filtered
The Free North Declaration
Canada is supposed to be a free country governed by the rule of law. Restore it now or risk losing it for good.
Sign Now
We are Canadian lawyers. In our country, civil liberties are under unprecedented attack. Governments, public health authorities, universities, public and private employers, municipalities, and businesses are trampling Canadians’ rights and freedoms. Our free society is at risk.
Covid rules restrict citizens’ abilities to work, shop, travel and socialize. They erode civil liberties strategically, attempting to not run afoul of the law or to trigger protections in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms such as liberty and security of the person, the freedoms of association, assembly, expression, conscience, religion, and mobility rights. Where Covid rules appear to have violated the Charter, courts have deferred to the state to take whatever measures it deems necessary, whether demonstrably justifiable or not.
Legislatures have passed statutes that delegate broad discretionary powers to unelected public health officials, who then create draconian legal restrictions by fiat, without public scrutiny or open debate. These directives give private and public employers cover to suspend and dismiss workers who insist on their right to decide their own medical treatments. In our system of law, no principle is more important than the right to control your own body and to make your own medical and health decisions. An anxious populace, swept up in a deliberate campaign of fear, now believes that individual liberties upon which our liberal democracy is founded are dangerous and selfish. A growing collectivism that demands safety at the expense of autonomy shapes public policy.
Courts have embraced the pandemic narrative, some taking judicial notice of the nature of risks of the virus and safety of vaccines to adults and children. But the facts are anything but settled. Courts are supposed to be neutral. On Covid, as on any other contentious subject, their mandate is to find facts exclusively upon the evidence adduced by the parties in the courtroom. Instead, courts appear to have taken a side on Covid. Access to justice and the rule of law are now at risk. Unvaccinated persons are banned from juries, throwing into question the ability of all to obtain a fair trial heard by a jury of their peers. Irrational policies born of panic affect no one more than disadvantaged communities who already suffer from lack of access to justice.
The right to privacy and control of personal medical information has been abandoned. Disclosure of vaccination status is becoming a requirement for working, travelling, entering public and private establishments, crossing the border, and sometimes medical treatment. Those who cannot or will not disclose face aggressive social disapprobation. Vaccine passports create the infrastructure for a global digital surveillance system. Institutions that last year were prohibited from collecting individual medical history now demand it as a condition of employment or admission. University and college students are being denied their education for refusing to disclose their own medical choices.
Medical regulators have become dictatorial. They have warned doctors not to express medical opinions that might conflict with official Covid policies, effectively censoring them, and directed them not to certify grounds for medical exemptions from vaccination requirements, rupturing the physician-patient relationship and breaching the principle that only a practitioner who has examined a patient is equipped to give a diagnosis. Human rights commissions, which until recently championed expansive interpretations of human rights, have issued edicts narrowing grounds for accommodations.
Covid rules are inconsistent and irrational. Authorities enforce them selectively and preferentially, coming down hard on common people while turning a blind eye to the privileged. Covid vaccines do not prevent people from becoming infected or from transmitting the virus to others, but only unvaccinated persons are banned or required to undergo testing. People who have recovered from Covid and therefore have natural immunity are still subject to vaccination mandates even though the purpose of vaccination is to mimic natural immunity. Governments, public health authorities and employers advise that Covid vaccinations are safe, but pharmaceutical companies have been granted immunity from liability and no employers will accept legal responsibility for side-effects or adverse events, whether minor or serious, suffered by their employees who take a vaccine that they do not want. The risks posed by Covid vaccines may be in dispute, but they are not zero. Particularly for children and healthy young adults, they may be riskier than the virus.
We fear the erosion of our free society. We question the single-minded fixation on a virus that poses little risk to most people. We protest the uncalculated harms that Covid policies are causing to people’s health, livelihoods, relationships, and mental states. We oppose the mass hysteria and anxiety that governments and the media are fuelling. Most of all, we object to the deterioration of our civil liberties and the failure of our legal institutions – legislatures, governments, administrative bodies, and courts – to protect them.
