>>13185906

^^^

Notable Nomination - CHART on covid-related RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.

The Chart may need to address another item - detainment upon entry into Canada re use of Governor in Council order on COVID-19.

Here is a link to a comment found under story at REBEL NEWS which showed the ticket for fine that a woman received at Vancouver Airport. She showed no symptoms of illness. She refused the PCR - which is invasive and not required as per the QUARENTINE ACT and which is not reliable means of determining if individual is diseased, is infectious, or is a risk of spreading the specified disease. The order does not provide an alternative whatsoever, much less a reasonable alternative. But as per the comment, the government has said that PCR is the ony way to know if somoene has COVID-19. They have painted themselves into a corner and so all who implement these entry measures are unlawfully detaining people knowingly.

Knowingly and under the colour of law.

Here is the link to the ACT and to to the REBEL NEWS video and to the comment.

QUARENTINE ACT

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/Q-1.1/page-6.html#docCont

GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL ORDER

https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39166&lang=en

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGCOB5rlViE

Comment of interest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGCOB5rlViE&lc=UgwaawTPVdTS6K6EBK54AaABAg

19:56 Read the ticket/fine. Cites Section 58 of the QUARENTINE ACT and says 'Failure to comply with an order prohibiting or subjecting to any condition the entry into Canada'. Clause 58 subsection 1 invokes the opinion of the Governor in Council and depends on PCR as a screening tool to assert each and all of the following re COVID-19. Outbreak of the disease in country of departure; imminent and severe risk to public health in CANADA; contribution to spread in CANADA; no reasonable alternatives to prevent spread of the disease. The order in Council can not be renewed if conditions in subsection 1 do not continue to apply. NOTE THAT THIS PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PM and HIS OPINION. However, that opinon depends utterly on the following flaws. 1. PCR is not a reliable screening tool; it does not test for a disease, nor for infection, nor for measure of a communicable infection/disease. 2. PCR can not provide a reasonable basis for an order, much less an action implementing an order, 'prohibiting or subjecting to any condition the entry into Canada'. 2. No definitive symptom, or set of symptoms, is used in clinical diagnosis of the specified disease; the GOVT stipulates that PCR is the only way to know if someone has the disease, but PCR does not test for illness nor for infection of the supposed specified causal agent of the specified disease; if the person entrying CANADA does not exhibit symptoms associated with the specified illness, then, there is even less cause to restrict entry of an individual. This, in effect, brings to the fore 58 subsection 1 (d) which invokes 'reasonable alternatives' for which the Council's order provides nothing and defaults to leaving the person free to enter undetained and not subject to fines.

>>13195690

>>13195690

The order of the Governor in Council is based on an opinion that, in part, and significantly, is premised on the falsehood that the asymptomatic individual is an imminent and severe risk of spreading a particular communicable disease, COVID-19.

The order empowers the Chief Public Health Officer to make arbitrary exceptions in addition to those exceptions listed in the order.

See Section 7 subsection (2) (c) 'the Chief Public Health Officer determines that the person does not pose a risk of significant harm to public health.'

Such a determination is not subject to review, apparently, and all of the restrictions are written without provisions for due process re detainment and the threat of detainment/fine. But such a determination would set precedent and would inform travellers of actual implementation practice beyond the limits listed in the order.

Much power is placed in the hands of the Chief Public Health Officer, however, at the airport the delegates of that officer are the screening officer and the quarentine officer.

Minus a reliable screening method, all entrants default to this provision for non-application of quarentine requirements.

The weak spot is their only means of knowing of someone has COVID-19.

Covid-19 is the disease, not the cause. SARS-CoV-2 is the causal agent for which PCR supposedly tests. PCR does not test for the specific virus, SARS-CoV-2. It does not test for a hot or live infection. It does not test for an intact virus molecule. It does not test for communicability or transmissivity - whether a person is contagious. It does not test for viral load. It does not test of disease, COVID-19. It is not a postive-negative test. PCR is a manufacturing process used for forensics and labwork, not for clinical diagnosis and not for screening. The PCR protocols for COVID-19 are not a reliable means of detecting the basis for restricting entry of any individual. But the Government's order depends on PCR as THE ONLY way to know if someone has COVID-19.

Speculation about spread of the disease appears to be based on many false assumptions. This goes for the use of terms such as outbreak, spread, communicable, and the rest. If this is put into proper context, then, comparisons with other RESPIRATORY syndromes shows the ambiguity of symptoms and signs that the Government associates with COVID-19 and supposed PCR results.

This order in Council invites legal action, aggressive and unrelenting. But it also invites someone with a backbone to stand up and challenge the PM directly for his opinion and the basis upon which his opinion stands or falls. This must be done with persistence and with lazer focus on PCR as the thin reed of the many government restrictions on Canadians. It is a legal matter, sure, but more than that it is a political matter precisely because the order is derived of the OPINION of the PM.

