Category: Procedural

Posted on

CV #62(F): International — Or Global — Treaty For Pandemic Preparedness And Response Proposed

About 2 dozen world leaders have agreed, at least in principle, of setting up an international treaty to “deal with future pandemics”. Presumably, this would ultimately result in a World Government of sorts that could act in sweeping ways. But of course, it would all be done in the name of public health.

1. Important Links

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/op-ed—covid-19-shows-why-united-action-is-needed-for-more-robust-international-health-architecture
https://archive.is/pMWzw

(62.1) WHO International Health Regulations Legally Binding
(62.2) A Look At International Health Regulation Statements
(62.3) Quarantine Act Actually Written By WHO, IHR Changes
(62.4) Prov. Health Acts, Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR
(62.5) Prov. Health Acts, Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part II

2. Text Of Letter Agreed By National Leaders

The COVID-19 pandemic is the biggest challenge to the global community since the 1940s. At that time, following the devastation of two world wars, political leaders came together to forge the multilateral system. The aims were clear: to bring countries together, to dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism, and to address the challenges that could only be achieved together in the spirit of solidarity and cooperation, namely peace, prosperity, health and security.

Today, we hold the same hope that as we fight to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic together, we can build a more robust international health architecture that will protect future generations. There will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies. No single government or multilateral agency can address this threat alone. The question is not if, but when. Together, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly coordinated fashion. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a stark and painful reminder that nobody is safe until everyone is safe.

We are, therefore, committed to ensuring universal and equitable access to safe, efficacious and affordable vaccines, medicines and diagnostics for this and future pandemics. Immunization is a global public good and we will need to be able to develop, manufacture and deploy vaccines as quickly as possible.

This is why the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) was set up in order to promote equal access to tests, treatments and vaccines and support health systems across the globe. ACT-A has delivered on many aspects but equitable access is not achieved yet. There is more we can do to promote global access.

To that end, we believe that nations should work together towards a new international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response.

Such a renewed collective commitment would be a milestone in stepping up pandemic preparedness at the highest political level. It would be rooted in the constitution of the World Health Organization, drawing in other relevant organizations key to this endeavour, in support of the principle of health for all. Existing global health instruments, especially the International Health Regulations, would underpin such a treaty, ensuring a firm and tested foundation on which we can build and improve.

The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all-of-government and all-of-society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international cooperation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research, and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter measures, such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.

It would also include recognition of a “One Health” approach that connects the health of humans, animals and our planet. And such a treaty should lead to more mutual accountability and shared responsibility, transparency and cooperation within the international system and with its rules and norms.

To achieve this, we will work with Heads of State and governments globally and all stakeholders, including civil society and the private sector. We are convinced that it is our responsibility, as leaders of nations and international institutions, to ensure that the world learns the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic.

At a time when COVID-19 has exploited our weaknesses and divisions, we must seize this opportunity and come together as a global community for peaceful cooperation that extends beyond this crisis. Building our capacities and systems to do this will take time and require a sustained political, financial and societal commitment over many years.

Our solidarity in ensuring that the world is better prepared will be our legacy that protects our children and grandchildren and minimizes the impact of future pandemics on our economies and our societies.

Pandemic preparedness needs global leadership for a global health system fit for this millennium. To make this commitment a reality, we must be guided by solidarity, fairness, transparency, inclusiveness and equity.

Still think those “International Health Regulations” aren’t legally binding? Wrong, they will be used as the basis for asserting even more control. And it’s already largely done.

From the way things are going, it seems extremely unlikely that there will be any sort of referendum or democratic mandate to legitimize such a thing nationally.

When they say “coming together globally”, what does that really mean? Will there be a supra-national group to decide what sectors of the economy should be shut down? Will there be misinformation laws to punish or charge people for contradicting the narrative? Will they decide on mandatory vaccinations, or masks? What accountability, if any, will be in place?

3. Who Has Approved, At Least In Principle

  • Edi Rama, Prime Minister of Albania;
  • Sebastián Piñera, President of Chile;
  • Carlos Alvarado Quesada, President of Costa Rica;
  • J. V. Bainimarama, Prime Minister of Fiji;
  • Emmanuel Macron, President of France;
  • Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany;
  • Charles Michel, President of the European Council;
  • Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Prime Minister of Greece;
  • Joko Widodo, President of Indonesia;
  • Uhuru Kenyatta, President of Kenya;
  • Moon Jae-in, President of the Republic of Korea;
  • Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands;
  • Erna Solberg, Prime Miniser of Norway;
  • António Luís Santos da Costa, Prime Minister of Portugal;
  • Klaus Iohannis, President of Romania;
  • Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda;
  • Macky Sall, President of Senegal;
  • Aleksandar Vučić, President of Serbia;
  • Cyril Ramaphosa, President of South Africa;
  • Pedro Sánchez, Prime Minister of Spain;
  • Prayut Chan-o-cha, Prime Minister of Thailand;
  • Keith Rowley, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago;
  • Kais Saied, President of Tunisia;
  • Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine;
  • Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom;
  • Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization.

