In 2005, almost the entire Conservative Party Caucus, and over 1/4 of the Liberal Party Caucus voted to conserve marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Taking such a stand would be completely unthinkable in today’s climate.
1. Understanding Our Real History
CLICK HERE, for #1: UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. CLICK HERE, for #2: Indian Act of Canada, wards of the Crown. CLICK HERE, for #3: UNESCO’s land grabs as “heritage sites”.
2. Why Cover This Particular Topic?
If anything, this marks a point where the globohomo movement really took off in Canada. Instead of being a small group out on its own, this was the beginning of lawfare in order to force itself on the public at large. Certainly there had been lobbying and court challenges before, but this seems to be a turning point.
The court challenges started in 2003, and it ended with Bill C-38 in 2005. For the full text of Bill C-38.
To accept this (and other “changes”) as part of our heritage to rewrite history. These changes — always done incrementally — are done to subvert and undermine what the country is.
There is more to the story than just Bill C-38. Starting in 2003, there were a series of Provincial Court challenges (each successful). In some sense, this made the Federal Bill a mere formality.
4. Harper Made No Real Effort To Reverse
After winning power in 2006, the Harper Government made a very half hearted attempt to pass a motion to reopen the debate on marriage. But it was obvious that it was just going through the motions to appease supporters.
5. Modern Conservatism In Canada
There is a vast difference between accepting a group, and openly promoting their agenda. Difficult to imagine these cucks standing up to “conserve” anything now. At this point, modern conservative parties need to be allowed to die so new options can come forward.
If a bill was introduced to restore the traditional definition of marriage, there is not a liberal politician in Canada who would support it. Very few conservatives would, and they would receive backlash for doing so.
P.S. It’s not just “conservatives” in Canada who pander to the gay mafia. It’s happening elsewhere as well.
In case you ever want to take the Government to court, or are just morbidly curious about how things work. Here are some standards that get applied in actual cases.
For more information in various processes, check out this series. Some useful tidbits for the average person.
2. Standard For Review (Appeals)
The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. The same degree of deference must be paid to inferences of fact, since many of the reasons for showing deference to the factual findings of the trial judge apply equally to all factual conclusions. The standard of review for inferences of fact is not to verify that the inference can reasonably be supported by the findings of fact of the trial judge, but whether the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in coming to a factual conclusion based on accepted facts, a stricter standard. Making a factual conclusion of any kind is inextricably linked with assigning weight to evidence, and thus attracts a deferential standard of review. If there is no palpable and overriding error with respect to the underlying facts that the trial judge relies on to draw the inference, then it is only where the inference‑drawing process itself is palpably in error that an appellate court can interfere with the factual conclusion.
Questions of mixed fact and law involve the application of a legal standard to a set of facts. Where the question of mixed fact and law at issue is a finding of negligence, it should be deferred to by appellate courts, in the absence of a legal or palpable and overriding error. Requiring a standard of “palpable and overriding error” for findings of negligence made by either a trial judge or a jury reinforces the proper relationship between the appellate and trial court levels and accords with the established standard of review applicable to a finding of negligence by a jury. Where the issue on appeal involves the trial judge’s interpretation of the evidence as a whole, it should not be overturned absent palpable and overriding error. A determination of whether or not the standard of care was met by the defendant involves the application of a legal standard to a set of facts, a question of mixed fact and law, and is thus subject to a standard of palpable and overriding error, unless it is clear that the trial judge made some extricable error in principle with respect to the characterization of the standard or its application, in which case the error may amount to an error of law, subject to a standard of correctness.
FACTUAL FINDINGS: Overriding, palpable errors
ERRORS IN LAW: Standard of correctness
PRINCIPLES INVOLVED:
(1) Limiting the Number, Length and Cost of Appeals
(2) Promoting the Autonomy and Integrity of Trial Proceedings
(3) Recognizing the Expertise of the Trial Judge and His or Her Advantageous Position
Per the Chief Justice: Comment as to attempting to define or replace by paraphrases the phrases “gross negligence” or “wilful and wanton misconduct”, and observations as to a trial judge’s duty in assisting a jury in an action based upon said enactment. The said phrases imply conduct in which, if there is not conscious wrong doing, there is a very marked departure from the standards by which responsible and competent people in charge of motor cars habitually govern themselves. Subject to that, it is entirely a question of fact for the jury whether conduct falls within the category of one or other of said phrases.
That case was about a motor vehicle accident, but the same principles should apply elsewhere.
[6] With respect, I think the judge failed to consider the concept of gross negligence that may result from the wrongdoer’s willful blindness. Even a wrongful intent, which often takes the form of knowledge of one or more of the ingredients of the alleged act, may be established through proof of willful blindness. In such cases the wrongdoer, while he may not have actual knowledge of the alleged ingredient, will be deemed to have that knowledge.
[8] In this case there is nothing like that. On the contrary, there are misrepresentations and payment of rebates. Before cashing the refund cheques, the respondents were either made aware of the misrepresentations or had strong suspicions as to the existence of misrepresentations or the legitimacy of the refunds themselves. By cashing the refunds and paying rebates, the respondents acquiesced and participated in the scheme that had been established to defraud the Agency. Their participation, which was free and voluntary, was an essential link in the realization of that scheme and they benefited economically from it. It is simply impossible not to conclude that this was willful blindness and consequently gross negligence.
This involved a rebate scheme that people had to know was fraudulent. Consequently, their willful blindness amouinted to gross negligence, according to the Federal Court of Appeal.
There are three aspects to the test, all of which must be satisfied before interlocutory (temporary) injunctive relief can issue. An applicant must demonstrate:
(a) First, that there is a serious constitutional question to be tried;
(b) Second, that the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; and
(c) third, that the balance of convenience favours the injunction
In order for a party to bring a case claiming “public interest standing”, there are a few questions that have to be answered. This is so they limit their time to important matters:
(a) Serious Justiciable Issue
(b) The Nature of the Plaintiff’s Interest
(c) Reasonable and Effective Means of Bringing the Issue Before the Court
(a) whether there is a serious justiciable issue raised by the claim;
(b) whether the plaintiff is directly affected by the proposed action or, if not, has a genuine interest in its outcome; and
(c) whether the action is a reasonable and effective means to bring the claim to court
On a motion to strike, a claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action. The approach must be generous, and err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial. However, the judge cannot consider what evidence adduced in the future might or might not show.
A. The Test for Striking Out Claims
.
[17] The parties agree on the test applicable on a motion to strike for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action under r. 19(24)(a) of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules. This Court has reiterated the test on many occasions. A claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action: Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, at para. 15; Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, at p. 980. Another way of putting the test is that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success. Where a reasonable prospect of success exists, the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial: see, generally, Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., 2007 SCC 38, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83; Odhavji Estate; Hunt; Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735.
In 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada entrenched rights and protections of self represented litigants and accused persons into law. In the ruling they endorsed the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council. Now, while it’s nice to have that extra protection, it won’t help a person if they truly have no case.
9. All You Need To Know?
No, of course not. But the following should at least be useful information in determining your options and next move.
LEAF comes across as such a well intentioned and benevolent group. However, dig a little deeper, and the problems start to show through.
1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, the obvious questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Will the organs be trafficked afterwards?
[1] WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND FOUNDATION
Corporation Number: 255753-3
Business Number (BN): 880802897RC0001
[2] WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND INC.
Corporation Number: 189741-1
Business Number (BN): 108219916RC0001
A point of clarification: there are actually 2 separate Federal corporations registered with the Government. They have different (though similar) names, and different corporate and business numbers. They also have different addresses in Toronto.
It’s worth pointing out that LEAF has branches across Canada and the United States. They operate with the same basic philosophy.
4. Mental Gymnastics In LEAF Agenda
The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) works to advance the substantive equality rights of women and girls through litigation, law reform, and public education. Since 1985, we have intervened in landmark cases that have advanced equality in Canada—helping to prevent violence, eliminate discrimination in the workplace, provide better maternity benefits, ensure a right to pay equity, and allow access to reproductive freedoms. For more information, please visit www.leaf.ca.
LEAF claims to be committed to a variety of good causes. However, their logic seems messed up. While they want better childcare benefits, it’s okay to kill the child up to the point of birth. And even when the mother DOES kill the child after birth, the penalties should be reduced.
And by what stretch of logic is murdering children compatible with preventing violence?
5. Canadian Taxpayers Are Financing This
Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is receiving $880,000 to develop a modern, intersectional, and feminist strategic litigation plan that will enable feminists and gender equality advocates to address systemic barriers to gender equality and eliminate gender discrimination.
Canadian taxpayers will be footing the bill for some $880,000, for this 2019 grant. This is to develop a litigation plan to for what they refer to as fighting for gender equality. It’s unclear from the announcement how much (if any) will end up being diverted into actual court challenges.