We are appalled by what is happening in our country. We call for the immediate end of vaccine passports and mandates. We propose a public inquiry into the handling of all aspects of the declared pandemic. Canadians should have control of their own lives and have the right to make their own decisions about their health, medical treatments, personal information, travels, and associations. Canada is supposed to be a free country governed by the rule of law. Restore it now or risk losing it for good.
Lawyers and concerned citizens may endorse the declaration anonymously if they fear negative repercussions from disclosing their name publicly.
Please click the ‘Sign Now’ button and follow the instructions.
https://freenorthdeclaration.ca/#declaration
>The Free North Declaration Canada
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Block National Archives From Releasing His White House Records To House Dems
February 10, 2022
Former President Donald Trump is hitting back and asking the Supreme Court to step in and stop the National Archives from handing White House documents to the House Select Committee on January 6.
This comes weeks after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the National Archives to give the committee the requested documents, The Daily Mail reported.
It now puts the constitutional challenge before the high court, where Trump nominated three of the nine sitting justices and represents a last-ditch effort to shield the documents from the committee that has interviewed hundreds of witnesses in its effort to reconstruct the events leading up to the Capitol riot.
Earlier this month, a three-judge panel – two judges appointed by Barack Obama and one by Biden – unanimously upheld a lower court’s ruling denying Trump a preliminary injunction to stop the release of records.
Trump’s lawyers filed an emergency appeal to meet a deadline imposed by the lower court.
The January 6th Committee has sought records, logs, photographs, and calendars as it probes Trump’s election overturn effort and the Capitol riot on the day Congress met to count the electoral votes that made Biden president.
Attorneys for Trump “both the Constitution and the Presidential Records Act give former Presidents a clear right to protect their confidential records from premature dissemination. This case presents a clear threat to that right.”
And they argued that the Appeals Court ruling was “troubling,” and they said that it “lacks any meaningful or objective limiting principle. In an increasingly partisan political climate, such records requests will become the norm regardless of what party is in power.”
Because President Joe Biden did not protect the documents with executive privilege the appeals court decided that the former president could not.
“On the record before us, former President Trump has provided no basis for this court to override President Biden’s judgment and the agreement and accommodations worked out between the Political Branches over these documents,” the court said.
The Supreme Court ruled in January not to allow Trump to block the documents via executive privilege, Politico reported.
The nation’s highest court stated that Trump’s effort failed because his assertion of executive privilege would have failed even if he were still in office.
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the panel getting the Trump White House documents.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the high court who said he would have granted Trump’s request for emergency relief.
“The questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns,” the high court said.
“Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the unsigned order added.
Trump had previously sued to block the records from being given to the committee from the National Archives, but an appeals court denied him.
“The President of the United States and Congress have each made the judgment that access to this subset of presidential communication records is necessary to address a matter of great constitutional moment for the Republic,” the court said.
Attorneys for Trump told the Supreme Court that a recent interview with the chair of the committee in The Washington Post showed that the committee wants to establish a criminal complaint against Trump, which is beyond its scope.
The brief with the court was in reference to a December 23 interview with Mississippi Rep. Bennie G. Thompson where he said that the committee is looking intently into the former president’s actions on January 6 as it decides whether to recommend The Justice Department start a criminal investigation into Trump.
“The Washington Post has confirmed what was already apparent — the Committee is indeed seeking any excuse to refer a political rival for criminal charges, and they are using this investigation to do so,” Jesse R. Binnall, an attorney for the former president, said.
He said that the committee is acting as “an inquisitorial tribunal seeking evidence of criminal activity,” which is “outside of any of Congress’s legislative powers.”
https://conservativebrief.com/ruling-2-59606/
They really did and do have it all.
But why 80/20 then 60/40, it not very much.
I say expose all of it.
Come one come all.
You lack intelligence, just give up trying to understand.