA conference that “no batch of vaccine can be proven safe before it is given to children”. Moreover, James R. Shannon of the NIH declared “the only safe vaccine is a vaccine that is never used.”

 

Importantly, the death by injection playbook is not new; rather, a well-orchestrated agenda has been implemented with calculated precision in multiple cycles to gradually harm and decimate populations across the globe. This book further discusses how fluorination of water has been another Rockefeller-deployed monopoly to poison millions of Americans by adding the poisonous chemical sodium fluoride to drinking water. Large quantities of fluorides are waste contaminants and byproducts from large agricultural firms, pesticides and chemical firms, such as Hooker Chemical. Predictably, Hooker Chemical became part of the Rockefeller unit when one of the Hooker family married into the Rockefeller family.

Fluorides can cause serious chromosomal damage and animal model studies have shown it promotes cancer development, even at the one part per million threshold in drinking water that has detrimental consequences especially when consumed cumulatively over time. Soviet studies have further shown that fluorides were useful in inducing docile obedience in the general population. Combined with aluminium that was included in many foods, cooking pots and packaging, this has aided in slowly poisoning the mass population and of course produced Alzhiemer’s disease, in what constitutes a build up of toxic levels of aluminium, leading to cognitive and nervous system decline.

 

Not content with disrupting the medical and water supplies, the Rockefeller-based medical monopoly had its eye on the ‘green revolution’ and agricultural control through the contamination of crops using a ‘co-opted’ carefully constructed money laundering system. This time they developed ‘super crops’ or grains that would serve as an excellent cash cow for the US to sell to ‘developing’ nations. To achieve this goal required the soil to be pumped with huge quantities of fertiliser (the product of nitrates and petroleum), commodities controlled by the Rockefellers that helped to build an entire chemical empire. At the end of the second World War, a concerted effort was made by the monopolists to dump surplus nitrates into the American food chain. Farmers were instructed to increase their use of fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides and create a capital intensive payback scheme for the monopolists. 

 

The final sections of the book discuss how fertilisers have been used to reduce nutrients in the soil and how the food chain has been slowly contaminated. Chapter 9 lists and discusses the 18 largest drug firms and their close associations with major banking cartels and federal agencies, such as the CIA. 

 

Collectively, these insidious links with Big Pharma and the medical monopoly, are not only a massive cash cow, but have maimed and decimated the population and continue to do so. Since the rest of the world is intimately tethered to the well-oiled Rockefeller US medical monopoly machine, it is not hard to see how the censorship, corruption and silencing of dissenters has become all too commonplace today.

Conservatives say they will talk to Greens – many of us feared this was possible

24-10-24 – Power before principle. Did you hear that right? Yes you did. If the Conservatives get in a position where the Green Party would give them a majority they would talk to them about their support. 

Global News and other outlets are also reporting it. 

On the Green Party website it says they will put  an “Immediate stop to fossil fuel development.” No new fossil fuel development – natural gas, oil, coal mines, LNG plants.

The BC Conservative Party website states:  “Unlocking Potential, Revitalizing BC’s Mining Industry” and “Consider all power sources that could keep BC’s energy mix independent, low cost, and green.”

As Global News reports, there are a lot of other differences:

“A deal between the BC Greens and the BC Conservatives, however, could be a tough sell, with the parties holding diametrically opposed positions on several key issues.

The BC Conservatives campaigned against drug decriminalization, safe supply and supervised consumption sites, while the BC Greens vowed to expand those projects. Green Leader Sonia Furstenau described Rustad as a climate change denier, and is vocally opposed to the Conservatives’ plans to expand fossil fuel development and to scrap the carbon tax.

The Greens also oppose the Conservatives’ plans to privatize parts of health-care service delivery. And the Greens have consistently supported SOGI-123, the LGBTQ2 anti-bullying resource the Conservatives have vowed to remove from B.C. schools.”

There you have it BC Conservatives. This is Not A Real Conservative Party. A real Conservative Party does not get in bed with the enemy. 

The irony of it all is in 2023, last year, BC ‘s top export was a fossil fuel, coal, and the second was another fossil fuel, natural gas.

And the largest single private sector development in Canada’s history is the  LNG – fossil fuel plant that is, in Kitimat at $40 billion. 

Federal Liberal machine starting to rumble

 

There is Christy Clarke, former BC Premier,  wanting to run for Justin Trudeau’s job if he steps down. Is this just a personal desire or are some Liberal money people sending a trial balloon? Numerous national media are stirring the pot.

CTV reports: “As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faces growing pressure to step aside, former B.C. premier Christy Clark says she is open to "returning to politics" should the position of Liberal leader become available.”

It is reported she is brushing up on her French.

And the never-ending talk of Mark Carney. Global News reports “Mark Carney said he is thinking about running for elected office in Canada, but remained guarded about when or where, in a conversation with Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith.

The conversation was the clearest signal yet from the former governor of the Bank of Canada that he is eyeing a more political future, and comes weeks after he was tapped to chair an economic advisory task force for the Liberal Party and the prime minister.

Carney joined Erskine-Smith on his podcast in an episode published on Friday.

The MP for Beaches-East York, who has already announced he will not run in the next federal election, talked about the difference between “giving advice and being a decision maker” before asking Carney, “Are you going to put your name on a ballot at some point?”

“I’m taking steps that support that,” Carney replied.”

Then there is Eddie Goldenburg, long-time Liberal strategist, advising Trudeau to step down. The National Post reports:

“Trudeau could decide to fight the next election, lose, and like the old Roman general, be carried out on his shield. But there is a risk of serious and potentially even fatal consequences for Canada of a decision by Mr. Trudeau to go out on his shield,” wrote Goldenberg, who is now senior advisor at the Global Public Affairs firm in Ottawa.

 

“The question for the Prime Minister is whether he is more valuable leading the Liberal Party to an almost certain defeat or whether he should do all he can to be in a strong position to be available to take a leading role in speaking up for Canada in a possible Quebec independence referendum,” he added.

So, if I am to glean anything from this it is that the FederalLiberal backrooms are busy and some early jockeying is under way. 

Stay tuned

 

British Columbia's built-in socialism

24-10-21 – The provincial election on Oct. 19 provided one of the best opportunities for some party to the right of theNDP to take power. With the complete collapse of the BC Liberal Party, once the coalition of Liberals and Conservatives in the Province, and the resurgent BC Conservative Party, you had a unique opportunity for this one party to the right (so called,although hardly conservative in more pure terms) to have a real shot at unseating the socialists. In the recount it might still happen, but even if so, barely.

It points to what has happened in many parts of the western world where the dominance of government and government agencies within society and the economy have led many on the left to socialism. The growth of government, federal, provincial and municipal sees many university graduates working for them, all imbued with the left wing views so prevalent in today’s halls of higher learning.

Urban growth has concentrated this nest of left-wing ideology and with this growth more political ridings and the preponderance of left-wing candidates being elected. The urban centres have the concentration of health care and universities and government, all hot beds of progressive, left-wing ideas that lack common sense and real life circumstances. These urban centres are bubbles of progressivism and could not exist in a less urban setting for long.

Of course, there are exceptions as we will see as we review the BC recent political scene. The trend is clear and makes the successful rise to power of conservative parties far more difficult.

Looking at the recent election results we see 11 of the 12 ridings in Vancouver all won by the NDP, the home of UBC and the big health care facilities and BCIT nearby in Burnaby.And SimonFraser University in Burnaby and the five ridings in Burnaby all NDP. Then there are two in Coquitlam, 1 out of 2 in Delta and 1 outof 2 in Maple Ridge electing the NDP. Then there are two more in North Vancouver, one in New Westminster and Port Coquitlam and Port Moody.

This is a flying start for the socialists.

If one goes to the Island, take Metro Victoria, home of University of Victoria, Royal Rhodes University, Camosun College, the island’s largest hospitals, and the home of the Legislature and the many government departments. Hence, Oak Bay-Gordon Head, Saanich South, Victoria Beacon Hill, Victoria Swan Lake, Langford-the Highlands and Esquimalt Colwood all went to the NDP.

The PowellRiver Sunshine Coast went NDP and the North Coast Haida Gwaii. So some even rural ridings are NDP. There was a even a Green elected in Saanich North and The Islands and another in West Vancouver Sea to Sky.

Up Island from Victoria Cowichan and Ladysmith-Oceanside, MidIsland-Pacific Rim all went NDP.

And Nanaimo, the island’s largest city, home of Vancouver Island University, two BC Ferry Terminals, Regional Hospital. Both ridings went NDP.

So you would have to have a lot of Richmonds, Surreys and Fraser Valleys to offset this base of socialism. And while Kamloops and Prince George went Conservative their size does not garner the seats the larger urban centres do. And though Kelowna was Conservative two Kootenay seats went NDP.

BC is not alone, especially in the west. Look at Edmonton and Calgary. If it was not for such a strong almost unanimous rural Conservative base the socialists would be in control there as well. Edmonton is rushing to be a 15-minute city. The Saskatchewan election sees a resurgent NDP with the urban centres firmly in their control but the rural, like in Alberta, will keep a right-leading party in power, I suspect. And Manitoba is already in the socialist camp.

In today’s environment in Canada we see right-of-NDP parties and alittle right of LiberalParties, but not real Conservative parties. Some more Conservative activity is happening in parts of Europe and individual states in the US, Florida and South Dakota come to mind. Sadly, here in Canada, federally it is more an anti-Trudeau movement than a clear-eyed Conservative Party alternative especially if one looks at the Conservative platform. All the parties are in the administrative state mode.

Socialism will be hard to root out in this provincial and national environment – likely not until the lenders decide to stop lending.

Startling BC election – no mention of

deficit, debt and no talk of Covid inquiry 

 

24-10-20 – I watched the Global News coverage. I don’t know if it was much different than CTV or CBC coverage.

 

But last night and throughout the lazy campaign I was struck by the fact that so few people really were concerned about the Province’s  finances or about our civil rights. 

 

One would think that given our deficit position,, and hence increasing debt that the new so-called Conservatives would not want to spend more money than we take in, but no, this money stuff just comes out of thin air it seems. And the silly Greens wanted to stop fossil fuel activity and stop fracking. And BC’s biggest export is coal. Insulated in the Victoria bubble will do that to you. 

 

We’re growing our debt faster than any Province. As the Fraser Institute says: 

 

“If the provinces continue on their current path, British Columbia will be amongst the most indebted in Canada in five years. We project that net debt – a measure that adjusts for financial resources – would reach $36,909 per person in 2029-30, which represents 40.4% of provincial GDP.”

If these developments come to pass, British Columbia would be more indebted using either metric than Ontario or Quebec, a remarkable reversal in a short period of time.

 

Not something to be proud of one would think. But both major parties tried to out spend one another in this campaign. Money we don’t have but have to borrow.

 

No talk of deficit or debt concern.

 

Of equal importance is the total neglect concerning our civil rights and how they were trampled on and abused this last four years. The covid fiasco of ignoring science and our constitution mark a low point for democracy in this Province. Many public places refused to allowed me to voice my opinion including my local high school and local city council. Thankfully fundamentalist Christian Churches and some brave small businesses came to the rescue. To see the likes of Eby and Dix, who had Bonnie Henry act as the front person for Cabinet and the Legislature,  get re-elected tells one just how low our democratic values have fallen. Citizens denied specialist appointments, necessary surgery – people permanently injured and many died unnecessarily.  

 

Yet no accountability. No party talks about it.

 

Conservatives release uncosted platform
after more than 500,000 have voted

241016 – Not only is this not a platform of a conservative party but it insults the voters in its lack of respect for the democratic process. Imagine issuing a platform after over one half million have already voted. Like their lack of a democratic nominating process this so-called new party is just out for power, conservative principles be damned.

What a choice? A socialist party which spends recklessly chased by Conservatives who are going to do the same thing. Actually increasing the next two-year deficit of the NDP to $11 billion from $9 billion. And promising tax cuts of another likely $4 billion a year according to a BC CBC story.

Is this some joke?

Both parties tout growth forecasts to try to make the reckless spending look better with both well beyond what the TD Bank and the Conference Board of Canada are saying. TD forecasts annual growth around 2.1 per cent and The Conference Board 1.9 per cent. The NDP forecasting over 3 per cent growth and the Conservatives over 5 per cent.

The education commitments are a bit of a mishmash by the Conservatives with conflicting statements. The Vancouver Sun says:

“Rustad did acknowledge there have been some missteps, however, as it was discovered the Conservatives changed the wording for its education policy after it was released Monday.

For example, the promise to “remove classroom material that instils guilt based on ethnicity, nationality or religion” was changed to “ideological neutrality of classroom materials.” And the commitment to inform teachers of “any significant ideations” was limited to “suicidal ideations.” And bringing back letter grading to only some grades is a puzzle. Thankfully the SOGI 123 elimination is still there but given the latest vacillation who knows for how long?

Then there is the deficit — the Conservative say in eight years it will be eliminated and the Socialists don’t give a date. Given the variables and the time frame of what real value is an eight-year Conservative promise?

I have not listed the capital projects the Conservatives are promising with no costing — a new children’s hospital in Surrey, a new patient tower at Nanaimo Hospital, replace Massey Tunnel, and a new Iron Workers Bridge.

And where is the accountability on the unconstitutional and unscientific covid mandates and lockdowns?

Like me, many conservatives will be disappointed.

Still no accountability from

National Citizens Inquiry

241014 – Why won’t the National Citizens Inquiry put their financials on their websitea nd the names of the people who are on their board of directors?

I have inquired about this some time ago and never received a satisfactory answer. I ignored it for a while but I just looked again. And nothing has changed.

In objective number 3 on the Inquiry’s website the following is stated:

3. TO RECOMMEND ways and means of ensuring that any future national crises are better managed, harms mitigated, and trust in public institutions upheld.

‘Trust in public institutions upheld.’

What better way to uphold trust in public institutions than to disclose who manages it and who provides the money to it and how the money is spent.

Sounds like a no brainer to me.

But for some reason this is a problem for the Inquiry.

Many Canadians and likely some non Canadians contributed financially to the Inquiry given they are seeking donations. And I am sure they would like to know who operates it and how the finances are managed. Are there people hired as contractors? For how much? For how long?