>>13195690

In the particular instance of the woman detained for 2 and one-half hours at the Vancouver Airport, the officials there, including the four RCMP officers, used pressure tactics such as delaying her departure from the airport even after she made it clear that she did not consent to PCR nor to the quarentine prison. At that point she should have been told she is not detained and is free to leave. If a fine was to be issued her, then, that could have been done immediately so as to safeguard her basic rights. Instead, it appears that the officials there placed her in lowest priority as a deliberate tactic to change her stated position on the matter.

It came down to PCR, not to the screening officer's opinion on the health of the individual nor on the activities of that individual before and after re-entry into the country. The officers first responsibility is not to TRUDEAU but to the citizen whose rights were held in abeyance. A reasonable process would expediate the traveller's departure from the airport.

The pressure tactics probablly extended to coercion to be tracked and so forth. None of that is justified as per the utter reliance on PCR and its invasive sample-taking method. But even a non-invasive method is untethered to scientific and medical evidence of relevance in determining the status of the individual re communicable disease.

A certified medical practiioner ought to be capable of figuring that out and acting accordingly. But, instead, the officials are acting arbitrarily and as direct agents of the PM's opinion which is likewise untethered to objective evidence.

>>13195821

Note that the WHO has already acknowledged the guidance that the asymptomatic persons - also known as healthy persons - can only be described as very rare sources of spread of COVID-19.

And that is the WHO, which is cited explicitly in the Governor in Council order's opening assertions.

But even that guidance from the WHO is based on the deeply flawed and unreliable PCR protocols being used around the world, including in Canada, to make policy on the COVID-19 scare.

The PM has not been claiming that his order, and the opinion upon which it is based, is from wild ass guessing. So hold him to the stated standard - as per various government statements in various forms - of evidence-based medical decision-making. The evidence stands AGAINST use of PCR as the only means of determining infection. As there is no alternative on offer, it can not stand and all that has been built upon it must also fall.

Including the PM's order and the PM himself.

>>13195690

The detained traveller in the REBEL video did comply with all that was asked of her. She was in accord with the section 58 of the ACT. So the question will become, what is the criteria for the amount of dollars on the fine?

Big possibility is that the fine is now set to be greater than the cost of self-imprisoning for an unjustified quarentine. This is used as an incentive to comply which really means it is coercion.

And because the goal is to cajole the individual to do the bidding of the screening officer, who apparently is delegated the decision-making authority of the quarentine officer, who in turn is delegated the authority of the public health officer - as per the ORDER in COUNCIL - and all of this delegating of powers may in itself be unlawful as per the QUARENTINE ACT.

All of this is a mess. PM Trudeau initiated this diktat and the entire mess belongs to him directly. No underlings set this in motion. He did it. And given the extraordinary measures used, he can not be hands-off. In which case, he is directly accountable to each individual traveller.

But legally there may be many obstacles to establishing that and the real issue will be taking on the demerits of the government imposed detainment and fine in each individual's case. If there are enough cases with similarities, there may be a way to gang them up to create the opportunity for a series of wins that will narrow these measures.

But politically, and that is where this all began, the direct line is to PM TRUDEAU as if he was the person screening and dealing with the individuals at the airport. He must be scruitinized and pressurized in the public square.

There is no balancing of public health versus individual rights. Not with COVID-19. The lack of balance is inevitable given the lack of a sound medical basis for the pretense of a public health emergency.

EACH CANADIAN traveller needs to cut out the bull—t and cut to the chase immediately upon arrival. Do not think you are dealing with a reasonable system and the individuals are doing their job. They are NOT doing their job because there is no basis for what they are doing. You do not need to submit to being a political prisoner.

DO NOT tolerate being treated as a political prisoner. Repeatedly state you do not consent and insist this is acknowledge each time. Get the officer to say he or she understands what you just said. And by your behavior show no room for negotiation on those key points. Be civil and calm while asserting your freedom and your right to information. Do not say you understand but repeat that you do not consent and do not understand the basis for any of their demands. You can ask the screeners about their qualifications - get their names of course - and their specifics. They are obliged to demonstrate in some fashion that they are qualified and competent. If they fail to do so, that is okay, you can document that as well.

This all goes better when you have at least one other individual who stands with you. See if you can get a third. AND then you may see more stand with you at least to a greater extent than was evident in the REBEL video on this particular woman's circumstances. Speak to people before departure and while in flight. Give and recieve encouragement. Prepare people for what goes on in these hotel/lockups.

The idea is to stand in numbers at each stage. Even if at each stage some will choose to comply and that would reduce your numbers. EACH STAGE is a challenge that is justified against an unjustified basis for these measures.

The legalese of the ACT and the ORDER is not really the point. The basis is the point. Without that, there could be no effective ORDER and no application of the ACT re your travells in 'covid times'. At the very least you will document, further, the process which will be measured against the basis - or nonexistent basis - for that process.