Sure, Canada isn’t on that list — yet. However, there is certainly nothing to indicate that we won’t be forced to go along at some point. The people running this country aren’t exactly huge supporters of free speech.

Posted on

AZ Rep. Hannley Opposes Mandatory Life For Repeat Child Predators, Since Most Inmates Are Non-White

This was previously covered in several American outlets. An Arizona State Representative, Pamela Powers Hannley, opposes mandatory life sentences for child sex offences. She claims it would disproportionately lock up people of colour. She focuses on INCARCERATION RATE as a metric, while ignoring the CRIME RATE, the only metric that matters.

She also leaves out that the life sentences would apply to REPEAT offenders. A huge omission.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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. Rep. Pamela Powers Hannley, Her Own Words

Let’s lock up the chronic abusers. I’m tired of reading stories about priests, church elders, coaches, Boy Scout leaders, and other adults who have spent their lives preying on children. Boyer’s 2019 bill would have given victims a voice. HB2889 doesn’t do that.

Mandatory sentencing feeds the prison industrial complex because it dictates a (often overly harsh) minimum sentence that judges must stick to. Why is mandatory sentencing a big deal? Because we know that justice in the United States is not colorblind. If our justice system were fair, the prison population would reflect the country’s population in terms of race and ethnicity. We all know that people of color are disproportionately imprisoned in this country. Once they have been prisoners, they lose their right to vote, and it is harder for them to get jobs and housing.

I voted against this bill because I stand against mandatory sentencing, for prison reform, and with the American Civil Liberties Union, Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and the American Friends Service Committee.

Let’s lengthen the time for adults who were abused as children to come forward and identify their abusers. That would go farther to stop child abuse than Biasiuuci’s bill.

This is actually an elected Representative in the Arizona State Legislature. Pamela Powers Hannley opposes a Bill to give child sexual offenders a mandatory life sentences. Although she does raise a few interesting issues about flaws in criminal justice, she loses the argument with another point. She opposes it since “people of colour” are the vast majority in prison. She believes that the prison population is supposed to reflect the nation’s general makeup, and not the makeup of people who commit crimes.

Strange that these types never seem to mind the fact that men comprise the bulk of the prison population. It seems equity has its limitations.

3. FBI Crime Statistics For Year 2019

51.2% – Murder and non-negligent manslaughter
26.7% – Rape
52.7% – Robbery
33.2% – Aggravated Assault
41.8% – Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.
42.2% – Prostitution and commercialized vice
20.6% – Sex offenses (except rape and prostitution)
28.3% – Offenses against the family and children

That is from Table 43A of the FBI Crime Statistics for the year 2019. The numbers apply to blacks, who make up roughly 13% of the overall U.S. population. Are they disproportionately represented in American prisons? Yes, and for good reason. They commit a disproportionate amount of violent and sexual crimes.

However, a flaw in the reporting lumps whites and hispanics together, which makes the white crime rate seem much higher than it really is.

The idea that a prison population must reflect the population as a whole is ridiculous. It should reflect the makeup of people who actually commit serious crimes.

Perhaps Representative Hannley would support Gladue Rights, where we have different sets of laws based on race, in order to address these “disparities”. Or maybe she would support something like Bill C-75, which waters down the penalties for child sex offences. What does she think of California Senator Scott Wiener?

4. Text Of Arizona House Bill 2889

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 13-705, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-705. Dangerous crimes against children; sentences; definitions
.
A. A person who is at least eighteen years of age and who is convicted of a dangerous crime against children in the first degree involving commercial sexual exploitation of a minor or child sex trafficking or involving molestation of a child and the person has previously been convicted of a dangerous crime against children in the first degree involving molestation of a child shall be sentenced to imprisonment in the custody of the state department of corrections for natural life. A person who is sentenced to natural life is not eligible for commutation, parole, work furlough, work release or release from confinement on any basis for the remainder of the person’s natural life.

Q. S. For the purposes of this section:
.
1. “Dangerous crime against children” means any of the following that is committed against a minor who is under fifteen years of age:
.
(a) Second degree murder.
(b) Aggravated assault resulting in serious physical injury or involving the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
(c) Sexual assault.
(d) Molestation of a child.
(e) Sexual conduct with a minor.
(f) Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor.
(g) Sexual exploitation of a minor.
(h) Child abuse as prescribed in section 13-3623, subsection A, paragraph 1.
(i) Kidnapping.
(j) Sexual abuse.
(k) Taking a child for the purpose of prostitution as prescribed in section 13-3206.
(l) Child sex trafficking as prescribed in section 13-3212.
(m) Involving or using minors in drug offenses.
(n) Continuous sexual abuse of a child.
(o) Attempted first degree murder.
(p) Sex trafficking.
(q) Manufacturing methamphetamine under circumstances that cause physical injury to a minor.
(r) Bestiality as prescribed in section 13-1411, subsection A, paragraph 2.
(s) Luring a minor for sexual exploitation.
(t) Aggravated luring a minor for sexual exploitation.
(u) Unlawful age misrepresentation.
(v) Unlawful mutilation.
(w) Sexual extortion as prescribed in section 13-1428.