On researching the Government of Canada website I was able to find the Directors for this organization :

Directors; Minimum 5, Maximum10

Teresa Buckley

c/o NCI, 4246 Albert Street,
Regina SK S4S 3R9, Canada

Shawn Buckley

c/o NCI

4246 Albert Street

Regina SK S4S 3R9

Canada

Scarlett Martyn

c/o NCI

4246 Albert Street

Regina SK S4S 3R9

Canada

Kari Graham

c/o NCI

4246 Albert Street

Regina SK S4S 3R9

Canada

John Graff

c/o NCI

4246 Albert Street

Regina SK S4S 3R9

Canada

Ted Kuntz

c/o NCI

4246 Albert Street

Regina SK S4S 3R9

Canada

According to this Government site this particular NC Inquiry was incorporated on January 17, 2024.

There is no financial information on the Inquiry before January 2024. How much money was raised? How was it spent? Some of the present directors were a part of the group that managed the Inquiry before January, 2024.

The Inquiry since January, 2024 has produced no financials and though the legal requirement is annual financials you would think in the interests of transparency, accountability and ‘ trust in public institutions’ such would be provided. Even an unaudited summary of how much has been raised since January and how it has been spent I am sure would be appreciated.

Credibility is a must in this freedom movement. That means transparency and accountability.

why does Canada expect different results

when it continues to chose the same ‘actors’?

Looking across the nation nothing has really changed.

The political parties remain the same, they are challenging for power like they always did. Promising the moon and telling lies and controlled by lobbyists and consultants.

Our system is broken and the same kind of people and in some cases the same people who createdthe mess we are in are about to be elected to continue the destruction.

I have enumerated the many failures of our system over the past five years, accentuated by the Covid fiasco.

The three pillars of a democracy have been crushed.

The Parliament is just a shadow of its former self, with MPs clearly admitting they are mere social workers in the political realm and their influence is next to nothing as they bow and kneel to the caucus chair and the dear leader.I mean don’t you want to be a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary?

The SNC Lavalin scandal showed to even ordinary non-political Canadians just how broken the system is. Parliamentary committees closed down when the PM says so. MPs’ chances of getting a Private Members Bill before the House is almost impossible.

I wrote an MP two weeks ago. My correspondence is in the queue, an electronic machine told me. A few years ago an answer from a federal minister, many monthsafter my letter was sent, was by an unsigned division of the Department.

Then the executive, the Cabinet, once a place of debate, now just a rubber stamp for the PM’s office and the Privy Council ‘s instructions. Once there were even powerful regional Ministers who had influence.

Premiers have abrogated their role and suck at the federal health trough mistakenly thinking throwing more money at the problem will solve it. We are spending more per capita than most other countries, yet they score better on health outcomes.

Parliamentary Government has become a Republic type of Government with the Prime Minister and the Premiers acting like a President amassing the power and dispensing it as they see fit.

The Judiciary, a broken institution allowing its chief justice to disparage the truckers convoy (as did the PM) and is still the Chief Justice. He presides over a flawed entity that has no respect for the Constitution and is striving to make it in its own image, ignoring The Supremacy of God and The Rule of Law provision in the opening words of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This has become RULE BY LAW. A once-respected Institution is now held in low regard by a large section of the population.

It is embarrassing to watch Andrew Sheer, former Conservative Leader, evading answering questions on a TV Program like his did in an earlier government, sneering all the while, as he revels in his new born stature.

Look at our productivity. We are nowhere to be seen in the top ten countries like we were in a former time.

We excel in mediocrity.

Our health system is a joke in the OECD and we trail near the bottom on all the important metrics. Check the Commonwealth Fund, Fraser Institute. Millions do not have a family doctor. In the have Province of British Columbia it is close to 20% of the population.

None of our Universities can crack the top 20 in the world on any of the lists of the many organizations who track such things. And Universities world wide have rejected science and human rights.

We score so low on the ease of doing business (World Bank) that over 100 countries surpass us. The World bank has ceased doing this study. Too embarrassing for too many members, I suspect.

Conflict of Interest by MPs is a joke in that our PM has broken the Conflict Of Interest law five times and still is the PM. In BC The Conflict of Interest for MLAs leaves many powers of enforcement to a bureaucrat and in Ottawa the enforcement amounts to a few hundred dollars.

I have publicly suggested that the two things we must do first if ever there is a chance to reverse our tragic decline is financial transparency with the political parties and any MP or MLA that violates the conflict of interest laws should not be able to serve in that Parliament.

This is greeted with silent contempt. As has my more detailed Magna Carta.

I not only criticize I provide realistic solutions.

The Three main political parties have created this dismal circumstance.

And yet Canadians are going to elect one of them to serve again in Ottawa and very soon in British Columbia.

It is embarrassing living in BC to watch the leaders in the present provincial election out bid one another involving billions of the taxpayers dollars, with hardly a hint at the words deficit or debt both in which the Province is awash.

Why won’t Canadians realize hoping for different results from those that created the mess and selfishly made their comfortable pews and destroyed our democracy, our values, our desire to excel, is impossible.

Like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation it is a culture, it must be eliminated or it will devour independent journalism, and in the political realm permanently destroy our democracy.

Oct. 5, 2024

The goings on in our Parliament

Most Canadians don’t follow our Parliament’sproceedings. Most rely on the interpretation of others, mainly the press. And we know its credibility don’t we?

Well, the latest is whether Parliament should have access to documents it has requested. The Speaker has ruled it does. The Government is resisting releasing such documents. The documents to the now-cancelled Government’s Green Fund. The Auditor General finds that numerous conflicts of interest were committed in the dispensing of the money from the Green Fund.

However, the Auditor General and the RCMP say that they are concerned about the release of such documents in that therelease may infringe upon the Charter Rights of people involved and the RCMP says that such additional information may not help and likely is not criminal activity that the people were engaged in. Meanwhile, the business of Parliament is disrupted.

Now these are opinions of Agencies of Government. The Auditor General Office is a creation of The Parliament. The RCMP is a creation of The Parliament. Parliament is supreme and controls how it operates.

We know from The AG’s report that money was dispensed wrongly (to use a mild word) and conflicts of interest occurred.

So it seems to me that Parliament should take matters in its own hands and move decisively on this matter.

An interim measure could be a Special Committee of the House (sworn to secrecy) to receive the documents, determine whether Charter provisions are at play and whether the documents should be released to full Parliament and the public. A report back to Parliament in a month.

In any case Parliament can move now on the conflict of interests in the Auditor General’s report through a Parliamentary Committee process whose hearings would be public to determine the necessary involvement of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Commissioner in pursuing those public servants and Ministers, parliamentary secretaries who may have violated the Conflict of Interest Law. Additionally, the Committee should examine other possible violations of regulation, law in the dispensing of these green funds.

Oct. 4, 2024

Attention voters in BC who support

one of the three main political parties

If you are as keen as I am to improve the integrity of our political process you can request your leader and your candidate to agree in writing to amend The Members Conflict of Interest Act (RSBC 1996) Chapter 287 so that any member found guilty of violating provisions of the Act as determined by the Commissioner (identified in The Act) must not be eligible to continue to sit in the Legislature for a period of five years.

Right now the Commissioner ’MAY‘ hold a guilt party in contempt ( Section 21.1) or ‘MAY‘ report ( Sect 22.1) the guilty party to the Legislature.

And even if the Commissioner reports to the Legislature he/she can only recommend a reprimand, suspension, or a fine of up to $5000 or declare the seat vacant . But nothing there saying the guilty party cannot run again for that seat. And the Legislature can only act on what the Commissioner recommends. The Commissioner holds the power, it should be the Legislators.

This is all too soft, honesty is at stake. Here is a chance to influence the system.

Here is Section 22 of the Act

Penalties

22 (1)

If the commissioner finds

(a)

after an inquiry under section 21 that a member has contravened section3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 or10(1), or

(b)

that a member has refused to file a disclosure statement within the time provided by section 16 or that a member has failed to comply with a recommendation of the commissioner under section 16 (3) or 19,

the commissioner may recommend, in a report that is laid before the Legislative Assembly

(c)

that the member bereprimanded,

(d)

that the member besuspendedfor a period specified in the report,

(e)

that the member be fined an amount not exceeding$5000, or

(f)

that the member's seat be declared vacant until an election is held in the member's electoral district.

(2)

The Legislative Assembly must consider the commissioner's report and respond to it as subsection (3) provides

(a)

within 30 days after it is laid before the Legislative Assembly, or

(b)

within 30 days after the next session begins if the Legislative Assembly is not in session.

(3)

The Legislative Assembly may order the imposition of the recommendation of the commissioner under subsection (1) or may reject the recommendation,but the Legislative Assembly must not further inquire into the contravention or impose a punishment other than the one recommended by the commissioner.

24-10-02

No talk of debt and deficitis is irresponsible

These “small” people who lead our provincial political parties do not have the integrity to talk of such things.That’s why they aresmall people.

Citing the government’s own figures from The Public Accounts for 2023-24 and the budget document for 2024-25 the following can be gleaned: BC Debt has ballooned from $76,161 Billion in 2020 to$107,462 Billion in 2024, a 30-per-cent increase in debt in four years. Has your debt gone up 30 per cent?

The annual difference in revenue over expenses is the deficit which each year adds to the debt.

We are living on borrowed money now each year because we can’t pay our bills. There is a gap, more expenses than revenue.

2023-24 deficit $5,914 Billion
2024-25 deficit $7,911 Billion
2025-26 deficit $7,773 Billion
2026-27 deficit $6,288 Billion

So all this new money the leaders are promising is not there. It will have to be borrowed which will add to our deficits and debt. That’s why I call them small people and irresponsible.

Sept. 24, 2024

Vaccines Make Headlines In B.C. Election

If John Rustad and the rest of the political leaders in B.C. want to really know the true story about vaccines they should read “Turtles All The Way Down — Vaccines Not Fully Tested”.

Here Is A Summary Of Chapter 2

Chapter 2 of Turtles All The Way Down — The Science Of Adverse Events:A Missing Link and An Empty Toolbox

Summary — Although modern vaccines have been in widespread use for over 60 years, science and medicinehave failed to lay the scientific foundation required to properly assess the associations between vaccines and their reported adverse events.

The theoretical knowledge base on this issue is very limited and covers only a few of the myriad serious adverse events that have been reported post-vaccination, mainly those for which the connection to the preceding vaccine is obvious.Accordingly, there is also an acute lack of diagnostic and therapeutic tools available for use by medical professionals.

As far as vaccines and their adverse events are concerned, the doctor’s toolboxis practically empty.

It’s no accident that there is so little scientific research on the side effects of vaccines, a state of affairs that has persisted for decades. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of studies in the field of vaccinology are being conducted every year, and many of them are publicly funded. Itseems that health authorities in charge of budgeting these studies, however, are not too keen on committing resources to biomedical research on vaccine side effects, nor do they require manufacturers to perform such studies.

They seem content with the fact that nearly all vaccine safety research being done, from pre-licensure and onwards, ispurposely superficial and ineffectual.

Instead of conducting studies that seek to gain a thorough understanding of the underlying biological mechanisms, vaccine safety research settles formere statistical correlations that provide little theoretical or practical knowledge that can be used to develop tools for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of vaccine injury.

Yes, scientific research that could provide a thorough understanding of vaccine side effects would require significant financial investment. However, since vaccines are given to healthy people and pressed upon the entire population, most of whom are infants and children,the safety bar should be set particularly high.

Health authorities that urge everyone to be vaccinated have a moral obligation to do everything within their power to minimize the harm vaccines can do and to provide effective therapeutic measures for those who are injured. The persistent and severe lack of meaningful research has serious social and economic consequences.

Because of the medical establishment’s inability to anticipate who will be hurt by vaccines, its inability to associate a specific side effect with the specific vaccine( s) that caused it, and its inability to make adjustments in vaccination parameters to account for individuals’ genetic makeup and specific health conditions, catastrophicvaccine injury cannot be prevented. Investigating the underlying scientific foundation of vaccine side effects could potentially result in significantly safer vaccines, the development of effective treatment options for adverse events, and improved accuracy in cost-to-benefit analysis.

This becomes ever more important as each new vaccine is added to the vaccine schedule.

The findings of the IOM 2011 committee report, which reveal a critical shortage in basic scientific research on vaccine side effects, clearly contradict health authorities’ claim that vaccine safety has been thoroughly researched.

These authorities ignore the fact that vaccine safety research, for the most part, isbased on a statistical methodology with limited practical benefit and does not even attempt to contribute biomedical information that could lead to the development of diagnostic and therapeutic tools.

Medical science’s ongoing failure to provide practical answers is even more glaring in light of its inability to identify causes or provide cures for many of the serious conditions reported after vaccination that have become increasingly common in recent decades.

Ask your doctor: • If our child experienced a health problem following vaccination, what medical tests are at your disposal to decide whether the condition was actually caused by the vaccine? • We fear that our child could be adversely affected by a particular vaccine. What medical tests can you perform in order to determine whether or not she is at high risk of being injured by that vaccine?”

Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth by Anonymous

https://a.co/6jQaa9N

Published by Children’s Health Defence —- Written By Two Anonymous Israeli Heath Researchers. Nothing in this book has been credibly refuted.

1,200 references that can be down loaded with link provided.

Book available on Kindle for$10.49.

Aug. 30, 2024

And so the journey ends

“The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A-251-22, 2023 FCA 219, dated November 9, 2023, is dismissed with costs."

It was necessary from my point of view to cause the highest court to rule. And they have.

We now know that justice has vacated the land. Hesoid, the Greek poet (700 BC), had justice as a God, the daughter of Zeus. Many millennia later in Canada, justice is relegated to a dark place where individual rights go to die.

In responding to my lawyer and co litigants I said the following:

“The Right of a citizen in Canada to know whether a Federal Government policy/program that negatively affects that citizen is constitutional has been denied."

This I am sure most Canadians would see as an automatic, a natural outcome of our democratic principles and traditions — the right to know whether a Government is violating one’s Charter Rights.

Not so.

