All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 2021 - Viva & Barnes
01:03:47
Livestream with John Carpay - Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The F's don't count, people.
And now I hear a dog making noise upstairs.
Yes, this is a short-notice stream, and for those of you who don't know who John Carpe is, I think we did two live streams, maybe three, at the very least one.
Somewhere between one and three streams, I have forgotten my own life at this point.
John Carpe is the president of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, who is...
I think between the JCCF, which is their acronym, and Rebel News, I don't know of any entity in Canada that's doing more to litigate these unconstitutional draconian lockdown measures than those two organizations.
It really is, at any meaningful level, the JCCF and Rebel News.
John Carpe was the president.
I had a leave of absence, which we're going to go into because it was all public information.
And then we're going to just discuss basically the most recent updates as to what's going on in Canada.
And to get some clarification on some issues that people have been asking me about, more specifically the most recent emergency declaration coming out of Saskatchewan, where I know what I think of it, but I hadn't had time to actually talk about it.
While we're here, we're going to have John talk about it.
So while everyone trickles in, let me just see if I can bring up some chats.
Tonight is a bonafide F, people, because I was in fact late, but only for a good cause.
Okay, here we go.
Let's go Brandon, by the way.
Could be the funniest thing I've ever heard now that I know what the joke was, because I looked it up after the stream and people told me what the joke was.
Let's go Brandon for what was actually being said, which was F Joe Biden.
It's literally.
I mean, it's literally the episode of The Simpsons when everyone's booing Mr. Burns.
And Mr. Burns is like, are they booing me?
And Smithers says, no.
They're saying, boo-urns.
We live in parody right now.
I mean, that's the bottom line of all of this.
We are living through parody.
Save us.
There are some feats that are even too big for your local YouTube lawyer.
Yes, Carpe Diem.
That last name, Noman S. Omen.
The name is The Omen.
So, yeah, that's it.
Look, I'll bring up some stuff here.
Now, simultaneously, by the way, I don't think super chats are going to be an issue tonight, but if anyone puts up a super chat, I'll do my best to get to it.
If anybody has questions, specific questions, bring them in the chat, and I will try to get to them.
We are simultaneously running a live chat on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
For anyone who wants to think about supporting us there, let's see who's in that chat.
Okay, good.
We got some people in the chat.
Now, with that said, I see John is in the waits, and we do not have all evening for this one.
So I'm going to bring in John.
We are going to talk Canadian COVID.
John, how goes it?
Hey, good to see you, David.
Life is good.
Life is busy.
Life is interesting.
I'm told that there's a Chinese proverb that says, may you live in interesting times.
And that would be a very positive characterization on what's going on in Canada right now, to call it interesting.
It's beyond interesting.
It's Orwellian and science fiction, except, you know, replace the zombies from...
What's that movie?
It had a Z in it.
Replace the zombies with people walking alone in the streets, double-masked, because I actually saw someone walking in the street alone.
Double mask.
The blue one underneath and the black one over it.
We're living through interesting times.
John, we've done, I don't remember, it's either one, two, or three streams together, but for anyone who's watching for the first time, so this is our number three, correct?
I think so.
I think so.
Beautiful.
For anyone who doesn't know who you are, give us the elevator pitch, who you are, without getting into the detail we went into the first time, what you're doing, and then we're going to talk about a couple of specific issues.
So, I'm John Carpe.
I'm in Calgary, Alberta.
I run the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
We are a non-profit founded 11 years ago to defend the Charter Freedoms of Conscience, Religion, Expression, Association, Peaceful Assembly.
We rely on voluntary donations to pay for the salaries of a team of 14 lawyers.
That's where we're at right now.
Fourteen lawyers, five paralegals, and administrative staff, communications staff.
And we take on court cases all over Canada.
We sue governments.
We sue governments to defend the rights and freedoms of citizens.
And I'll stop there.
Okay.
Now, I said we have to do it.
We've got to get the elephant out of the room because the JCCF and you were in the news two months ago.
For anybody, I mean, I'll let you explain the scenario and then I'll ask a question or two and then we'll get into the actual important stuff that affects the actual constitution of our country.
Right.
Well, we were in the news two months ago, but I think we're in the news almost every day.
But two months ago, I took a leave of absence starting July 13th.
That was in respect of error in judgment that I made in the province of Manitoba.
I had the very good and noble intention of seeing to it that government officials are held to account for whether or not they comply with the COVID restrictions.
In Alberta, for example, Premier Jason Kenney very famously was dining with cabinet ministers at the Sky Palace, breaking the COVID rules, while at the same time throwing pastors into jail for breaking the COVID rules, and it justifiably caused a lot of outrage.
So I had some government officials in Manitoba that were put under surveillance to see if they were complying with the COVID restrictions, and that's all well and good, nothing wrong with that.
But I made the error in judgment of including a judge, and the surveillance company didn't abide by the terms of passive surveillance, and they apparently sent some teenager to go knock on the door of the house of the judge and ask him if he was home.
The judge got nervous, called in Manitoba security, and then the rest...
History made in court.
So I've apologized to the judge because I should not have included him in the surveillance.
But came back to work in August and we are looking forward, looking ahead at fighting tyranny and oppression.
And we're not going to let one mistake keep us down.
And it's an interesting thing because I read it and I know...
I could put myself in your shoes, in the shoes of anyone who's in the system, looking at politicians float the rules while literally locking up pastors, while literally slapping down thousands of dollars of fines.
And I said, you know, it's all fair game to some extent.
Just, you know, the biggest issue is whether or not a journalist is doing it for paparazzi purposes, you know, like seeing if a judge is involved in the conflict of interest in a file that they're involved in.
It just, you know, it can't ever be.
The firm or the lawyer involved in the file because it impacts the client badly.