6. LEAF’s Take On “Reproductive Justice”
1987 Baby R.
LEAF argued that children not yet born shouldn’t be allowed to be taken by government officials. Custody should be for people already alive. leaf.intervenor.factum.1988-baby-r
1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
LEAF argued that the right to life should apply to the mother (and not to the child). The criminal code and charter shouldn’t apply to the unborn baby. leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-borowski
1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
LEAF argued that biological fathers should have no say over whether the child lives or dies, and that otherwise, it is an attempt to control the mother using the child as a proxy. leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-daigle
1991 R. v. Sullivan
LEAF argued that 2 midwives convicted of criminal negligence causing death (for the death of the baby) should have that charge thrown out, since the baby isn’t actually a person. leaf.intervenor.factum.1991-sullivan
1996 R v. Lewis
LEAF argued in favour maintaining “bubble zones”. These effectively were areas where abortion protesting would be banned. Free speech is fine, just not in certain areas. leaf.intervenor.factum.1996-lewis
1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
LEAF argued against the the state’s ability to detain a pregnant women, who was harming her own child. In this case, the mother was sniffing glue. leaf.intervenor.factum.1997-winnipeg-child-family
2003 R. v. Demers
LEAF argued again against the rights of people who were protesting abortion, although the arguments differed somewhat. leaf.intervenor.factum.2003-demers
2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
LEAF once again arguing that “bubble zones” need to be maintained, and that freedom of speech needs to be curtailed in order to ensure smooth access to abortion. leaf.intervenor.factum.2008-R-V-WATSON-SPRATT-Factum
2016 R v. MB
LEAF argued that a woman who killed her newborn child should not face the wrath of the criminal justice system, and should be cut a break leaf.intervenor.factum.2016.r.v.mb.infanticide
LEAF is Pro-Life?
Yeah, not really seeing that here.
LEAF is Anti-Life
1987 Baby R
1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
1991 R. v. Sullivan
1996 R v. Lewis
1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
2003 R. v. Demers
2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
2016 R v. MB
Keep in mind, these are not cases that impact LEAF directly. Instead, they go searching for cases to act as an intervenor (or interested party). In short, they insert themselves into OTHER cases in order to get the outcomes they want.
An astute person will realize that LEAF is fundamentally anti-free speech. Among the challenges they brag about is getting free speech restricted in order to facilitate abortion access.
This list is hardly exhaustive, but should give a pretty good idea of the things they stand against: rights for unborn children.
7. LEAF Wants Foreign Abortions Funded Too
As organizations who are deeply committed to the rights of women and girls, we are very concerned by recent statements regarding the Government of Canada’s refusal to fund safe abortion services abroad, including in cases of rape and for young women and girls in forced marriages. This approach represents a serious setback on women’s human rights and the health and wellbeing of survivors of sexual violence and girls in early and forced marriages.
We call on the Canadian government to:
1. Include access to safe abortion services as part of the package of sexual and reproductive health services funded by Canadian international cooperation initiatives;
2. Support effective strategies to ensure that survivors of sexual violence and young women and girls in early and forced marriage have access to a comprehensive package of sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion; and
3. Produce clear policy for Canada’s international initiatives that adopts a human rights-based approach to sexual and reproductive health.
What about the babies being killed? Don’t their human rights matter? Oh, that’s right, these groups don’t consider babies to be people.
Sincerely,
The undersigned organizations:
.
-Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) / Coalition pour le droit à l’avortement au Canada (CDAC)
-Action Canada for Population and Development / Action Canada pour la population et le développement
-Amnesty International Canada (English)
-Amnistie International Canada (Francophone)
-Canadian Council of Muslim Women
-Canadian Federation for Sexual Health
-Canadian Federation of University Women
-Canadian Women’s Foundation
-Choice in Health Clinic
-Clinique des femmes de l’Outaouais
-Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances (FQPN)
-Kensington Clinic
-Institute for International Women’s Rights – Manitoba
-Inter Pares
-MATCH International Women’s Fund
-Oxfam Canada
-Oxfam Quebec
–Planned Parenthood Ottawa
-West Coast LEAF
-Women’s Health Clinic, Winnipeg
-Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund / Fonds d’action et d’education juridiques pour les femmes
-YWCA Canada
(also addressed to)
-CC The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C.
Prime Minister of Canada
.
-CC Hélène Laverdière, NPD, MP
NDP International Development Critic
.
-CC Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, MP
Liberal International Development and Status of Women Critic
.
-CC Paul Dewar, NDP, MP
NDP Foreign Affairs Critic
.
-CC Marc Garneau, Liberal, MP
Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic
.
-CC Niki Ashton, NDP, MP
NDP Status of Women Critic
Not content with killing Canadian children, this coalition demands that the Canadian Government finance foreign abortions as well. That is correct. Use taxpayer money to pay to kill children in other countries.
It’s not at all a surprise to see a Planned Parenthood Ottawa has joined this group in making the call. After all, Planned Parenthood is involved in trafficking organs.
It never seems to dawn on these people that in many parts of the world, girls and women are viewed as far less than boys and men. This leads often to SEX SELECTIVE abortions. Is it really a feminist idea to deliberately target female babies?
8. No protection For Unborn Victims Of Crime
Considering the 1989 Boroski intervention (see list of cases above), it’s no surprise that LEAF, and other feminist groups oppose Bill C-225. This would have made it an additional crime to injury or kill a fetus while in the commission of another offense.
9. LEAF Forcing Abortion/Euth On Doctors
There was a 2019 decision from the Ontario Court of Appeals. It mandated that doctors either had to perform abortions and/or euthanasia, or provide a referral to someone who would. LEAF was one of the groups pushing it. They had no standing, other than to push their own pro-death views on others.
10. LEAF Wants Gender Ideology Critic Banned
The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is troubled by the decision of the Toronto Public Library (the “TPL”) to rent one of its branch spaces to a group hosting an event with Meghan Murphy, who has a track record for denying the existence and rights of trans women. We are particularly concerned with Murphy’s history of publicly opposing efforts to codify the rights of trans people, specifically trans women, including her vocal opposition to federal human rights legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.
LEAF was founded in 1985 with a mandate to advance substantive equality for women and girls in Canada. LEAF has long been committed to a vision of feminism that is inclusive of all, regardless of sex, gender identity or gender expression. LEAF’s advocacy is and remains focused on challenging sex and gender discrimination that results in inequality for self-identified women and girls. The long-term success of this mission demands that LEAF work towards challenging and dismantling patriarchy, in all its forms.
LEAF believes freedom of speech plays an important role in strengthening and upholding substantive equality. Holding space for respectful dialogue among diverse viewpoints is essential to this work. However, LEAF has long maintained that freedom of speech is not absolute. Like all rights enjoyed by Canadians, freedom of speech must be balanced with other fundamental rights and freedoms, especially equality. Speech that perpetuates harmful stereotypes only serves to further marginalize and exclude an already vulnerable population and does not merit protection.
In a case of “eating your own“, LEAF tried to get Meghan Murphy dis-invited from a Toronto talk on trans-activism. And Murphy is about as hardcore feminist as they come. According to her biography:
Bachelor’s degree in women’s studies
Master’s degree in women’s studies
Wrote for feminist publications
Believes in the wage-gap nonsense
Believes women are oppressed
Pro-abortion
Pro-gay agenda
Still, that wasn’t enough to prevent feminist and “women’s rights” groups life LEAF from turning against her.
For a group that “claims” to support women, one has to ask why LEAF is trying to take away the rights of a woman (Murphy), specifically her free speech.
Murphy does address legitimate issues that trans-activists are involved with, (such as sports, pronounc, etc…), and how they are conflicting head on with the rights of women. It seems that the committment to women’s rights can be tossed aside in favour of this extremely small group.
11. LEAF: Reduce Sentence For Drug Mule
Somehow, LEAF believes that arguing against a mandatory minimum sentence for a person convicted of smuggling 2kg of cocaine (worth some $200,000), is a woman’s rights issue. What about the women who are harmed as a result of the drug trade? Don’t they matter?
While not directly related to the abortion/organs issue, it’s still bizarre to see how this group feels entitled to meddle in other people’s cases.
12. LEAF Supports ON Sex-Ed Agenda
This week’s move is getting a thumbs-up from a national women’s legal organization that teaches older students about consent.
“It’s extremely important for everyone to understand what their rights and responsibilities are under the law,” said Kim Stanton, legal director of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, which runs workshops for high school and university students. “Students need to know what’s OK and what’s not.
Candid honesty is extremely rare in political circles. However, this critique of LEAF and Leslyn Lewis, is a true gem. Also see the video. Well worth the 10 minutes or so.
Now, what is the result of anti-life laws becoming normal?
14. RCMP & Illegal Organ Trade
There are far more people in the world in need of a new organ than there are organs available. Like in any market where a dollar can be made because demand far outweighs supply, people can turn to the black market to find what they need. When a person’s life is on the line, the will to survive may override morals. The following facts depict the seedy underbelly of organ trafficking.
