TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @PoliceOnGuard
@PoliceOnGuard - PoliceOnGuardForThee
Tamara Lich and Chris Barber have finally reached the end of what became the longest mischief trial in Canadian history, with a total of 45 days in court spanning 31 months. Both Tamara and Chris had received several charges resulting from their participation and leadership with the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa early in 2022. Their charges included counseling to commit mischief, intimidation, obstructing police, and disobeying a court order (this last charge was applied to Chris only). Both were released on bail with conditions. One bail condition stated that Tamara was not to be in the company of specific individuals without her lawyer present. At an award ceremony honouring Tamara, she was photographed with one of these individuals - Tom Marazzo - while members of her legal team remained nearby. Justice of the Peace Paul Harris determined this to be a breach of her bail conditions and issued a warrant for her arrest. Tamara Lich, a grandmother with no prior criminal record, was arrested in Alberta and held for 6 days before being returned to Ontario where she was again held while awaiting trial; she spent a total of 48 days incarcerated while violent criminals were being released with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Justice Goodman later released Tamara on a $37k bond stating that Harris had made “erroneous” conclusions and “misapprehended” the evidence against Lich when deciding she broke her bail conditions. During the trial the Crown insisted that, as organizers of the Freedom Convoy, Tamara and Chris used unlawful means to pursue their goals. The Crown claimed that their actions caused significant interference with the lawful use and enjoyment of property, that they intentionally intimidated residents and obstructed police efforts (even though organizers were in direct contact and in regular meetings with police). Their defence team countered, stating both were engaged in a lawful and constitutionally protected peaceful protest (as determined in the first injunction with respect to the horn honking). Defence argued that it is unreasonable to believe that Tamara and Chris could have controlled the actions of all who arrived in Ottawa (not just those who followed them there directly). The defence further asserted that the message from both defendants had been consistent in its promotion of the peaceful nature of the protest; their goal had been expressed clearly throughout the duration of the Convoy. Justice Heather Perkins-McVey, of the Ontario Court of Justice, presided over their case. In her view, the key issues included whether either Tamara or Chris (a) blocked or obstructed a highway; (b) interfered with the lawful use, operation or enjoyment of property; (c) obstructed police; or (d) counseled anyone to commit mischief, intimidation, or obstruction of justice. One final key issue for Chris alone - whether he counselled anyone to honk their horns in contravention of an interlocutory injunction. In considering these key issues, Justice Perkins-McVey determined that the Freedom Convoy did in fact cause significant disruptions and interfere with the lawful use of property. (It should be noted here that most businesses were already shut down due to the mandates and those that remained open were inundated with fear mongering over the coming Freedom Convoy, with 'suggestions' that they too should close their doors). The court further determined that both Tamara and Chris were aware of the impact their actions were having on residents and businesses in the area. She pointed to evidence showing that Chris was aware that police wanted the trucks gone, and that he had responded by stating they were staying until the mandates came down. She noted that both Tamara and Chris continued to encourage more people to join them, and finally, that Chris (through a TikTok video) had encouraged participants to “grab that horn switch and don’t let go” if police approached their trucks. With these facts in mind, Justice Perkins-McVey found both Tamara and Chris not guilty of intimidation, counselling to commit intimidation, obstructing police, and counselling to commit the offence of obstructing justice. The charges for counselling to commit mischief were stayed on the recommendations of the Crown. On the count of mischief, both Tamara and Chris were found guilty. Justice Perkins-McVey believed their actions contributed to the obstruction of the lawful use and enjoyment of property in the areas affected by the Convoy. On the final charge against Chris, for disobeying a court order, she found his TikTok video to be sufficient evidence showing Chris deliberately encouraged others to disobey the court order prohibiting the use of air horns. In summary, Tamara Lich was acquitted of four out of six charges with a fifth stayed, leaving only a single conviction of mischief. Chris Barber was acquitted of four out of seven charges with a fifth charge stayed, leaving Chris