But you apologized, you took responsibility for what you did.
Whether or not people forgive you, that's up to them.
But there's only so much anybody can do in life to atone for a mistake that was victimless and some might say well-intentioned, others might say just bad judgment, whatever.
So that is the elephant in the room.
Everybody knows about it.
Make what you will of it.
Now let's get in to what is going on.
You know, I said it in the intro.
I don't really know of two institutions in Canada that are doing more to systematically fight these measures other than JCCF and Rebel Media, who are, you know, financing, helping, organizing some of these lawsuits publicly that you can disclose.
What cases are you guys now at the JCCF involved with in which provinces?
Okay.
In British Columbia, we are in the Court of Appeal, appealing a lower court ruling where we were partially successful.
This has to do with the very arbitrary restrictions placed on churches, which were closed entirely, while meanwhile restaurants and gyms and other facilities were all open.
So Dr. Bonnie Henry specifically targeted churches with...
I think, well, I don't know if it's anti-religious bigotry or I don't know what the reason was, but certainly no logic or science behind that distinction.
So we've got that case in BC that's pre-existing and we will be very likely in the weeks ahead, we will be challenging vaccine passports in British Columbia.
In Alberta, we are working towards suing Alberta Health Services.
Which wants to fire every doctor, nurse and healthcare worker that has not been injected with the experimental mRNA vaccine.
We have just hired a lawyer in Saskatchewan starting this week and will probably end up challenging vaccine passports in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba and in Ontario.
We've got our Ontario lawyers are working actively.
On challenging vaccine passports in Ontario.
And in a nutshell, the grounds for the challenge is that Charter Section 7 right to life, liberty, and security of the person includes a right to bodily autonomy.
Bodily autonomy necessarily includes a right to not have the government inject you with a substance.
I mean, talk about personal private decisions about your own body.
For the government to insist that you get injected with an experimental substance that everybody knows, everybody admits, has not been subjected to any long-term testing in human beings, in respect of a virus that everybody knows, everybody admits, is not a general threat to 90% of Canadians.
It is definitely a threat to some Canadians.
For example, if you're...
85 years old and you're in a nursing home and you've got emphysema and heart disease and cancer, well, then COVID is a serious threat to your life.
But in any event, that's our charter challenge to the vaccine passports is that we have a right to bodily autonomy, which means that the government has no business injecting you with something against your will.
And you're preaching to the choir because it's just such a no-brainer.
There's nothing more invasive to the individual's autonomy than physically invading their body.
Now, the argument is going to be nobody's forcing anybody.
All that they're saying is you lose your job, your ability to make a living.
You lose your livelihood unless you do it.
So it's your choice.
So it's still a choice at the end of the day.
Can I respond to that?
Oh, yeah, please.
I mean, go ahead.
There's a case, a criminal law case you might remember from first-year law school.
It was called the Blau case, B-L-A-U, and it was a British case.
And it was the case of a woman who was a Jehovah's Witness, and her religion is against blood transfusions.
And she got stabbed by a criminal, and the stabbing was pretty bad.
But if she had consented to a blood transfusion, she would have probably lived.
But she said, I'm a Jehovah's Witness and no blood transfusions, and she died.
And so the guy that stabbed her, he was charged with murder because he stabbed her and she died.
His argument in court was, I shouldn't be charged with murder.
I should only be charged with assault.
You know, with aggravated assault, serious assault, you know, I did stab her, but it was her choice to not get the blood transfusion.
And so I should not be charged with murder.
I should be charged with aggravated assault for the stabbing.
And the court just blew this off and said, no, like she is a Jehovah's Witness and that's her religion is no blood transfusions.
So you are responsible for murder.
And he was, in fact, And the court referenced St. Thomas More in the 1500s who had his head chopped off for refusing to recognize the supremacy of King Henry VIII as the leader of the church, the head of the church in England.
And the court said, you know, you could also say it was his choice.
You know, he could have signed this affirmation.
He could have signed this affirmation.
That he recognized King Henry VIII as the head of the church in England.
And so it was his choice.
You know, it's kind of his own fault that he got his head chopped off because he had a choice.
He could have just signed the affirmation.
You know, this lady with the stabbing had a choice.
She could have accepted the blood transfusion so she wouldn't have died.
Here, if you've got a gun to your head because the government says you're going to lose your job and so you won't be able to feed your family.
You're going to lose your job.
We're going to fire you if you don't get this vaccine.
That is not a choice.
And I'd say I go one step further.
I mean, I think it actually satisfies the definition of battery in a literal sense where you're being threatened to give up something coerced.
But yeah, so I mean, here's the question.
Why aren't there more lawsuits being filed?
Is my first question as a lawyer who's not filing lawsuits on his own behalf.
I don't think I have any legal interest necessarily, but in the States, Biden announces the measures, and you have people lining up to sue.
Am I wrong, or is that not just the case in Canada?
I think you're at least partially right.
The United States has a lot more organizations that are like the Justice Center, and there's a number of reasons for that.
One of them is that they've had their type of...
They've had their constitutional democracy where you can take a bad law to court and get a court to strike it down.
They've had that for over 200 years.
We in Canada barely had it for 39 years.
So that's one reason why in the United States you've had these organizations that litigate constitutional law.
You've had them around for a lot longer because the United States has had that type of government for a lot longer.
In Canada, we're just wet behind the ears.
We've only had the charter for 39 years.
Prior to the charter, if you didn't like a law, you would have to use the democratic process and work hard to get it changed because you couldn't take a law to court and say, well, I don't like this law because it violates my freedoms.
You couldn't do that.
So that's one reason.
So yes, in the United States, you have way more of these groups.
They've been around a lot longer.