The United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UN GIFT) says the organ trade occurs in three broad categories: traffickers who force or deceive victims to give up an organ, those who sell their organs out of financial desperation, often only receiving a fraction of the profit or are cheated out of the money altogether and victims who are duped into believing they need an operation and the organ is removed without the victim’s knowledge.
Organ trafficking is considered an organized crime with a host of offenders, including the recruiters who identify the vulnerable person, the transporter, the staff of the hospital or clinic and other medical centres, the medical professionals themselves who perform the surgery, the middleman and contractors, the buyers and the banks that store the organs.
And according to the UN GIFT, it’s a fact that the entire ring is rarely exposed.
A World Health Assembly resolution adopted in 2004 urges Member States to “take measures to protect the poorest and vulnerable groups from ‘transplant tourism’ and the sale of tissues’ and organs.
“Transplant tourism” is the most common way to trade organs across national borders. These recipients travel abroad to undergo organ transplants (WHO Bulletin). There are websites that offer all-inclusive transplant packages, like a kidney transplant that ranges from US$70,000 to US$160,000.
There’s no law in Canada banning Canadians from taking part in transplant tourism — travelling abroad and purchasing organs for transplantation and returning home to Canada.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), one out of 10 organ transplants involves a trafficked human organ, which amounts to about 10,000 a year.
While kidneys are the most commonly traded organ, hearts, livers, lungs, pancreases, corneas and human tissue are also illegally traded.
In a recent report, Global Financial Integrity says that illegal organ trade is on the rise, and it estimates that it generates profits between $600 million and $1.2 billion per year with a span over many countries.
In Iran, the only country where organ trade is legal, organ sales are closely monitored and the practice has eliminated the wait list for kidney transplants and has provided an increase in post-mortem organ donations, which aren’t remunerated in Iran.
A Harvard College study says donors come from impoverished nations, like countries in South America, Asia and Africa, while recipients are from countries like Canada, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel and Japan.
According to research out of Michigan State University that looked at the black market for human organs in Bangladesh, the average quoted rate for a kidney was US$1,400 but has dropped because of the abundant supply.
In Bangladesh, the trade is propelled by poverty, where 78 per cent of residents live on less than $2 a day. They give their organs to pay off loans and take care of their families. If they received the money at all, it disappears quickly and they are often left sick and unable to work after the operations.
The Voluntary Health Association of India estimates about 2,000 Indians sell a kidney every year.
Given that the organ trade is often a transnational crime, international law enforcers must co-operate across borders to address the crimes.
This comes from a 2014 post on the RCMP’s website. Despite being several years old, it has a lot of useful information.
Now, it’s true that there are only so many people dying with usable organs. It’s also true that abducting and/or murdering people for their organs is risky, and can only be done so often. However, that isn’t really the case with aborted babies, as they typically have healthy organs. Sure, they are smaller, but still usable at some point.
Ever wonder why the recent push to have later and later abortions? It’s because the organs of a 35 week fetus are much more developed than those of a 20 week fetus.
15. UNODC On Organ, Human Trafficking
III. Guidance for response
.
A. Definitions
6. Article 3 (a) defines trafficking in persons: “Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.”
It’s illegal to kidnap, force, or otherwise coerce people into giving up organs. However, aborted babies (even very late term) are just considered property with no legal rights of their own. At least, this is the case in Canada.
This UNODC paper is from 2011. However, its information is still very relevant today.
Whether this is intentional or not, it is one of the consequences of the actions of groups like LEAF. Removing any sort of legal protection from the unborn creates legal carte blanche to harvest and sell their organs at will.
This was addressed in Part 9, the connection between illegal immigration, and the trafficking and smuggling of migrants. However, in the context of organ harvesting, it does put the issue in a whole new light.
17. Bill S-204, Criminal Code Change
Senate Bill S-204 would make it criminal offence to go abroad for the purposes of obtaining organs where consent was not given. While promising, however, it hasn’t gone anywhere since being introduced. Now, would these penalties apply to the trafficked organs of aborted fetuses, or only to trafficked organs of people living for some period of time?
18. Abortion Fuels Organ Trafficking
Now, to tie all of this together: the abortion industry helps fuel the organ trafficking industry.
It’s a straightforward idea: in order to traffic organs in a large scale, there has to be a large, constant supply available.
The abortion industry (and their advocates) ensure this by waging lawfare. They fight in court to keep stripping away any protections unborn children may have. They also change the law to allow for later and later abortions, and thus, more developed organs. Advocates will gaslight others who make attempts to limit this, or enshrine rights for the children. Child rights must be removed in favour of women’s rights.
Is LEAF involved with trafficking organs? They don’t appear to be, but their frequent court efforts ensure that this will continue. Whether intentional of not, groups like LEAF are part of the problem.
And to be clear, LEAF openly supports restricting free speech, under the guise of protecting abortion and gender rights. Of course, open discourse on these subjects would immediately weaken their arguments.
19. Defending Non-Disclosure Of HIV
Note: this was added after the article was originally published. LEAF argued in a Parliamentary hearing that failure to disclose HIV status should be removed from sexual assault laws, and in some cases, decriminalized altogether. Way to protect women.
In 2019, LEAF actually made submissions in the “online hate” study, and took the position AGAINST free speech. Again, this was added after the original article was released.
There were 2 rulings in Ontario (2015 and 2018), which concerned the “vaccinate or mask” policy for health care workers. BCPHO Bonnie Henry testified in the 2015 case that there was very limited evidence to support masks. Also, the June 2020 BC Ombudsman report is interesting in terms of government overreach.
Keep in mind that Bonnie Henry also says there’s no science behind limiting groups to 50 people. (See 1:00 in above video). But she imposed that restriction anyway.
1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
The rest of the series is here. There are many: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, and much more than most people realize. For examples: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies. It’s also worth mentioning that there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing, though they promote all kinds of degenerate behaviour. Also, the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work, and the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed.
322. The assertion that a mask requirement serves a valuable or essential purpose, albeit that there is only “some” evidence, is also weakened by actual employer practice. If the mask evidence were as supportive as claimed, it would suggest that vaccinated HCWs should also wear masks given the limited efficacy of the vaccine even in relatively ‘good’ years. The SAH Chief of Medical Staff raised this question at the outset. The Hospital’s failure to consider re-evaluating the Policy’s application when the extent of the 2014-2015 vaccine mismatch became known raises the same issue. The OHA/SAH expert responses to these questions set out in full above[425] were short of satisfying.
323. Wearing a mask for an entire working shift, virtually everywhere, no matter the patient presenting circumstances, is most unpleasant. While I readily accept that the wearing of a mask for good reason may reasonably be expected of HCWs, an Irving “balancing of interests” is required. The Policy makes a significant ‘ask’ of unvaccinated employees; that is to wear an unpleasant mask for up to six months at a time. As noted, the evidence said to support the reason for the ‘ask’—evidence concerning asymptomatic transmission and mask effectiveness–may be described at best as “some” and more accurately as “scant”. I conclude that many of the articles footnoted in support of the strong opinions set out in the OHA/SAH expert Reports provide very limited or no assistance to those views. The required balancing does not favour the Policy.
Decision
.
342. On the evidence before me, I find the VOM provisions of the SAH Policy to be unreasonable. Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, I declare SAH to be in breach of Article B-1 (e) of the ONA/SAH Local Agreement and Article 18.07 (c) of the ONA Central Agreement.
.
343. Any question concerning the need, if any, for additional relief is remitted to the parties for their consideration. I remain seized of remedial issues.
.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of September, 2015
It was found that there wasn’t strong evidence that masking health care workers for months at a time actually had a proven effect. It was further undermined by inconsistent practices at the Sault Area Hospital.
134. Dr. Henry agreed with this observation by Dr. Skowronski and Dr. Patrick who are her colleagues at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control:
.
I do agree, as we’ve discussed earlier, influenza is mostly transmitted in the community and we don’t have data on the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers and individual transmission events…in healthcare settings.
.
135. Dr. Henry agreed that no VOM policy would influence influenza in the community. Dr. McGeer denied that she had used or recommended the use of community burden in the assessment of development of such a policy.
So there is no data on any differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers. Yet these people are still arguing for VOM (vaccine or mask).
145. In her Report Dr. Henry also referred to observational studies as supporting the data she said was derived from the RCTs but acknowledged that these studies related to long term care and not acute care settings. She was cross-examined at length concerning the studies referenced in this section of her Report, some that dealt with other closed community settings, and agreed that they were “clearly not referring to a healthcare setting”.
.
146. Witness commentary concerning the observational/experimental studies relied upon in the McGeer/Henry Reports is set out in Appendix A to this Award. I conclude from a review of these studies, and the expert witness commentary, that they do not disclose a consistent position. They address a wide range of issues in a wide range of settings. Some are not supportive of the OHA/SAH experts’ claim. Some provide weak support at best. Some have nothing to do with the issue in question. Some have acknowledged study design limitations.