with a guilty verdict for the charges of mischief and of disobeying a Court Order. In policing circles, mischief is not considered a serious offence. It is virtually unheard of to receive jail time, except in the most egregious of cases, yet the Crown is seeking up to 10 years for both Tamara and Chris - an utterly ridiculous and excessive request. Sentencing for both is expected later this month, with a tentative date of April 16th. While this incredibly long and involved mischief case was taking up valuable court resources, at an estimated cost to taxpayers of $5 to $10 Million dollars, Crown prosecutors in Ontario had tossed out many cases involving sexual assault and other violent crimes, citing the continued issue of insufficient court resources. “There seems to be a glaring double standard in prosecutions in Canada.” This quote is from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) where President John Carpay confirms what many of us have long suspected. Mr. Carpay explains, referencing the fact that 86 sexual assault cases have been tossed out in Ontario since 2016 due to court delays and insufficient court resources stating, “Crown prosecutors in Ontario claim that they do not have enough resources to prosecute people accused of sexual assault and other serious crimes….Yet the Crown has devoted massive amounts of its limited time and energy to prosecuting peaceful protesters who exercised their fundamental Charter freedoms.” Mr. Carpay highlights the obvious double standard, stating that had Chris and Tamara been leading a protest against racism, transphobia or climate change, they would not have been subjected to a 45-day trial spanning 31 months. He also made a point we can all agree with; “it appears that the charges against Chris Barber and Tamara Lich were laid for political reasons.” The Freedom Convoy began as a simple protest against Covid-19 vaccine mandates for cross-border truck drivers. Soon, thousands of Canadians found their voices alongside the truckers, tired of being treated as second-class citizens for a decision that they felt was personal and not one for the government to dictate. Denied the right to visit ailing loved ones, to work, travel, play or attend sports or just eat out; everyone affected was justifiably fed up and eager to join the truckers in voicing their frustration with these overreaching mandates. Thousands of Canadians descended on the parliament buildings in Ottawa in hopes that the Prime Minister would listen to their concerns and negotiate. Instead, Trudeau turned his back and hid in his cottage, refusing to even speak to Convoy organizers. That was a significant turning point for the Freedom Convoy. Until then people had hope, believing that the largest protest in Canadian history could sway our political leaders. Once Trudeau walked away, that hope turned to sheer determination, to hold the line until he relented and listened to the people. Instead, he insulted every one of us and spewed lies about both the cause and the atmosphere of the Convoy, trying desperately to turn Canadians against us. Trudeau then decided to illegally invoke the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022, to allow the use of violence to suppress convey participants. A media release from The Democracy Fund (TDF) states, “The ruling ignites fierce debate over the boundaries of peaceful protest and the growing criminalization of political dissent in Canada. The verdict, delivered after 45 days of trial proceedings concluding on September 13, 2024, marks a significant moment in the legal treatment of protest-related cases, potentially deterring Canadians from exercising their rights to free expression and assembly out of fear of severe legal repercussions.” Mark Joseph, Director of Litigation for TDF described the trial as a critical test of Canadians’ right to peaceful assembly. “This ruling is a bittersweet moment - while Tamara Lich’s acquittal on several charges affirms the centrality of free expression, the mischief conviction could be interpreted as punishing some participants for the actions of others,” “We remain committed to challenging any erosion of Canadians’ rights to protest.” A post from Kiernan Green of The Hub, quoting directly from Statistics Canada, shows the incredible increase in violent crime in Canada to be over 130% from 2013, yet our government has chosen to go soft on these violent crimes while targeting peaceful citizens who dared speak out against the decisions of our political leaders. In a social media post from Right Blend (@rightblend ) he states, “The authorities have spent an unbelievable amount of resources prosecuting Chris and Tamara to the end of the Earth because they had the audacity to stand up against the most oppressive restrictions on Canadian rights and liberties in generations. How many violent criminals were let off the hook because the court was spending precious resources on this and other Freedom Convoy cases?” “Thank God for the Freedom Convoy. No matter what happens today, they already won.” We couldn’t