This decision hastens our Country’s democratic decline.“

Charter Of Rights And Freedoms saves trucker protester, thanks To Justice Centre

 

Court strikes secret police recording from trial

and dismisses all charges against protestor

August 9, 2024 

Report posted by the Justice Centre For Constitutional Freedoms 

 

OTTAWA, ON: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that all charges against peaceful Freedom Convoy protestor Ben Spicer have been dropped. Mr. Spicer was arrested in Ottawa on February 19, 2022, and charged with mischief, obstructing justice, and weapons charges. In his decision, Justice Timothy Lipson ruled that a secret recording of Mr. Spicer violated his Charter rights.

Like thousands of other Canadians, Mr. Spicer attended the peaceful Freedom Convoy protest in the nation’s capital. He was standing near the intersection of Bank Street and Sparks Street when police struck him at least twice in the midsection. 

An officer pulled him off the ground and handed him over to another officer. His backpack and jacket were searched, revealing a can of bear spray and a folding pocketknife. He explained that these were from a recent hiking trip. He had not taken the items out of his backpack or jacket at any time during the protest.

Officers loaded Mr. Spicer into a police van – equipped with a video and audio recording device. Mr. Spicer was not aware that he was being recorded. There were no signs, and he was not told by the officers. At no point was Mr. Spicer able to access legal counsel.

 

His trial proceeded at the Ontario Court of Justice from November 6 to 8, 2023, and again from April 16 to 18, 2024. The Crown tried to submit the recording as evidence against Mr. Spicer. They argued that the Court should infer criminal activity from the contents of the recording and that Mr. Spicer had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police vehicle. 

 

Mr. Spicer’s defence counsel disagreed. 

 

To rule that a detainee has no reasonable expectation of privacy while in police custody would be to favour the outcomes of law enforcement without any proper regard for the rights of detainees. 

 

His defence also argued that there was no evidence of criminal activity against Mr. Spicer and that his arrest was, therefore, unlawful.

 

On August 2, 2024, Justice Lipson ruled that Mr. Spicer had a reasonable expectation of privacy while in custody, especially since Mr. Spicer is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Because Justice Lipson found that the secret recording violated Mr. Spicer’s privacy rights, the recording was excluded as evidence from the trial.

 

Justice Lipson also found that police had no grounds for the arrest. Indeed, police had breached his right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned – protected by section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

Because his arrest was unlawful, Justice Lipson ruled that the search of his backpack and jacket was also unlawful and excluded the contents as evidence as well. All Canadians have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure – protected by section 8 of the Charter. 

 

Finally, Justice Lipson found that police had breached his right to retain and instruct counsel without delay – protected by section 10(b) of the Charter. All charges against Mr. Spicer were dismissed.

 

Lawyer Monick Grenier stated, “I am very satisfied that the judge recognized serious breaches of Mr. Spicer’s section 8, 9, and 10(b) Charter rights, and excluded the evidence after conducting an analysis, effectively gutting the Crown’s case.”

 

Mr. Spicer stated, “I am extremely grateful for everything that the Justice Centre and Ms. Grenier has done. I thank the Justice Centre for funding my defence, with particular thanks to all those who donated.”

Aug. 12, 2024

Serious system change is urgently needed

Now there is another candidate that John Rustad and the BC Conservatives don’t like, so they fired her.

The depth to which our democracy has fallen.

This latest candidate is in a Kelowna riding. And she said to get her fired, if one can go by what The Western Standard is reporting, that she wants accountability.

Sounds to me the candidate was on the right track to have the people responsible for the cruel unconstitutional unscientificcovid mandates and lockdowns investigated for possible criminal acts.

Has there been any independent inquiry? No! Where is the Legislature?

People need to rise up and demand accountability.

Until they do, sham parties like the BC Conservatives will fill the void given the record of the NDP and the BC United.

System change is needed.

Most are hiding way or doing a fake like the BC Conservatives.

https://www.westernstandard.news/news/breaking-bc-conservatives-remove-alexandra-wright-as-candidate-in-kelowna-mission/56806

Aug. 6, 2024

We need major reform

of our political system

Two National Post reporters, Raheel Raza and RizwanMohammed pose the question: Can The Conservatives Rescue Canada?

You Must Be Kidding. The mainstream press are bad but this is very, very bad. Please read the article.

It is the Conservatives with the Liberals and lately the NDP that have caused our economic, social and financial problems.

The article makes no mention of the Conflict of Interest Act and how these Liberals, Conservatives and Socialists are operating under a dishonest system which allows MPs to break the law and still serve in the Parliament – we even have our PM operating under such a system, violating the law five times.

No one wants to talk about it. The Conservatives, the likely saviours according to these reporters, won’t take action. I have written Pierre Poilievre, the leader, and he just ignores, just like the Liberals. When he was running for leadership he even called me. He needed something then. But he did not get it from me. And now I am persona non grata.

How can you have anything resembling an honest effort when the structure itself is dishonest. Out of the morass will only come more dishonesty and incompetent leadership. And that is what has happened and continues to happen. Bad health care, one of the worst public systems in the world, an education system that is in disarray and infested with a woke culture that sees more and more parents take their children out of the public system, a deficit, debt that all parties seem to enjoy. Our business climate is so inferior to the American business climate that it’s a public joke in international circles.

And nothing here about our Constitution. How it has been violated. The Charter abused and ignored.

Canadian rights and freedoms taken away, people injured and died and still being injured and dying. Where were and are the Conservatives? They were no where to be found on Parliament Hill when I was there during the legitimate Truckers protest. But afterward pretending to be all in favour of the protest.

These people are going to save Canada?

The Conservatives protect Andrew Sheer who took money from the Party for personal expenses. The Party talks about CBC— their convention of delegates from all over Canada say keep it, the leader says eliminate it. Which is it? The Party are the ones who brought in the terrible Emergencies Act, having Government investigate itself. It is the Conservatives who expanded the Omnibus Bill process, an action as undemocratic, unparliamentary, as they come. And when it comes to free trade that don’t know what is looks like.

We need major reform of the system. I have outlined it in my Magna Carta.

No one wants to listen.

July 26, 2024

Propane used in British Columbia to power electricity charging stations

Is this true? Yep! You got that right.

Richard Mason a formerBC Utility Commission Board member reports on his website “Just and Reasonable” that this is really true:

“On April 30, 2024 the BCUC granted BC Hydro, BC’s largest electrical utility, a certificate of public convenience and necessity to build four “off-grid” public electric vehicle charging stations powered by propane generators.

The sites are on Highway 97, approximately 113 km west of Fort Nelson, and on Highway 37, approximately 153 km north of Stewart.

BC Hydro considered some alternatives to propane generation, such as solar and batteries in combination, but rejected them because of inadequate sun exposure and low winter temperatures

.

The investment is in support of the government’s CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 to complete “BC’s Electric Highway by ensuring broad geographic coverage across the Province for fast-charger EV sites by Summer 2024” and the government’s zero-emission EV targets set out in the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act.

Construction was expected to begin in May and the stations should be open to the public by September 2024, meeting the government’s timeline for “implementing geographic connectivity across the province.”

This demonstrates once again just how crazy our Governments have become.

Gotta keep your green promise even if it isn’t green.

All over Canada, political parties

tend to be undemocratic.

We see it everywhere these days.

Latest from Montreal Gazette: “Decision to parachute Trudeau's choice into Montreal byelection shocks would-be candidates.”

It’s happening in British Columbia too where Party brass are trying to dictate candidates in local ridings.

The now-popular BC Conservatives are doing the same thing. People who want to run for this once-dormant party are being treated with disrespect and many are shocked at this sad turn of events.

It’s amazing that dislike in B.C. for the ruling party can drive people to support the undemocratic actions of other parties.

Such support will not end well.

Once again we see the evidence before our very eyes of democracy’s decline in our nation.

July 17, 2024

Our Covid inquires did not

cause any meaningful change

The Rouleau Federal Inquiry was deeply flawed as it was appointed by the Government to investigate the Government. The terms of reference were decided by the Government.

The Alberta Inquiry was deeply flawed as it was appointed by the Government and its terms of reference were decided by the Government. No Legislature involved.

Infested, then, with conflict of interest.

And the early promise of the Citizens Inquiry saw ethics violation and a power (ego?) battle among the "insiders". Haven’t seen any financial statements or the names of those involved in the administration of the inquiry on their website. Yet one of their stated guiding principles is "open and transparent."

We need a Federal inquiry led by The Parliament, a joint House of Commons/Senate led pubic inquiry (including the Territories) fully televised and Legislature led inquires in all the Provinces, fully televised.

Won’t happen , I know, but for the record that in my view is what should happen.

July 15, 2024

The University of British Columbia as a legitimate place of higher learning?

You gotta be joking!

A Professor at The UBC Medical School said this about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump:

“Damn, so close. Too bad,” wrote Karen Pinder, a professor of teaching at UBC’s medical school, on X. “What a glorious day this could have been!”

This is an utter disgrace! She should be fired immediately.

Can you imagine sending your child to a cesspool like this?

This is a public ‘university’ that gets gobs of money from the taxpayer. As a matter of fact, more than $1,000,000,000 (one billion) per year in a direct grant from the provincial government.

Both Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Eby have commented in a slippery way opposing violence and the attempted assassination but neither have called for the professor’s dismissal.

I have been writing about the decline of our society for some time. Here is a classic example of it at the highest echelons of education in our country.Our Prime Minister and a Premier as woke as they come.

Both of them should be fired as well.

Oh!Press reports say the University is investigating.

Nothing to investigate here. If she said it and from all accounts (NationalPost) and later deleted it ­she should be gone.

This University boasts that it is ranked number 2 in Canada. With people like Karen Pinder (I can’t call her a professor) around and her ilk that ranking means zero.

Just last week I wrote the University about their involvement in the months-long pro Palestinian protest on campus and were they involved in the protest suddenly leaving the campus. Could not get an answer except a platitudeof supporting dialogue.

Oh, the rot!

The people must save democracy in Canada and the United States

What follows was my address to the We Unify Conference In Victoria, June 23. Because of time constraints at the Conference this complete address was not presented, but here it is.

History and Application of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms — The Charter, My Magna Carta, Our Future.

By Honourable A. Brian Peckford PC

Last living First Minister who was a signatory to The PatriationAgreement/ Constitution Act 1982/Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Part 1 Introduction

Canada has been without a written bill of rights, charter since its inception, relying on British Common Law.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms History

Our neighbours to the south had a Bill of Rights added to their Constitution soon after their country was formed (1791–15 years) and here we were over a century after the country’s formation without a codified rights and freedoms document. Of course, there were and are many who argue that the British Common law was sufficient. In 1980 they were in the minority.

There was, of course, the Bill of Rights passed by the Canadian Parliament in the 1960s but that was a Federal Piece of Legislation and applied only to Federal Jurisdiction. The Bill itself contains the following provision:

(3)The provisions of Part I shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.

In other words this Bill of Rights was a Federal piece of legislation that could be changed by a simple majority in Parliament and did not apply in areas of Provincial jurisdiction.

There was a need for a National Act to cover all of Canada and that could only be accomplished through the Constitution. Furthermore, some permanence would be needed so that it would be beyond easy change by the whims of one majority Government.

This was all given impetus by the fact that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had promised a renewed federalismin the 1980 Quebec referendum campaign; and after the Quebec loss Premier Levesque was quick to press The Prime Minister to keep his promise.

The First Minsters agreed to a process for Constitutional change that continued from 1980 to November, 1981. First Ministers started the process andIntergovernmental Affairs Ministers and Justice Ministers and their staff from all eleven jurisdictions met under instruction from their first ministers and cabinets after that initial meeting.

But a deal was illusive in that there did not seem to be a honest effort by the Federal Government. Some Provinces had warned the others that they doubted the sincerity of the Federal Government. Many of us were naive and thought that this exaggerated the situation.

However, in 1981 the Federal Government abruptly left the table and initiated a parliamentary action whereby they asserted the Federal Government could unilaterally patriate, that is bring the Constitution home to Canada with its own amending formula, and a Charter of Right and Freedoms. The Parliament supported this move.

It was at this point that the provinces’ unity was shattered as two Provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick supported the Federal Move while the other eight did not. The eight were quickly called by a Federal friendly press ‘the gang of eight.’

This gang of eight decided to challenge the constitutionality of the Federal action and began actions in three of their courts. Over time it became clear that the Federal Action was not a sure thing and there was opposition growing within the Progressive Conservative official opposition party. The Federal Government decided that they had better get a court ruling on their action and this reference together with gang of eight references became one case before the Supreme Court of Canada.

And in September of 1981 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that what the Federal Government and the Parliament of Canada was attempting to do was unconstitutional. Here is what the court said:

Conclusion

We have reached theconclusion that the agreement of the provinces of Canada, no views being expressed as to its quantification, is constitutional­ly required for the passing of the "Proposed Reso­lution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada" and that the passing of this Resolution without such agreement would be unconstitutional in the con­ventional sense.’

To this day many journalists and lawyers, who should know better, try and style this as a minor setback for the Federal Government. It was not very minor. It was major. Without involving the Provinces substantially constitutional change was dead

Even the great scholar, as the press often described Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, was forced to concede defeat. He was forced to agree to meet the Provinces for one last effort. Without the Provinces’ agreement Trudeau would have been laughed out of London if he had proceeded with his proposal and he knew it.

Some of the Prime Minister’s own legal friends on the court had turned him down.

Those final November 3, 4, and 5 days were momentous days and at the end a deal was struck, then called the Patriation Agreement later to be called the Constitution Act 1982. Quebec did not agree and hence is not a signatory to the Agreement. But ten First Ministers, Governments agreed and that satisfied the Supreme Court decision of September.

The deal was hammered out on the night of November 4 as result of a written proposal put forward by me and my deputy ministers representing our Province to many of the gang of eight at the Chateau Laurier Hotel—The Saskatchewan suite.

That night with some changes the representatives of the Provinces agreed ( Quebec was not present, were not in their hotel rooms ) and that I should present it to the gang of eight First Ministers at a scheduled early morning meeting the next day. Seven Provinces agreed with the Proposal in the morning meeting and agreed that I should present it to the first ministers meeting scheduled for later that day. Quebec was at that meeting including the First Minister, Premier Levesque, and had an opportunity to read the document with his delegation. They indicated they could not support it.