If she is going to oppose this Bill, HB2889, let’s be honest about what’s in it. It applies to people PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF certain serious offences, who commit them again. This concerns repeat offenders.

Moreover, the list of “dangerous crimes against children” includes extremely serious charges. These are not something that can be brushed off as youthful immaturity.

But sure, let’s not impose life sentences on repeat, child sexual predators, because white people aren’t committing enough crimes.

Posted on

Bill C-21: Yellow Flag Laws To Temporarily (Or Indefinitely) Suspend A Gun License

Red Flag Laws were covered previously. Bill C-21, would also allow for a Chief Firearms Officer to suspend or revoke the license of a person based on “reasonable grounds”. However, the wording is vague, and a reasonable interpretation is that a suspension could be renewed indefinitely. It also calls into question the due process options the person would have.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. What The Firearms Act Currently Says On This

Refusal to Issue and Revocation
Marginal note: Licences and authorizations
.
68 A chief firearms officer shall refuse to issue a licence if the applicant is not eligible to hold one and may refuse to issue an authorization to carry or authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason.

Marginal note: Registration certificates
.
69 The Registrar may refuse to issue a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import for any good and sufficient reason including, in the case of an application for a registration certificate, where the applicant is not eligible to hold a registration certificate.

Marginal note: Revocation of licence or authorization
.
70 (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(a) where the holder of the licence or authorization
(i) is no longer or never was eligible to hold the licence or authorization,
(ii) contravenes any condition attached to the licence or authorization, or
(iii) has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of an offence referred to in paragraph 5(2)(a); or
(b) where, in the case of a business, a person who stands in a prescribed relationship to the business has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of any such offence.

Marginal note: Registrar
.
(2) The Registrar may revoke an authorization to export or authorization to import for any good and sufficient reason.

Previous Version
Marginal note: Revocation of registration certificate
.
71 (1) The Registrar
.
(a) may revoke a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for any good and sufficient reason; and
.
(b) shall revoke a registration certificate for a firearm held by an individual where the Registrar is informed by a chief firearms officer under section 67 that the firearm is not being used for a purpose described in section 28.

Marginal note: Automatic revocation of registration certificate
.
(2) A registration certificate for a prohibited firearm referred to in subsection 12(3) (pre-August 1, 1992 converted automatic firearms) is automatically revoked on the change of any alteration in the prohibited firearm that was described in the application for the registration certificate.

Marginal note:Notice of refusal to issue or revocation
.
72 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.

Marginal note: When notice not required
.
(1.1) Notice under subsection (1) need not be given in any of the following circumstances:
.
(a) if the holder has requested that the licence, registration certificate or authorization be revoked; or
.
(b) if the revocation is incidental to the issuance of a new licence, registration certificate or authorization.

Marginal note: Material to accompany notice
.
(2) A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81.

Marginal note: Non-disclosure of information
.
(3) A chief firearms officer or the Registrar need not disclose any information the disclosure of which could, in the opinion of the chief firearms officer or the Registrar, endanger the safety of any person.

Marginal note: Disposal of firearms
.
(4) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a licence must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the licence may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition that the applicant for or holder of the licence possesses and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.

Marginal note: Disposal of firearms — registration certificate
.
(5) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the registration certificate may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of the firearm to which the registration certificate relates and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.

Marginal note: Reference
.
(6) If the applicant for or holder of the licence or registration certificate refers the refusal to issue it or revocation of it to a provincial court judge under section 74, the reasonable period of time does not begin until after the reference is finally disposed of.

The Chief Firearms Officer or the Registrar already have significant powers in the Firearms Act to suspend or revoke licenses and authorizations for “any good and sufficient” reason”. Of course, this is very vague, and open to interpretation.

There is also the option to refuse to disclose information that could “endanger a person”. In practice, this can mean the person who made such a complaint to get the gun seizure would not have to be confronted by the person they accuse.

This Bill will go even further, and allow for 30 day suspensions of licences. Of course, nothing says that a suspension can’t be renewed — or another one handed out — 30 days later.

3. What Bill C-21 Would Change To Firearms Act

28 The heading before section 68 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Refusal to Issue, Suspension and Revocation

29 Section 68 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Refusal to issue — chief firearms officer
68 (1) A chief firearms officer shall refuse to issue a licence if the applicant is not eligible to hold one and may refuse to issue an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b) or an authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason.