agree more. The Freedom Convoy represented the combined voices of tens of thousands of Canadians who were beaten down by those trusted to protect us all. While it has become tragically clear that our government wishes to pick favourites, reducing the rest of us to destitution, both in freedoms and in spirit, we will always have the strength that the convoy instilled in us all. The knowledge that we are many and we are strong; that there are still Canadians who value what we used to stand for as a society – family values, freedoms and opportunity. We showed the world that our peaceful nature has a deeply imbedded determination. We applaud both Tamara and Chris for their strength and determination. We respect their commitment to everything the Freedom Convoy stood for and for remaining true under the incredible pressures piled on them in the past few years and are proud to call them friends. Regardless of the outcome, we offer our respect and gratitude to them both. The Freedom Convoy will be remembered and celebrated for generations. To all who participated and supported this incredible event – Thank you. To read the court decision, click the link; https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-04-03-R.-v-Lich-and-Barber-Decision.pdf
@PoliceOnGuard - PoliceOnGuardForThee
Many of us have been following the case of Randy Hillier; a former MPP from Ontario who found himself fighting for his rights for more than two years, against charges stemming from his vocal opposition of covid restrictions and mandates. Mr. Hillier faced several charges: two counts of mischief, three counts of counseling to commit an indictable offence, three counts of obstructing a peace officer, one count of assaulting a peace officer. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlines parameters for what constitutes Canada’s fair and democratic process. It provides direction as to how an individual is to be fairly treated, when they can lawfully be searched, and expectations for the time frame for prosecution. Summary convictions, being less serious offences, are given a window of 18 months between charges laid and the individual having the opportunity to defend themselves in court against those charges. Indictable offences, being more complex, are allotted up to 30 months. These parameters follow the precedence set by R. vs Jordan which determined the reasonable limit of time for due process, barring exceptional circumstances. Mr. Hillier turned himself in to police in March of 2022. His trial by jury had been set for January 27, 2025, where Crown Prosecutors intended to argue for a 3.5-year prison sentence on conviction. This past August Mr. Hillier, with the support of counsel, filed an application claiming that prolonged delays violated his charter right to receive a trial within a reasonable time. The Crown attempted to argue that any excessive delays were the direct result of the actions of Mr. Hillier and his legal counsel but were successful in only having 65 days attributed to this. The Crown further argued that R v. Haevischer caused unavoidable delays in Hillier's case, however the court ruled that this accounted for only 40 days of ‘exceptional circumstances’. After these two deductions, Justice McVey calculated the net delay at 31 months and 13 days, clearly exceeding the 30-month limit. The resulting judgment was a stay of all charges based on reasonable time limits as set by Section 11(b) of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, bringing an end to what Hillier described as the over two-year process of “malicious abuse of the courts against me.” Mr. Hillier has expressed that, while he is no longer pursuing a political career, he is in no way finished with speaking out in support of the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. He has also expressed profound gratitude for the support he has received throughout. We applaud Mr. Hillier’s tenacity during his prolonged battle against charges laid against him for simply expressing his rights of freedom of speech and assembly. We applaud him for standing his ground against politically motivated investigators and crown prosecutors, intent on stripping our Charter rights. And finally, we applaud Justice Kerry McVey of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for her methodical and just application of our Charter, and for her role in upholding the rights and freedoms of Canadians. To hear what Mr. Hillier has to say about the last few years and the recent decision, click the link; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrsbZk9GSbE
@PoliceOnGuard - PoliceOnGuardForThee