Statistically, Americans are more generous in their after-tax donations than what Canadians are.
So there's a lot of money going to some of these American groups, like more so than to the Canadian groups.
In terms of why it's taking a while, I think it's largely because the passports got introduced so quickly.
Alberta is just one example where we had a premier telling us repeatedly there would never be vaccine passports in Alberta.
He told us July 1st Alberta was open forever for good.
This wasn't a temporary departure from lockdowns.
We are done with lockdowns.
We are free forever, is what the premier said July 1st.
He was resolutely against vaccine passports.
And then all of a sudden, out of the blue, September 15th, he announces That vaccine passports will go into effect starting Monday, September 20th.
So you get five days notice.
John, I mean, just for those out there watching, was this somehow contemporaneously done with Justin Trudeau promising a billion dollars to whichever provinces implement the passport?
It may have been influenced.
I mean, we got so much free money going around.
I think every premier wants in on it.
And I believe, as you said, the...
Prime Minister Trudeau did promise lots of money to any province that wants to institute a vaccine passport.
But it's a disappointment to, you know, Kenny has flip-flopped back and forth, I think, probably more than any other premier, because most premiers have been fairly consistently pro-lockdown.
You know, they've shifted the ground a little bit.
But like Jason Kenney has been very, very anti-lockdown and very anti-vaccine passport in his words at various times.
So it was like a huge disappointment to people that supported him, supported past tense.
Yeah.
I mean, and politically he's taken the hit for it, right?
I think the only thing he can say in the next election is, you know, that the NDP would impose...
Harsher, more severe lockdowns or, you know, more stringent vaccine passport requirements.
That's an argument he can make and it would probably be accurate, but I don't know how well that's going to fly with voters.
And in Quebec, incidentally, it's, you know, we had a month, maybe two months warning before this vaccine passport came into effect.
I don't know that there's any lawsuits in the province.
Oh, sorry, go ahead.
His name is Hans Mercier, M-E-R-C-I-E-R, Hans Mercier, and he is in a small town near Quebec City.
I believe it might be the Bose, actually, and I think that brings back a memory.
I haven't seen the court pleadings.
I've only seen media reports.
Maybe the media reports are not accurate.
You know, I don't know.
But supposedly, there's a challenge to vaccine passports in Quebec, too.
I'm going to have a look.
Now, people ask me the question, and I give them the same answer that, you know, if there's a, let's say, a favorable finding against the vaccine passports.
Let's say a province says unconstitutional.
Does that have an impact on the other provinces or on Canada as a whole?
Yes, it does, because authorities from other jurisdictions are persuasive.
Let's say the first court ruling out of the gates is Saskatchewan, and Saskatchewan says vaccine passports are an unjustified violation of charter freedoms based on the science.
Vaccinated people spread the virus just as much as unvaccinated people, so there's no...
Rational basis for a vaccine passport.
If Saskatchewan comes out with an anti-vaccine passport ruling, well, then the other courts in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Manitoba, Ontario, and so on, they're going to look at that and consider it.
And so it's persuasive.
Now, they're not bound to follow it, right?
So your next court ruling coming out of, say, Alberta or Manitoba might say, oh, no, vaccine passports are a justifiable violation of the charter charter right to bodily autonomy.
So they influence each other.
Everybody's hoping that the first ruling is going to be on their side because that'll be the persuasive precedent.
But, you know, it's not really a guarantee because even if you win the first round, you could lose the second, third and fourth in other jurisdictions.
And actually, just to come back so people understand the extent of what you said before, that our system contesting the Supreme Court laws before the Supreme Court has only been around for 39 years, that was when we had the Canadian Charter in 1982 that created the Supreme Court, which was the context in which the notwithstanding clause was inserted into the Constitution, which was to ensure that provinces could nonetheless legislate and not be...
It was legislatively bound by the Supreme Court, which might remove provincial autonomy.
So it was the Juggling Act.
But the notwithstanding clause was inserted into the Constitution, which is basically the power of any provincial government to enact a legislation that can specifically and vocally, like specifically violate a charter right to the extent it provides that it is violating the charter right in the law.
It can last no longer than five years, which is typically how long a provincial government stays around.
It can be renewed.
It can be renewed.
Yeah.
But you're right.
You're right.
It's around for five years only, and then it expires by itself.
Unless, and apparently, I've not looked into it in Quebec.
Apparently, the provincial government in Quebec has continued to renew every five years the notwithstanding clause in respect of some Supreme Court rulings on provincial language laws.
Yeah, I think it's Bill 101, which is...
Invoking the notwithstanding clause again with the Bill 96 that's amending the language laws under Bill 101.
But now, here was my question.
I think I know the answer, but I suspect you're going to know it better.
If we operate on the basis that there is a suspected charter right violation, let's not take for granted that the vaccine passports are an objective, outright, categorical charter violation that needs to be justified.
Assuming that there's a suspected charter violation, does not the federal government have the power to intervene on behalf of the citizens for provincial charter violation infringements?
Do they not have the power themselves to take up an action to challenge a provincial law that violates a charter right?
Yes.
I'm sorry, I don't know.
I have never seen a court action where the federal government went to court to challenge a province about its...
I have not read every case that's ever been issued, but I've never heard of one level of government attacking in court.
I mean, there's oral attacks, you know, public statements where a premier could denounce federal government action or the prime minister could denounce the actions of a province.
But in terms of court cases, I'm not aware of any province that took the federal parliament to court about a charter violation or federal government taking a province to court about a charter violation.
They do sue each other about federal provincial powers, but that's definitely...
All right.
And so I guess part two to that question now.
This is the other question that people are asking me, and it's a thought that I've had.
These charter violations are all subject to the first article of the charter, which says, this charter guarantees your rights and freedoms.
