Category: *SOLUTIONS*

Posted on

Can Plaintiffs/Defendants Testify As Expert Witnesses In Their Own Cases?

This piece is going to be a bit different. It’s an effort to answer a question: can interested parties also serve as experts in the same case? It will look at an example, using Ontario as a model.

The instinctive answer would be no, this is a serious conflict of interest. But let’s look a bit deeper. Remember, this is just for information, and there’s no need for anyone to overreact.

1. Important Links

Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure
Ontario Law Society: Rule 3.4 (Conflicts Of Interest)
Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, October 2019
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, July 2020

2. Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure

RULE 4.1 DUTY OF EXPERT
.
DUTY OF EXPERT
.
4.1.01 (1) It is the duty of every expert engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide evidence in relation to a proceeding under these rules,
.
(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;
.
(b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise; and
.
(c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.
.
Duty Prevails
.
(2) The duty in subrule (1) prevails over any obligation owed by the expert to the party by whom or on whose behalf he or she is engaged. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.

According to Rule 4.1.01(1) and (2), the answer likely is no. A person who is a Plaintiff or Defendant is by nature an interested party. If the person has a vested interest (financial or otherwise), then overcoming that conflict of interest would be difficult.

3. What Expert Reports Will Include (Ontario)

(2.1) A report provided for the purposes of subrule (1) or (2) shall contain the following information:
.
1. The expert’s name, address and area of expertise.
.
2. The expert’s qualifications and employment and educational experiences in his or her area of expertise.
.
3. The instructions provided to the expert in relation to the proceeding.
.
4. The nature of the opinion being sought and each issue in the proceeding to which the opinion relates.
.
5. The expert’s opinion respecting each issue and, where there is a range of opinions given, a summary of the range and the reasons for the expert’s own opinion within that range.
.
6. The expert’s reasons for his or her opinion, including,
i. a description of the factual assumptions on which the opinion is based,
ii. a description of any research conducted by the expert that led him or her to form the opinion, and
iii. a list of every document, if any, relied on by the expert in forming the opinion.
.
7. An acknowledgement of expert’s duty (Form 53) signed by the expert. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 48.

Rule 53.03 of Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure outlines what is expected by expert witness to submit in their reports to the Court, in advance of trial. It’s a pretty good outline for the contents.

4. OLS Rules Of Professional Conduct

SECTION 3.4 CONFLICTS
Duty to Avoid Conflicts of Interest
3.4-1 A lawyer shall not act or continue to act for a client where there is a conflict of interest, except as permitted under the rules in this Section.

Commentary
[1] As defined in rule 1.1-1, a conflict of interest exists when there is a substantial risk that a lawyer’s loyalty to or representation of a client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interest or the lawyer’s duties to another client, a former client, or a third person. Rule 3.4-1 protects the duties owed by lawyers to their clients and the lawyer-client relationship from impairment as a result of a conflicting duty or interest. A client’s interests may be seriously prejudiced unless the lawyer’s judgment and freedom of action on the client’s behalf are as free as possible from conflicts of interest.

[2] In addition to the duty of representation arising from a retainer, the law imposes other duties on the lawyer, particularly the duty of loyalty. The duty of confidentiality, the duty of candour and the duty of commitment to the client’s cause are aspects of the duty of loyalty. This rule protects all of these duties from impairment by a conflicting duty or interest.

[7] A bright line rule has been developed by the courts to protect the representation of and loyalty to current clients. c.f. Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 649. The bright line rule holds that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client, without the clients’ consent. The bright line rule applies even if the work done for the two clients is completely unrelated. The scope of the bright line rule is limited. It provides that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client. Accordingly, the main area of application of the bright line rule is in civil and criminal proceedings. Exceptionally, the bright line rule does not apply in circumstances where it is unreasonable for a client to expect that the client’s law firm will not act against the client in unrelated matters.

Consent
3.4-2 A lawyer shall not represent a client in a matter when there is a conflict of interest unless there is consent, which must be fully informed and voluntary after disclosure, from all affected clients and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without having a material adverse effect upon the representation of or loyalty to the other client.

Having an expert witness as a Plaintiff or Defendant is a conflict. It gets even trickier when there are other clients involved in the same case. The duty of the expert is to the court first and foremost. The Ontario Law Society, (a.k.a. Law Society of Upper Canada), has strict rules against members engaging in conflicts of interest.

5. Supreme Court: Bright Red Line Rule

Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39

Cases Cited
.
Referred to: R. v. Neil, 2002 SCC 70, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; MacDonald Estate v. Martin, 1990 CanLII 32 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; Cholmondeley v. Clinton (1815), 19 Ves. Jun. 261, 34 E.R. 515; Bricheno v. Thorp (1821), Jacob 300, 37 E.R. 864; Taylor v. Blacklow (1836), 3 Bing. (N.C.) 235, 132 E.R. 401; Rakusen v. Ellis, [1912] 1 Ch. 831; Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 24, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 177; Bolkiah v. KPMG, [1999] 2 A.C. 222; Moffat v. Wetstein (1996), 1996 CanLII 8009 (ON SC), 29 O.R. (3d) 371; Canadian Pacific Railway v. Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson (1998), 1998 CanLII 5073 (MB CA), 23 C.P.C. (4th) 55; De Beers Canada Inc. v. Shore Gold Inc., 2006 SKQB 101, 278 Sask. R. 171; Toddglen Construction Ltd. v. Concord Adex Developments Corp. (2004), 34 C.L.R. (3d) 111.

(f) The Bright Line Rule
.
[27] In Neil, this Court (per Binnie J.) stated that a lawyer may not represent a client in one matter while representing that client’s adversary in another matter, unless both clients provide their informed consent. Binnie J. articulated the rule thus:

The bright line is provided by the general rule that a lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client — even if the two mandates are unrelated — unless both clients consent after receiving full disclosure (and preferably independent legal advice), and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without adversely affecting the other. [Emphasis in original; para. 29]

[28] The rule expressly applies to both related and unrelated matters. It is possible to argue that a blanket prohibition against concurrent representation is not warranted with respect to unrelated matters, where the concrete duties owed by the lawyer to each client may not actually enter into conflict. However, the rule provides a number of advantages. It is clear. It recognizes that it is difficult — often impossible — for a lawyer or law firm to neatly compartmentalize the interests of different clients when those interests are fundamentally adverse. Finally, it reflects the fact that the lawyer-client relationship is a relationship based on trust. The reality is that “the client’s faith in the lawyer’s loyalty to the client’s interests will be severely tried whenever the lawyer must be loyal to another client whose interests are materially adverse”: Restatement of the Law, Third: The Law Governing Lawyers (2000), vol. 2, § 128(2), at p. 339

The “bright red line” has been explicitly stated to lawyers who represent clients with opposing interests. However, the idea of representing an expert witness is an interesting twist.

Though the language differs across jurisdictions, experts are considered “Friends of the Court”, neutral people who can provide unbiased information and opinion for a Judge and/or Jury.

True, experts are paid for their time by someone. That alone does not render them useless, as they do have a role to play. But what happens when the Expert has a vested interest in the outcome of the case?

While the Lawyer’s Clients (the Experts and non-Experts) could conceivably agree that this conflict of interest should be set aside, what about opposing Parties? Could it not result in an unfair Trial by stacking the deck against them?

Something seems off about this.

6. Such A Conflict In Ongoing Case?!?!

Pages 39-43 of the Statement of Claim spell out the qualifications and education of Denis Rancourt. And yes, it is quite impressive. However, no facts are pleaded to demonstrate that Rancourt has been harmed in any way by these restrictions, or that he has suffered any losses. He is clearly being introduced as an expert witness.

It’s not just that Rancourt is to be paid a fee for his time and trouble. That would be one thing. Here, he is a Plaintiff in an $11 million lawsuit — which he doubles as an Expert in. It stands to reason that he could make $1 to $2 million is the case is successful, which is a conflict of interest. Even if he is unbiased, this conflict will not be lost on the Court — or the other lawyers.

Is this normal? Are Experts typically interested Parties in the cases they participate in? Is there some exception or clause in the law that allows for this to happen? Is this a common practice that just isn’t discussed much? This appears to be the sort of thing that would jeopardize fair proceedings, but who knows?

Note: this is not an attempt to defend the nonsense that has gone on Federally, Provincially, Municipally and even in other countries. All of those people should be tried for crimes against humanity. The CV hoax is extensively outlined in this series. However, all problems need to be called out.

There are of course other issues, such as missing service addresses, and no defenses filed, but they have been addressed elsewhere.

The Statement of Claim was released publicly, but with most Plaintiff names redacted. Anyone who wants the unedited version can get a copy for free from the Ontario Superior Court (Civil Division) in Toronto.

Posted on

Freedom Of Information Requests By Fluoride Free Peel On Virus Isolation

A site worth checking out is https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/. They have compiled considerable research on fluoridation, and have filed a small mountain of requests for documentation on the isolation of this “virus”.

1. Mass Filings Of FOI Requests

Beyond this single article, there is a larger issue to consider: filing freedom-of-information requests (also called access-to-information requests). These can be beneficial for research, or other reasons. True, Governments can, and often will, redact information, but they will often give something. Or in this case, it’s what they admit they don’t have that is of considerable interest.

2. Results Of Those FOI Requests

Of course, this nowhere near all of the responses or requests. Still, it’s pretty strange to have a test for such a virus. Even more absurd to be working on dozens of vaccines to cure it.

3. Comment By Christine Massey Of FFP

The public needs to understand that worldwide belief in “COVID-19” is based on fraudulent science, fraudulent tests and fraudulent diagnoses, not the scientific method.
.
Here is an excerpt from an email I sent to a Kingston Councillor recently:
.
Investigation is needed to determine whether a new virus is causing disease. Public health figures don’t simply “know” these things. There are well -established, logic-based steps (known as Koch’s Postulates) that have been taught in universities for decades as the accepted means of determining the existence of a new contagious pathogen. They were modified slightly years ago for use with a suspected virus.
.
Step 1 is isolation/purification – separate the thing from the host and everything else; then do experiments with it to see if it can replicate in healthy host cells, cause the disease question, etc. Instead, in practice, virologists have been doing the exact opposite – adulterating a patient sample with genetic material and toxic drugs and irrationally blaming observed effects to a cell line on “the virus” that no one even tried to find in the patient sample. They perform completely meaningless PCR tests that are utterly incapable of determining the presence of an intact virus (let alone disease caused by a virus), they make meaningless comparisons with fabricated (not discovered) “SARS-COV-2 genomes” and call that “isolation”.
.
That is not science, it’s wild speculation/fantasy and it’s blatantly fraudulent.

Here is their most recent publication, which compiles the results of some 34 requests for information. Quite the effort. A thank you is extended to everyone at Fluoride Free Peel for putting all of this together.

4. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

5. Previous Solutions Offered

For serious suggestions offered, on many different subjects, check here. Complaining and criticizing is one thing, but real answers have to be proposed as some point. These proposals, (such as FOI requests, taping and documenting), should be worth serious consideration.

Posted on

Serious Proposal: Mass Filings Of Complaints To Get Public Health Officers’ Licenses Revoked

It’s past time to fight back. Here is an idea that is worth consideration: mass filings of complaints against Chief Medical Officers in various Provinces in Territories. Go after local Health Officers if they have done something. Go after Deputy Medical Officers. The complaints are free to file, and they have to responded to. It’s not optional.

1. Colleges Which License Canadian Doctors

Alberta College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Deena Hinshaw

BC College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Bonnie Henry

Manitoba College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Brent Roussin

New Brunswick College Of Nurses And Physicians
Jennifer Wylie-Russell

Newfoundland College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Janice Fitzgerald

Northwest Territories Physicians
Kami Kandola

Nova Scotia College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Robert Strang

Nunavit Physicians
Michael Patterson

Ontario College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Theresa Tam
Barbara Yaffe
David Williams

Quebec College Des Medecins
Horacio Arruda

PEI College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Heather Morrison

Saskatchewan College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Saqib Shahab

Yukon Medical Council – Physician Licensing
Brendan Hanley

2. Why Even Attempt This Action?

Given the “restrictions” that various so-called medical experts have imposed, and based on this pseudo-science, it is past time to get rid of them. By get rid of, this doesn’t just mean remove them from the position of Public Health Officer. It means ending their medical careers altogether.

What These Dictates Lead To
-Causing mass panic over a virus that in all honesty, probably hasn’t even been isolated
-Arbitrarily closing down so-called “non-essential” businesses
-Causing mass bankruptcies and foreclosures
-Causing depressions and suicides
-Closing down religious services while booze and abortion remain open
-Limiting access to preventative care
-Limiting the gathering sizes of people
-Limiting rights to peacefully assemble and protest
-Sabotaging the education of children
-Compliant media giving glowing reviews
-Putting travel restrictions in place
-Handing out tickets, threatening arrests
-Pushing masks KNOWING that they do nothing
-Demanding establishments keep customer information
-Pushing the “Great Reset” the entire time

Take your pick. The list of civil rights abuses by these so-called experts is a long one. Now, this isn’t to let politicians off the hook. They WILLINGLY abdicated their duties to govern and allow unelected bureaucrats to rule by decree.

Will any of them get lose their licenses? Who knows, but a deluge of complaints might help. At a bare minimum, it would force the various Colleges to put (in writing) what their positions are.

Health care (for the most part), is a Provincial matter, and Public Health Officers are doctors who are licensed by their Province, (and possible other ones). File complaints, and get formal investigations opened.

File Federally.
File Provincially.
File Municipally.

3. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

4. Previous Solutions Offered

For serious suggestions offered, on many different subjects, check here. Complaining and criticizing is one thing, but real answers have to be proposed as some point. These proposals should be worth serious consideration.

Posted on

Serious Suggestion For Gaining Entry To Stores Despite Mask Demands

Do you want to go shopping but cringe at the new mask requirements? Well, here are some suggestions that should help in most cases.

1. Human Rights In Canada, By Province

Alberta Human Rights Commission
British Columbia Human Rights Code
Manitoba Human Rights Commission
New Brunswick Human Rights Commission
Newfoundland & Labrador Human Rights
Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission
Nova Scotia And Human Rights
Ontario Human Rights Code
PEI Human Rights Commission
Quebec Human Rights And Freedoms
Saskatchewan Human Rights Code
Yukon Human Rights Commission

2. A Few Cautionary Warnings

This should go without saying, but will be said anyway: DO NOT be belligerent, threatening, aggressive, or swearing when attempting this. Don’t be intoxicated in any way either. Business owners might look for any reason to ban you from the premises, and such behaviour may give them legitimate grounds.

The above warning applies even more so to large men talking to women working in the store. Yes, this is sexist, but play along anyway. You do not want to provide any excuse to boot you out.

Another bit of advice: if you concerned about getting kicked out for life, or burning bridges, start with someplace you don’t normally go. Even better if it is quite a ways away. Again, this is just to be careful.

3. Read Up On The Law In Advance

First, you will want to read up on the Human Rights Legislation in your province. From the British Columbia Human Rights Code, we see the following passages:

Discrimination and intent
2 Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility
8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,
.
(a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or
.
(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public
.
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or class of persons.
.
(2) A person does not contravene this section by discriminating
.
(a) on the basis of sex, if the discrimination relates to the maintenance of public decency or to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance, or
.
(b) on the basis of physical or mental disability or age, if the discrimination relates to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance.

Using the BC Human Rights Code as an example, it is abundantly clear that a shop or store owner cannot discriminate against people based on any “physical or mental disability”. If wearing a mask makes breathing difficult, than that alone is enough to satisfy the requirement.

Businesses are required to make accommodations to people with disabilities. It isn’t optional.

Note: stores, shops and service providers are not allowed to pry into the specifics of what that disability may be. They are prohibited from trying to get that information.

An observant reader will notice Section 2. This states that no intent is required on the part of anyone to be discriminatory. While that (in many cases), may be open to abuse, it would be very helpful here.

4. Document Your Encounter With A Cellphone

A possible encounter might go something like this. Head to the establishment, and walk into the building as normal.

[A] If stopped by an employee telling you to wear a mask or leave, pull out your cellphone (or other such recording device). Audio is fine, and video may be off-putting.

[B] State the time, date, and location into your phone, and ask the employee to repeat him or herself. If you are asked if you are recording, admit it, and state that it’s legal under Canadian law.

[C] Inform the employee that you have a condition — but do not specify — which impedes your ability to wear a mask

[D] Inform the employee that the (specify) Human Rights Code requires employees in services available to the public to make accommodations.

[E] Inform the employee that there are always exemptions — regardless of whether it is a municipal bylaw, a provincial law, or simply store policy. Ask why those exemptions are not publicly displayed.

[F] If asked for details, inform the employee that it is private medical information, and they have no legal right to demand it in return for entry.

[G] If pressed, repeat to the employee that they have no right to demand this information.

[H] Reiterate that the (specify) Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination. Give the specific section number. If applicable, state that (other section) doesn’t require intent for there to be discrimination.

[I] If still not granted entry, ask the employee this question very deliberately: “Am I being refused entry because of my condition?”

[J] Feel free to ask a second time, just so there is no misunderstanding. Also, feel free to ask for the full name.

This is the critical point. The person will either: (a) admit you entry; or (b) knowingly state on tape that you are being refused because of your disability. It would take nerves of steel to tell a person “no” when pressed like this. However, if it does happen, you have a taped, documented case of discrimination.

Remember, this is not about picking a fight, but in enforcing your human rights to patronize businesses that you need to. If you are allowed in without a mask, accept the victory and move on.

Keep in mind, that many employees are stressed out, and don’t want a fight. If it becomes clear that you are prepared, and know the law, many (most?) will back down and let you go through. Try to understand their perspective.

If pushing the disability angle doesn’t suit you, bear in mind that human rights codes also allow for exemptions based on religion. Apparently, the virus doesn’t attack devout followers.

And again, see Part 2 about behaviour to not engage in.

Now, as for more information about the “planned-emic”, and other constructive suggestions (on various topics), see the sections below.

5. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

6. Previous Solutions Offered

For serious suggestions offered, on many different subjects, check here. Complaining and criticizing is one thing, but real answers have to be proposed as some point. These proposals should be worth serious consideration.

Posted on

Claim That Masks, Other Restrictions, Violate Religious Beliefs

(This is Doug Ford in April 2020 telling the public that he thinks masks are beneficial, but won’t say or do anything without the approval of the Health Department. Not like he’s Premier of Ontario or anything.)

(This is Doug Ford in October 2018 telling the public that respecting civil rights and religious freedoms is more important than public safety. Apparently the laws of gravity don’t apply since the turban is religious.)

1. Previous Solutions Offered

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.

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

As of the time of writing this, the “planned-emic” series has 23 pieces in it, including efforts to shift the culture, in order to make mask wearing the new normal. Lots of detail in the series.

3. Helmets Mentioned In Previous Article

The topic of letting motorcycle riders evade health and safety regulations was mentioned on this site nearly 2 years ago. While it seemed absurd at the time, perhaps there is a silver lining to this double standard.

Whatever faith you may belong to, it doesn’t matter. But know that from this day on: your religious beliefs don’t allow you to wear a mask in public. Forcing you to do so will violate your conscience and beliefs.

4. Resisting The “Culture Shift”

This was brought up in the last coronavirus piece but worth repeating. There is a deliberate, conscious, and planned effort to make mask wearing normalized and mandatory throughout the world. In parts of the West, this is not so much being imposed, but by attempts to “shift the culture”, to make this the new way of life. It’s time to fight back against it.

There aren’t criminal penalties in the West for not wearing masks — yet. But that doesn’t mean that it won’t happen at some point in the future.

5. BC Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

“Point in Time” Regulation Content
Motor Vehicle Act
Motorcycle Safety Helmet Exemption Regulation
B.C. Reg. 237/99
Section 1 BEFORE amended by BC Reg 62/2017, effective March 1, 2017.
Exemption
1 The following persons are exempt from the requirements of section 221 of the Motor Vehicle Act:
(a) a person who
(i) practices the Sikh religion, and
(ii) has unshorn hair and habitually wears a turban composed of 5 or more square meters of cloth.

BC has given Sikhs an exemption on wearing helmets when riding a motorcycle since 2017.

6. Alberta Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

Overview
Sikhs who wear turbans are exempt from:
.
the Vehicle Equipment Regulation helmet requirement in the Traffic Safety Act
the Off-highway Vehicle Regulation helmet requirement in the Traffic Safety Act
.
This means:
drivers and passengers who are over 18 and are bona fide members of the Sikh religion who wear a turban can ride a motorcycle without using a helmet
.
drivers and passengers who are bona fide members of the Sikh religion who wear a turban can ride an off-highway vehicle without using a helmet
.
Turbans are an integral part of the Sikh identity. This decision allows them to ride without having to remove their turban.
Alberta is the third jurisdiction in Canada to allow this exemption, alongside British Columbia and Manitoba.

In March 2018, Alberta gave Sikhs and exemption on helmets.

7. Manitoba Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs


Motorcycle-handbook.manitoba

The following persons are exempt from wearing a helmet:
• persons riding motorcycles in a legally-authorized parade
• bona fide members of the Sikh religion

On page 8 of the handbook, it clearly states that Sikhs are exempt from wearing helmets, as are people taking part in a parade.

8. Ontario Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs

Despite obvious safety concerns with letting some people ride motorcycles without helmet, Ford seems to think that religious freedom is a much more important virtue.

9. Quebec Hypocrisy On Face Coverings

(This is Quebec Premier Francois Legault in 2019 saying that he will use the “Notwithstanding Clause” if needed to ban religious symbols — which include face coverings — from people in government positions. Many countries have banned the Muslim face veil as a security risk.)

(This is Francois Legault in 2020 saying that he strongly recommends everyone wearing face masks in public. Apparently it’s in order to help protect public health.)

10. CHRC – Duty To Accommodate

Employers and service providers have an obligation to adjust rules, policies or practices to enable you to participate fully. It applies to needs that are related to the grounds of discrimination. This is called the duty to accommodate.

The duty to accommodate means that sometimes it is necessary to treat someone differently in order to prevent or reduce discrimination. For examples, asking all job applicants to pass a written test may not be fair to a person with a visual disability. In such cases, the duty to accommodate may require that alternative arrangements be made to ensure that a person or group can fully participate.

What is Undue Hardship?
It is also important to consider that there is a reasonable limit to how far your employer or service provider has to go to accommodate your needs. Sometimes accommodation is not possible because it would cost too much, or create health or safety risks. This is known as undue hardship. Your employer or service provider can claim undue hardship as the reason why certain policies or practices need to stay in place, even though they may have a negative effect on you. They will need to provide sufficient evidence.

Would a service provider be required to make an exception for this planned-emic? Difficult to say how it would play out in court, or at a human rights tribunal. That said, this tactic can definitely be a “boot on the neck” to getting around any requirements in most cases.

11. Mask Objections: Specific Religions

If you are a Muslim (or just “identifying” as one) remind the person that in the Middle East, the headscarf and face coverings are used to subjugate and enslave women. It’s not a sign of religious freedom, but one of being a prisoner. If the service provider doesn’t take a hint, you can always can them a sexist and Islamophobe.

If you are Jewish (or just “identifying” as such) remind the person that attempts to erase your people have been made throughout history. If the service provider doesn’t take the hint, remind him/her that 6 million people died in the Holocaust. If the person still doesn’t get it, feel free to start dropping the term anti-Semite.

There are other religions of course. Feel free to find a scripture that helps your case, no matter how weak or flimsy, to justify your refusal. Reminder, passages can always be quoted out of context, and store clerks probably won’t know the difference. Should that fail, just gaslight the person as a bigot.

12. Alternative: Get A Medical Note

An alternative to this is going to a walk in clinic to get a medical note to attest to the fact that you have a medical condition (such as asthma) that will make wearing a mask unhealthy. There will probably be a fee to pay, but it may be worth it to you.

A further alternative is to just create your own doctor’s note. With Photoshop, and many similar applications, the average computer user can generate a realistic looking note in minutes. No need to prove anything, since doctor-patient confidentiality is grounded in law.

13. Reject Masks, Vote With Your Wallet

If you have a variety of places to shop from, one option is to stop patronizing places which require masks. This avoids the confrontation aspect, but in numbers it sends the message that people won’t shop at such a place.

14. Masks Are About Asserting Control

Does it make sense that a Quebec town would change the law to require masks be worn in public, but not have it kick in for another month? How about Brampton announcing they will be mandatory on transit, in another month? Or Toronto requiring them for transit riders — in another 2 weeks? Make no mistake. This is all about asserting control and domination over you.

But there is a solution. Remember, your religious beliefs do not allow you to wear face coverings. Governments, employers and service providers have a duty to accommodate. While a few may push back and claim it is an undue burden, most will not. This is especially true if you happen to be filming them and suggest it will be posted online.

Never forget: your well being, and the well being of your family members come first. If it means putting a “foot on the neck” of someone just following orders, then so be it. That excuse didn’t work for the Nazis either.

Posted on

Push Back On Pride And “Conversion Therapy” Bans

1. Previous Solutions Offered

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.

2. 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.

3. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/un.conversion.therapy.risks_.pdf
(2) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=10686845
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Bill.c8.ban_.on_.conversion.therapy.pdf
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-37.html#h-118363
(5) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/conversion-therapy-what-you-need-to-know-1.5209598
(6) https://www.jwatch.org/pa200901280000004/2009/01/28/does-gender-dysphoria-young-children-persist
(7) http://archive.is/yyJ99
(8) https://www.psypost.org/2017/12/many-transgender-kids-grow-stay-trans-50499

4. Context For This Piece

This isn’t an attempt to make a religious argument on the SOGI (sexual orientation, gender identity) agenda. Instead, this is more of the effects — both intended and unintended — that this ideology causes. The primary focus is on changing one’s gender/sex, though the same issues apply (to a lesser degree), for sexual orientation.

Undeniably, having this issue promoted the way it is creates a few problems. First, there are a lot of physical and mental health issues that are still present. Second, genuine criticism and concern is frequently shut down under the pretense of bigotry. This can also lead to doxing and damaged careers. Third, it allows those with an agenda to essentially rewrite the laws for society as a whole. Fourth, the lives that get destroyed are often lost and ignored afterwards.

While the “conversion techniques” described in the UN report are barbaric and savage, this is not an effort to endorse SOGI. Trying to change one’s sex is not something that should become normalized or promoted. This is especially true among children.

Don’t get the wrong idea. There are serious issues that people face, and compassion is needed. However, the solutions that are promoted and pushed in society today are destructive and harmful, and need to be called out.

Consider this: instead of mangling and destroying your body, what if that peace could be achieved another way? Isn’t finding a way to be happy a better option?

5. Why Is Pride Even Needed?

Let’s just address this briefly: what is even the point of having Pride every year? If the goal was about legal equality, that has been achieved long ago. Even same sex marriage became legalized nationally in 2005.

Think it through. Once all of the major issues are resolved, then whatever is left is less and less important. Bake my cake? Wax my privates? Cater my wedding? Are these really the problems that are plaguing society?

Whether accidental or by design, the continued push by LGBTQ activists has the effect of causing people who were otherwise accepting of the movement to begin rejecting it. Purity spirals never end well.

6. UN Wants Ban On Conversion Therapy

83. Practices of “conversion therapy”, based on the incorrect and harmful notion that sexual and gender diversity are disorders to be corrected, are discriminatory in nature. Furthermore, actions to subject lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or gender-diverse persons to practices of “conversion therapy” are by their very nature degrading, inhuman and cruel and create a significant risk of torture. States must examine specific cases in the light of the international, regional and local framework on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and/or punishment.

84. Perpetrators of abuse through practices of “conversion therapy” include private and public mental health-care providers, faith-based organizations, traditional healers and State agents; promoters additionally include family and community members, political authorities and other agents.

85. Under the conditions established by international human rights law and the international framework on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, practices of “conversion therapy” may engage the international responsibility of the State.

86. Practices of “conversion therapy” provoke profound psychological and physical damage in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or gender-diverse persons of all ages, in all regions of the world.

87. In view of the foregoing, the Independent Expert recommends that States:
(a) Ban the practices of “conversion therapy” as described in the present report, including by:
(i) Clearly establishing, through appropriate legal or administrative means, a definition of prohibited practices of “conversion therapy”, and ensuring that public funds are not used, directly or indirectly, to support them;
(ii) Banning practices of “conversion therapy” from being advertised and carried out in health-care, religious, education, community, commercial or any other settings, public or private;
(iii) Establishing a system of sanctions for non-compliance with the ban on practices of “conversion therapy”, commensurate with their gravity, including in particular, that claims should be promptly investigated and, if relevant, prosecuted and punished, under the parameters established under the international human rights obligations pertaining to the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(iv) Creating monitoring, support and complaint mechanisms so that victims of practices of “conversion therapy” have access to all forms of reparations, including the right to rehabilitation, as well as legal assistance;

un.conversion.therapy.risks

The report does list several forms of “conversion therapy” that are absolutely horrific, such as forced gang rape. These are inexcusable under any circumstances.

That being said, the UN findings take the position that SOGI should be normalized and accepted by everyone. It implies that even very young children should be able to engage in this sort of behaviour. It isn’t normal for very young children (or anyone for that matter), to want to change their gender, yet the UN report makes no mention of it. Instead, people should be accepted as they are.

The UN report leaves out many important details and topics which should be addressed. However, the report is clearly motivated by ideology, not compassion or truth.

7. Canada’s Bill C-8, Conversion Therapy Ban

Bill.c8.ban.on.conversion.therapy

Interestingly, Bill C-8 would list materials promoting conversion therapy to be materials corruption public morals in the Canadian Criminal Code.

As this Federal bill is just one example of this nonsense being pushed, consider the mental gymnastics needed for any of this to make sense. A father can’t stop his 11 year old child from starting a sex change, because it would be in the interests of the child. Yet, the Federal Government in 2018 watered down the criminal penalties for sex crimes against children. The also lowered the age of consent for anal sex, because that was supposedly a priority.

Various bills and laws are being considered across the world to ban conversion therapy. Now, some methods in the 3rd world are pretty savage, efforts should be made to determine if the person (especially a child) really wants to do this. The person should also be made fully aware of the consequences they are facing.

In 2019, the CBC wrote about the proposed ban, mentioning health risks depending on the type of conversion, but provided little concrete detail. Omitted was the harm that transitioning young children can cause.

8. Long Term “Aging Out” Research

A 2009 study of adolescents with gender dysphoria found that for the majority, this did not persist into adulthood. To be fair, a large part of the original sample group wasn’t available.

Steensma-2013_desistance-rates
A 2013 study found that 84% of adolescents who had gender dysphoria had their symptoms stop in adulthood.

An article was written in 2016 by Jesse Singal about what was missing from the discussion from trans-activists: regrets, and people wishing to change back.

James Cantor has a dozen studies listed in this article which followed on teens/adolescents with gender dysphoria

  • Lebovitz, P. S. (1972). Feminine behavior in boys: Aspects of its outcome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 1283–1289
  • Zuger, B. (1978). Effeminate behavior present in boys from childhood: Ten additional years of follow-up. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 19, 363–369
  • Money, J., & Russo, A. J. (1979). Homosexual outcome of discordant gender identity/role: Longitudinal follow-up. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 4, 29–41
  • Zuger, B. (1984). Early effeminate behavior in boys: Outcome and significance for homosexuality. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 172, 90–97.
  • Davenport, C. W. (1986). A follow-up study of 10 feminine boys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 511–517.
  • Green, R. (1987). The “sissy boy syndrome” and the development of homosexuality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Kosky, R. J. (1987). Gender-disordered children: Does inpatient treatment help? Medical Journal of Australia, 146, 565–569
  • Wallien, M. S. C., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2008). Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1413–1423.
  • Drummond, K. D., Bradley, S. J., Badali-Peterson, M., & Zucker, K. J. (2008). A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 44, 34–45.
  • Singh, D. (2012). A follow-up study of boys with gender identity disorder. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
    Steensma, T. D., McGuire, J. K., Kreukels, B. P. C., Beekman, A. J., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2013). Factors associated with desistence
  • and persistence of childhood gender dysphoria: A quantitative follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 52, 582–590.

Plenty of available research suggests the overwhelming majority of youth with gender dysphoria eventually get past it. So why exactly the push to have younger and younger children participating and messing up their lives?

Does banning conversion therapy mean that this type of research will become banned? Will it be considered hate speech to talk about it? How does hiding the plentiful amount of study done help people suffering from this condition? Of course this doesn’t even get into the tons of comorbid conditions and the suicide rates.

Don’t Liberals routinely claim that they are the “party of science”? Or does that only matter when the science fits their preshaped agenda?

9. Gender Dysphoria/Autism Link?

While it may be too early to say definitively, research has been done into gender dysphoria and other conditions such as Autism and Aspberger’s. If there is any truth to it, giving hormone blockers to autistic people (especially autistic children) amounts to medical malpractice and child abuse.

10. Bill C-16 Already Silenced Debate

To a large degree, Bill C-16 has already cut off a large part of the debate at least regarding the trans issue. Both the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Canadian Human Rights Code were amended to make “gender identity or expression” a protected ground.

To start out: “gender identity or expression” is so vague that it could be applied to a lot of different things. It doesn’t just refer to people who are transgender. Nor does it prevent someone from demanding made up pronouns, or repeatedly changing their pronouns.

What most likely started off with good intentions is a disaster waiting to happen.

11. Society Shouldn’t Normalize This

Instead of condemning conversion therapy as horrible, realize that trying to make people content in their bodies should at least be considered. Rather than making mutilation the first option, it should be the last thing (the very last thing), considered by doctors and others in the field.

In contrast to the instinct to make the child happy, responsible parents should make every effort to find out what is wrong with the child and find a way to deal with it.

If someone has a legitimate condition and needs to find a way to deal it, fine. But society shouldn’t be making this sort of thing mainstream, or encourage others to do it.

The incessant, never-ending demands of activists make even many tolerant people stop caring, or become outright resentful.