Cullen McDonald has won his case! It’s all-over social media, but why should we care? We should, and here’s why ~ Cullen became a test case for Canada. While similar cases were being dismissed across the country, Mr. McDonald’s case was pushed forward by prosecutors in hopes of setting a precedent for future cases pitting public health orders against our Charter rights. Criminal lawyer Saaron Gebresellassi stated “In all of my years of practicing law, I have never seen a case that has the potential to cause more damage to rights and freedoms in Canada, than the case of His Majesty the King vs McDonald.” Mr. McDonald was charged with three counts of Common Nuisance (the default charge for anyone who dared protest public health mandates); two charges for attending a protest in Niagara and a third for attending a protest in St. Catherine’s. His charges from Niagara were acquitted by Justice Richard Blouin who concluded that “elevating a violation of provincial health orders to a criminal offense would set a dangerous precedent, as it would allow every infraction of public health measures to be treated as a criminal offense rather than just a provincial violation.” A few weeks later and a few towns over, the charge from St. Catherine’s produced a verdict in direct opposition to the previous, despite being nearly identical cases. Justice De Filippis, believing Cullen held a higher level of responsibility as one of the organizers of the protest, levied a guilty verdict against Cullen, leaving him with a criminal record and fine of $4000. Cullen appealed his guilty verdict, while the Crown Prosecutor, Michael Lucifora, appealed both acquittals and the sentencing of his guilty verdict, believing one year in jail would be more suitable than simply paying a fine and victim surcharge. In a show of true Canadian justice, the appeal court’s decision not only dismissed the Crown's appeals of Mr. McDonald’s acquittals, but the judgement also overturned the original guilty verdict. Cullen McDonald is a free man. The potential impacts to all Canadians, had this case been lost, are truly sobering. At stake were the very rights and freedoms we’ve all believed were there to protect us from tyrannical government over-reach: our freedom of conscience and religion, our freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, our freedom of peaceful assembly and our freedom of association. Had the crown won their case, police would be free to arbitrarily arrest anyone violating a bylaw, in the name of public safety and with no regard for their rights. Make no mistake, Cullen McDonald’s win is a win for all of Canada! We now have a precedent validating the rightful position of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms within the context of the pandemic and associated public health measures. All Canadians should be celebrating this victory! We thank him for his hard work and determination and applaud all who supported and promoted his case. Cullen firmly believes that, without the show of support from Canadians, his case may have been lost, like so many others. We all stand together for the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.
@PoliceOnGuard - PoliceOnGuardForThee
Gloriane Blais is a former lawyer and resident of Québec. Prior to Covid-19, she had a successful career in civil liability and medical malpractice litigation. The Covid-era brought a plethora of cases to her door, while also pushing the practice of gaslighting any who spoke against the narrative, including Gloriane. After recognizing the lies and manipulations of our government’s political and medical leaders, Gloriane began to speak out. The price for having a voice was her license to practice law. She was ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and was disbarred when she refused. The obvious narrative being that if you disagree with the government’s position, you must be out of your mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. Gloriane dug in and continued her efforts to have the evidence acknowledged, pushing forward with a class action lawsuit that names 35 political and medical leaders for their role in pushing the ‘safe and effective’ narrative known to be blatantly false; as confirmed by the release of the Pfizer documents. Even attempts to intimidate didn’t deter Blais. The threats prompted her to relocate to France, seeking asylum while continuing her ‘important work’. In an interesting twist, France will now hear the evidence our Canadian government has fought to keep quiet. Blais explains that she is suing these politicians and ministers directly to ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not financially burdened, forcing the defendants to pay out of their own pocket and bear the burden of their lies without the ability to pass it along to Canadians. Once each of the defendants are served, a hearing will determine whether the case can move forward registered as a class-action lawsuit. This is a truly an important case, demanding transparency and accountability from the precise individuals directly responsible for the misinformation that caused such harm and division. We look forward to seeing the evidence coming forward from France, through the application for asylum. Please support this effort. You will find donation links as well as complete details of the case in the attached release. To donate to Gloriane Blais's GiveSendGo, click the link; https://www.givesendgo.com/gloriane To read the Application for Authorization for the Class Action, click the link; https://app.docurium.ca/d/70524eba455545f99921/files/?p=%2FApplication%20for%20authorization%20Class%20Action%20AMENDED.pdf