Refusal to issue — Commissioner
(2) The Commissioner may refuse to issue an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) for any good and sufficient reason.

30 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 69:

Suspension
69.‍1 (1) If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that they have collected or received from any person, that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible to hold the licence, they may suspend, in respect of a licence, the holder’s authorization to use, acquire and import firearms for a period of up to 30 days.
.
Notice
(2) A chief firearms officer shall give notice in writing of the suspension to the holder of the licence. The notice shall include reasons for the decision, the nature of the information relied on for the decision, the period of the suspension and a copy of this section and sections 69.‍2 and 70.
.
Non-disclosure of information
(3) A chief firearms officer need not disclose any information the disclosure of which could, in their opinion, endanger the safety of any person.
.
Termination of suspension
(4) A chief firearms officer shall terminate the suspension at the expiry of the period referred to in subsection (2) or, if they are satisfied that the grounds for the suspension no longer exist, at any time before the expiry of that period. The chief firearms officer shall give notice in writing of the termination of the suspension to the holder of the licence.

Prohibition on use, acquisition and importation
69.‍2 The holder of a licence shall not use, acquire or import firearms while their authorizations to do so are suspended under subsection 69.‍1(1).

31 (1) The portion of subsection 70(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Revocation of licence or authorization
70 (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b) or an authorization to transport — and the Commissioner may revoke an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) — for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(2) Subsection 70(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and by adding the following after paragraph (a):
(a.‍1) where the holder of the licence uses, acquires or imports a firearm while their authorizations to do so are suspended under subsection 69.‍1(1); or

32 Section 71 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Automatic revocation of registration certificate
(3) A registration certificate for a handgun is automatically revoked on the failure of the holder to provide to a chief firearms officer, during the 180 day period referred to in subsection 58.‍01(2), the information required to update the registration certificate for that handgun.

33 Subsection 72(6) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Reference
(6) If the applicant for or holder of a licence or registration certificate refers the refusal to issue it or revocation of it to a provincial court judge under section 74 they shall, within 30 days after referring the matter, deliver to a peace officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of any firearm that they possess. Sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder during that time.

Order — return of firearm
(7) If the decision of the chief firearms officer or the Registrar is confirmed, the judge shall, if a firearm was delivered to a peace officer under subsection (6), order the return of the firearm to the applicant for or holder of the licence or registration certificate, in order for the applicant or holder to lawfully dispose of it.

A Chief Firearms Officer can revoke a license for any “good and sufficient” reason. The information can come from anyone, and there is no requirement that the person be named, if done for safety reasons. In short, there is no real right to confront the accuser.

A license can be suspended for 30 days. However, it doesn’t look like there is anything that would prevent necessarily the suspension from being renewed.

While this portion of Bill C-21 is pretty bad, a lot of these rules were already on the books. This just seems to make it easier to issue a 30 day suspension without a real investigation.

4. Challenging Case In Provincial Court

74(2) Limitation period
.
(2) An applicant or holder may only refer a matter to a provincial court judge under subsection (1) within thirty days after receiving notice of the decision of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister under section 29, 67 or 72 or within such further time as is allowed by a provincial court judge, whether before or after the expiration of those thirty days.

75(3) Burden of proof
.
(3) At the hearing of the reference, the burden of proof is on the applicant or holder to satisfy the provincial court judge that the refusal to issue or revocation of the licence, registration certificate or authorization, the decision or the refusal to approve or revocation of the approval was not justified.
.
Marginal note: Where hearing may proceed ex parte
.
(4) A provincial court judge may proceed ex parte to hear and determine a reference in the absence of the applicant or holder in the same circumstances as those in which a summary conviction court may, under Part XXVII of the Criminal Code, proceed with a trial in the absence of the defendant.

A few things to point out when challenging this is court:

First, there is a 30 day time limit to initiate the proceedings. While the Court “may” allow an extension for applications filed after that, they don’t have to, and there is no guarantee they will. So, be aware of this.

Second, the burden is on the Applicant to prove that the revocation or refusal to issue is unjust. The Firearms Officer doesn’t have to prove anything.

Third, in limited cases, the Judge can proceed ex-parte, which means “without the Parties”. In practice, this will mean the person who applied may not be able to attend.

An overall impression: while this 30 day suspension is certainly bad news, the Firearms Act was already pretty stacked against the rights of gun owners. This certainly doesn’t help.

Posted on

Bill C-21: Introducing Red Flag Laws To Make It Easier To Grab Guns

Bill C-21, if implemented, will allow for private citizens to go before Courts, and ask A Judge to issue an Order to seize a person’s firearms. Note: it doesn’t appear that the person who is potentially subjected to such a restraint will have the opportunity to defend themselves.