I presented the approved written proposal, as instructed by the six first ministers, later that day, and with some additional amendment the Patriation Agreement was born. My best seller book ‘Some Day The Sun Will Shine And Have Not Will Be No More’ published in September 2012 has copies of those final documents and more elaboration of the process.

To this day the Canadian Encyclopaedia and others credit the handwritten notes by Attorneys General of the Federal, Ontario and Saskatchewan Governments, allegedly scribbled together in the kitchen of the Chateau Laurier Hotel, as breaking the impasse.

None of the eight Premiers saw these notes and were working from the typed written document I had presented on the morning of November 5 and all First Ministers and their delegations were working from the document I presented that November 5 afternoon. There was no reference whatsoever to, or the existence of, the scribbled notes of the Attorneys General or anybody else.

It is now obvious that egos were damaged and parties who thought that should be the architects of any change were going to nefariously try and enter the stage. Interesting it is that the Federal archives carry the scribbled notes of the shunned AG’s (if the Canadian Encyclopedia is to be believed) and not the formal document presented by seven provinces and ultimately approved by 10 Governments. Even the gang of eight strongest foe, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, recognized the document publicly in interviews on November 5, 1981.

I think it important that this history and context be described since all of this was not an easy process and obvious tensions of this sort are long lasting. And people need to be aware that November 1981 agreement culminated after a 17 month process that involved major legal action in 4 of the top courts of the land.

The Federal Government’s defeated unilateral proposal was not the end of the tension.

There arose soon after comments by national journalists who put a different spin on how the deal happened resurrecting the three Attorneys General charade. That was reflected in two books, one by Robert Sheppard and Michael Valpy entitled: ‘The National Deal: A Fight For Canada’s Constitution ‘ and another by Ron Graham entitled ‘ The Last Act: Pierre Trudeau and The Gang Of Eight And The Fight For Canada.’But the evidence was sparse, laced essentially with opinion.

Finally, an article in the National Post (1991) by two Alberta professors, Barry Cooper and Ted Morton entitled the ‘ The Night Of The Long Knives: Who Dunn It ‘ was suppose to solidify the notion that what I had said was untrue. Of course, when asked for proof by two of my deputy ministers ( they had kept copious notes of the time and I had as well from a local interview just days after the event that I kept on tape) the professorshad no evidence.

None of these commentators were a part of the constitutional process and were obviously working through unknown third parties for their faulty information.

It is against this backdrop that later we find not only unilateralism and erroneous notions of how the deal came together but obvious omissions of part of the Charter in court rulings, interpretations of the Charter of Right And Freedoms inconsistent with a true reading of it, and obvious omission of the intent of the First Ministers who signed the Patriation Agreement. Such intent being deliberately ignored.

Part 2 — Charter Application

Let us examine what transpired in 2020/1/2/3 as it relates to our Constitution, specifically the Charter of Rights and Freedoms during the so called ‘pandemic.’

It is clear looking back that the judiciary saw this new Charter as a means to enhance their own power and this was made all the easier by an incompetent political leadership, federally and provincially.

The patriation took political courage and political leadership, sadly lacking today. Decisions that have occurred through the courts are obviously decisions that are clearly in the purview of the elected and the parliaments. But a void appeared and the courts filled it, gladly.

The amending formula through which change could be realized through legitimate political means, that long sought after formula that alluded earlier leaders ( 10 attempts from 1927 onward) had kept the Mother country in play in Constitutional change ) was now available but ignored, rejected.

It’s as if the the Patriation process had not take place Once the country succeeded in becoming its own master in Constitutional Change, it has lacked the political leadership, vision and fortitude to actually exercise that leadership.

Part V of the Constitution Act States:

“PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA “

Section 38 describes the general amending formula

“38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclama- tion issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so au- thorized by

(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and

(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.”

Canadians have spent more time on trying to find fault with Section 1 of the Charter than they have in seeking to make Section 38 work. Before we had such a formula the attack was that Canada was still a colony of Great Britain where final approval for constitutional change had to be given.

There is no excuse now

There is what’s called the Canada Act that introduces the Constitution Act 1982 — Section 2 says:

‘2No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after theConstitution Act, 1982comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law.’

Many books have been written on the Courts’ incursion into making law not just interpreting the law. I am fond of referencing American Judge /former Solicitor General Robert Bork who, through a Massey Lecture here in Canada, produced a book (Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule Of Judges) which highlights the many instances of judicial overreach around the western democratic world including Canada.

Then there is the new approach of interpreting constitutions that swept through western university law schools especially in Canada called ‘ the living tree doctrine’. This doctrine is defined as ‘a doctrine of constitutional interpretation that says that aconstitution is organic and must be read in a broad and progressive manner so as to adapt it to the changing times.’

This is just what the ambitious judges were looking for — cover for a transfer of power from the parliamentary seat to the judicial bench.

There are many instances from 1982 to 2019 but this judicial overreach really took a front seat in public policy making for all to see during the so called pandemic from 2020 to now.

It is only now that some sense is being restored with decisions like Judge Mosley’s of the Federal Court of Canada upholding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And we do not know as of this writing if this will stand given that the Federal Government has announced, through the Deputy Prime Minister, it will appeal.

The assault on the Charter takes a number of forms including: ignoring certain provisions, ignoring the intent, and a reading that uses the living tree doctrine and flaunts, therefore, the clear meaning of the words and phrases of the document.

In other words the Charter has been massively violated.

A. First and foremost the Governments and the courts have ignored the opening words and concepts of the Charter:

‘Whereas Canada is founded on the principles which recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:’

This is how the Charter begins. These concepts contained therein must be considered in any legitimate consideration of matters that come before the courts involving the Charter.

Tragic indeed is the reality that our elected and our courts ignored this framework in which our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was to be considered.

The incredulity of the unilateralism of 1981 and the fantasy stories of how the Charter came to be now has to compete with the even greater incredulity of the arrogance of our Governments and our Courts in omitting consideration of these constitutional obligatory concepts.

It is as if the Almighty had miraculously bestowed upon our Governments and Courts special powers We can select what we like in the Constitution to decide Constitutional questions.

In the United States of America a Supreme Court decision that stood for over 40 years was overturned as being unconstitutional.

Decisions of the Canadian Courts that ignored full consideration of the Supremacy of God and the rule of law ( not by law) must find a similar fate in order for Constitutional legitimacy to be restored.

And I find even in Judge’s Mosley’s ruling no reference to the opening words of the Charter although he thankfully mentioned the important role of such opening statements.

One really need not go beyond this point to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of what has happened – ignoring the opening concepts of the Charter and hence making all such rulings unconstitutional, null and void.

But even if these words were not part of the Charter the actions of our Governments and Courts would still not be constitutional, consistent with the Charter.

B. The Intent

If one scans various court decision one often finds the judges discussing the intent of the authors of a given piece of legislation. And as the last living first minister who was there and helped create the Charter I can say with certainty that the first ministers intended for Section 1 of the Charter to be used in only very dire circumstances, like war or insurrection, the nation’s existence was at stake. Sect 4 of the Charter demonstrates the authors’ mindset:

“ Sect 4 (2)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.”

The degree to which information was shunned is most evident in that the courts and government were not interested in what the last living first minister whose name is affixed to the Patriation Agreement had to say about the intent of various parts of the Charter. In both the Federal Court on the travel mandates and the Rouleau Commission hearing I was not called.

C. And then there is Section 1 itself which many have maligned and twisted.

“1TheCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsguarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to suchreasonable limitsprescribed by law as can bedemonstrably justifiedin afree and democraticsociety.”

For the rights and freedoms of citizens to be suspended Governments must ‘demonstrably justify ‘such actions. Not one of the 14 Governments in instituting their lockdowns and mandates demonstrably justified their actions. Not one cost benefit analysis was done. Professor Douglas Allen of Simon Fraser University concluded after a exhaustive review of the global literature ( Covid Lockdown Costs /Benefits —A Critical Assessment Of The Literature) that this period of government incompetence could well go down as one of the greatest public policy failures. This was said in August 23, 2021:

“It is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in modern history.”

Time has validated the Professor’s words.

And they were totally ignored, as we all know, ‘The Great Barrington Declaration ‘ instigated by three of the world’s leading scholars ( from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford Universities) and who, themselves, were personally maligned. This declaration is signed by 16,129 Medical and Public Heath Scientists and 47, 723 Medical Practitioners.

The Section 1 goes on to say Government action must follow the rule of law and be consistent with the values of a free and democratic society.

But the Parliaments were absent, passing over power to the executive and to unelected Public Health Offices and Officers. To meet this requirement, given what governments had framed as a dire emergency, it is customary for Parliaments to be continually involved through ongoing parliamentary committees with public hearings ( accountability and transparency) so that the public would gain a full knowledge of the situation and know their duly elected representatives were in charge. That is what Parliamentary Democracy is all about. That’s what our reformers fought for in Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland even before there was a Canada.

Even our Chief Justice and our Prime Minister violated the norms of democracy in their public comments, the Chief Judge ‘s being blatantly inappropriate and the PM ‘s downright divisive.

There has been a tragic breakdown of the Constitutional order ; the executive and judicial power have subverted the role of elected representatives of the people. Socrates, Cicero, Locke and Count Montesquieu are turning over in their graves, not to mention the American authors of the Federalist Papers. Montesquieu, this wise French thinker in his Spirit of The Laws exclaimed that in the final analysis the people and parliament are supreme. He exclaimed:

“...when the laws have ceased to be executed, as this can only come from the corruption of the republic, the state is already lost.”

And

“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.”

As sitting American Supreme Court Judge Neil Gorsuch has said: the Covid response by Governments represented ‘the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in peace time history. ‘

The January 23, 2024 decision by Federal Court Judge Mosley ( page 125 ) comes full circle and brings one back to the reality of Section 1 for which many have maligned me and the other first ministers involved. The Judge says of the Government Emergency’s Act

“that the Proclamation was unreasonable and led to the infringement Charter Rights not justified under Section 1.’

One correction for the Judge – ‘demonstrably justified.’

After all the verbal gymnastics of the politicians, lawyers and the judges and precedents here or there by a given judge or court, it comes down to what the authors of the Charter said all along – what is reasonable – and is it justified —and demonstrably so

The West has allowed itself to abuse history, the scientific method, culture, order, God and the rule of law. The forest has been lost to the trees.

David Marks, an American investigative reporter and documentary producer wrote an essay on his sub-stack recently ( and carried by Naomi Wolf’s website Daily Clout) entitled ‘ Reversing The Descent of Humanity’. His final words were:

“At their core, people everywhere do want the same things, but they are not those benefits promised by those wielding power. The reliance on economic salvation and dependence on a reality engineered by the false prophets of government and science has only increased suffering.

These factors have engendered a dysfunctional world divided by meaningless inducements and harsh dictates.

Individuality and creativity have been eclipsed despite the powerful unique spirit within each one of us.

Change will only begin through an awakening and a recognition that new priorities must be established to strengthen the human spirit.

The challenge is staggering; solutions will take no less than an emergence of thoughtful, innovative paradigms and endeavors designed to counterbalance the descent of humanity into disposable automatons.”

Part 3 —A Way Forward

In May 2022 I presented My Magna Carta at an earlier We Unify Conference on the steps of the Legislative Building in Victoria — a way to help restore our Democracy given that the Prime Minister and The Premiers lack the leadership, vision and courage for Constitutional change right now.

A change in the system is needed, not a bill here and a bill there

And there are important things we can do until we get some real leadership and Constitutional change.

From My Magna Carta wWe can insist now:

A. Accountable Political Parties — Publishing Annual Audited Financial Statements — details of where the money comes from and where the money goes

B. That MP ‘s and MLA’s amend the Conflict of Interest Act in their jurisdictions whereby legislators who break the conflict of interest law cannot serve in the House of Commons or Legislative Assembly. Our PM has broken the conflict of interest law 5 times.

Do you know what these two measures, just these two, would do?

It would establish honesty, integrity among the political players, something we do not have right now. Citizens would become more trusting and less cynical.

Isn’t it amazing that this is not the standard.

The people must insist on it.

And insist on:

C. That, The power of the First Ministers ’ offices must be reduced. Cabinet is the executive. In Canada almost 1500 people work directly for the Prime Minster —it is as if First Ministers have become Presidents.

D. That, The power of the Parliaments must be restored and parliamentary committees playing a bigger role and the process for individual parliamentarians to introduce legislation made efficient and effective. Right now Parliamentary Committees can be closed down by the tyranny of the majority.

E. That, Civics must become a mandatory subject in the public schools of Canada—at least from grade eight, every year until the end of high school. Post Secondary institutions must appear before Legislative committees to defend their budgets and Professional Organizations like the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons and the Law Societies must appear before Legislative Committees to justify their mandates.

F. That, Balanced budget legislation to be adopted in all the Federal, Provincial and Territorial jurisdictions..

G. That Sovereignty be maintained—— no international agreements can be signed by the Federal Government that will in any way reduce the country’s sovereignty.

H. That, Reform to the appointment process for Superior Judges in this country. The Parliament must be the major player in a new process.

I. That Parliament pass legislation ensuring that the courts are forced in any interpretation of the Constitution to incorporate the opening words of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in their analysis and that any ruling on Section 1 of the Charter must incorporate a written report detailing a cost benefit analysis before invoking a suspension of rights or freedoms and that specific time frames must be included in such ruling causing a repeat process for any extension.

J. That Corporate power influence in Government has to be eliminated —it even works the other way where the US Government gave media companies over 1 billing dollars to advertise experimental vaccines. And in Canada likewise hundreds of millions of dollars went to media companies large and small to push the covid vaccine narrative.

Did you know that most biomedical research is paid for

by pharmaceutical companies —in one year 82% of the New England Journal Of Medicine published medical studies were funded by companies selling the drug.

That 66 per cent of the FDA reviewers of a drug ended up working for the companies whose drugs they were reviewing.

And in 2020, 72 of the 100 US Senators, 72 per cent, took campaign donations from Big Pharma and 302 of the 435 members, 69%, of the House of Representatives

How can honest public policy be enacted when the regulatory bodies and the Congress itself is captured by corporate interests. And, of course, similar corporate influence exists in Canada.