Evidence introduced by Bonnie Henry was for long term care centers, not health care settings, so this apples and oranges. There is also weak or irrelevant evidence argued.
160. In direct examination Dr. Henry stated that the pre-symptomatic period was “clearly not the most infectious period but we do know that it happens”.[203] She also agreed in cross-examination that transmission required an element of proximity and a sufficient amount of live replicating virus.
.
161. At another point, the following series of questions and answers ensued during Dr. Henry’s cross-examination:
.
Q. With respect to transmission while asymptomatic, and I want to deal with your authorities with respect to that, would you agree with me that there is scant evidence to support that virus shedding of influenza actually leads to effective transmission of the disease before somebody becomes symptomatic?
.
A. I think we talked about that yesterday, that there is some evidence that people shed prior to being symptomatic, and there is some evidence of transmission, that leading to transmission, but I absolutely agree that that is not the highest time when shedding and transmission can occur.
.
Q. So were you—I put it to you that there’s scant evidence, and that was Dr. De Serres’ evidence, so—but that there’s very little evidence about that, do you agree?
.
A. There is—as we talked about yesterday, there is not a lot of evidence around these pieces, I agree.
.
Q. And clearly transmission risk is greatest when you’re symptomatic, when you’re able to cough or sneeze?
.
A. Transmission risk is greatest, as we’ve said, when you’re symptomatic, especially in the first day or two of symptom onset
Not a lot of evidence regarding risks of transmission. Yes, this is 2015, but it coming straight from BCPHO Bonnie Henry.
177. Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry presented the position of the OHA and the Hospital based upon their understanding of the relevant literature. Neither of them asserted that they had particular expertise with respect to masks or had conducted studies testing masks.
So, no actual expertise of research. Bonnie Henry just read what was available. And this is the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia.
184. In her pre-hearing Report Dr. Henry responded to a request that she discuss the evidence that masks protect patients from influenza this way:
.
There is good evidence that surgical masks reduce the concentration of influenza virus expelled into the ambient air (a 3.4 fold overall reduction in a recent study) when they are worn by someone shedding influenza virus. There is also evidence that surgical masks reduce exposure to influenza in experimental conditions.
.
Clinical studies have also suggested that masks, in association with hand hygiene, may have some impact on decreasing transmission of influenza infection. These studies are not definitive as they all had limitations. The household studies are limited by the fact that mask wearing did not start until influenza had been diagnosed and the patient/household was enrolled in the study, such that influenza may have been transmitted prior to enrollment. A study in student residences is limited by the fact that participants wore their mask for only approximately 5 hours per day. Two systematic reviews of the cumulative studies conclude that there is evidence to support that wearing of masks or respirators during illness protects others, and a very limited amount of data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected
.
In summary, there is evidence supporting the use of wearing of masks to reduce transmission of influenza from health care workers to patients. It is not conclusive, and not of the quality of evidence that supports influenza vaccination. Based on current evidence, patient safety would be best ensured by requiring healthcare providers to be vaccinated if they provide care during periods of influenza activity. However, if healthcare workers are unvaccinated, wearing masks almost certainly provides some degree of protection to their patients.
Bonnie Henry keeps hedging her answers. Yes, there is protection, but there are issues with the studies, and the evidence isn’t conclusive. She also takes the position that vaccinating everyone in health care settings would be prefereable.
219. Dr. Henry answered the ‘why not mask everyone’ question this way:
.
It is [influenza vaccination] by far, not perfect and it needs to be improved, but it reduces our risk from a hundred percent where we have no protection to somewhat lower. And there’s nothing that I’ve found that shows there’s an incremental benefit of adding a mask to that reduced risk…..there’s no data that shows me that if we do our best to reduce that incremental risk, the risk of influenza, that adding a mask to that will provide any benefit. But if we don’t have any protection then there might be some benefit when we know our risk is greater.
.
When we look at individual strains circulating and what’s happening, I think we need it to be consistent with the fact that there was nothing that gave us support that providing a mask to everybody all the time was going to give us any additional benefit over putting in place the other measures that we have for the policy. It’s a tough one. You know, it varies by season.[320]
.
It is a challenging issue and we’ve wrestled with it. I’m not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do—to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk.
.
I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure
Bonnie Henry admits no strong evidence to support maskings.
2. The primary issue dividing ONA and the hospitals was the controversial ‘vaccination or mask’ policy (“VOM policy”) adopted by many hospitals. The question proceeded to arbitration by test case leading to the decision in Sault Area Hospital, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA). Following an exhaustive review of the available medical scientific literature and having heard from a number of expert witnesses, I determined that:
.
Absent adequate support for the freestanding patient safety purpose alleged, I conclude that the Policy operates to coerce influenza immunization and, thereby, undermines the collective agreement right of employees to refuse vaccination. On all of the evidence, and for the reasons canvassed at length in this Award, I conclude that the VOM Policy is unreasonable. (at para. 13)
12. Insofar as the First Issue is concerned, I do not agree that the recommendation to wear a mask for the duration of the influenza season in any patient area of the Hospital is sustainable. I found at para. 319 of Sault Area Hospital that there was “scant scientific evidence of the use of masks in reducing the transmission of influenza virus to patients”. In the absence of further evidence to the contrary, I conclude that there is no reasonable basis for the recommendation and that it should be deleted from the Policy.
13. Insofar as the Second Issue is concerned, I am satisfied that a blend of the Hospital and Union proposals is preferable to either of them standing alone.
14. The Union accurately summarizes the evidence heard in Sault Area Hospital about the typical length of the influenza incubation period before the onset of symptoms. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to designate a specific number of hours; the length of time will almost certainly vary with individual circumstances. The Hospital’s written submission states that: “We have chosen with our proposed language to have individual assessments made by Infection Control Practitioners at the Hospital.” On the assumption that those assessments will be made available and conducted very close to the 72-hour mark, I find the Hospital’s approach to be acceptable. I also find that the Union’s alternative suggestion to the ‘patient care area’ question to be appropriate.
Just as with the Sault Area Hospital case, this “vaccinate or mask” policy was found to be unreasonable, an unsupported by hard evidence.
Introduction
.
Summarily stated, this case concerns the reasonableness of the Vaccinate or Mask Policy (hereafter “VOM policy”) that was introduced at St. Michael’s Hospital (hereafter “St. Michael’s”) in 2014 for the 2014-2015 flu season and which has been in place ever since. Under the VOM policy, Health Care Workers and that group, of course, includes nurses (hereafter “HCWs”), who have not received the annual influenza vaccine, must, during all or most of the flu season, wear a surgical or procedural mask in areas where patients are present and/or patient care is delivered.
St. Michael’s is one of a very small number of Ontario hospitals with a VOM policy: less than 10% of approximately 165 hospitals. The Ontario Nurses’ Association (hereafter “the Association”) immediately grieved the VOM policy in every hospital where it was introduced. It should be noted at the outset that the VOM policy has nothing to do with influenza outbreaks that are governed by an entirely different protocol, and one that is not at issue in this case.
This is not the first Ontario grievance taking issue with the VOM policy. The parties appropriately recognized that the matters in dispute were best decided through a lead case rather than through multiple proceedings at the minority of hospitals where the policy was in place. Accordingly, the Association grievance at the Sault Area Hospital was designated as that lead case and proceeded to a lengthy hearing before arbitrator James K.A. Hayes beginning in October 2014 and ending in July 2015. Arbitrator Hayes heard multiple days of evidence (replicated to some extent in this proceeding) and issued his decision, discussed further below, on September 8, 2015 (hereafter “the Hayes Award”). Arbitrator Hayes found that the Sault Area Hospital’s VOM policy was inconsistent with the collective agreement and unreasonable. The grievance was, accordingly, upheld.
Conclusion
.
It was noted at the outset that this case was, in large measure, a repeat of the one put before Arbitrator Hayes. It is not, therefore, surprising that there is an identical outcome. Ultimately, I agree with Arbitrator Hayes: “There is scant scientific evidence concerning asymptomatic transmission, and, also, scant scientific evidence of the use of masks in reducing the transmission of the virus to patients” (at para. 329). To be sure, there is another authority on point, and the decision in that case deserves respect. But it was a different case with a completely different evidentiary focus. It is not a result that can be followed.
One day, an influenza vaccine like MMR may be developed, one that is close to 100% effective. To paraphrase Dr. Gardam, if a better vaccine and more robust literature about influenza-specific patient outcomes were available, the entire matter might be appropriately revisited. For the time being, however, the case for the VOM policy fails and the grievances allowed. I find St. Michael’s VOM policy contrary to the collective agreement and unreasonable. St. Michael’s is required, immediately, to rescind its VOM policy. I remain seized with respect to the implementation of this award.