1. What The Criminal Code Says Right Now

Discretionary prohibition order
.
110 (1) Where a person is convicted, or discharged under section 730, of
.
(a) an offence, other than an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 109(1)(a) to (c.1), in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted, or
.
(b) an offence that involves, or the subject-matter of which is, a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance and, at the time of the offence, the person was not prohibited by any order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any such thing,
.
the court that sentences the person or directs that the person be discharged, as the case may be, shall, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed for that offence or any other condition prescribed in the order of discharge, consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person or of any other person, to make an order prohibiting the person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, and where the court decides that it is so desirable, the court shall so order.

Section 109 of the Criminal Code of Canada mandates prohibitions based on serious convictions, and 110 of the Code allows for weapons bans based on lesser crimes. But the key is CRIMINALS.

What is key here, is that it refers to people convicted of crimes, or discharged after a finding of guilt. There are also provisions which allow for accused people released on bail to have their firearm access suspended. That’s reasonable to most people.

However, this proposed addition to the Code would allow for (shorter) prohibitions based on reasonable suspicion, whatever that means. And while people are entitled to defend themselves in criminal cases, that doesn’t see to apply here.

2. What Bill C-21 Would Add To Criminal Code

4 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 110:
Application for emergency prohibition order
110.‍1 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting another person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, if the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person against whom the order is sought or of any other person that the person against whom the order is sought should possess any such thing.

Emergency prohibition order
(2) If, at the conclusion of a hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the provincial court judge is satisfied that the circumstances referred to in that subsection exist and that an order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of any person, the judge shall make an order prohibiting the person against whom the order is sought from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made.

Service of order
(3) A copy of the order shall be served on the person to whom the order is addressed in the manner that the provincial court judge directs or in accordance with the rules of court.

Warrant to search and seize
(4) If a provincial court judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2) possesses, in a building, receptacle or place, any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, and that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess the thing, the judge may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to search the building, receptacle or place and seize any such thing, and every authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

Search and seizure without warrant
(5) If, in respect of a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2), a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, the peace officer may, where the grounds for obtaining a warrant under subsection (4) exist but, by reason of a possible danger to the safety of the person or any other person, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

Return to provincial court judge or justice
(6) A peace officer who executes a warrant referred to in subsection (4) or who conducts a search without a warrant under subsection (5) shall immediately make a return to the provincial court judge who issued the warrant or, if no warrant was issued, to a justice who might otherwise have issued a warrant, showing
(a) in the case of an execution of a warrant, the things or documents, if any, seized and the date of execution of the warrant; and
(b) in the case of a search conducted without a warrant, the grounds on which it was concluded that the peace officer was entitled to conduct the search, and the things or documents, if any, seized.

Return of things and documents
(7) Any things or documents seized under subsection (4) or (5) from a person against whom an order has been made under subsection (2) shall be returned to the person and any things or documents surrendered by the person in accordance with the order shall be returned to the person
(a) if no date is fixed under subsection 110.‍2(1) for the hearing of an application made under subsection 111(1) in respect of the person, as soon as feasible after the expiry of the period specified in the order made against the person under subsection (2);
(b) if a date is fixed for the hearing but no order is made against the person under subsection 111(5), as soon as feasible after the final disposition of the application; or
(c) despite paragraphs (a) and (b), if the order made against the person under subsection (2) is revoked, as soon as feasible after the day on which it is revoked.

10 The Act is amended by adding the following after the heading before section 117.‍011:
.
Application for emergency limitations on access order
117.‍0101 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order under this section if the person believes on reasonable grounds that
(a) the person against whom the order is sought cohabits with, or is an associate of, another person who is prohibited by any order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things; and
(b) the other person would or might have access to any such thing that is in the possession of the person against whom the order is sought.
Emergency limitations on access order
.
(2) If, at the conclusion of a hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the provincial court judge is satisfied that the circumstances referred to in that subsection exist and that an order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of any person, the judge shall make an order in respect of the person against whom the order is sought, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made, imposing any terms and conditions on the person’s use and possession of any thing referred to in subsection (1) that the judge considers appropriate.

https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-21/first-reading#ID0ELAA

As it is written right now, any person will be able to file an application with the Court, to ask a person be removed of their guns, without the right to defend themselves at the start. It’s written up so that the person applying doesn’t have to fear for their safety, but can claim to fear for someone else. Of course, it’s unclear what standard (if any), would be applied to satisfy a Court.

Not only can these Applications be done without a person being able to defend themselves, but it appears that warrantless searches would be allowed. Of course, all of this is done in the name of public safety.

It’s not limited to getting an Order against a person — again, with no chance to defend themself. In addition, an Order can also be sought against the people who live with, or associate with, that person. So much for freedom of association.

To repeat, there is no requirement that the recipients of such Orders be charged or convicted of crimes. Simply having a Judge “believe reasonably” is sufficient. Certainly, it’s easier when only one side can be heard.