In as much as can be violated in a free society as prescribed by law.
And so the question I had is, I don't really know of any province that actually passed any of these measures through a standard legislative process.
These have been issued based on emergency decrees under the Public Health Acts that didn't actually go through any legislative process.
So the first question is, has the vaccine passport, as a specific example, in fact been prescribed?
Are these things prescribed by law in the first place such that you even get to the first question as to whether or not it's a reasonable limitation in a free and democratic society?
Are these things prescribed by law that are being issued under these public health orders?
Short answer is yes, in that they are, you know, there is a legal instrument there.
You've got a, you know, a cabinet order.
Or you've got an order from a chief medical officer.
So they are prescribed by law.
But it's interesting you raise that.
There are two very different angles of attack.
There are two things that are very wrong with it.
The simple one that we're probably more familiar with is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So when the government passes a law that puts pressure on you, even if they're not physically holding you down, they don't have four guys in white suits that are holding you down on the ground and injecting you with something, even if they don't go that far as forced vaccinations, but if they just have mandatory vaccinations by saying that you're a second-class citizen without the jab, you can't fly on an airplane, you can't go into stores, gyms, restaurants.
I've heard of a case in Montreal.
Mothers cannot go into a ballet studio or a dance studio to pick up their four-year-old girl.
They're not allowed inside if they're not vaccinated.
You can't help your four-year-old get changed out of her ballerina or ballet outfit.
Just absolutely.
Anyway.
It's inhumane.
It is inhumane.
When I hear of...
Fathers who are not allowed to be in the delivery room or go to get the ultrasound, in fact, vaccinated or not because of this, it's inhumane.
So I'll call it that, John.
You can be more diplomatic, but I think it's inhumane.
These are things that I would not forgive people for.
It is cruel.
There is a friend of mine whose uncle passed away recently, and he had tested positive for COVID.
But he didn't have any COVID symptoms, right?
So it's one of these meaningless, irrelevant PCR tests where, by the way, the Manitoba government admitted in court that at least 56% of their so-called positive cases were people that they knew did not have COVID.
So the Manitoba government admitted in court to lying to the people of Manitoba for months on end with his PCR tests.
But my friend's uncle tested positive for COVID, but he wasn't actually sick with COVID, but he got a positive test result.
And his kids were not allowed to...
And he died.
He was in hospital for two weeks.
Again, he didn't die of COVID.
He had some other condition.
And his wife and kids were not allowed to go see him because he tested positive on a COVID test.
Except I think his wife was allowed in in the last few hours before he died.
Just wickedly cruel.
And no scientific basis.
I mean, the guy...
Yeah, he tested positive for COVID.
Well, if his wife and kids...
If they want to take their chances, it's like you're having your most...
Meaningful.
I am literally at a loss for words for it.
And when Francois Legault came out and said, you know, the vaccine passports, it's only going to be for non-essential services, bars, gyms, theatres.
And then I'm reading, you can't visit people in hospital now.
Unless you're vaccinated.
Unless they'll make an exception for deathbed visits.
I mean, can you imagine?
They call it science, and I'm just calling it cruelty at this point because there is no science to it knowing that the criteria is vaccination and not a negative test.
So even if you're vaccinated and you can still be carrying it, still be shedding it, maybe for a shorter period of time, maybe you are somewhat less contagious than you would have been.
I'm saying the last one I'm not even sure about.
You can still do all those things.
You can still go in.
You can go in asymptomatic, able to spread, carrying it.
And that's the criteria for safety and not a negative test.
And they're denying people visitation, unless it's a deathbed visit.
I mean, it's madness.
Now, that question was a prelude into what now, John?
I'll get back.
I took us slightly off course, although this is all related.
It's all relevant.
So in terms of vaccine passports, One thing wrong with it is it's a violation of the charter right to bodily autonomy to not be injected.
And on that point, the charter recognizes pressure and duress.
So you don't need to take it to the point.
And I could see us getting there within the next year or so.
It doesn't even have to be at the point of the government.
Having four guys hold you down and then physically inject you with something you do not wish to be injected with, it doesn't even have to get to that point.
If it's merely the withdrawal of rights and freedoms that other citizens have, that's already a charter violation.
Now, the other legal argument against the vaccine passports, if they're issued by Chief Medical Officer of Health, is that they violate the non-charter parts of our Constitution.
One of the principles being democratic accountability.
And laws of general application need to be passed by the legislature, you know, l 'Assemblée nationale, provincial legislature, federal parliament.
It is contrary to our constitution when you've got one individual without any accountability, without any debate, without the measures being...
Reviewed, scrutinized, voted on by the elected members.
You know, one individual that just decrees, boom, I decree, I, chief medical officer, decree that everyone shall have a vaccine passport and without it you shall not enter into restaurants and gyms.
To have that kind of a broad-based law that applies to everybody, to have that issued by a chief medical officer rather than being passed by...
Yeah, and I remember it was the legislative process to determine the viability.
So people say, I guess the question is, this will be prescribed by law.
Fine.
It'll satisfy that criteria.
The question then becomes, what is required in order to justify the limitation in a free and democratic society?
because with the quarantine hotels, we saw a federal judge confirm, validate the quarantine hotels as a justifiable limitation on constitutional rights because of the outside chance that the person coming in, despite their negative test, might still be carrying it and test positive for 14 days, might live with someone who's going to go work in a healthcare facility and then infect like they did in Barry, Ontario, except that couldn't happen any more.
So what typically is the standard criteria to justify...
My understanding is it's the Oaks test, but if you want to elaborate on what has historically been required to justify a violation of your charter rights.
So first and foremost, the government needs to be seeking or pursuing a pressing and substantive public policy goal.
So on that point, the federal and provincial governments would argue that they're trying to save lives from this unusually deadly virus.