Additionally, one should note the corporate tech and media companies who signed on to the fake Trusted News Initiative, involving private and public entities that would decide on what news to be carried.

Robert Kennedy may not get everything right but on one thing he is dead right—our democratic systems have become corrupted and captured by corporate interests not the interests of the citizen. He said in a recent interview:

“People know that they don’t own their government anymore …It’s rigged against them.”

This week American constitutional scholar, Professor Of Law, Jonathan Turley has a new book out entitled - “The Indispensable Right —Free Speech In An Age Of Rage.” An Indispensable book to read as he upholds the person’s right, now under attack, of free speech. Our modern day John Milton, the great English Poet who defended free expression in his Aeropagitica in 1644 before the British Parliament.

If we in Canada will not insist on these unconstitutional changes just enumerated what chance is there that more complicated Constitutional talks could ever succeed?

One of the frightening dimensions of this Corporate —and global dimension is highlighted in Aaron Kheriaty ‘s book The New Abnormal —The Rise Of The Bio Medical Security State where he explains that given that many of the corporations are agents of the state and are already multinational that regardless of the success of a Global Health Treaty, control is already global through these corporations and unelected globalists.

And Kheriaty asserts that lurking in the corner is a Globalist agenda of trans humanism taking us beyond what we know to be human, advocated by World Economic Forum spokesmen like Professor Yuval Noah Harari. Witness the comments of this man in a recent interview as quoted in Dr. Kheriaty’s book:

“Now humans are developing even bigger powers than ever before. We are really acquiring divine powers. We are really upgrading humans into Gods of creation and destruction.’

This would be in line with a speech he gave to a Google conference saying:

“I mean, all this story about Jesus rising from the dead and being the Son of God, this is fake news.”

This is a significant influencer in the WEF. Here is one final quote of his complaining about us peasants worrying about the elites:

“In recent years we saw populist politicians undermining deliberately the trust that people have in important institutions like universities, like respectable media outlets. These populist politicians told people that scientists are this small elite disconnected from real people.”

Yes sir, I stand guilty

This is the dangerous road we are already travelling — where we have world intellectuals as international best seller author Melanie Phillips has said — “turning our world upside down” without a shot being fired.

Canadians and Americans, liberty loving people everywhere, must stand up to this encroaching tyranny. We need to become involved, aware of what is happening and taking action if we are ever restore our democracies and vanquish the unelected smug elites from removing freedom from our world.

We, the people, must resist this madness

The three pillars of our democracy have been corrupted: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary.

It is up to the people to demand our democracy back.

If this is not urgently pursued now, the globalists will win and we will all be Orwellian characters defying the promise of our democratic ancestors.

Our Members of Parliament,

law breakers as well as law makers

Part 2. You’ll find Part 1 HERE.

This is unbelievable.

We have an NDP MP from Manitoba who seldom comes in person to Ottawa to perform her MP duties but has to go in person, with her husband and twochildren accompanyingher, to Montreal, Quebec City and Ottawa during Christmas Time – its a Christmas Holiday ­– that ‘s what it is, for the whole family and a lot of the expense paid for by you and me.

This MP is part of a Party that did a deal with the Liberals to keep the Liberals in power. Her critic position means nothing, zero. She is using this false critic position to cover for a Christmas vacation for her and her family in Ontario and Quebec, much of it on the taxpayers’ dime.

Allowing MPs to participate online in Parliamentary business was a Covid measure which the MPs have now extended to non-covid work. Give an inch they will take a yard.

This MP can’t get to Ottawa that often to do legitimate work but wow family and all to Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City for illegitimate work. She was in Ottawa for fewer than 30 days when the Parliament was open for 70 days for the period in question. But a jaunt to Quebec city during Christmas with family?

And there is the report of her going to Windsor, to talk to someone about recreational facilities – a soccer facility? She had to go to Windsor to learn about financing soccer facilities for indigenous youth in Northern Manitoba! How insulting is that? Apparently her husband went to school and university in Windsor.

It’s entitlement run wild. And even to Detroit where she met with anti-democratic Congresswoman Talib.

Where are the written reports of this MP’s meetings, with whom, for how long, what was the subject matter?

And in this same report there’s the revelation that Conservative and NDP MPs held so-called ‘caucus meetings’ while attending a party Convention – not a Parliamentary convention. Apparently the new flexible rules allow for caucus meetings to be paid for by us, but this was a party event and the Conservatives and the NDP MPs stretched the rules, got together, called it a caucus meeting, and claimed expenses.

These are our MPs folks, law breakers as well as law makers.

If this Manitoba NDP MP is that interested in saving the French language, she could start in her own Province in and around Winnipeg where 3.8 per cent of Manitobans speak French. Perhaps she could help increase that number. That would be a lot less expense on the taxpayer! I jest!

We all know that would not fit a vacation definition.

As far as The Conservatives and NDP conventions are concerned Canadians should now know, if they did not already, that our MPs are in it for themselves, the voter is just an necessary appendage to access the money and false prestige.

We need to start again, a wholesale cleansing, in order to have a chance to retain some vestige of representative and responsible government.

Dr. Henry should be fired from

public health officer position

The Premier, Government of B.C., and the Legislature should ensure Dr. Bonnie Henry is no longer the Province’s public health officer.

In a stunning revelation a very important public servant in B.C.declares that she believes illicit drugs should be legalized.

A Global News article s states: “B.C.’s premier says he disagrees with the province’s top doctor when it comes to thelegalizationof illicit drugs.”

The top doctor, so called, Dr. Bonnie Henry, confirmed that was her opinion when questioned before a Federal Parliamentary Committee – legalize illicit drugs.

And she is still the top doctor.

Our Premier says that’s not a problem because he and the top doctor agree on 90 per cent of everything else.

Well it is a problem.

Because the drug problem in this province has been a disaster and Premier David Eby and the top doctor are two of the people responsible for this failed public policy. The top doctor can be fired and that should happen – Now.

Government’s own statistics has over 13,000 dead from illicit drug use since 2016.Does that not show a failed policy??

Who is accountable?

The province has been in a public health emergency because of this drug issue since that year – 2016 – 8 years!

Eby’s new position on being opposed to drug legalization I suspect hasmore to do with politics thanpublic health policy.

But how many people is Dr. Henry influencing in the bowels of the Government and what other positions does she hold on social policy that are at odds with the majority of legislators and citizens?

She is a present danger to the well being of this Province and no one will call her out.

Or the Premier or the Minister of Health.

These people are escaping two provincial public health disasters – the management of Covid and the management of illicit drug use. Thousands have died and many more thousands have been injured.

Is common sense ever to return? Will the people seek accountability?

There are so many people

who think everything is just rosy

I am just a conspiracy fellow, way past my best-before date, desiring to utter negatives. And that excuses it all. Kill the messenger, ignore the message.

That brings me to the President of The Canadian Medical Association. Does the BC Public Health Officer or the Health Officers of all the Provinces and Territories and the Federal Public Health Officer and all the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeonsreally believe what this person said? No vaccine injuries!

And the earth is flat!

Of course, one could add most of the judges in this country whose belief in the administrative state is downright scary.

Take the Chief Justice who opined about the truckers. No accountability for him. Still the Chief Justice!

The Prime Minister who has broken the law five times. No accountability. Still the PM.

The Rouleau Commission, Government described as The Public Order Emergency Commission. Just how it is described implies some public order infraction – the propaganda begun already. And its blatant conflict of interest –Government appointscommissioner, Government determines terms of reference. You can see why my name was eliminated as a witness. I just might call it out on the witness stand. Then the Province of Alberta, alleging it is different, follows suit with its own conflict of interest charade.

We won’t get into the conflicted National Citizens Inquiry except to say a good idea gone bad.

Our Parliaments succumbing to the rich and powerful, failing to even govern themselves let alone the society that elected them.

Do people read history? Of course, the education establishment has ensured that few study it anymore.

Take Aaron Kheriaty’s book “The New Abnormal, The Rise of The Biomedical Security State.” In his first chapter he forces us to remember the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. How all the elites bought into this sad, tragic public policy disaster. We don’t seem to have learned.

Our humanity falters.

What crime did Socrates commit, or Jesus of Nazareth? Many know of the Christian gospels, few of Socrates defence in 399 BC. As Socrates said about his accusers in his public defence (Plato’s description in The Apology):“and yet they have hardly uttered a word of truth.” And Luke says Jesus said of his pending death: “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”

And in both it was truth that died. Something simple, profound and powerful.

What is it now that causes such an affront to basic truths – The American Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, both products of great sacrifice, lifting ourselves from intrigue, falsity and dishonour to liberty, freedom and exalting the rights of the individual.

And now back down again?

Open letter to John Rustad, Leader Of The B.C. Conservative Party – Ideas for reform – bringing back honesty

It is obvious to all who live in British Columbia that you and the Party that you now lead are a major political force in the political life of the Province. You and your Party will have a significant influence on public policy at least over the next several years.

Given that you left the Liberal Party (now the BC United) as an MLA and moved to the Conservative Party, and now its leader, you are well aware of how politics is ‘played’ inthis Province and Country.

I would urge you to reject the politics of the past and forge a refreshing new beginning in this regard.

Unfortunately, some of your first moves have not been encouraging. For example, appointing candidates to run for the Party.

I submit the following as necessary reforms to help re-establish democracy in our Province:

A. You should reject the easy, undemocratic process of appointing candidates for the various ridings. A local association should be established and that Association should conduct a nominating meeting through which the Party’s candidate is chosen by the voters of that riding. Accountability and transparency, and democratic leadership are best served using this process.

B. Being an MLA you are well aware of the conflict of interest legislation in this Province. An MLA can break the law and still sit in the legislature. It is all up to what the Conflict of Interest Commissioner decides and recommends to the Legislature, Section 22 of the relevant Conflict of Interest Act.

You should have in your platform that you will as a Government propose an Amendment to The Act ensuring that if an MLA has violated the law as determined by the independent Conflict of Interest Commissioner, that MLA should automatically be disqualified from serving in the Legislature. Lawmakers should not be able to be lawbreakers. How undemocratic is that!!

C. Society must cleanse itself of the coercion, intimidation, lack of freedom, and lies of the last few Covid years. Truth has been raped, medical science ravaged.

Many are afraid to speak because just about everything today involves Government, directly or indirectly.So people are afraid to confront their doctor or others in positions of power. There are five million without a doctor in Canada, almost one million in this Province.

Many citizens have been injured and some died as a result of unnecessary lockdowns and mandates leading to delays in specialist appointment and surgery.. Others were injured and died as a result of the experimental vaccines. There has been no responsible accounting of these tragic circumstances.

Society cannot move on until those responsible are brought to Justice.

It is hard to believe that only one Provincial Inquiry has been conducted, even though Health is a Provincial responsibility constitutionally, and that was a very flawed one with the Government ( Alberta) controlling the whole process ( terms of reference and members of the inquiry), the Legislature sidelined,a blatant conflict of interest. The Rouleau Commission was a Federal Government controlled event, the Government establishing the terms of reference and appointing the inquiry Commissioner,and the National Citizens Inquiry has been embroiled in ethics violations and infighting among its leaders.

You now have a golden opportunity to do things right.

I recommend that you state now as part of the Party platform that if you are elected Premier that you will initiate an independent inquiry supervised by the people elected to serve – a multi-party legislature committee to hold public hearings.

All government separtments and agencies will have to provide information and testify before the Committee as requested and under oath. And the Minister of Health, the Public Health Officer and the Premier who oversaw the Province’s covid response will be required to appear. And all other Provincial public servants and agents and agencies of the Government as determined by the Committee.

The Committee will be required to call independent medical experts from around the world, mandatory to have experts from the Government of the State of Florida, and experts from the Government of Sweden, the World Council of Health, the Children’s Health Defence and the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.

Additionally, it will be mandatory for the Committee to call Dr. Charles Hoffe and personnel of The BC College of Physicians and Surgeons to determine why Dr. Hoffe has been so maliciously maligned by the College.

The Committee will be required to call Dr. Douglas Allen, Dr. Stev Pelich, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Dr. Byram Bridle and Dr. Eric Payne for their testimony concerning Governments’ covid response. These are world class Canadian experts. And the Committee will be required to call vaccine experts, to determine the adverse events situation and having Dr. Jessica Rose appear, a Canadian with a stellar International reputation in adverse events and others of her stature..

The Committee will be required to call constitutional experts and not just Government experts, but including experts from the Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Canadian Constitutional Foundation, the Civil Liberties Association, Mr. Bruce Pardy of the Fraser Institute, The Canadian Association For The Advancement of Science In Public Policy and other National and International experts as determined by the Committee.

The Committee will be provided with the budget necessary and hold hearings in all regions of the Province.

The Committee will meet for at least a year and be granted extensions by the Legislature if so requested by the Committee.

D. In Section 4:06(c) of your Party’s Constitution the treasurer is to present accurate financial statements to the annual meetings of the Party. I applaud this commitment but I would recommend that you amend this section to be “audited financial statements and that such statements be put on your Party’s website every year for all to see.”

E. Your Constitution in Section 6:04 says that the Elections Readiness Committee MAY establish a Candidates Review Committee. I recommend that you amend this section to make the process mandatory. The party must be democratic in all its dealings.

F. Similarly, Section 6:05 exempts the Candidate Review Committee decisions from any appeal. Once again I recommend this be amended to conform with the other appeal procedures of the Party contained in Section 17.

G. Many voters do not trust the verbal promises often made by political candidates or the written commitments as contained in a party platform. They seldom become law and policy with any new government. And resolutions passed at Party conventions are not binding on the Party if it becomes Government.

You could change this.

You could have a formal document – a contract with the people in which you outline your platform and have it signed by all Candidates for the Party.

This would gain instant credibility and go a long way in bringing integrity back to our political process.

H. I applaud the climate, vaccine, budget, taxation parts of your platform. I would recommend that you amend the platform provision on a balanced budget giving a specific time line. Many past platforms of parties have had a general commitment and that ends up being more and more deficits, larger and larger debts. No balanced budget.

But all these positions are not binding without a formal contract as recommended above.

Why should any voter trust a Party without legally-binding commitments given the lies and broken promises of the past.

