dChan
Anonymous ID: ca74e6 June 21, 2021, 2:37 p.m. No.13952817   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9432 >>2809 >>7242

The Court decision will be appealed - re 'quarentine hotels'.

 

Some points in the judge's pro-government essay suggest some very weak claims in the soft underbelly of the government's defence.

 

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/therebel/pages/52719/attachments/original/1624048215/Covid_jails_ruling.pdf?1624048215

 

 

COVID-19 is a disease caused by a coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2. It was first detected in China in December 2019 and has since spread across the globe. It was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. In the ensuing year, it was reported to have infected more than 118 million people, and to have been associated with 2.6 million deaths worldwide. In that same period, there were 899,757 infections and 22,370 deaths resulting from COVID-19 in Canada.

 

Whether or not the WHO declared a pandemic is actually not releant to the arbitrariness of the various Canadian measures that followed. The WHO's re-definition of pandemic is arbitrary and rather works against the judge's opinion.

 

If the Canadian authorities declared an emergency on some other basis, then, that is the basis to be scrutinized further. If the Canadian authorities re-defined pandemic then that action can be tested on the basis of reasonableness. IT WOULD FAIL THAT TEST.

 

The judged cited statistics that relied heavily on PCR as the measure of infections. This is a fatal flaw in the judge's opinion. And the reliance on PCR works to show arbitrariness.

 

The same sort of arbitrariness flows through the various assumptions made including that the government had the authority to declare an emergency and that such a declaration was itself lawful when entirely dependent on PCR statistics. Likewise, the assumption that it was reasonable to prolong the government's actions on the notion of asymptomatic spread of infection is likewise a fatal flaw in the government's defence.

 

It is painfully obviious that a so-called test that does not test for infection, does not test for infectiousness, and does not test for illness is hardly a reasonable test for infection, infectiousness, and sickness. IT CANNOT LOGICALLY PROVIDE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR DETENTION. The government might claim ignorance or incompetence but its measures are arbitrary nonetheless.

 

That the measures serve to stigmatize follows the finding that the measures do not effect what the government claimed as its purpose. The detentions were set up as disincentives against the exercise of freedom of movement.

 

That has been the effect. It has unlawfully burdened Canadian travellers. It has deterred others who would otherwise have travelled. And by the various public declarations of public health authorities, government actors, and commentators, the very notion of traveling during the supposed emergency has been described as irresponsible and so forth. The stigma has been smeared onto citizens exercising their freedom of movement.

Anonymous ID: ca74e6 June 21, 2021, 3:10 p.m. No.13952962   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>13952807, >>13952773, >>13952788

 

What if you had difficulty wearing a face covering and you learned that exemptions were integrated into the ONTARIO regulation governing masking in your workplace. What if you read the clause that states that the person entitled to exemption is not required to provide evidence of entitlement. Would you expect to be coerced to 1. mask anyway, and 2. provide evidence of entitlement to exercise exemption?

 

No? Think again.

 

What if you then discussed masking with your doctor only to have the topic changed from supporting the patient to generic concerns about supporting the masking policy? What if that sleight of hand was performed by the doctor WITHOUT THE DOCTOR INQUIRING ABOUT YOUR PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES?

 

What if the doctor changed the discussion to the subjects of 1. that doctor's own example of a COPD patient who was denied support for exemption by that doctor, 2. the prospect of that doctor being investigated if a person whose exemption was supported turned out to test postive sometime down the road, and 3. that if that doctor supported one exemption that would lead to more requests for support and that would undermine the masking policy. What if the doctor then offered to write a note for the employer that would state that the patient could comply with the masking policy?

 

What would be your reaction to that sort of encounter with your doctor?

 

What if the doctor did not discuss the patient's circumstances and instead signalled a blanket policy not to support exemptions? What if the employer demanded medical support for proof that you were entitled to exemption from masking? What if the employer presumed that lack of such support from your doctor meant you were not entitled to exemption? That is to say, what if you employer decided to take advantage of the pressure on doctors and instead of following the regulation that protects the exercise of exemption by not requiring evidence of entitlement, instead demand evidence from a doctor? What if your particulars were disregarded for the sake of a zero tolerance policy against non-compliance?

 

What if this pro-maksing pressure transformed into pro-vaxxing pressure?

 

Doctors are being pressurized. Patients are being abandoned. The government and its various agents has infiltrated every nook and cranny of the lives of its citizens. This is not protection. This is not safeguarding health. This is an attack on the health and well-being of citizens. And doctors have become the agents of such a policy.

 

Those you trust the most, when committing acts of betrayal, damn themselves to Hell.

 

StopMedicalSilencing.com