The onus would be on government to prove that this is not just within the range of an annual flu, but that this is like the Spanish flu of 1918, which, by the way, the world got put into a state of fear in March of 2020 because Dr. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College said that COVID would be like the Spanish flu of 1918.
That got everybody scared, and when people are scared and panicked, they don't think.
And when people are scared, they gladly give up their rights and freedoms for the false promise of some security.
So people will trade in safety and security or a promise for safety and security.
Anyway, back to the Oaks test.
The point is that the onus is on the government to demonstrate that this virus is unusually deadly.
And I don't think the government has a strong case on that.
When you look at the actual data, You see that, for example, Statistics Canada tells us that death rates in Canada in 2020 were in line with death rates in 2019, 2018, 2017.
So you got the proof right there.
COVID was not an unusually deadly killer.
Average age of death, depending on province, was 80 or 82. Average Canadian life expectancy, 80 or 82. It doesn't have an impact on...
On life expectancy in Canada, children are as likely to die of a lightning strike as they are to die of COVID.
So anyway, that's the first threshold that the government has to prove that this is actually a virus that's worth violating our rights and freedoms and destroying the economy and pushing people into unemployment and poverty and isolation and depression and suicide.
And depriving people of seeing their dying parents before the parents die.
Anyway, so that's the first one.
Is there a goal that's worth pursuing?
Second one, is there a rational connection?
So are these measures that the government's introducing, are they actually helping to achieve the goal of saving lives?
So on a vaccine passport, I think the government would need to prove that unvaccinated people are vaccinated.
You know, filthy, vile disease spreaders and vaccinated people are good and pure and holy non-spreaders.
I'm exaggerating.
But the government would have to prove that there's an actual, a real difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
Because if there is not such a real difference, then the vaccine passport is not rationally connected to the goal of saving lives.
So that's the second part.
The government has to prove it's rationally connected, so they would have to prove that there's actually a significant difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Third one, they have to impair rights and freedoms as little as possible.
This is the most important criteria that it seems nobody is considering.
I say nobody.
No government official is considering in any of these measures the least infringing Well, you know, from the beginning, from March of 2020, the government might have actually saved some lives by really effectively protecting the nursing homes, which is where you had almost all of the deaths.
Outside of nursing homes, your chance of getting killed or injured in a car accident...
For those who are under the age of 70 is bigger than your chance of getting killed or harmed by COVID.
So, you know, you could have had a targeted restrictions on rights and freedoms narrowly to protect people in nursing homes and just not lock down the rest of the population.
And just for everyone out there, in case the third criteria was not clear enough, it is the restriction has to be as minimal as possible under the circumstances when you're violating a charter right.
And, you know, Johnny.
These are stats.
These are not my numbers.
In Canada, I think it was...
Not I think.
It was give or take 300,000 people under the age of 19 got COVID.
15 died, which is 0.00005% death rate.
The question I'm asking myself is how on...
I don't want to use God's name in vain.
How on God's green earth can...
Blue earth.
Can they then go from that objective matter-of-fact statistic?
It's on...
Canadian website, the Canadian government website.
How can you go from there to say now we need to mandate vaccination for 13 to 19-year-olds and they're going to 5-year-olds now?
How can you do it?
And how can any judge worth his or her salt possibly approve that?
Well, you better hope that judges are going to look at the evidence that is placed before them and not just parrot what they hear and see on the 6 o 'clock news.
Because we've had some court rulings already where the obiter remarks, which is the remarks that a judge makes that are not central to the ruling, but we've had judges make comments in rulings to the effect of, you know, COVID is an unusually deadly killer and governments really should be supportive, should be supported in whatever they do to tackle it.
Words to that effect.
And so we better hope that there's going to be enough judges that actually look at the evidence and are able to let go of the biases that they might have incurred in the previous year and a half by, you know, listening to the 6 o 'clock news, which is doing fear-mongering all the time, 24-7.
We get the media fear-mongering with falsehoods.
Sorry, they're fear-mongering by failing to provide context.
Okay.
I presume you're going to be talking about the numbers of those admitted to hospitals that were vaccinated versus unvaccinated as one example?
Well, that's one example because you're not counted as vaccinated until, depending on the province, two or three weeks after getting your second jab.
So there's a lot of people in Canadian hospitals that have been injured by vaccines and they've got to go into the hospital.
And so they're in...
They were fine before getting the vaccine.
They get the vaccine.
They get injured.
They need to go to the hospital.
And now the hospital says, well, you're not vaccinated because most of those injuries occur in the first week, in the first few days.
If you're going to get injured by a vaccine, it's more likely to happen in the first few days.
Oh, sorry.
Yeah, so all of these people that are injured by vaccines going into hospital are counted as unvaccinated.
There was something even, at one point, even slightly trickier than that is when they were trying to, when the media was trying to report that the number of people being admitted to hospitals were unvaccinated with COVID to show how efficient the vaccine was, they were counting...
Starting before the period where vaccination was becoming widely available was one of the mechanisms to inflate one number while decreasing the other.
And from what I understand now, and John, maybe you'll correct me if I'm wrong or if you don't know, you don't know, that the people being admitted to hospital for whatever the reason, everybody is automatically tested when you go to the hospital.
So if you're admitted to the hospital for whatever the reason, if you test positive on admission, whether you're admitted for those reasons or related or not, it goes into that number.
And so therefore, this is sort of a way of counting people who are admitted to hospital with reasons that are totally unrelated as that number to get that number as high as possible.
Am I wrong?
Am I exaggerating?
Or do you know if that's true?
That's exactly what's happening in Canadian hospitals.
If you get a heart attack, a heart attack not related to COVID, which, you know...