@PoliceOnGuard - PoliceOnGuardForThee
Alberta law firm, Rath and Company (@echipiuk ), have filed a Class Action with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta to address the significant damages experienced by many who took one of several ‘approved’ Covid-19 vaccines. The defendants are represented by Carrie Sakamoto. Carrie’s story has become well known, showing the severity of the side effects that are possible with any one of these rushed yet oh-so ‘safe and effective’ vaccines. Her life changed in an instant, with no hope of ever returning to the future she and her husband worked to provide their family. The impact - the complete loss of health and mobility, their home, their financial security…this list will continue to grow. Carrie is far from being alone in her suffering. Millions of Canadians, hounded daily by the misinformation and coercion campaigns fed to us by those charged with protecting our health and safety, stepped forward to do what they were told was right; the one thing that would ‘save lives’. For their sacrifice they have been denigrated, ignored and gas lit by those who browbeat us to comply. This case is well presented and concise. It clearly shows the negligence of all levels of government and health authorities who, at each level, had the opportunity to question, to discuss, to pause, in favour of more robust research and testing. It describes the grievous harms experienced, the subsequent losses and the completely inadequate response from anyone in a position to help. This case, while including many of those in desperate need of acknowledgement and support, has the potential to help us all. Through discovery, the evidence of the defendants’ ignorance and malicious intent, will be exposed; the greatest of which is their complete dismissal of our right to informed consent and bodily integrity. It is our sincere hope that this Justice will finally acknowledge the culpability at all levels of government and help these individuals by holding those responsible accountable for the harms they’ve caused. We stand with Carrie and the others in their fight for justice, in hopes that Canadians will never again suffer such an egregious attack from our own leaders. To read the Vaccine Class Action Statement of Claim, click the link; https://rathandcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2306-00442-FILED-2024-02-29-3rd-Amended-Statement-of-Claim.pdf To access the intake form and join the Vaccine Class Action, click the link; https://rathandcompany.com/covid-19-vaccine-class-action/
@PoliceOnGuard - PoliceOnGuardForThee
The Canadian government is coming to terms with the knowledge that they are not as infallible as they believed in their ability to enact laws without accountability or, more importantly, without liability. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that they should be held to account when enacting unconstitutional laws that infringe upon our rights, specifically those which are "clearly wrong, in bad faith or an abuse of power." The decision, described as intending to “strike a balance between the protection of constitutional rights and the need for effective government” states, "The government and its representatives are required to exercise their powers in good faith and to respect the 'established and indisputable' laws that define the constitutional rights of individuals.” When legislation is passed that is found to meet “the very high threshold of being clearly unconstitutional, passed in bad faith or that amounts to an abuse of power,” the state can be found liable and be forced to pay reparations. As expected, the Trudeau government argued they have absolute immunity, based on parliamentary privilege and sovereignty, and the constitutional principles of the separation of powers. They expressed concerns that “damages for enactments of even clearly unconstitutional legislation would open the floodgates to claims and chill them from passing constitutional laws out of concern they would later be on the hook for payments.” Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Karakatsanis clarify; “By shielding the government from liability in even the most egregious circumstances, absolute immunity would subvert the principles that demand government accountability”. Section 24(1) of the Charter confirms that damages are available where “appropriate and just in the circumstances.” Recent history has demonstrated our government’s willingness to trample the rights of Canadians without accountability; we need only look at the freezing of bank accounts as one obvious example. We can only imagine how concerned they must be now that they know, without a doubt, that we have the ability to dissect all of their decisions with this same scrutiny. To read the decision Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, click the link; https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20546/index.do