3. Recent Red Flag Laws In United States

Unfortunately, these types of laws are not limited to Canada, or to Liberals. Even in the United States, efforts to implement red-flag laws are growing. Here, then President Trump, a REPUBLICAN, supported taking the guns first. However, the full scale of that will be saved for another article.

Posted on

Hypocrisy In Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations

Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention

59 countries endorses the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. This was designed to prevent the rights of foreign nationals from being abused for political reasons. However, there are some issues to address.

1. Declaration Sounds Fine On The Surface


https://twitter.com/JosepBorrellF/status/1361332231378243588

The arbitrary arrest or detention of foreign nationals to compel action or to exercise leverage over a foreign government is contrary to international law, undermines international relations, and has a negative impact on foreign nationals traveling, working and living abroad. Foreign nationals abroad are susceptible to arbitrary arrest and detention or sentencing by governments seeking to compel action from other States. The purpose of this Declaration is to enhance international cooperation and end the practice of arbitrary arrest, detention or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments.

Recognising a pressing need for an international response to the prevalence of these practices, and guided by international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations:

1. We reaffirm that arbitrary arrests and detentions are contrary to international human rights law and instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international and regional human rights instruments;

2. We express grave concern about the use of arbitrary arrest or detention by States to exercise leverage over foreign governments, contrary to international law;

3. We are deeply concerned that arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments undermines the development of friendly relations and cooperation between States, international travel, trade and commerce, and the obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means;

4. We are alarmed by the abuse of State authority, including judicial authority, to arbitrarily arrest, detain or sentence individuals to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We call on States to respect their obligations related to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal;

5. We urge all States to refrain from arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments in the context of State-to-State relations;

6. We reaffirm the fundamental importance of the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, respect for human rights, and respect for the obligation to provide consular access in accordance with international law, including the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and other applicable international instruments;

7. We call upon States to take concrete steps to prevent and put an end to harsh conditions in detention, denial of access to counsel, and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We reaffirm the urgent need to provide these individuals with an effective remedy consistent with international human rights law, and call for their immediate release;

8. We stand in solidarity with States whose nationals* have been arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced by other States seeking to exercise leverage over them and acknowledge the need to work collaboratively to address this issue of mutual concern at the international level.

This Declaration remains open to endorsement.
.
(*) Including dual nationals in accordance with endorsing countries’ laws on nationality.

On the surface, there is nothing wrong with any of this. People’s rights shouldn’t be denied or abused in order to make some geopolitical power play. The text of the treaty sounds fine. However, there are some problems that need to be addressed.

Of course, how would such a treaty be enforced? Who and where would it be enforced? Could a country simply withdraw and go about business as usual? How could anyone scrutinize or investigate possible violations?

2. China Is The Elephant In The Room

There seems to be no mention of China, who has been holding 2 Canadians as prisoners for years. This of course, refers to Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. This happened in retaliation for Canada arresting a Huawei executive. Also, what about the mass arrests and persecutions of religious minorities that China has long been accused of committing?

What is really the purpose of this Declaration? Is it to send a message? Is it to appear virtuous? Of course, appearing virtuous is not the same thing as being virtuous. It can’t be for ideological reasons, given the following issue:

3. Arbitrary Detention In So-Called Pandemic

For any of these countries to be taken seriously, what about the human rights abuses that are going on domestically against their own citizens? Is it okay, or less wrong, when it’s done locally? Do any of these sound familiar?

  • Forced quarantine detentions
  • Forced curfews
  • Forced stay-at-home orders
  • Forced closures of businesses
  • Forced closures of religious services
  • Forced masks on adults
  • Forced masks on children
  • Forced nasal rape for bogus tests
  • Peaceful assembly banned
  • Banning free speech as “misinformation”
  • Arrests for violating any of the above

While these 59 countries are crowing about how virtuous they are, many have implemented some or all of the above measures. Of course, this is done in the name of “public safety”. Are they not stripping their own people’s rights in order to implement political agendas? Shouldn’t human rights be applied universally, not just when travelling abroad?

Although it’s still just a proposal, public officials in Canada have openly suggested the idea of passing laws to ban what they call “misinformation”. Of course, this refers to people who will research and expose their lies.

Posted on

6 Months In, No Progress Whatsoever In High Profile Toronto Anti-Mask/Anti-Vaxx Lawsuit

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-charter-challenge-1.5680988
https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/

On August 13, 2020, the CBC published an article covering the July 6 lawsuit against them. Included was the line: “CBC RECENTLY OBTAINED UNREDACTED COPY”. This implies that they were never properly served with the Complaint. Is that the case, or is CBC twisting the facts?