I. Given the blatant violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Governments and Courts during to so called pandemic period, as well as many violations even before this period, you commit to the principle that any new law or policy proposed by your government will be obligated to provide publicly written reasons of how this new law or policy conforms with the first principles our Charter: The Supremacy of God and the rule of law.

This will be a strong reminder to the Judiciary that they are in the business of upholding our Constitution, not ignoring parts of it, but interpreting all of it, and not issuing judicial fiat to changing the Constitution, an act that can only be done by the elected representatives of the people as outlined in Section 38 of the Charter.

Your public comments that you accept people of various views to the Party does not, I trust, mean that the party’s principles are to be compromised for the sake of numbers. Rather all are welcome who adhere to the Party ‘s contract with the people.

Respectfully submitted
Honorable A. Brian Peckford PC

The Canadian judiciary flunks again

– on the Constitution and science

Is it that hard to read these days beyond what you are fed?It seems that way with Canada’s Judiciary.

Take the BC Supreme Court Decision by one Judge Coval of the B.C. Supreme Court:

Ruling that Th Public Health Officer did not violateany of provisionsthe Constitution or contradict science by maintaining mandates for heath care workers.

First,the Judge has violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by ignoring consideration of the opening words of the Charter:

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

Second, the intent of Section 1 was for it to be used in war, insurrection, the existence of the country was at stake.There was no such condition prevailing duringthe so called Covid pandemic.

So, constitutionally, the Judge continues the assault on the actual words of the Charter by ignoring them and disregarding intent, a commonly used concept in many judicial decisions in Canada and internationally.

Three, the medical literature is full of evidence thatmandates do not work. Dr. Douglas W. Allen of Simon Fraser University, in the Province where the Judge resides, drew attention to this in hispublished report entitled “Covid Lockdown Cost/Benefits: A Critical Assessment of the Literature”. Surelyhis honour has read this report reviewing 80 International studies highlighting the weak to non-existentevidence of mandates/lockdown effectiveness.

There is also the work of Japaneseresearchers showing a higher incidence of cancer among those vaccinated than was traditionally the case before the Covid vaccine was used.

Was the Judge aware of the work ofHart Group (one click away on computer) concerningcancer and the Covid vaccines? There are numerous other reports on the negatives of mandates, lockdownsand the negative effects.

Was the Judge aware of the Great Barrington Declaration and its authors, three of the most-esteemed scholars in medical research and the ongoing work of the may authors of the Brownstone Institute? A quick browse of theInstitute’s web page would cause the judge to legitimately doubt the Government narrative to which he is so solely devoted.

For brevity, let me just record one more source: Is the Judge aware, he ought to be, of the book “Turtles all The Way Down, the Science and Myth Of Vaccines?” The book and its 1,200references is trying to be ignored by the authorities but is readily available at Amazon and produces a devastating record of medical incompetence, and wilful ignorance and deliberate deception when it comes to vaccines.

Before Covid, science clearly stated the ineffectiveness of mandates, lockdowns and masks. Something changed in that approach that has never been explained. Why? Because it cannot be explained honestly.

So, scientifically, the Judge needs to update his science.

Sadly, another shining example of the state of our nation.

Rex Murphy, Canada’s great wit, passes

When a voter was asked many years ago why he did not vote for Rex Murphy in his losing attempt for a party nomination in his native Newfoundland, the answer to a local reporter was: "I would vote for Rex if understood those big words."

But later Canada understood him as an insightful, eloquent spokesman in his various media capacities. The CBC Cross Country Checkup program gave him the opportunity to converse with Canadians of every background and from every region. And I believe Rex enjoyed that interaction. And likely Canada got to appreciate his talents more in such roles rather than be trapped with a political party affiliation. Additionally, his later newspaper columns were keenly anticipated, enjoyed and appreciated by Canadians everywhere.

Rex attended Memorial University during my time there and we enjoyed English Literature both of us students in Dr. Pitt’s Romantic Poets course. And I served on the Students Council when he was the President.

We have lost a great scribe , an independent thinker, both in short supply in today’s world.

Preston Manning has a bad idea

 

Preston Manning recently proposed the ‘regions’ concept, an idea he would like to see endorsed by a future Canadian government. I suppose he is eager to see Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre adopt this idea. Perhaps he is acting for Poilievre to test the waters before he becomes PM. From all reports he is firmly with Poilievre.

Of course, having a given federal government or Parliament endorse anything these days is the kiss of death. And it can easily be changed by successive governments or parliaments. So little of value there. 

 

Manning is way off the mark.

First and foremost, we must address the COVID mess. The Government of Canada (and all the Provinces and Territories) has done its part to abuse our constitution and cause undue harm. Many including me are still fighting in the courts for justice. Those responsible must be brought to Justice. The Inquiry that Manning led in Alberta is a whitewash of what needs to happen. And the National Citizens Inquiry got in to trouble over Manning’s ethics. And has had a serious rupture since. Sadly, some honest people got wrapped up in that exercise. I still don’t see any audited financials on their revamped site.

Manning still does not get it that integrity and honesty must come first.

The next action is to make Political Parties and Parliaments honest.

So, secondly, have his friend Poilievre propose an amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act such that an MP who breaks the law cannot serve in the House of Commons. I have written Poilievre but I am only a small fish and thus have been ignored. But big fish Manning might be able to cozy up to the leader and who knows? The Conservative Party in its latest convention failed to do this.

 

Thirdly, Manning can also impress upon the leader that the Conservative Party should publish on the Party’s website annual audited financial statements — let the people know where the money comes from and where the money goes. The Party collects and spends millions of dollars a year. And why not have a designated period at annual conventions where the budget is presented and members able to question the Party brass? That would be democracy.

 

Fourth. Then there is the business of Parliamentary Government vs Executive Government and Courts infringing on policy.  The PM’s office has become too powerful and the Parliament too weak. Note the SNC Lavalin affair. The Courts have abused the Constitution, as many recent decisions attest. 

 

These are immediate issues that have to be changed if our democracy is to be restored.

 

My Magna Carta on my blog (www.peckford42.wordpress.com) deals with many more. 

 

Proposing some “regions” concept through the Federal Government is a non starter.

 

Fifth. Manning needs to read The Constitution Act of 1867 and 1982.

 

The political structure of this country can only be changed through the Constitution. Trudeau Sr tried to do federal action and got rebuked by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1981. The Federal Government is not the national government. 

 

Manning begins the article with ‘Canada is a nation of regions.’

 

You can describe it how you like but constitutionally it is a federation composed of a federal government and ten provincial governments sharing power, Sections 91 and 92 of The Constitution Act 1867. That is the reality 

 

Manning mentions ‘with the co-operation of the Provinces’ only once in the article. And this is vague.

 

Any attempt to diminish the power or influence of individual provinces, which is likely under a ‘regions’ recognition, threatens the integrity of our Constitutional arrangement. There is already too much overreach as we see in the courts and the federal government’s encroachment in the areas of the environment and taxation. This sounds like the World Economic Forum in miniature – reduce the power of individual constitutionally existing units through the back door. Such federal action is misguided, unconstitutional and wrong.

 

Near the end of the article Manning demonstrates his lack of appreciation of our Federal system when he says:

 

“And thus the question: Could not official recognition of the regional character of Canada by the next federal government, and the fashioning of a pro-active but conditional response to the distinctive concerns and aspirations of each as suggested above, turn what has previously been a divisive national liability into a unifying asset for Canada as a whole?”

 

This is a National issue not a federal one. It would require a Constitutional action, a majority of provinces and the federal government in a very structured process.

 

One of the great achievements of the Constitution Act of 1982 was the Amending Formula that had evaded leaders from the 1920s to the 1980s. 

 

Canada can now amend its own Constitution without any reference to the U.K. It can mold what it wants.

 

So I suggest to Manning that if he is eager to assist in a more functional Canada he begin with the COVID mess, then with a more honest and more democratic federal parliament and Government and reformed Courts and then The Constitution which must involve the Provinces and The Federal Government. 

 

This is available in an already established constitutional procedure called The Amending Formula, Section 38 of the Constitution Act 1982. 

 

Throwing bandaids at a massive national wound by potentially further abusing our Constitution is clearly not an option. 

 

Supreme Court of Canada to hear Newfoundland and Labrador Charter case. Should we be hopeful?

In what can only be considered a surprise move the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear an appealof a decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. Surprise because the Newfoundland and LabradorCourt 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 CivilLiberties 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 affectingtheir basic mobility rights.

Back in May 2020, CCLA challenged the constitutionality of the Newfoundland government’s Bill 38 beforethe province’s Supreme Court. This Bill provided for a travel ban between provinces and other restrictivemeasures 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 Charterright 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, theCourt of Appeal refused to settle the merits of the appeal under the motive that it was moot, since the banhad 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. Thiswill allow the SCC to address novel questions about the scope of mobility rights in Canada and the extent towhich 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 McGowanfrom 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 thatit will not just issue a silly moot decision given that they could have let the Court Of Appeal decision ofNewfoundland 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 tobe 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 their elected representatives as expressed inSection 38 of the Constitution Act 1982 in which the Charter is located — the Amending Formula.

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

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

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

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

Hence, a glaring, fundamental mistake has occurred in interpreting our Charter.

B. The blatant omission of considering the opening words of the Charter in any interpretation of legislationby the Courts is an abuse of the Charter, our Constitution. Where is the power provided the courts toengage 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 wordsrelating to God was by an Alberta Judge in a lower court foolishly indicated that the creators of the wordsdid 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.

C. As for Section 1 itself of the Charter. If one can get past the previous points, which is impossible, but let’sspeculate: 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

1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subjectonly to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free anddemocratic 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, ifyou will, with ‘ as can be demonstrably justified ‘ and ‘ in a free and democratic society.’

This was deliberate by the creators, authors of this section.

So, as we all know such reasonable demonstration would be a cost benefit analysis, a tool used frequentlyby Government in considering new policies or programs —and this case especially when sacred rightsenshrined 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 theProvinces 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 andthe 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 neverconsulted !

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

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

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

It denies a citizen the right to know whether a Government action to which a citizen was subjected violatesthe Charter. Should a court idea of mootness, refusing to rule on whether a Government action of onlymonths before overrule the people’s right to know if their rights and freedoms were violated ?

Is not this 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 millionsof 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 arediscussing is anything but a frivolous matter, even though The Newfoundland Court of Appeal in calling thewhole 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 Courtconstructed procedures.

So the highest court can go back to ‘first principles’, and examine intent and the opening words of theCharter and place them in full context in any interpretation of the Charter. If this were done then Section 1of 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 toget 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 intentin interpreting our Charter.

Is the Supreme Court of Canada up to the challenge? Will our Constitution, our democracy be restored?”

40-plus years of lies

Wikipedia and other so-called authorities continue the falsehoods

The anniversary of the Constitution Act 1982 is upon us, having received Parliamentaryapproval on March 29, 1982 and Royal Assent on April 17, 1982– and the prior approval of nine provinces without which there would be no Constitution Act 1982.

Of course, Wikipedia and other authorities still get the whole thing wrong. Let me quote part of what Wikipedia says online:

‘In September 1981, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Patriation Reference that provincial consent was not legally necessary, but to do so without substantial consent would be contrary to a longstanding constitutional convention. [11] Trudeau succeeded in convincing nine provinces out of ten to consent to patriation by agreeing to the addition of aNotwithstanding Clause to limit the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [12] as a result of discussions during a First Ministers' conference and other minor changes in November 1981.[13]”

A. Convention by definition are customs longstanding. In constitutional terms that is why they are called ‘conventions.’In other words what Trudeau Sr and the FederalParliament was trying to do wasunconstitutional.

That is why Trudeau Sr came back to the table.He was forced to if he still wanted to do the deal. Wikipedia does not state that.

B. And Trudeau Sr persuaded no one – ‘succeeded in convincing no one.’ he and the parliament of Canada lost in the patriation reference.

Rather, it was a provincial proposal initiated by the government of newfoundland and labrador (began night of Nov 4 and morning of Nov 5) that succeeded in breaking the deadlock between the provinces and the federal government on the afternoon of November 5, 1981 and which later became known as the constitution act 1982.

Copies of these documents are on pages 263 to 269 of my best selling book of 2012. ‘ some day the sun will shine and have not will be no more.’ the book is still available on kindle, and in some public libraries.

And i still have the documents in my possession.

C. And the other changes were not minor. Hardly! They included:

An amending formula without which there would be no way for Canada to change the constitution and it was this that had prevented earlier constitutional efforts ( 10 in all) over the previous six decades.

Recognition constitutionally for the first time of our aboriginal peoples.

First time that equalization was given constitutional recognition

And the notwithstanding clause, a provincial condition, without which there woud have been no agreement.

And important amendments on renewable resources among other matters

This is the nature of our society today —and as one can see it started decades ago —when if the narrative did not gain favour with the elite,regardless of the evidence, it got maligned and ignored.

It was the premiers that forced Trudeau Sr to the table, that he and his unilateralism had lost.

Honorable A. Brian Peckford P.C.

Only Surviving First Minister Who Was A Signatory To The Patriation Agreement, Constitution Act 1982.

Tribute to the man who saved Newfoundland

Brian Mulroney was the best friend Newfoundland and Labrador ever had in the Prime Minister’s chair.

There was the Free Trade Agreement , the support to anti apartheid forces, and the acid rain deal with the Americans. To many in the nation’s eastern most Province it was something else.

A great friend of Newfoundland land and Labrador has passed.

Without Mulroney keeping his promise,the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would not be a have Province today. His pursuit with the Hon Pat Carney, his Energy Minister, to ensure the Province’s offshore hydro carbon resources were treated the same as other provinces onshore hydro carbon resources was monumental and changed the course of Canada’s constitutional development because the Atlantic Accord became applicable all across the nation.

In my 2012 book I said:

“Without Brian Mulroney there would be no Atlantic Accord, and without the Accord Newfoundland and Labrador would not be a "have" province today. And this book would have been much different.”

The book is entitled Some Day the Sun Will Shine and Have Not Will Be No More.

To wife Mila and the family I extend on behalf of my wife Carol and I, our deepest sympathies.