@PoliceOnGuard - PoliceOnGuardForThee
Dr Patrick Provost, professor and biochemist with 35 years of experience in genomics, lipid nanoparticles and RNA, received a letter in March of 2024 explaining that he had been fired by Quebec’s Université Laval (ULaval) due to his criticisms of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. Provost’s expertise in the field fueled significant concerns with the safety of the proposed mRNA vaccines, and their use on children. He felt obligated to speak up, resulting in 11 complaints by citizens, doctors and other professors (some filed anonymously) about his communications. These complaints resulted in suspensions-without-pay totalling six months, one week and one day. Provost, with the support of his union, filed grievances with the provincial labour tribunal to contest his suspensions and dismissal. In June of 2022, the Act Respecting Academic Freedom in the University Sector became law in Quebec. It “defines the right to university academic freedom as the right of every person to engage freely and without doctrinal, ideological or moral constraint in an activity through which the person contributes to carrying out the mission of such an educational institution.” In a letter to colleagues, Provost wrote “I am probably the first professor to be dismissed in the exercise of his academic freedom since (Quebec’s) ‘Act respecting academic freedom in the university environment,’ (came into power), an act which is supposed to protect it”. Since then, a group of professors penned a letter calling on ULaval to reinstate and apologize to Dr. Provost. “Patrick Provost drew a line at what amounted to medical experimentation on children,” the professors wrote in a letter published by the Brownstone Institute. Scientific research must be free from political influence for it to be of any value, yet all across Canada we see our academic excellence, in research, teaching and the medical professions, destroyed by the political influences and financial incentives of their governing bodies. If we live in a country where academic freedom can be quashed, and existing laws can simply be ignored, how can anyone ‘trust the science’ from these establishments? To read the True North article written by Lindsay Shepherd, click the link; https://tnc.news/2024/05/03/quebec-university-fires-professor-covid-vaccine1/ To read the Act Respecting Academic Freedom in the University Sector, click the link; https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/L-1.2#:~:text=212022%2C%20c.-,21%2C%20s.,mission%20of%20an%20educational%20institution.
@PoliceOnGuard - PoliceOnGuardForThee
Kristen Nagle is a familiar name to many. A Canadian nurse, fired by the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) in 2021 for attending anti-lockdown rallies, she became a prominent face for medical professionals in Canada who opposed the government’s mandates. Her outspoken nature, her involvement with the Canadian Frontline Nurses and their tireless efforts to inform Canadians of the dangers of the government’s covid measures, pushed her to the forefront. It also made her a target and a person the authorities have worked hard to silence. Kristen was found guilty in February of violating the Reopening Ontario Act (RAO). The Crown, seeing the support she was getting from Canadians, pushed for a fine of $50k along with her sentencing. In late March the court ruled against their request and applied a fine $7,500 plus a victim surcharge, bringing the total to $9,375, along with two years’ probation. Kristen believes that her two-year probation, with stipulations that she “must keep the peace” and be on “good behavior and not commit the same offense,” is intended to impede her ability to speak freely. Previously she had been found guilty of two other offences under the ROA for attending and organizing rallies in November of 2020, receiving a fine of $20k. In 2022, Kristen was fined a further $10k for attending an Easter church service in the spring of 2021. She appealed the fine and it was later reduced to $3,750. An additional charge for attending another rally was withdrawn. Kristen knows that this probation is to stop her from speaking out or going against public health measures should another ‘public health emergency’ appear. She thanks everyone for the immense support she has received along the way, in the form of both encouragement and donations. The outpouring support just proves how many of us there truly are that stand united in our opposition of these government policies and their bullying tactics. Keep supporting those who have stood strong for the health and safety of all Canadians. Together we show the government how strong our voices are. To donate to Kristen's GiveSendGo, click the link; https://www.givesendgo.com/Nagle To read the Life Site article written by Anthony Murdoch, click the link; https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-freedom-canadian-nurse-gets-two-years-probation-for-protesting-covid-restrictions/?utm_source=daily-canada-2024-04-17&utm_medium=email