The Sault Area Hospital case had largely set the precedent, and the issues were were virtually identical. Another hospital was forced to scrap its “vaccinate or mask” policy.
Conclusion: The Ministerial Orders Are Contrary to Law Based on the above analysis of the orders and the Emergency Program Act, I have concluded that to the extent that they purport to suspend or amend the provisions of statutes, Ministerial Orders M098 and M139 are contrary to law because they are not authorized by the governing legislation, the Emergency Program Act. Many of the orders made by the minister have been in place for more than two months. In my view, it is incumbent on government to seek an appropriate solution to this problem of invalidity that minimizes any negative impacts to the public. In this respect, I note that Ministerial Order M192, the order replacing M139, continues to purport to suspend and amend statutory requirements that apply to local governments.
The Exercise of Ministerial Discretion The Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that just as there are limits on what statutory powers can be exercised under a statute, there are also limits on how those powers can be exercised: . . . there is no such thing as absolute and untrammeled “discretion,” that is that action can be taken on any ground or for any reason that can be suggested to the mind of the administrator; no legislative Act can, without express language, be taken to contemplate an unlimited arbitrary power exercisable for any purpose . . . regardless of the nature or purpose of the statute
The BC Ombudsman found that 2 Ministerial Orders were actually illegal, and far exceeeded the discretion which they were allowed to use.
8. These Rulings Are Very Encouraging
The 2015 and 2018 rulings are important, as they are 2 precedents in a quasi-judicial body, that found mask wearing to be of very limited value. It’s even better (from a B.C. perspective), that Bonnie Henry is on record saying that there is little evidence that masks work.
The B.C. Ombudsman’s Report is also helpful. Although not binding on a court, those opinions do carry some weight. And 2 orders have already been found to be illegal.
A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.
This piece addresses the coronavirus “planned-emic”, but in the larger context of an attack on religion.
Over the last few months, the priorities and demands of various governments has seemed illogical, conflicting, and downright nonsensical. Here are just a few examples:
Abortion is still considered an essential service, but performing marriages is something that can wait
Interprovincial travel restricted, but foreigners still allowed in
Mass unemployment gets worse, but foreign workers still imported
Possible arrest for not “social distancing”, but criminals are released for their own safety
Religious gatherings banned, but only for some groups
Shutting down the economy and arranging bailouts for cronies is no shocker. However, there is something more nefarious at play, the destruction of Western Society. In particular, there is a continued attack on a major institution that built the West: Christianity.
It’s bittersweet that Prime Minister Trudeau constantly flouts the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms that his father implemented. There seems to be no hesitation to trample on Section 2 (fundamental freedoms).
As officials in Canada (and the U.S) see nothing wrong with forcibly shutting down religious services, the time is long overdue to fight back.
This fake pandemic is blatant, but it’s part of a larger effort. The goal is to erase the Christian founding of Canada and replace it with a mix of: nihilism; Satanism; Islam; diversity and multiculturalism. The ideology which built the West (and its old-stock) are being replaced.
But while these groups enjoy Human Rights Tribunals and special rights fighting for them, Christian groups are told they have to become secular to be ever more accommodating.
Yes, the majority are being told they can’t have an identity and must accommodate everything under the sun. Yet groups that are hostile to Christians are pandered to endlessly. This is a recipe for breaking up Western nations. This pattern applies both to religions and ethnic groups.
4. Theresa Tam Rehearsed Scenario In 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtSgG6-96×0&feature=youtu.be
Start clip at 56:50. It will give you chills.
Thank you to Civilian Intelligence Network for digging up the film. In what can only be described as predictive programming, or a trial run, Theresa Tam “Canada’s top Doctor” takes part in a 2010 film about a fictional epidemic in Canada. Doesn’t get much more premeditated than shooting a film a decade in advance.
In the film (56:50 to 57:50) Tam talks approvingly (seeming almost giddy) about being able to enforce mandatory quarantines, using tracking bracelets, and only “worry later” about questions of an overreach. It’s difficult to make the clip look worse than it actually is. Seems that life is now imitating art.
The video also talks about mandatory vaccinations. If people refused, they can be taken “to temporary detention centers”. Again, this video was released in 2010, a decade ago.
5. Lobbying/Vaxx Agenda Behind The Scenes
CLICK HERE, for CV #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying. CLICK HERE, for CV #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation. CLICK HERE, for CV #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan. CLICK HERE, for CV #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines. CLICK HERE, for CV #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda. CLICK HERE, for CV #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm. CLICK HERE, for CV #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates. CLICK HERE, for CV #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research. CLICK HERE, for CV #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research. CLICK HERE, for CV #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132). CLICK HERE, for CV #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature. CLICK HERE, for CV #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
If you doubt that government lobbying and the pharma lobby are greatly influencing how this “pandemic” is playing out, consider the content in the above articles. The Federal Government, the Provincial Governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario (among many others), are being lobbied by drug companies.
Furthermore, “depopulation” fetishists like Bill Gates are active in the media claiming vaccines are needed. Globalists everywhere are clamoring for more control of their populations.
There is much more at stake than simply a virus or public illness. Assuming it even exists, the severe overreach cannot be explained merely by hysteria. Something else is in play.
Of course, if Western nations do impose mandatory vaccinations on their citizens, guess which groups will be predominantly impacted?
6. Court Rulings Against Christianity
This page is available on the Canadian Department of Justice website, and lists a few dozen critical cases in Charter precedent. While they may seems appealing on the surface, most are actually quite disturbing. Let’s look at some.
10. Hate speech towards targeted groups
James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Alberta who taught his students that Jewish people were evil. He also denied that the Holocaust occurred and said it was invented by Jewish people to gain sympathy. Keegstra was convicted for promoting hatred against an identifiable group based on these statements to his students.
.
Keegstra argued that the Criminal Code prohibitions on hate speech infringed his freedom of expression. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Charter protects all forms of speech, including hate speech, so long as it does not include violence. However, the majority of the Court concluded that the limits the Criminal Code placed on Keegstra’s freedom of expression were justifiable. This is because the limits aimed to protect groups targeted by hate speech and to promote positive relations in a country dedicated to equality and multiculturalism.
.
The Keegstra case serves as a reminder that freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited in situations where there is a need to balance competing interests like respect for difference, equality and multiculturalism.
That’s right. As of 1990, “Holocaust denial” is deemed to be a criminal offense, regardless of how well founded it may be. This also applies even when there no violence sought. The Court considers promoting positive relations to be more important than truth.
19. Freedom speech and equality of the LGBTQ2 community
Little Sisters was a specialized bookstore that sold books primarily to the gay and lesbian community. The bookstore imported most of its material from the United States. Customs officials classified the books and other materials as “obscene” which prevented the shipments from entering Canada. Under the customs regime, businesses and individuals in Canada were prohibited from importing “obscene” materials into Canada.
.
Little Sisters challenged the customs rules, arguing that the regime violated freedom of expression and the equality rights of the LGBTQ2 community. The Supreme Court concluded that the customs regime did limit freedom of expression, but that most of the law could be justified as a reasonable limit on this right. However, the Court found that the way that the customs officials were applying the law violated the equality rights of the customers of Little Sisters bookstore because the officials were applying a discriminatory standard to their materials compared to those aimed at a heterosexual audience.
.
This case helped pave the way for further recognition of the rights of sexual minorities in Canada and also confirmed that freedom of expression protects the right to receive materials like books. The case also highlighted that both laws and the actions of all government officials must respect the Charter.
So Customs was within its discretion to not allow obscene material into Canada. However, the gay rights screamed discrimination and had their property admitted anyway. Now that drag queen story hour is a reality, will denying child pornography now be constitutionally protected?
24. Religious freedom in school
Gurbaj Singh Multani was an orthodox Sikh student who believed that his religion required him to wear a kirpan at all times, including at school. A kirpan is a religious object worn by people of Sikh faith that looks like a dagger. Multani and his parents agreed with the school board’s request that he seal the kirpan in his clothing at all times while wearing it at school. However, the school board’s council of commissioners told Multani that he could not wear the kirpan to school even if it was sealed in his clothing because bringing dangerous objects to school violated the school’s code of conduct.
.
The Supreme Court found that the council’s decision infringed Multani’s freedom of religion. Multani sincerely believed that his Sikh faith required him to wear the kirpan and the prohibition on wearing it would have prevented him from attending public school altogether. The school board had not justified that a full ban on wearing kirpans in school was a reasonable limit on freedom of religion. There had never been a violent incident involving a kirpan at school and there was no evidence that the kirpan itself was a symbol of violence. The Court’s decision provides important guidance on the relationship between religious freedom, multiculturalism and public education in Canada. A total ban on wearing kirpans in schools ignores the importance of respect for minorities and religious tolerance in Canada’s multicultural society.