Peckford, Bernier take travel restrictions

to Supreme Court of Canada

JANUARY 11, 2024

OTTAWA, ON: The Justice Centre announces that the Hon. Brian Peckford, the Hon. Maxime Bernier, and other applicants seek to appeal their vaccine mandate challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada. These Applicants argue that vaccine mandates are an issue of national importance and that Canadians deserve to receive court rulings regarding any emergency orders that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In November 2021, the Government of Canada required all travelers of federally-regulated transportation services (air, rail, and marine) to provide proof of Covid vaccination. These restrictions on the Charter freedom of mobility prevented approximately 5.2 million unvaccinated Canadians from traveling by air and rail.

In response to these restrictions, Hon. Brian Peckford (last living signatory of the Charter and former Premier of Newfoundland), Hon. Maxime Bernier (leader of the People’s Party of Canada), and other Canadians took the federal government to court in February, 2022, arguing that the Charter freedoms of religion and conscience, assembly, democratic rights, mobility, security, privacy, and equality of Canadians were infringed by these restrictions. In addition,affidavits filed in this court action (e.g.,the affidavit of Robert Belobaba at paragraph 19) attest that, in a country as large as Canada, prohibitions on domestic and international air travel have significant, negative impacts on Canadians.

In an affidavit (at paragraph 29), Jennifer Little, Director General of Covid Recovery at Transport Canada, provided her Covid Recovery Team’s October 2, 2021 presentation, entitled Implementing a Vaccine Mandate for the Transportation Sector. The presentation outlined options and considerations for the purposes of seeking the Minister of Transport’s approval of the travel vaccination mandate.Her presentation outlined (at pages 12 and 13) that the Canadian travel restrictions in question were “unique in the world in terms of strict vaccine mandatefor domestic travel” and were coupled with “one of the strongest vaccination mandates for travelers in the world.” She admitted during cross examination (at paragraphs 162-163, PDF page 61) that she had never seen a recommendation from Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada to the Ministry of Transport to implement a mandatory vaccination policy for travel.

At the same time, Dr. Lisa Waddell, a senior epidemiologist and the knowledge synthesis team lead at the Public Health Agency of Canada, admitted during a cross examination (at paragraphs 300-305, PDF pages 91-93) that there was no recommendation from the Public Health Agency of Canada to impose vaccination requirements on travelers.

In June 2022, the Government of Canada announced that it would suspend the travel vaccine restrictions, but that it would not hesitate to reinstate the mandates if the government considered it necessary.

As a result, the federal government (the Crown) moved to have Premier Peckford’s constitutional challenge struck for mootness (irrelevance). The Crown argued that the travel restrictions were no longer a live issue because they had been lifted and should not, therefore, take up further court resources. The Crown brought this motion after each side had produced expert evidence, called on experts to testify under oath, cross-examined the other side’s experts and witnesses daily for six weeks, conducted significant legal research, and prepared substantive written arguments. Lawyers for both sides spent hundreds of hours placing all the evidence and legal arguments before the Federal Court for its consideration. The only remaining step in the trial process was the presentation of oral argument, scheduled for October 31, 2022. The Federal Court was fully and properly equipped to render a thoughtful decision as to whether the travel restrictions had been a justified violation ofCharter freedoms.

Even though the federal government can impose these same travel restrictions on Canadians again, without notice, the Federal Court granted the Crown’s motion on November 9, 2023, and dismissed this Charter challenge as moot. The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed this lower court ruling on November 9, 2023. Effectively, the courts determined that a constitutional challenge to the use of unprecedented emergency powers was neither sufficiently interesting to the Canadian public nor an appropriate use of court resources.

Premier Peckford, Maxime Bernier, and other Canadians now seek to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear their case. This involves a two-step process, whereby the applicants first ask whether the Court is willing to hear the appeal. If so, the appeal will then be scheduled for a hearing several months later. The applicants in this case argue that the issues raised in their case are of national importance and that Canadians deserve access to court rulings about policies that violate the Charter freedoms of millions of Canadians.

(See the January 8, 2024 Leave Application of Premier Peckford here. See the January 8, 2024 Leave Application of Maxime Bernier here.)

Further, Premier Peckford and the other applicants warn that all challenges to emergency orders risk being deemed irrelevant due to the simple fact that emergency orders are normally implemented only for short periods of time. In most cases, emergency orders will be rescinded by the time a constitutional challenge makes its way through the court process and all the relevant evidence, along with legal arguments, has been put before the judge. For this reason, the Applicants argue that the courts should provide guidance on how emergency orders should be handled in the context of the mootness doctrine.

“If courts are going to affirm and uphold emergency orders that violate our Charter rights and freedoms whenever the emergency order is no longer in force, how can the Charter protect Canadians from government abuses?” asks John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre.

Emergency orders are not debated in, or approved by, federal Parliament or provincial legislatures. Rather, they are discussed confidentially in Cabinet such that ordinary Canadians are prevented from understanding the reasons for, or the legality of, emergency orders, such as mandatory vaccination policies that discriminated against Canadians who chose not to get injected. Therefore, it is only through court rulings that Canadians can learn whether a mandate or emergency order is constitutional.

“The Supreme Court of Canada has an opportunity to create an important precedent for how Canadian courts deal with all so-called ‘moot’ cases involving questions about the constitutionality of emergency orders,” stated lawyer Allison Pejovic, who represents Premier Peckford and Maxime Bernier.

“The public interest in this case is staggering. Canadians need to know whether it is lawful for the federal government to prevent them from travelling across Canada, or from leaving and re-entering their own country, based upon whether they have taken a novel medication,” continued Ms. Pejovic.

“The Court’s dismissal of constitutional challenges to Covid orders for ‘mootness’ has deprived thousands of Canadians from knowing whether their governments’ emergency orders were lawful or not. It is time for the Supreme Court of Canada to expand the legal test for mootness to account for governments’ use of emergency orders, which are devoid of transparency and accountability. Canadians have a right to know whether unprecedented mandatory vaccination policies, which turned millions of Canadians into second-class citizens, were valid under our Constitution,” concluded Ms. Pejovic.

I believe that there are more instance of abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation – James Madison.

I am writing this because I feel an obligation given that I am the last living First Minister who helped craft the Constitution Act 1982 and The Charter of Rights and Freedoms that forms part of it.

Secondly, I am doing it because I must speak on behalf of those deceased First Ministers, the majority of whom, would advance the views that I am advocating now.

And thirdly, I am doing it on behalf of many Canadians who feel they have no voice; those who have love ones who have died as a result of the vaccines and others who have been injured as a result of the vaccines ; and thenthose who have love ones who have died or have been injured as a result of the undemocratic lockdowns.

Who would have thought it would come to this?

In Christmas Season 2021 Governments across Canada make orders to diminish our democracy by limiting our rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and engage as little as possible the 14 Parliaments of this nation.

It has been, for all intents and purposes, an assault in two ways: one political and legal and the other, scientific.

A. The Science:

“The task of understanding the trajectory of a virus through a population falls within the purview of a few specific scientific fields. Lockdowns, in contrast, impact all aspects of our society. So, what we have here is not a singular, specific problem, to be tackled by a small group of “experts” with domain-specific knowledge and skills. Instead, we face a vast web of interrelated problems, demanding many different areas of theoretical and practical expertise.”

Professor Mathew Ratcliff, writing on the website Collateral Global, Professor of Philosophy, University of York.

It has been known for many months that the restrictions that have been placed on our rights and freedoms do not work. The Great Barrington Declaration of Oct 4, 2020 should have alerted Governments that their approach was wrong. This declaration was instigated by three world class medical scientists : Dr. Martin Kulldorlf, Professor at Harvard University, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Professor at Oxford University and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Professor at Stanford University. Here is part of what that declaration says:

‘The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.‘

This declaration has been signed by over 45,000 medical practitioners and over 15,000 medical and public health scientists.

Additionally, numerousstudies have shown the folly of wearing masks;yet our Governments continue to invade our person. The Swiss Policy Researchhas detailed 39 studies and their conclusion is :

‘So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.’

To pick just one of these studies:

‘A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting.’ Source : March 2021: Annals Of Internal Medicine.

Then there are The PCR tests: a flawed procedure not even meant for the purposes now used. Even the American CDC is phasing out their use in the Covid context. And the cycle threshold used in this country is so high that there is about a 5% reliability.It averages over 30, and some Provinces over 40, when 25 is said by experts to be the most effective cycle.

The following study is instructive

‘The research group of French professor Didier Raoulthas recently shownthat at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remained positive in cell culture (i.e. were infectious); at a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive; and at a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture (see diagram).

This means that if a person gets a “positive” PCR test result at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as applied in most US labs and many European labs), the chance that the person is infectious is less than 3%. The chance that the person received a “false positive” result is 97% or higher.’

On November 30 Dr. Paul Elias Alexander( former Professor at MacMasterUniversity, former advisor to the US Government, former advisor to WHO) wrote the following on the Brownstone Website:

‘More Than 400 Studies on the Failure of Compulsory Covid Interventions

‘What follows is the current totality of the body of evidence (available comparative studies and high-level pieces of evidence, reporting, and discussion) on COVID-19 lockdowns, masks, school closures, and mask mandates. There is no conclusive evidence supporting claims that any of these restrictive measures worked to reduce viral transmission or deaths.

Lockdowns were ineffective, school closures were ineffective, mask mandates were ineffective, and masks themselves were and are ineffective and harmful. ‘

Dr. Douglas Allen of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia has done a study showing the cure is worse than the disease. Part of abstract to his study states :

‘An examination of over 80 Covid-19 studies reveals that many relied on assump- tions that were false, and which tended to over-estimate the benefits and under- estimate the costs of lockdown.As a result, most of the early cost/benefit studies arrived at conclusions that were refuted later by data, and which rendered their cost/benefit findings incorrect.’

Where are the Governments and Our Courts on all this independent science? It’s not like its being hidden! One click of the mouse !

Sadly, It is being deliberately ignored.

And it is this faulty science that forms the basis of these unconstitutional measures and some early faulty Court decisions.

AND, the Governments and Courts deny what has happened in Florida, Sweden, and Uttar Pradish, India. This latter state of over 200 million people has been able to reduce medical problems by early treatment and have less deaths and so-called cases than other states that implemented lockdowns. AND THEIR VACCINATED RATE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN 50%.

Most tragically, Governments have denied the medical repercussions of lockdowns —the delayed surgeries and death, the delayed and cancelled specialist appointments, the increased depression and suicides.

Furthermore, they have deliberately downplayed the value of vitamin D, Zinc, Vitamin C and Quercetin in reducing hospitalization and the severity of the disease and the value of treatments used early such as, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. Dr. Peter McCullough,a world renown researcher in the field has persuasively shown that early treatment could reduce hospitalization by up to 85%.

Prevention, once the hallmark of Public Heath Policy is absent from the narrative. Why is this?

Additionally, Governments have narrowly focused their efforts ignoring the Emergency Planning agencies on which they all have been spending millions of dollars over many years. Lt. Col. David Redman, an outspoken critic of the present approach, and former Emergency Director with the Alberta Government, has a very effective way to describe sound Emergency Management :

‘Let me give you all a new concept.

Think of Emergency Management in terms of an orchestra.

The Public is the audience, filling a hall.

At the front is the conductor. That is the Emergency Management Officer (EMO).

The EMO is not a violinist, a drummer, a woodwind player, or a brass player. The conductor does not specialize into one section of the orchestra. The EMO stays a part and leads the whole. The conductor knows each group in the orchestra, knows what they do, how they contribute to the whole, and knows how to get the best out of each section. Most importantly, the conductor knows how to get all the sections to work together to produce not just a good piece of music, but the best piece of music with the skills present. The conductor also knows what this orchestra is missing and where to go get those missing elements.

In the String section – let us call them the doctors – we have different types of violins, cellos, violas, etc. each with a lead (Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes). The Medical Officer of Health (MOH) is a generalist for Stringed Instruments, not one of the specialist leads. The MOH is promoted to be the leader of the String section.

Now, let’s imagine the orchestra conductor (EMO) is not available or is sent out of the auditorium and is replaced by the leader of the String section. This leader (MOH) is put in charge of the entire orchestra, in place of the conductor. The String Instrument leader is not trained on how all the other sections play, the methods for best use of their instruments, or if other sections even have a part to play.

Over in the drum section, we have a lot of instruments that keep the entire orchestra in tempo and coherent. Let's call them the power grid, water supply system and the food system. The String Instrument leader just assumes that they will always be there, so ignores them.

The real Conductor, now ordered out of the room, would never ignore them.

The Brass section has been told by the String Instrument leader to stop playing, period, because the violin conductor does not think they are essential for the music. Let's call them small business, tourism, air lines, etc.The Brass section members start to develop resentment, mental health issues, drug issues, and they sell their instruments because they have no income and need livelihood.

You see where I am going.

The EMO who is the conductor for all emergencies is sitting in the lobby and the orchestra collapses, the public covers their ears and starts to have social and mental health issues from the noise.

The audience agrees they never want to see this performance again, but there is no other show in town.

The media throughout has been extoling how great the new Stringed Instrument leader is, regardless of the music.

The Stringed Instrument leader continues to believe they are doing a great job, and it would have been worse if they were not in charge.

The public needs to understand we are going about this all wrong.

We knew better and chose to ignore all Lessons Learned from all previous Pandemics and ignore the pre-existing plans that were written from these Lessons Learned.

As an old army friend constantly says about what we are doing, “We are lost but making good time.”

And now a new study has just been produced by The Canadian Covid Care Alliance detailing the many flaws in Pfizer’s first months of trials entitled “ More Harm Than Good’, showing more problems from their vaccines than they prevent.

B. Legal and Constitutional Issues

The judge must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundaments values not yet found in it – Judge Aharon Barak, one-time presidet of the suprem court of Israel.

Save America, close Yale Law School – Bumper sticker

Governments have forged ahead with infringements on our freedoms like it was just another day in the park. The blatant ignorance, and casual approach regarding this is breathtaking. The arbitrary implementation of these measures is the greatest assault on individual freedom in the forty years that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been in effect.

A. Let it be recorded that The Charter of Right and Freedoms is the Supreme Law of Canada. So says Section 52 of the Constitution Act 1982. All laws in Canada involving Governments are subject to conforming with this Charter.

B. Let it be recorded that the first words of the Charter are : ‘Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:’

Note that a colon punctuation comes at the end —that is that everything that follows is in this context.