>>13195843

Unless someone shows symptoms, they are not sick and are not infectious.

Scientists are careful not to be so absolute and so will say it is very rare or say it is possible that the day of the onset of symptoms a person may be infectious. Some will bracket that further and say a day or two before symptoms.

But this is not about absolutely containing the spread of an communicable disease. The quarentine facilities from airport to transport to housing and related food and other provisions – all of it does not take the shape and form of actual quarentine. In that sense, it is not superior to self-monitoring for symptoms at home, which is the reasonable alternative. It is by that measure that the traveller nonsense falls apart.

First for the healthy travellers.

Second, for those who submit to PCR and get a negative result.

Third, even for those who get a positive PCR because that 'test' does not test for a hot or live virus, does not test for viral load, does not test for transmissivity, and does not test for disease.

The PCR can be thrown out on its own basis - the cycle threshold. If the threshold is above 25 the results are garbage. This is being adjusted in the various 'trusted' public health authorities including the WHO where the guidance is now to take that threshold into account in each instance. Yet is this being recorded and communicated to the individual - no. To the screening officer - no. To the individual's own doctor - no. That undermines very severely the request/demand that the traveller submit to a sample-taking at the airport or anywhere else before or after the flight.

And there is the question of equal treatment between those who fly and those who re-enter Canada on ground or water through other means of transport. This is clearly unequal treatment anyway.

Here is the bottom line. You can not be said to not comply with a means for determining your risk to public health when those means are invalid. You can not be said to not comply with a quarentine that is in fact, objectively, not an actual quarentine.

The penalties include the detainment at the airport, during transport, and at the 'hotel'. The time is a penalty as if you are serving a sentence. The fine is a clear penalty but so is the alternative which is paying for your own imprisonment.

No CANADIAN ought to act as if this was a legit use of governmental authority. Even if you are bullied into compliance, do not act as if this was legit. ASSESS EACH thing done to you in light of the lack of a substantive basis for any of it. Just because the wheels of a process are set in motion does not mean that what is done to you can be excused at any point along the way. You are being threatened with, and often you are subjected to, the loss of your liberty to go about your business as a free citizen in your own country. THAT IS A LOSS. Not just in terms of money but in time and in stress and other basic ways of measuring damage. While in lockup you are deprived of doing other things you would otherwise be free to do. You are deprived of even the option to choose other things to do. This is a real loss to you.

And at what gain for the public for whom these measures are purportedly in aid of serving? This is the question that strips naked the exercise of power by PM TRUDEAU through this order against the well-being of CANADIANS and against the CANADIAN law and constitution.

Two videos to compare.

CHRIS SKY - go to 28mins45secs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mcCLm_LwpE

3RD GRADE SCHOOL TEACHER LESSON

https://youtu.be/1mcCLm_LwpE

Compare what CHRIS said about mask-wearing and shaming in our schools with the social experiment of kids wearing collars in classroom at school.

Think how that comparison extrapolates to society at large. But then return and expand your thinking by focussing on how this government imposed newthink is taking over the lives of our children.

>>13198944

CHRIS SKY drops truth bombs

https://youtu.be/ay8xcx1U83c?t=1725

>>13198944

https://youtu.be/1mcCLm_LwpE

One of FRONTLINE's most requested programs – third-grade teacher Jane Elliott's lesson in discrimination.

The day after Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed, Jane Elliott, a teacher in a small, all-white Iowa town, divided her third-grade class into blue-eyed and brown-eyed groups and gave them a daring lesson in discrimination. This is the story of that lesson, its lasting impact on the children, and its enduring power 30 years later.

>>13198944

Mask scene from Encounters of 3rd Kind.

https://youtu.be/lX1PQHAdI6I?t=129

at 2mins 10secs

>>13198944

While Chris made excellent points, and he has done so for a year now, he has chosen a different tactic by confronting people and provocatively calling them cowards and weak and immature. This may be his own exasperaton taking over, but it is a tactic that might shake some people up. However, it might best work on those who are already skeptical of the government restrictions rather than on someone who is already feeling part of the mask-mandate tribe.

Consider the illustration provided by the movie, 12 Angry Men.

https://youtu.be/NXjH3duyLKc

Other episodes from the 1950s version in context of argumentation -

1

https://youtu.be/NXjH3duyLKc

2

https://youtu.be/rOPfVDVB0qI

3

https://youtu.be/-YAKJonxnsU

4

https://youtu.be/9Ux_6hshdWA

5

https://youtu.be/je4Y0DAsmHQ

>>13199165

This the Jack Lemmon version of the movie.

https://youtu.be/_tm2neXX1-A

Key scene is the discrepancy between a fundamental fact that does not fit reality but was not evident until demonstrated for all to see and experience themselves.

>>13199172

https://youtu.be/MosoFBMiOWE