It seems that knives are a public safety issue in Canadian schools, and must be banned. That doesn’t seem to apply, though, when people of non-Christian religions complain that it’s mandatory.
29. Supervised injection sites
In 2003, health authorities in British Columbia opened a supervised drug injection site to combat the epidemic of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. In order for the operation of these sites to be considered legal, the federal Minister of Health must grant an exemption from the prohibitions of possession and trafficking of controlled substances. In 2008, the BC health authorities made an application for a new exemption before the previous one expired. The Minister denied the application. The organization that ran the site and a number of its clients argued that the Minister’s decision violated the right to life, liberty and security of the person.
.
The Supreme Court found that the Minister’s decision would prevent injection drug users from accessing life-saving health services. As a result, the health of the clients would be threatened and their lives would be endangered. Evidence showed that in over the 8 years of its operation, the safe injection site had proven to save lives with no known negative impact on public safety or health. The Minister’s decision went against the public safety objectives it was supposed to be pursuing. It was also arbitrary, meaning it had no rational connection to the government’s stated purpose of protecting lives and health. The Court ordered the Minister to grant the exemption.
Rather than getting these people real treatment, the BC Health Authorities decided that funded that taxpayer funded narcotics was a better solution. Additionally, BC would also cover the salaries and building overhead needed for this operation to function.
31. Balancing competing rights and freedoms: religious freedom and trial fairness
After N.S. was sexually assaulted, the Crown called her as a witness in the preliminary inquiry of her accused attackers. For religious reasons, N.S. asked to testify wearing a niqab, a head scarf that covers the face except the eyes. The judge ordered her to remove her niqab, but N.S. argued that making her do so would infringe her right to religious freedom.
.
The majority of the Supreme Court held that if wearing the niqab poses no serious risk to trial fairness, a witness who wishes to wear it for sincere religious reasons may do so. This case requires judges try to find a way to balance freedom of religion and trial fairness if the two rights conflict with each other. More generally, this case highlights the need for public institutions to accommodate religious difference as much as possible so everyone feels respected, while still upholding other Charter-protected rights and freedoms.
Most adults will know that a lot of information can be gleaned from facial expressions. In criminal cases, being able to properly cross examine a witness is very important. Having the face covers denies the other side the chance to fully get a read on the person. Additionally, it is extremely disrespectful to have this coming into the courts at all.
32. Sex work and the right to security of the person
Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott were current or former sex workers who challenged three provisions of the Criminal Code which criminalized various activities relating to prostitution, including:
-public communication for the purposes of prostitution
-operating a bawdy house
-living off of the avails of prostitution
.
They argued that these restrictions deprived sex workers of their right to security by forcing them to work in secret, which prevented them from adopting important and life-saving safety measures, even though prostitution itself was legal.
.
The Supreme Court decided these provisions violated the right to security because they increased the serious risks sex workers faced on a daily basis. The government had not proven that the provisions were a proportionate response to the harms of social nuisance and the exploitation of sex workers. The provisions were unconstitutional because they went too far in terms of the conduct they prohibited as compared to the social harms they were supposed to address. In addition, the very serious impact of some of the prohibitions on sex workers’ safety was “totally out of sync” with the objective of the law.
The Canadian authorities have an obligation to ensure that the most degenerate and disgusting acts are performed safely. Perhaps not engaging in it at all would be safer, but who am I to judge?
So what do we have here?
Holocaust denial is an actual crime
Degeneracy allowed into Canada as gay rights
Sikhs can bring knives to school
Taxpayer funded narcotics is a human right
Muslims can conceal their faces while testifying
Laws changed to make sex work safe
Ex-pats with citizenship allowed to vote
Criminals allowed to vote while in prison
The above rulings of course are just a small piece of what has been happening in Western countries. While Christianity (the foundation of the West) is being stripped away, other groups are able to come in and use the courts to impose their ideologies.
Another important one to list is marriage being redefined. While it is arguable how much harm this causes, the gay rights movement has proceeded to demand that institutions such as churches host their weddings, and that bakers make their cakes. So much for not imposing on others.
What is obviously the best option is to stop the ever increasing demands for accommodation. Alternatively, Christians need to start militarizing the courts to have their interests protected. Being passive about it will only lead to their destruction.
Simply being tolerant and accepting of other groups does not work when they seek to replace your way of like with theirs. This is what multiculturalism brings: eventually the host(s) get replaced by the foreigners who are allowed in.
What is the consequence of laws and rulings that strip away the founding religion of the country? Eventually you end up with a group, (despite being a majority), have no real rights. And when they become a minority — as demographics shift — they will become targeted.
7. Churches Shut Down During “Planned-Emic”
Government across the West are ordering religious congregations to stope while the alleged “pandemic” is putting everyone in danger. However, it is nice to see that some are willing to defy what are illegal and unconstitutional orders. This is in the U.S., but things are starting to happen in Canada as well.
Having such incidents videotaped and splashed across the internet causes headaches for the police, who come across looking heavy handed and fascistic. It also creates problems for politicians who claim to support freedom of religion and be religious themselves.
If the court can’t or won’t act to defend these fundamental freedom, then perhaps good old fashioned shaming and humiliation will do the trick.
8. Fighting For Freedom Of Religion
Now let’s get into the Charter a little bit:This is going to be a bit out of order, though done intentionally. The purpose is to go through the mental process of standing up for your rights
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone 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.
These are the fundamental freedoms that any modern society would have. The content of section 2 is very similar to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Without these fundamental freedoms, you are essentially living in a dictatorship. There are 2 provisions in the constitution which will help
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Marginal note:
Constitution of Canada
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
If your rights are being violated, you can cite one of — or both — Sections 24 and 52. Section 24 states that you have the right to seek a remedy in court, and section 52 states that laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no effect. (Note: The Charter is a subset of the Constitution as a whole). But, it is not quite as simple as that, and here is why:
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees 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.
Section 1 is very important here. Plainly put, it says that the government must be able to justify any Charter violation it causes in any of the further sections. While a difficult burden, it’s often not impossible to meet.
If you believe that these forced church closures violate your Section 2 rights (fundamental freedoms), you can go to court to assert that. Should you be able to prove it, the burden then shifts to the Government to establish that these violations are justified under Section 1.
Interestingly, these prohibitions seems almost exclusively aimed at Christians. Most likely, Muslims would react violently if treated the same way.
Now, would a court find that these restrictions are reasonably justified? The answer is not as clear cut as many would like. It would largely depend on information coming from the Office of Public Health, and laws such as the Quarantine Act or Emergencies Act.
Let’s ignore for the time being that this pandemic is a hoax, and that the courts are politically stacked. Let’s assume it were to play out in a fair way.
9. Quarantine & Emergencies Act
Quarantine station
6 (1) The Minister may establish a quarantine station at any place in Canada.
Marginal note:
.
Provision and maintenance of area or facility
(2) The operator of a facility in which a customs office, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act, is located shall, when required in writing by the Minister, provide and maintain free of charge any area or facility, along with its fixtures, that the Minister considers necessary for establishing a quarantine station
Quarantine facilities
7 The Minister may by order designate any place in Canada as a quarantine facility and amend, cancel or reinstate the designation.
Well, so much for properties rights if any place in Canada can simply be deemed a quarantine station by the Minister, with no say so by the owners or tenants.
Duty to provide
8 (1) Any person in charge of a place shall, at the request of the Minister, provide that place to the Minister if, in the opinion of the Minister, the temporary use of the place as a quarantine facility is necessary to protect public health.
Marginal note:
Deeming
(2) The place is deemed to be designated as a quarantine facility.
Marginal note:
Compensation
(3) The Minister may compensate any person for the Minister’s use of the place.
Marginal note:
Consultation
(4) The Minister shall consult with the provincial public health authority of the province in which the place is situated before taking possession of it.
The Minister “may” compensate the owners for property that is seized and used but they don’t have to. Also, while the Province must be consulted, it doesn’t say they have to agree.
Arrest without warrant
18 A peace officer may, at the request of a screening officer or quarantine officer, arrest without a warrant and bring to a quarantine officer any traveller who the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe has refused to be isolated or refuses to comply with a measure under subsection 15(3).
Offence committed intentionally
67 (1) Every person is guilty of an offence if they cause a risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm to another person while wilfully or recklessly contravening this Act or the regulations.
Marginal note:
Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both; and
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $300,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.
The problem is that so much in this Quarantine Act is discretionary, and leaves citizens with no real rights. The act is too long to cover in a single article, but the link is provided.
National emergency
3 For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
Declaration of a public welfare emergency
6 (1) When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public welfare emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency, the Governor in Council, after such consultation as is required by section 14, may, by proclamation, so declare.
Marginal note:
Contents
(2) A declaration of a public welfare emergency shall specify
(a) concisely the state of affairs constituting the emergency;
(b) the special temporary measures that the Governor in Council anticipates may be necessary for dealing with the emergency; and
(c) if the direct effects of the emergency do not extend to the whole of Canada, the area of Canada to which the direct effects of the emergency extend.