C. Present Government covid measures violate the Charter, especially Section 2, 6, 7, and 15.

D. Section 2 describes the freedoms individuals have relating to conscience, religion, expression and the press. Additionally other freedoms described are freedom of assembly and association. Today across the nation individuals are prevented from association and assembly.

E. Section 6 talks of Mobility Rights; the right to travel anywhere in Canada and leave Canada. Additionally, it describes the right to ‘to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.’ As we speak people are losing their jobs, thousands of them across the country, it being alleged that theirhealth status is inconsistent with Government edits.

F. Section 7 describes a person’s rights to ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.’ Right now our life and liberty are being violated and the coercion is rampant in violating our ‘security of the person.’

G. To top it off is Section 15 —‘Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.’

Presently I,and many thousands, do not enjoy equality before the law because we are prevented from going certain places that others can go.

Governments believe that they are immune from these protected rights and freedoms.

I contend they are not!

Section 1 of the Charter says:

‘TheCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsguarantees 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.’

This section does not apply to the present circumstance. When this was being written it was in the context of a serious threat to the state, a war, insurrection, a clear and present danger. A virus whose recovery rate is 99% and fatality rate is 0.08% (source, The Justice Centre For Constitutional Freedoms quoting Government documents)surely doesn’t qualify as a threat to the state.

Consider: the country took 114 years before it had a written charter of rights andfreedoms. America had one in 1791. And it was clear to everyone in 1981 when the Charter was being negotiatedthat a further opening of the Constitution was unlikely for many decades, generations away, if not more.Its already 40 years. Hence, what we were dong then was very, very important. And long lasting.

We were not negotiating fundamental freedoms and rights to be in the Constitution to see them easily taken away, especially by highly questionable science at best, and downright wrongdoing by many of the stakeholders at worse. And even then four tests would have to be met to override those freedoms and rights.

You see, if these rights and freedoms can be taken away in this circumstance, where the science is against what is being done, where more effective alternatives are medically available, where alternate approaches like the Redman approach are available, and where deaths and injuries from the so called ‘vaccines’ are more than from all other vaccines combined in the last 30 years, then the Charter becomes diluted, peoples rights and freedoms sacrificed on the altar of fear and convenience ; that means,then, future serious circumstances will be easier to justify violating our rights and freedoms using this present falsity as a precedent to bypass the Charter all over again.

The permanence we thought we achieved for individual freedoms and rights in the Constitution becomes a fleeting concept floating hither and yon in the shifting winds of political expediency, fear and faulty science and faulty approaches, not the bedrock of a secure democracy as we had thought.

That’s why this is all so wrong——

H. OK, for argument’s let’s assume that Section 1 applies to the present circumstance.There are four tests to be met:

Demonstrably justify

By Law

Reasonable Limits

Consistent with a free and democratic society

Has any Government in Canada met these tests ?

Where is the ‘demonstrably justify?’Nowhere to be seen! One would think that such harsh measures, denying personal liberties, people’s jobs eliminated,would require a cost benefit analysis, a report, a study. None exits.

Reasonable limits. There’s no reasonable limits but arbitrary edits, reissued over and over again, most often with no parliamentary oversight.

By Law——one would think that this would require a new law, requiring The Parliament, the peoples’ house to open and be intimately involved. When peoples rights and freedoms are being taken away is this not a matter for the peoples’ representatives ? If not, what is? In the Case of Section 33, the so called notwithstanding clause, in order for Governments to override Sections 2, 7, and 15 the Parliament must be opened and a new law proposed and passed before anychange can occur. And then with a time limit.

In a free and democratic society. This validates the previous point. How can a Government be consistent with the concept of a free and democratic society without the Parliament being intimately involved ? If in fact it was such a big issue as the Governments daily pronounce, then let the people speak through their elected representatives.

Furthermore, Many Governments are using existing laws that were in place long before this present circumstance existed. A new law is needed for a new circumstance, not hiding behind existing laws for other circumstances.

And so even if Section 1 applied, which I contend it does not, the Governments have failed these tests and therefore their actions are unconstitutional.

And then the Courts so far have failed us and abused the Charter.

J. Sins Of Omission and Sins of Commission

Perhaps no where is the fatal flaw ( error in law) of the various court judgements concerning the Charter of Rights and Freedoms more blatant than in the omission of consideration of the first words of the Charter itself:

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

Note the grammatical use of the colon. Everything comes after this !

All considerations of the Charter must be in ‘the context of, ‘under the umbrella of’ theseimportant concepts.

One does not have the luxury to pick and chose what parts of the Charter are to apply in a given case. The totality of the Charter mustbe considered, applied in any rendering of judgement concerning the Charter.

Nowhere in the judgements I have read considering the Charter in this circumstance has consideration being given to this important part of the Charter, its introduction, that is obviously to guide the rest of the Charter and its interpretation.

What does ‘supremacy of God ‘ mean ?

Is it a stretch to consider unalienable rights?

Does it not mean justice and fairness at the very least?

One is reminded of the US Declaration of Independence, A document very much a part of the jurisprudence of North America.

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’

What does ‘rule of law’ mean ?

Does it mean following the law as written, consistency and justice?

Robert H. Bork writing in his book ‘Coercing Virtue’ states :

‘ One of the indispensable institutions of Western civilization is the rule of law. That rule is central to democratic government, a vigorous economy, and individual liberty. A functioning rule of law requires that law be understood to have force and moral of its own, a force and weight independent of the political and cultural struggles the moment.’

I submit that all the judgements rendered that involve interpretation of the Charter must involve consideration of all the relevant parts of the Charter. Failure to do so renders these judgements incomplete and hence invalid.

In the present context the recent judgements interpreting the Charter are invalid because they err in omitting consideration of the first words and concepts of that very charter, concepts that are suppose to guide the subsequent interpretations of the court.

The ruling by Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench of Manitoba for example makes this statement in his conclusions:

CONCLUSION

[54] There is no constitutional or any legal basis for invalidating the impugned provisions of the PHOs as argued by the applicants. Section 67 of the PHA represents neither an unconstitutional nor an undemocratic delegation of power.

This omits any consideration of the context in which this decision should have been made, that is the other relevant parts of the Charter !!

A judge does not have the authority, I contend,to arbitrarily decide what parts of the Charter to consider in deciding a case based on the Charter. If so it makes a mockery out of the concept of Justice. The Charter’s words mean something, all of them,and must be interpreted in the light of all the evidence submitted.

Additionally, the Judge omits any referenceto the substantial scientific information submitted by the litigants.

Finally, sacred individual freedoms and rights that took 114 years to form part of the Constitution are not to be swept away by ignoring the concepts that were to guide the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and form its context: the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Similarly, other relevant cases bearing on the present circumstance recently heard in the Supreme Court of BC, Beaudoin v British Columbia, 2021 and Klassen v British Columbia ( Attorney General) 20121 fail to include in their consideration of the Charter the first concepts introduced which are suppose to guide in the deliberation of the Charter.

Tangentially, the Manitoba case just referenced, the Judge did not carry out his obligation and rule using all relevant law, based on the evidence, but rather he bowed to an unelected bureaucrat stating that he, the judge, was not an expert in health matters, as if in all his other judgements he has made involved him beingan expert on all the various subjects that came before him. Are we to deduce that this is how judges decide these days? Not on the law interpreted through the evidence presented but on the views of one set of experts. This is an abdication of duty.

Let me describe a little of my views concerning BC First case, Beaudoin v British Columbia

While the judgerecognizes the importance of the Charter in point 56 in his ruling,although without specifically referencing,like he should have, the concepts of the supremacy of God and the rule of law,he goes onto essentially not recognize it in the manner in which he deals with the violations of the Charter later in his judgement.

Nowhere in this judgement is there evidence that the Province ‘demonstrably justified ‘ their multiple actions to restrict the freedoms and rights of the peopleOften one finds finds an over emphasis on the words ‘reasonable limits ‘ and less emphasis on the words ‘demonstrably justify’. In any plain reading of Section 1 it is about demonstrably justifying, by law, withinreasonable limits consistent with the values of a free and democratic society. None of these tests have been clearly established in the Judge’s ruling.

In October the Government and/or the Judge knew or ought to have known that many of the statements of the previous year by the Provincial Department proved to be incorrect. The incidence of receipt and transmission of the virus by the vaccinated being one dramatic example. In other words the very reason for the vaccine to prevent contracting the virus, proved blatantly wrong. And data from around the world was readily available about theincidence of cases rising after lockdowns were introduced. This is not rocket science and was available in independent publications of which there are many.

The frameworkof the Charter is contained in the opening sentence of the Charter. This in notmentioned anywhere in the Judge’s decision and renders incomplete a full assessment of the application of the Charter.

TheGovernment and/or the judge knew or ought have known that their/his slavish reliance on the now well know faulty science of the Provincial Department of Health ( Section 118) wasa big problem. Reference Sections 122–125 also refer.

The Government of British Columbia and/or the Judge knew or ought to have know of the significant health problems caused by the Government’s measures, delayed surgeries causing death and injuries. Public information was readily available where Government had delayed surgeries, delayed critical specialist appointments. Many know someone damaged by these lockdowns or who died.

We are talking about life and death and it behooves the Government and/or the judge to ensure they have the most relevant information. A full year previous, the Great Barrington Declaration was issued. Results from the Governments of Israel and the UK were readily available, real data showing the Provincial Government narrative to be flawed. And data from the US and Europe Government Agencies showing deaths and injuries from the covid vaccines to be more that all the deaths and injuries from all vaccines for the past 30 years.

And in the Judge’s own backyard at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Dr. Douglas Allen published a paper in April 2021 a full six months before his decision entitled ‘CovidLockdown: Cost Benefits: A Critical Assessment of the Literature ‘ in which it was revealed that most of the data relied upon by Governments like the Government of British Columbia was unreliable and much of it false. 80 studies were examined.

Surely this information should be at least sufficient for a pause in what was being implemented.

The other aspect of this sad tale is that the Government of British Columbia has a obligation to bring all the latest scientific information to the Judge’s attention—-as the Judge and the Government keep saying —-IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. The Premier and Minister of Heath take an oath to conduct their affairs with integrity.

The Courts of Canada have a solemn obligation to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as written especially those concepts that undergird its very existence:The Supremacy of God and the rule of law. ‘ Constitutions ‘as Bork said, ‘ speak for permanent values. ‘

Summary

A. The science is not present to justify the draconian, arbitrary measures being used. Many times the cure is worse than the disease.

B. The measures violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bar has not been met to allow Governments to violate basic individual rights and freedoms. A 99% recovery rate sure does not pose a threat to the nation.

C. Section 1 of the Charter does not permit the Governments license to implement their measures. And even if it did the Governments have not passed the four tests necessary to take such action.

D. Early court decisions err in their judgments, failing to invoke all the relevant parts of the Charter and examine all the scientific information that was readily available.

E. The reason for putting the Charter in the Constitution in the first place was toprotect it from easy change. Constitutions represent permeant values. Trying to ‘square ‘ a virus out break with a ‘round ‘Section 1 just doesn’t cut it.

Conclusion:

This is all an affront to our Democracy, an abuse of our Constitution by selectivity and law making rather than interpretation; a mangling of the scientific method and the abandonment of reason.

It is up to the higher courts of this land to rectify this injustice and restore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to its rightful place protecting the freedoms and rights of individual Canadians against the false claims of Governments who are attempting to usurp it.

Appendix/Sequel:

The Four Horsemen of the Modern Era

If the above is not enough,we have the Four Horseman of the Modern Era circling over us like massive locusts, ready to pounce on any deviation in behaviour by the people to the Government edits.

Consider the power of the media. They formed their falsely named TrustedNews initiative that essentially blocks all news that is negative to their narrative that all is well and that the lockdown destruction is not real, and the hundreds of thousands of deaths from the vaccines is untrue. They play on attacking alternate views by playing the conspiracy theory card, up to now keepingthe masses in check.Meanwhile, in Canada they take $600 million from the Federal Government, this, the very group that is suppose to expose conflicts of interest in high places, be independent———-now fallen on their own sword.

Our Governments have become too big and undemocratic. The Parliamentsof this nation should be meeting regularly and oversee what is happening. The people are shut out and a small coterie of people in one discipline are running the show, completely ignoring the Emergency Measures that are in place ready to give the weight of of the many disciplines needed to properly manage the situation. The Prime Minister is acting like a President or Monarch; the power has shifted from Parliament to ThePrime Minister’s office by passing even the Cabinet. There are over 1400 working directly for the PM in the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office( this infoa few years ago, current stats were hard to come by) consuming an annual budget of $150,000,000. Yet, there are over 7000 other executives working for the Government. For a full examination of this dire situation let me recommend ‘ Democracy in Canada—-The Disintegration of Our Institutions’by Donald A. Savoie.

Big Pharma have their tentacles everywhere —from the local hospital purchasing agent to the Cabinet Room. The intermingling of people on Govt regulatory Agencies and Big Pharma is a prime example of the rot that has set in. These are the people who will not stand behind their product yet reap billions of dollars from the masses with its use; an experimental product whose long term effects are completely unknown. Pfizer has had to settle out of court for billions of dollars as a result of charges brought against them ; $175 million because of experiments on Nigerian Children, $2.3 billion to settle false claims that the company gave to Governments,, and $300 million regarding Chantix. And now the recent study by the Canadian Covid Care Alliancethat exposes their unethical behaviour in the conduct of their clinical trials on their covid vaccine. Note : ‘The claim was that the inoculations were safe and showed 95% efficacy 7 days after the 2nd dose. But that 95% was actually Relative Risk Reduction. Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%.’

Big Tech is perhaps the most dangerous,hiding behind their portals to commit all manner of wrong doing and double speak. Their friendly ties with China, excusing many of the horrific abuses there, to gain their twenty pieces of silver and market access is well know. Acting as judge and jury to gain access to their sites smacks of corruption to which Governments seems powerless to act, given that many politicians receive substantial sums of money ( fronted through false so called non profits and other nefarious entities) from these tech behemoths.

This is now the nature of our western society, corrupted from within and without by these horsemen.

Hon A. Brian Peckford P.C.

Parksville. British Columbia, Canada