@PoliceOnGuard - PoliceOnGuardForThee
The Divisional Court has issued a ruling in the case of Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, deciding to fully support the actions of the College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO). Dr. Gill will be seeking a leave to appeal over this decision. Dr Gill had shared opinions on social media that countered the position of public health officials. The CPSO labelled her posts as misinformation and levied professional cautions against her. While the Court agreed that the information she shared in her posts was not necessarily incorrect, it was inconsistent with the official position of her governing body, the CPSO, and of the public health orders in effect. Dr. Gill further believes that the actions of the CPSO constituted a breach of her right to freedom of speech, while the Court determined that the CPSO actions against her were proportionate, balancing her right to freedom of speech with her professional responsibilities. Dr. Gill provided an abundance of evidence to support the opinions in question; evidence the Court refused to re-evaluate. Instead, they deferred to the CPSO’s own evaluation, stating that their panel consisted of “physicians with highly relevant expertise…that this court does not have” when in reality the CPSO panel had actually deferred to the “expertise” of government’s public health arm. The Divisional Court also dismissed arguments that the CPSO’s publishing of the cautions on Dr. Gill’s public register, and the distribution of these cautions to hospitals and regulators across the continent were punitive, instead referring to these actions as merely a “remedial measure.” Essentially, no one in this case has evaluated the accuracy of the evidence used by the government to establish their health policies nor have they reviewed Dr. Gill’s evidence contradicting the government’s position. In addition, both the CPSO and the Court have taken the position that doctors should not express opinions contradicting government or its public health edicts, regardless of the accuracy of the contradictory opinions. How did Canada, the strong and free, become a country where the government is assumed to be right, regardless of evidence, and where speaking truth is a punishable offence? To read the True North article written by Clayton DeMaine click the link; https://tnc.news/2024/05/13/anti-lockdown-doctor-cautioned-by-regulatory-college-to-appeal-after-court-quashes-challenge2/ To read the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, click the link; https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2024/2024onsc2588/2024onsc2588.html
@PoliceOnGuard - PoliceOnGuardForThee
Leah McInnes, a Registered Nurse in Saskatchewan, has been cleared of all wrongdoing after being accused of spreading misinformation by the College of Registered Nurses of Saskatchewan (CRNS). McInnes expressed concerns about covid vaccine effectiveness and shared views opposing vaccine mandates which prompted ‘anti-vaxxer’ complaints from fellow staff to the investigative branch of the CRNS. The investigation brought charges of spreading misinformation; accusations later determined to be unfounded, ending with all charges being dismissed. In their release, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) described McInnes’s advocacy as measured and balanced; “She had supported vaccines as an important tool in Covid-management efforts while also pointing to emerging scientific evidence…that Covid vaccines did not eliminate transmission. [she] opposed vaccine mandates as a violation of basic ethical principles of autonomy and informed… consent” John Carpay, President of the JCCF went on to share, “This is a significant victory for free expression and democratic participation…all Canadians who work in a regulated profession have the freedom to advocate for their beliefs and should not face threats from their own professional association or professional regulator”. The Saskatchewan government initially acknowledged the potential infringements to individual autonomy associated with vaccine mandates but quickly changed their tune under the influence of the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses, NDP leader Ryan Meili and a group of Saskatchewan Health Authority’s Medical Health Officers, all calling for the “mandatory immunization” of all healthcare workers . While the NDP influence is not surprising, the bullying from health regulators is concerning, showing their willingness to abuse their influence to further political ideologies above sound medical knowledge and advancing research. It is time to demand the complete public disclosure of all political influences within these unions and agencies. The medical profession must remain neutral, supporting the health and wellbeing of citizens without political entanglements. To read the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms article, click here; https://www.jccf.ca/free-speech-victory-charges-against-nurse-who-opposed-vaccine-mandates-defeated/