And you go into hospital, and then they do a COVID test on you, which if it's a PCR test, you've got false positives up to 90%, depending on the cycle threshold.
Up to 90 or 19?
9-0, 90. False positives.
If they run the PCR test at 40 cycles, you get 100% positive.
I mean, the test is very unreliable, and they're secretive about...
How many cycles?
I've had, you know, I've had, I don't know, two, three COVID tests in the past year or so for different, you know, travel related or whatever.
And I ask people, what's the cycle threshold?
And, you know, the people administering the COVID test don't have a clue.
You talk to the health minister, the health authorities, they don't tell you.
Anyway, so you get a heart attack, you go into the hospital.
They do a COVID test.
If the COVID test comes out positive, then you're counted as a COVID statistic.
If you're in there because of a car accident, you're in there, you know, you're a woman giving birth.
You're in there for any kind of surgery.
They run a COVID test.
And if you test positive, you're part of the COVID test.
And then they might ask you, did you have your vaccine?
Yes or no.
And then all of a sudden we have this supposed crisis of, you know, unvaccinated people flooding our hospitals.
And it's actually, and John, it goes even one step further than that.
I'm sure you saw Dina Hinshaw recently.
I mean, it's one of those clips where you see and you're like, this is fake.
It has to be fake.
It has to be as fake as Justin Trudeau making the joke about the good reason why the media goes easy on him, because you paid them $600 million.
Dina Hinshaw says, we're going to be now counting in the number of COVID-related cases, even if you don't go to the hospital, based on absenteeism, if we think there's an outbreak, or an outbreak, if we think there's a spread in a neighborhood, simply by absenteeism.
So hospital admissions or not, positive test or not, they're going to arbitrarily, unilaterally, and dare I say, capriciously decide what to count based on absenteeism.
I didn't mishear Dina Hinshaw did in fact say that.
I saw the tape and she said...
My recollection, it was more directed at schools.
So it was if you are a child or a teacher or another school staff member that is homesick, you're not at school because you're at home and sick.
And we're going to count you as having COVID.
And yeah, without a test.
But yeah, so if little Johnny does not show up at school because he's sick.
They're not even going to inquire what kind of sickness and no COVID test.
But, oh, well, he's got COVID.
If you're not at school, you've got COVID.
Now, it must have been a very well-doctored...
If this was a fraud, if this was a mysterious...
Because the technology is there.
It was tongue-in-cheek, though, John.
I went back to the press conference to see that she actually said it.
And in watching that press conference, or in another press conference that I came into as a result, Dina Hinshaw, Came up to the stage.
She had her mask on.
By the way, I've got my protest mask.
She came in with her mask on.
Removed it.
She disinfected her hands upon arriving at the podium.
Removed her mask like she was removing toxic Chernobyl juice from her face.
Puts it down, re-disinfects her hands, speaks on the podium for 15 minutes, disinfects her hands before leaving the podium.
Another person comes on, answers a few questions.
Dina Hinshaw comes back on, re-disinfect, does the whole thing, the whole shtick over.
Drama, lots of drama, yes.
I mean, some people were saying it might be OCD metastasizing under the pressure.
I went back to look at previous press conferences that she did.
She never did that six months ago.
Maybe it's OCD.
Maybe it's mental issues, but my retort to that is if that's the case, you don't have that person giving the public speeches and dictating policy.
You might want to find someone who's not suffering from something.
But my realistic assessment is these are protocols that are being implemented.
They're just doing it for the show so that they can make everybody very scared when they watch these conferences.
You've got to keep the fear going.
This is why, too, the media does a lot of misleading things, but quite often it's not so much that what they're saying is false necessarily, although they do come out with falsehoods from time to time, but it's a failure to put in any context.
So, for example, you take Alberta.
We have 27,000 people die in Alberta every year, kind of what you would expect in a province of 4.4 million people.
That means there's 500 people that die every week.
And nothing's changed with COVID.
The big killers are still cancer, heart disease, stroke, you know, some of these ones.
They're still the, you know, the big killers have not changed.
But then they go on to the news conference and they say, last week.
There were eight people who died of COVID.
And it's like, yeah, and 492 people died of other causes.
This is normal.
It's very sad.
And then the eight people, you find out that four of them were in their 70s and the other four were in their 80s.
So these are people, you know, they're in a nursing home and they got cancer and emphysema and heart disease.
And if they hadn't died by COVID, they would have died of something else within.
4 to 6 to 12 months, which is not to say you shouldn't try to keep the COVID out of the nursing homes.
Of course, you should try to keep the COVID out of the nursing homes.
But to pretend that we should be living in fear because very frail, elderly, immune-compromised elderly people are passing away in their 80s to suggest that, therefore, the entire population should live in fear, that is dishonest.
And John, I listen to CJAD only to know thy enemy because it's just rage-inducing to hear them fear-vonger it up day in and day out.
They give you the update on the numbers of positive cases, new cases, new ICU admissions.
A year and six months ago, a case referred to a sick person, right?
And here, when they talk about 1,000 cases, you've got maybe 30, 40, 50 people that actually feel sick out of the 1,000.
And of those 30 to 50 people that are actually sick, you've got 10 or 15 that actually need to be in a hospital.
That's 1,000 cases.
Scary 1,000 cases.
They tweet it out every day knowing it's the casino-like panic effect.
It stimulates receptors in your brain.
Just count numbers.
Always be following numbers.
You're always on guard.
And the amazing thing is, when Maxime Bernier did his, he got an interview finally on CJAD, which they did a fine job defaming him before they ran the pre-recorded interview.
During his interview, he says, whether or not I should or should not get vaccinated, it's my choice.
I'm 56, 58 years old.
My chances of survival are 99.5%.
I'll take my chances with that.