Orders and regulations
8 (1) While a declaration of a public welfare emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations with respect to the following matters as the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency:
(a) the regulation or prohibition of travel to, from or within any specified area, where necessary for the protection of the health or safety of individuals;
(b) the evacuation of persons and the removal of personal property from any specified area and the making of arrangements for the adequate care and protection of the persons and property;
(c) the requisition, use or disposition of property;
(d) the authorization of or direction to any person, or any person of a class of persons, to render essential services of a type that that person, or a person of that class, is competent to provide and the provision of reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered;
(e) the regulation of the distribution and availability of essential goods, services and resources;
(f) the authorization and making of emergency payments;
(g) the establishment of emergency shelters and hospitals;
(h) the assessment of damage to any works or undertakings and the repair, replacement or restoration thereof;
(i) the assessment of damage to the environment and the elimination or alleviation of the damage; and
(j) the imposition
(i) on summary conviction, of a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both that fine and imprisonment, or
(ii) on indictment, of a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both that fine and imprisonment,
for contravention of any order or regulation made under this section.
There are some problems with the Emergency Act, and they are much the same as with the Quarantine Act. The Act allows the Government broad, sweeping powers, with little in the way of oversight.
How does having entire cities in lockdown, and shutting down religious services make the public safer? The government knows so little about this virus, that it is cutting off the well being and livelihoods of people in the name of scaremongering.
Both the Emergency Act (1985) and the Quarantine Act (2005), have been on the books for a long time. Would invoking either of them be a reasonably justified used of limiting people’s fundamental freedoms, which are guaranteed under Section 2 of the Charter? Would the circumstances allow the infringement to be justified under Section 1?
Most people would say no. And most wouldn’t want important things — such as weekly services — shut down for such vague reasons. However, if Government agents were to CLAIM there is an ever present threat, they may be able to get away with it for a time.
While there is little interest in packed grocery stores (although that is changing), religious services need to be shut down almost entirely. This is not about public safety, but about control.
If the public officials are acting on the orders from near dictatorial politicians, and the courts are unable or unwilling to intervene, what options do we have?
10. Tips On Fighting Back
First, understand that according to Pintea v. Johns (2017), court officers now have a legal obligation to go the extra mile to ensure that self represented people get a fair hearing. It isn’t option.
Second, in most cases (criminal court) there will be a duty counsel that you can speak to — for free — to get general information on how to proceed.
Third, legal research is within the grasp of most everyone with decent reading skills. My favourite is https://www.canlii.org/en/, where there is a wealth of free information. The skill involved is a combination of searching Google and Wikipedia.
Fourth, all of the rules you need to know are freely available online. This includes the Canadian Criminal Code (if applicable), and the Rules for Civil Procedure in your Province.
This experience will be frustrating, but standing up for your rights is within the grasp of most people. You can always pay for a lawyer later if need be.
People who do get arrested, or who are ticketed for practicing their faith (or some other harmless activity) should fight back. Contest the ticket, and fight any charges. If it’s something you and you family are comfortable with, publish the incident, and feel free to out the police officer or by-law officers.
While this does seem daunting, the overwhelming majority of these cases will be quietly dismissed. Why? Because the authorities don’t want a lingering public headache.
But think it through before making a hasty decision.
11. Demographic Replacement Of Christianity
About 20% of Canada’s current population was born in some other country. With such a large presence, immigrants have had a substantial impact on Canada’s religious landscape (as in the United States, where immigrants – including those who are unauthorized – make up an estimated 13% of the total population.)
In the 1970s and 1980s, Canada’s foreign-born population was smaller, largely European and overwhelmingly Christian. In recent years, however, rising numbers of immigrants – nearly half of Canada’s immigrant population – have come from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. In the U.S., by comparison, three-in-ten of all foreign-born residents have come from these three regions.
In Canada, disaffiliation has increased markedly within some generations as they have aged. For example, one-in-ten Canadians born between 1947 and 1966 had no religious affiliation in 1981, but one-in-five are unaffiliated as of 2011. Even Canada’s older adults (those born in 1946 or earlier) have experienced gradual increases in disaffiliation; their rate of disaffiliation has gone from the single digits in the 1970s to double digits in recent years. In the U.S., by contrast, the share of people with no religious affiliation has been fairly stable within each generation over time (though disaffiliation has ticked up slightly among American Baby Boomers – those born between 1946 and 1964 – and Gen Xers – those born between 1965 and 1980).
As the geographic origins of Canadian immigrants have shifted, so has their religious makeup. A majority of immigrants (56%) who arrived during the 1970s were either Catholic or Protestant, while about a quarter were affiliated with other religious traditions, including Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, and Judaism. Since 2001, about four-in-ten (39%) new Canadian immigrants have belonged to these religious minorities, the same as the share of new immigrants (also 39%) who identify as either Catholic or Protestant. Because immigrants comprise more than a fifth of Canada’s population, the rising share of immigrants who belong to religious minorities has had a substantial impact on the religious composition of the overall population.
This 2013 report from Pew Research details Canada’s changing religious landscape over recent decades. It correctly points out that huge amounts of immigration is in fact changing the overall landscape.
12. Pop’n Replacement Is Spiritual Replacement
This seemingly absurd statement makes sense when you put it into context. Every year, Canada is bringing in large numbers of people from countries that are of a very different religious makeup. Consequently, there is a large demographic shift going on.
(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)
Note: this by no means it everyone who enters Canada in those years. In particular, it leaves out large numbers of students and temporary workers.
Nonetheless: look at who is actually staying in Canada. Each year we bring in people from India (Sikh and Hindu), China (Communist, Atheist), and various Middle Eastern and African nations (Islam). While the people coming in are not monolithic, these trends do have a significant impact on the religious demographic changes in Canada.
Interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference in Liberal and Conservative immigration policies. Neither care about maintaining the demographic or founding ideologies of the West. Of course if you bring any of this up, you will be called a bigot.
All they focus on is:
(a) Singing the praises of diversity
(b) Perceived economic growth — ie cheap labour
13. Spiritual Replacement Is Genocide
Consider the UN Convention on preventing and punishing genocide.
Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Despite the West being founded on Christianity, our “leaders” see nothing wrong with bringing hordes of other ideologies over. They are given free reign and protected status, while Christians must become more secular and accommodating. I wonder how tolerant these other groups will be as their numbers grow. This is all while “conservatives” crow about how tolerant they are.
Just like with replacing ethnic groups, replacing religious groups also qualifies as genocide under the 1948 UN Convention.
14. Foreign Religions Taking Over
At the Al-Quds Festival, Muslim man bragging that demographic change will lead to Sharia Law replacing Canadian Law at some point. He cites Pew Research data that suggests Muslims will have a plurality — be the biggest individual group — by 2060.
This man isn’t kidding about Islam becoming the biggest religious group. The goal is world domination, and they are breeding their way to get it. These findings, from Pew Research.
Babies born to Muslims will begin to outnumber Christian births by 2035; people with no religion face a birth dearth.
More babies were born to Christian mothers than to members of any other religion in recent years, reflecting Christianity’s continued status as the world’s largest religious group. But this is unlikely to be the case for much longer: Less than 20 years from now, the number of babies born to Muslims is expected to modestly exceed births to Christians, according to new Pew Research Center demographic estimates.
Muslims are projected to be the world’s fastest-growing major religious group in the decades ahead, as Pew Research Center has explained, and signs of this rapid growth already are visible. In the period between 2010 and 2015, births to Muslims made up an estimated 31% of all babies born around the world – far exceeding the Muslim share of people of all ages in 2015 (24%).
The current age distribution of each religious group is an important determinant of demographic growth. Some groups’ adherents are predominantly young, with their prime childbearing years still ahead, while members of other groups are older and largely past their childbearing years. The median ages of Muslims (24 years) and Hindus (27) are younger than the median age of the world’s overall population (30), while the median age of Christians (30) matches the global median. All the other groups are older than the global median, which is part of the reason why they are expected to fall behind the pace of global population growth.
He’s not wrong at all. Pew Research is predicting exactly that. Muslims will become the biggest religious group in a short time.
Of course, the fact that they murder: Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, gays, blasphemers, apostates, and different sects of Islam “might” have something to do with those changing demographics. They aren’t exactly tolerant.
How is Canada, or any nation for that matter, supposed to retain its heritage when it allows large numbers of people annually from completely different backgrounds who will soon outbreed their hosts?
Muslims maintain their religion and culture. Westerners give it all up in the name of being “diverse and tolerant”. But when push comes to shove, the stronger and more cohesive group will win, especially should civil war break out.
15. Time To Reverse This Trend
The government imposed closing of churches and other religious institutions is an attack on religion itself. None of this is necessary for public health. Instead, this is a show of force, and a show of how much contempt it holds in general for faith.