This is a follow-up to an article covering the lack of progress in a well-known Toronto lawsuit, filed in Ontario Superior Court on July 6, 2020, (CV-20-006434510000). It seems even now, no movement is happening.

Keep in mind, this was sold as an urgent matter. Lockdowns (or martial law), were destroying businesses, masks were making people sick, and basic rights were being denied. Now, the vaccines are here, and have been administered over the last few weeks.

1. Searching Ontario Court Records

One of the few benefits in this is that in Ontario, it’s now easier to SEARCH for court filings. Looking for a particular case, we find no apparent action taking place.

Windsor-Essex County and their Medical Officer, Wajid Ahmed, are represented by John-Pierre Karam. There is no listing of representation for any other Defendant. It doesn’t appear that there are any hearings scheduled, nor defenses filed.

The question has to be asked: has everyone been served?

Be aware, this is not minor. The suit asks for $11 million in damages plus costs. Presumably, the Parties being sued would take this very seriously.

2. Contacting The Ontario Court Directly

In reaching out to the Ontario Superior Court (Civil Division in Toronto), some very interesting information was learned.

There was a single Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual defense), filed on September 30, 2020, on behalf of Wajid Ahmed and Windsor-Essex County. Those are the only 2 Parties named. There is nothing else filed with the Court related to that case.

To play devil’s advocate: it’s theoretically possible that all Parties might stand behind a single one, who would then file all the paperwork. But if that’s the case, this is a strange choice. The Windsor-Essex County Medical Officer is small potatoes in the scheme of things. A far more logical choice would be the Attorney General of Canada and/or Ontario, who are required to be named anyway.

3. Question Of Royal Prerogative

This might be nitpicking, but page 4 of the Claim lists Trudeau and the Federal Crown as “dispensing with Parliament, under the pretense of Royal Prerogative”. Isn’t that the Governor General who exercises Royal Prerogative?

4. Most Service Addresses Missing

This isn’t selective editing. These are all the addresses for service listed on the Statement of Claim. They are for:
(A) Attorney General of Canada
(B) Attorney General of Ontario
(C) John Tory and City of Toronto
(D) Dr. Wajid Ahmed
(E) Dr. Nicola Mercer

It isn’t that just 1 or 2 are omitted. That could easily be dismissed as a careless error. Instead, it’s just these, and a strange group at that.

The Wajid Ahmed (of Windsor-Essex County) is the same one who filed a Notice of Intent to Defend with regards to this case. There are no service addresses for:
(a) Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
(b) Federal Health Minister Patty Hajdu
(c) Transport Minister Marc Garneau
(d) PHOC Theresa Tam
(e) Ontario Premier Doug Ford
(f) Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott
(g) Ontario Education Minister Stephen Lecce
(h) Ontario Chief Medical Officer David Williams
(i) Toronto Chief Medical Officer Eileen De Villa
(j) The CBC

There are also no specific service addresses listed for the following Defendants. In fairness, however, they could be sent to the same addresses as others listed:
(k) Her Majesty in Right of Canada
(l) Her Majesty in Right of Ontario
(m) Windsor-Essex County
(n) County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph

Yes, there are a lot of Defendants, however, it is standard practice to list an address for everyone named in the Complaint.

5. CBC Responds To Vaccine Choice Lawsuit

The second line is telling: “Aylmer, Ont.-based anti-vaccination group filed suit in July, but CBC recently obtained unredacted copy”.

Obtained an unredacted copy? Does this imply they were never served? Isn’t this something they should have received when served by a process server? Did that ever happen?

More from the CBC:

Other claims made in the lawsuit are unrelated to the coronavirus pandemic.

“Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology report the development of a novel way to record a patient’s vaccination history by using smartphone-readable nano crystals called ‘quantum dots,’ embedded in the skin using micro-needles. In short, a vaccine chip embedded in the body. This work and research are funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,” the lawsuit said.

The statement of claim includes a timeline that begins in the year 2000 when Bill Gates steps down as the head of Microsoft to start the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It also states Gates expects a “‘twenty-fold’ return on his $10 billion vaccine investment within the next few decades.”

Included in the timeline are references to the Chinese military, 5G networks, international vaccine programs and the Rockefeller Foundation as relevant to the creation and spread of the coronavirus, but the lawsuit isn’t clear on how.

Shelley said including such references in the statement of claim without providing supporting scientific evidence could ultimately be what gets the suit dismissed before it goes to trial under Ontario’s rules of civil procedure.

This is actually a very valid point. While challenging the validity of various measures is one thing, proving a global conspiracy in Court is quite another.

While there is certainly collusion — this site covered it extensively — proving such a thing would be a Herculean task. A frank discussion on how that might happen would be very nice. Proving in court is quite different than proving in the media.

Also from the CBC article:

CBC News reached out multiple times to Galati, who is listed as the spokesperson for the lawsuit in a press release issued by Vaccine Choice Canada. He spoke with a reporter last Wednesday but did not agree to an on-the-record interview.