And then after he's off the air, the two of the hosts continue talking, and Natasha Hall says, No, it was the other guy.
Aaron Rand says, well, he's happy with his chances.
Over a thousand people in his age group died in Canada.
And I was like, I went to do the math.
A thousand of, I forget how many hundreds of thousands had it, but it came to 99.5%.
So the framing is done in a way just to maximize the numbers so that everyone is living in as much perpetual fear as possible.
And this coming from the media that is living off these.
These government dollars to continue running the ads, promoting the agenda.
But that's the political side.
I've talked about that at length.
The lawsuits now that have been filed and the ones that have been dismissed were dismissed at the interlocutory injunction or provisional injunction stages.
So, I mean, how does the provisional interlocutory assessment change versus on the merits?
If the judges now, by and large, have been saying it does not meet the required threshold to be overturned at the provisional or interlocutory, do we lose hope that anyone's going to overturn it on the permanent?
No, we should not lose hope.
There is a different...
So the interlocutory injunction or interim injunction is what a lawyer can apply for.
So let's say...
I'll give you a real-life example.
In December of 2020...
We sued, we, the Justice Centre, acting for some clients.
We sued the Alberta government over the latest round of lockdowns.
You know, this was another flip-flop.
Jason Kenney had said in October, November that, you know, lockdowns are very harmful.
They inflict a lot of pain and suffering.
But then he brought them back anyways and cancelled Christmas.
It was illegal in Alberta, as I know it was in Quebec and other provinces, to, you know, have your parents over for Christmas dinner.
Okay, fine.
So on December the 5th, we filed our court action for a declaration that the lockdowns are not a justifiable violation of our charter rights and freedoms.
We then brought a separate application for an interim injunction to save Christmas in the hope that we could get an interim declaration that, you know, until we hear this thing on the merits, we're going to suspend.
These lockdown measures so that people can legally have Christmas together.
Now, we lost that injunction application.
The test there, though, required the court to assume that the legislation was valid or that the lockdown order was valid and it was necessary.
So there's a presumption of validity.
That the health order or the legislation that you're challenging is legally valid.
So that's a very uphill battle.
Now, you can still win, but it's tough to win.
The real battle, the government will have to prove, and the evidence they've introduced eight months after the action was started is just pathetic.
But in the real action, the government will have to prove that the lockdown measures that violate our...
Charter freedoms are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Yeah, okay.
And so everybody appreciates, like, the urgency criteria at the provisional interlocutory is one threshold to meet.
There's a presumptive validity or the presumptive constitutionality of the law that does not exist on the merits.
On the merits, it's just challenging the law, and the urgency requirements are no longer there.
So it's just a question of whether or not it is valid, whether or not it's justified with no presumptions and no urgency requirement.
Nothing has gotten to the merits yet.
We're 18 months into this, almost two years into this.
Nothing has gotten to the merits?
We are waiting on a decision, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, where there was a full argument on the merits.
We had Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who's a world-renowned, world-recognized scientist from Stanford University.
There's actually a paper on our website.
www.jccf.ca, the science of lockdowns.
And we took the evidence that Jay Bhattacharya produced in court, and with his involvement and consent, we converted that into a paper that's posted on our website.
And anyway, so there's his evidence and the evidence of other witnesses.
There's the evidence of the Manitoba government official admitting that the Manitoba government had been lying to the people of Manitoba.
By admitting that at least 56% of the positive PCR tests were people who definitely did not have COVID.
So there we're just waiting on a decision.
And I anticipate that whether we win or lose, the unsuccessful party is going to appeal that to the Manitoba Court of Appeal.
And actually, there was one, the Nikki Haley case.
This was public, I'm not mistaken.
And this was the woman who was whisked off to a quarantine facility without being able to disclose the location to her husband or family.
Any progress in that?
We are before the...
No, you know what?
Sadly, we lost a trial.
It was an insane...
Ruling in that the judge said that charter rights and freedoms were not really being violated by forcibly getting locked up in a hotel for three days.
So I was just absurd.
I mean, we had assumed that the argument would be about whether that violation of charter freedoms was justifiable or not.
But we were just shocked that I think there was...
Out of the half dozen or so freedoms that we said were being violated, the judge agreed with us on one of the six.
But the other five, he just said, no, if the government passes a law that you have to get locked up in a hotel for three days upon your return to Canada, that that does not violate your charter rights and freedoms.
I mean, just insane.
So we got that.
We're now before the Federal Court of Appeal, and we're hoping to get that overturned.
Good.
Alright, now what was the other one that I was thinking about?
Okay, we don't need to get into the details, but a while back there was a news story about all of the restrictions having been lifted in Alberta because of a particular court case.
And this is not about bad-mouthing anybody.
There's no but to that.
This is just a question of establishing.
Now, the current situation in Alberta, things are not lifted.
Am I wrong?
I mean, things are actually sort of getting worse?
I think they're worse than ever.
I mean, I suppose if you've, you know...
If you're participating in the big worldwide human experiment on mRNA vaccines and if you've been injected twice, I suppose you've got more freedom than what you did previously because you can go into a restaurant or...
A store or a gym or this or that.
And, you know, you can be out and about freely if you've been injected enough times.
By the way, I have to say this.
You know, people talk about fully vaccinated being two shots.
Don't count on that because in Israel, your vaccine passport is not valid until you've had three shots.
And they're talking about the fourth shot in Israel.
And in the Netherlands, the government is already putting aside money into next year's budget.
For the third and fourth shots.
So if you want to be fully vaccinated, you know, three years from now, you'll be talking about getting the seventh shot to deal with the second wave of the fourth variant.
It's going to be six-month boosters.
Six-month boosters.
Get injected forever.
And again, we don't know the long-term effects on people.