While the Quarantine Act and Emergency Act are seriously overreaching. There are ways to fight back. And the fighting back must happen. This “pandemic” is a thinly veiled attempt at seizing money and power, and was never about public safety.
Beyond this though: Christianity has been under attack in the West for a very long time. Most overtly, the population replacement agenda has led to the importation of large numbers of people (each year), who have nothing to do with Christianity. Worse still, Liberals and Conservatives (basically the same thing) see nothing wrong with bringing people — like Muslims — who are openly hostile to Christianity.
It’s beyond cliché at this point, but modern Conservatives conserve absolutely nothing. Preserving the spiritual foundations of the Western world is no exception. It’s disturbing how much pride they take in proclaiming that “we don’t play identity politics”, and that “We’re not socially conservative. We support freedom”.
It is group identity and cohesion that is the basis for a society. If Christians (or related denominations) don’t do it, they will be replaced by groups that are cohesive. Islam being an obvious example.
Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.
2. Why Canadians Should Care
It should worry Canadians greatly when there is a sustained effort to undermine and erode our borders. The overwhelming majority of people don’t know how far back this goes. Although efforts predate these cases, this is where we will start.
On the first attempt, the Canadian Council of Churches went to court to try to get certain new legislation thrown out. This legislation would have made it harder for people to enter Canada from the U.S. and claim asylum. It went to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, it was ruled the group did not have public interest standing.
3. Court History Over The Years
Again, many more attempts have been made in recent decades to erase borders, but this article will only focus on a few of them.
FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236 1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing
SECOND ATTEMPT: KILL CANADA/US S3CA
(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05 S3CA Provisions Struck Down
(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229 Appeal granted, S3CA restored
THIRD ATTEMPT: TORONTO CASES TO STRIKE S3CA
(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17 Milczynski Considers Consolidation
Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
.
Rouleau J. dismissed the application. His judgment reflects his concern that there might be no other reasonable, effective or practical manner to bring the constitutional question before the Court. He was particularly disturbed that refugee claimants might be faced with a 72-hour removal order. In his view, such an order would not leave sufficient time for an applicant to attempt either to stay the proceedings or to obtain an injunction restraining the implementation removal order.
.
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
.
MacGuigan J.A. speaking for a unanimous Court allowed the appeal and set aside all but four aspects of the statement of claim.
.
In his view the real issue was whether or not there was another reasonably effective or practical manner in which the issue could be brought before the Court. He thought there was. He observed that the statute was regulatory in nature and individuals subject to its scheme had, by means of judicial review, already challenged the same provisions impugned by the Council. Thus there was a reasonable and effective alternative manner in which the issue could properly be brought before the Court.
.
He went on to consider in detail the allegations contained in the statement of the claim. He concluded that some were purely hypothetical, had no merit and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action. He rejected other claims on the grounds that they did not raise a constitutional challenge and others on the basis that they raised issues that had already been resolved by recent decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal.
.
He granted the Council standing on the following matters raised on the statement of claim
Without getting too much into the technical details, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the Canadian Council of Churches, an organization, should be granted public interest standing to strike down all or part of the immigration laws. Ultimately, the ruling was no.
Disposition of the Result
.
In the result I would dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal on the basis that the plaintiff does not satisfy the test for public interest standing. Both the dismissal of the appeal and the allowance of the cross-appeal are to be without costs.
Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed.
.
Solicitors for the appellant: Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto.
.
Solicitor for the respondents: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
. Solicitors for the interveners The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped and The Quebec Multi Ethnic Association for the Integration of Handicapped People: Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto.
.
Solicitors for the intervener League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada: David Matas, Winnipeg, and Dale Streiman and Kurz, Brampton.
.
Solicitors for the interveners Women’s Legal Education and Action (LEAF) and Canadian Disability Rights Council (CDRC): Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto and Dulcie McCallum, Victoria.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court thought that a refugee, someone with actual standing (or something at stake) should be the one making the case.
Also worth noting, consider who some of the intervenors are in this case. A lot of people who want to make it easier to get into Canada.
IT IS ORDERED THAT this application for judicial review is granted and the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” is quashed.
Yes, the Canada/U.S Safe Third Country Agreement was actually declared to have no legal effect. However, this is not the end of it, as we will soon see.
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
.
1. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United
States of America are ultra vires and of no legal force and effect.
2. The Governor-in-Council acted unreasonably in concluding that the United States of
America complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture.
3. The Governor-in-Council failed to ensure the continuing review of the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” as required by
paragraph 102(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
4. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the operation of the Safe Third Country Agreement between
Canada and the United States of America violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not justified under section 1 thereof.
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS are certified as serious questions of general
importance:
.
1. Are paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and
the United States of America ultra vires and of no legal force and effect?
2. What is the appropriate standard of review in respect of the Governor-in-Council’s
decision to designate the United States of America as a “safe third country” pursuant
to s. 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
3. Does the designation of the United States of America as a “safe third country” alone
or in combination with the ineligibility provision of clause 101(1)(e) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is such violation justified under section 1?
If the United States is not a safe country, then why do tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people try to apply for asylum there every year?
The Safe Third Country Agreement was meant to prevent “asylum shopping” from taking place, but that is exactly what this ruling would have allowed.
6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned
The impugned Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement are not ultra vires the IRPA. Subsection 102(1) of the IRPA gives the GIC the power to promulgate regulations governing the treatment of refugee claims which may include provisions designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. This is a broad grant of authority intended to give effect to Parliament’s expressed intent that responsibility for the consideration of refugee claims be shared with countries that are respectful of their Convention obligations and human rights. The factors to be considered before designating a country are expressly set out in subsection 102(2) of the IRPA. The applications Judge’s misapprehended concern that the GIC would have the discretion to designate a country that does not comply with the Conventions led him to transform the statutory objective of designating countries “that comply” into a condition precedent.
The applications Judge adopted a hypothetical approach to the respondent organizations’ Charter challenge, i.e. that a class of refugees would be treated a certain way if they were to present themselves at a Canadian land border port of entry. This approach went against the well-established principle that a Charter challenge cannot be mounted in the abstract. There was no evidence that a refugee would have to bring a challenge from outside Canada. The respondent organizations’ ability to bring the Charter challenge depended on John Doe. As the latter never presented himself at the border and therefore never requested a determination regarding his eligibility, there was no factual basis upon which to assess the alleged Charter breaches. The applications Judge thus erred in entertaining the Charter challenge.
[14] On December 29, 2005, the respondents launched an application for leave and judicial review seeking a declaration that the designation of the U.S. under section 102 of the IRPA was ultra vires, that the GIC erred in concluding that the U.S. complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and further, that the designation breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. For purposes of clarity, it is useful to set out in full the issues set out in the judicial review application filed before the Court:
[130] In short, a declaration of invalidity of the STCA Regulations is not required in order to ensure that they are not applied to claimants for protection at the land border in breach of either Canada’s international obligations not to refoule, or the Charter.
.
D. CONCLUSIONS
.
[131] For these reasons I would allow the appeal
The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Lower Court considered a hypothetical scenario, and wrongly applied it to a Charter challenge. Put simply, Charter challenges are supposed to be ground in fact, and not “what if” situations. The ruling was overturned, and the Safe Third Country Agreement was restored.
7. 2017-Present: Toronto Challenge
Chief Justice Paul Crampton transferred 3 related cases to Justice Diner for case management. This is the same CJ Crampton who ruled that private citizens wishing to oppose the destruction of the S3CA don’t have standing.
Justice Diner granted public interest standing to 3 NGOs: Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches.
Justice Diner order the 3 cases to be consolidated and tried together because of the overlapping issues.
Note: also see here, for decisions from the Federal Court in the matter above.
These are of course not the only NGOs working to open up our borders (and other nations’ borders as well), but it does at least provide some insight.
Also, see the above links in Section #1 for other articles published on these NGOs.
9. Look At The Bigger Picture
Last fall, the story made the news that a challenge would be coming to Toronto to the Safe Third Country Agreement.
However, the Canadian media left out important information. Shocking.
First, it didn’t go into any detail on the groups lobbying for this. It wasn’t just some helpless “asylum claimants”, but an organized effort to help erase Canada’s border with the U.S.
Second, the full extent of the NGO meddling is not mentioned. True, some media DO reference the 2007 case, but not further. It doesn’t provide a complete picture of what is going on. Nor does it mention how these groups are pushing similar initiatives elsewhere. Amnesty International, for example, claims to have 7 million members pushing to bring more migrants (primarily) to the West. The Canadian Council for Refugees, as another example, spends considerable time and effort lobbying our Parliament for more refugee friendly laws.
Third, there seems little concern for the Canadian who would have their safety and sovereignty eroded should this pass. Instead, the focus is always on people coming to Canada and what their needs are.
This is lawfare: using our courts and legal system to open our borders.