Galati told CBC News he would be available last Thursday for a recorded interview but did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday or the following Monday.

The CBC has also been named as a defendant in the lawsuit for allegedly propagating misinformation and “false news” about the coronavirus crisis.

Vaccine Choice Canada has also issued an intent to sue the CBC over other coverage relating to the anti-vaccination and anti-mask movements.

The CBC claims they reached out for an on-the-record interview, multiple times. Instead, they were offered a press release. Seems bizarre, since lack of media coverage is an issue that Vaccine Choice routinely complains about.

The CBC also alleges they were threatened with other legal action over how they cover the anti-vaxx/anti-mask movements. Presumably this is a Section 5 Libel Notice?! Perhaps this is why the CBC refuses to further cover this case.

And to reiterate from earlier: “CBC OBTAINED a copy”? Were they not served one, being a Defendant in this case? Come to think of it, who actually has been served?

Now, the CBC could be lying, or distorting what was said. However, they are putting it out there. They imply they were never served, and offered to do a public interview, which was declined.

6. Rancourt An Expert And Plaintiff?!

Denis Rancourt is a Plaintiff, but his listed credentials imply that he is being set up to be an Expert as well. If this gets to trial, will Rancourt be called as one?

On page 41 of the Statement of Claim, it’s cited (and most likely true), that YouTube took down 3 of his videos. This is frustrating, and an act of censorship. However, this isn’t relevant to the case unless they plan to sue Google as well, or connect it to the other Defendants.

On page 42, it’s alleged that CBC refused to give Rancourt airtime, or to share the views of any other dissenting expert.

Interesting, in that after CBC “obtained a copy” of the lawsuit, they claim that they were willing to have an on the record interview about the case. Or was it just with the lawyer?

7. Resumption Of Court Time Limits

In early December, Vaccine Choice posted an update on their website, offering an explanation why nothing had happened so far in their case.

Note: The Superior Court of Justice suspended all regular operations effective March 17, 2020. Some operations of the court were resumed on September 14, 2020. Due to the suspension of operations, the period of time for the defendants to file a statement of defence was also suspended.

However, the Ontario Superior Court seems to say something different. It says that limitation periods (deadlines to file), that had been previously suspended had now resumed. Even with that factored in, some kind of reply should have come in by early October.

The Ontario government has announced that, on September 14, 2020, any limitation and time periods suspended under Ontario Regulation 73/20 will resume. For further information, please consult the government’s news release and Ontario Regulation 457/20.

And one was (sort of). This was the Notice of Intent from Windsor-Essex County and their Chief Medical Officer, but no one else, and no other documents.

Limitation periods aside, an obvious question must be asked: why was no Notice of Application for injunctive relief ever filed? This could have been done at any time.

8. Others Have Gotten Into Court Quickly

Canadian Appliance Source LP v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2020 ONSC 7665 (CanLII)
Hudson’s Bay Company ULC v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2020 ONSC 8046 (CanLII)

Canadian Appliance Source and HBC both got hearings within days of Applications being filed. Both were ultimately denied, but they were able to get their day in Court quickly.

These 2 companies were not the only ones who attempted to get their livelihoods back, but they are Ontario cases, and done recently.

So why hasn’t Vaccine Choice Canada filed for injunctive relief? Keep in mind, injunctive relief (masks, vaccines, shutdowns, social distancing….) was specifically included in the Statement of Claim, in addition to declarative relief. Presumably, getting an Application (or more than 1), was always part of the plan.

Worth pointing out, this isn’t their first rodeo. A challenge was brought in October 2019, against forced vaccines for Ontario students, (CV-19-00629810-0000). That case also seems to have stalled.

9. More Questions Than Answers In Case

This case made headlines in July, especially among alternative media circles. Donations have poured in, and are rumoured to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That being said, there are many hard questions that need to be asked:

Have all the Defendants been served in this case? When? Why did CBC talk about “obtaining an unredacted copy”, rather than being served?

Do other Defendants have any interest in filing a response?
Do any other Defendants have lawyers?

Why has no Defense, or Motion to Strike been filed? It stretches the mind to think they would potentially want a Default Judgement.

Hypothetically, if the Statement of Claim does get struck, will a rewrite be done? An appeal? Or will that be the end of the matter?

Did CBC offer in good faith a public interview?
If so, how come it never happened?
Were threats of other lawsuits were levied against the CBC?

Were threats of lawsuits levied against others?

Why has there been no masking injunction attempt?
How come HBC and CAS were able to get in so quickly?

Are there any talks going on behind the scenes?

Is there a realistic prospect of proving the allegations in Court? Even the more “conspiracy” minded claims cited?

Why does there appear to be no urgency?

How much money has been raised by Vaccine Choice Canada?
What will happen to the donations?