The other side admits this.
The pro-mandatory vaccine people.
Admit this.
Yes, it's true.
We do not know the long-term effects on people.
So, no, I lost my whole train of thought.
The state of affairs in Alberta is we're under a form of lockdown by way of having vaccine passports.
So if you have a vaccine passport, you might be less locked down than what you were six months ago.
If you don't have a vaccine passport...
You are more locked down than what you would have been previously.
But none of these measures have been lifted.
There's been no decisive success in court that I'm aware of by anybody yet.
Okay.
Because at one point they did announce that they were going to strategically deal with this like they deal with other seasonal respiratory viruses, but they don't deal with other respiratory viruses quite this way yet, although maybe that check is in the mail.
The other question that I had been getting a lot about, I'm not sure if you're up to speed on it, the emergency order or the emergency declaration out of Saskatchewan, everyone's been circulating this two-page document that cites a section from the Emergencies Act and people are saying this is the government coming in to take over farmlands because supply chains are going to get interrupted.
This is an extension of powers beyond anything we've ever seen.
If you know better, that wasn't my understanding.
My understanding is they're cutting and pasting from the existing Emergencies Act that has already been invoked.
But if anybody in the crowd doesn't know what that piece of document is, maybe I'll post it.
But it's a two-page executive emergency order that was signed September 13th that basically says we're in a state of emergency.
The government has these powers.
It didn't shock me because I thought it had been the case basically from the beginning.
What is your understanding of that?
Okay.
The most significant part of that September 13th order is the fact that it declares that Saskatchewan is once again in a state of emergency.
That's the significant part of it.
The rest of it is a cut and paste from a law that has been on the books since 1989.
Now, if you think that all those powers are draconian, go into homes and take stuff and move stuff and everything else.
You'd be correct.
They are draconian powers.
But I think the whole thing in the past year and a half, the problem has been that, you know, we've moved.
I think we're abusing the Emergency Planning Act or the Public Health Act.
If they were limited to a very short...
By the way, the battery on my computer is about to die.
So if I suddenly disappear, that's why.
I don't want to interrupt and run upstairs to get a PowerPoint.
We'll end it in a couple of minutes anyhow.
So if you survive long enough to end it properly, all the better.
Otherwise, I will say your idea when you're gone, when you're not here.
But yeah, sorry.
Carry on.
So those draconian powers, if it was a true temporary emergency, if you did have the Ebola or the bubonic plague, or if you had a severe flooding of a small town...
And maybe the police needed to, you know, bust down some doors to go rescue a baby.
Or like in a truly extreme situation, you could temporarily have those powers being exercised by government and it could be okay.
The problem is that the Public Health Act or in Saskatchewan, the Emergency Planning Act, they have twisted and perverted this legislation into a permanent...
Having a medical dictatorship where it's a state of emergency forever, and we've got abuse of power forever on a permanent basis for the entire province, rather than it being this narrow thing that it ought to be in the Public Health Act.
Yeah, so it's an emergency that has lasted two years, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, John.
I don't think I am.
There are no more ICU beds, and in some cases, there are fewer ICU beds in certain provinces than there were two years ago.
I think that's true of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
That was my understanding as well, is that that Saskatchewan minister's decree just renewed that which had already been declared in the past.
They're cutting and pasting from a provision of law that has always been on the books.
And if anyone wants to get freaked out, go watch my video breaking down the Quarantine Act.
The government...
Always had these ridiculous powers under these laws if they just so decreed them.
So it's nothing new.
Before you lose your battery, what's next and what can we expect from JCCF?
Did I understand that you guys are hiring in Quebec?
We are looking to hire a lawyer in Quebec as well.
And that would bring us up to 15. We have 14 lawyers now.
Anybody watching out of Quebec?
If you're young and you have energy and you have not yet lost your optimism, where can they reach you?
I posted your link.
I'll post it again.
But if anyone in Quebec is watching and wants to apply, what do they do?
Just go to the website?
Just go to the website.
You can submit your resume.
Look for the job opportunities section and the address there.
I think it's media at jccf.ca or it could be info at jccf.ca.
Excuse me.
Email address there and cover letter addressed to Mr. J. Cameron, who is our litigation director.
Okay, perfect.
And so now what can people expect from the JCCF?
What's on the horizon?
And just tell people who are watching why they should not lose hope.
Because I think a lot of people are at this point.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, is an old proverb.
It's attributed to the philosopher Edmund Burke.
But I think it's just important to do the right thing, even when times are dark.
You know, you have to be concerned about how will your children and grandchildren view your behavior.
And there's plenty of examples in history where people were fighting and they knew they were going to lose maybe that battle that day, that week, that month.
But you fight for what's right.
So we have to continue to reach out to...
Friends and neighbours and family.
Some people, you can't argue with them.
They've drunk so much of the Kool-Aid that the media has been serving that it's beyond reason.
However, there are a lot of people who question the validity of vaccine passports.
They have reservations about lockdowns.
So you have to just keep on presenting people with facts, with the truth.
And in the long run, the truth...
Here's what gives me hope.
In the long run, truth prevails over light.
And goodness prevails over evil.
And you've got to keep on fighting because it's better to die standing than to live on your knees.
All right.
And now with that said, everyone, I'm going to go.
We're going to end this.
I'm going to say my proper goodbye with John.
John, let's...
Let's touch base periodically so that we can do some follow-ups on what's going on.
And whenever there's big news, you'll let me know or I'll find out and I'll do an update.
Everyone in the chat, share this around so that people can understand what's going on in Canada.
They can assess some of the information they've been given.
They can freak out when necessary and not freak out when it's not necessary.
And we'll do this again.
Everybody, thank you very much.
Enjoy the evening.
John, thank you.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection