The manufactured COVID crisis is changing gears with the addition of many more manufactured crises delivered largely by the same predatory protagonists that brought us the WHO-declared pandemic. Since our slide into the abyss created by mandatory masking, lockdowns, and gene-modifying injections, many of our major institutions have been suffering similar destructive descents in their operational competence, decency, and effectiveness.
These institutional breakdowns run parallel to those that continue to devastate the physical, psychological, economic, social, familial, and professional well-being of billions of human victims. Many lives have been lost as a result of the range of human-created pathologies imposed on many people largely by skilled spin doctors presenting a theatrically staged TV drama of a heroic fight to conquer COVID-19.
The institutions that have been largely disfigured and discredited in the eyes of the discerning include governments, most major media venues, most churches, schools, universities, professional organizations, unions, as well as corporate conglomerates, especially in Big Pharma, Big Tech and banking. Furthermore, in Canada even moreso than in the United States, the law enforcement sector, including police, prosecutors, and judges, have much to answer for when it comes to incompetence as well as to purposeful malfeasance.
The time has come to mount a major counteroffensive away from the reign of excess and madness that invaded us under the deceptive banner of fighting COVID-19. This mobilization is to save the largest mass of humanity from further manufactured disasters designed to benefit a tiny but hugely-entitled portion of the top 1%.
Effective mobilization in the cause of self-defense will require comprehensive campaigns of spirited and well-organized resistance. Without such coordinated activity, we can anticipate that the COVID restrictions and mandates will continue to be extended under the banner of defeating other heavily-hyped boogeymen such as climate change, manufactured food shortages, and the artificially-inflated threat of armed “White supremacists.”
The success of this strategy of self-defense from more fabricated emergencies designed to harm us, will depend on the resort to deep and comprehensive investigations, effective disciplinary procedures, and some highly-visible criminal prosecutions of the top culprits in the planning and execution of the cataclysmic coronavirus con job.
Right now there is no sign that the prosecutors and judges are up to the job of dealing with the criminality that seems to be running rife in their own sector, let in other institutional domains of our commercial, social and political lives. Without some major interventions to restore the decency and logistical viability to our core institutions in many sectors, our descent into further subordination to malevolent authorities will continue to accelerate.
This essay deals with what might be considered a possible judicial crime involving a group of closely-related cases put before the Federal Court of Canada. The evidence suggests that the Associate Chief Justice of this Court came to a dubious understanding with the Attorney General and Prime Minister of Canada. This understanding may have found expression in the judge’s decision to sideline the cases in question. All of them held the capacity to call into question the legality of the full array of COVID restrictions and mandates.
An ignominious Abandonment of Professional Responsibility by a High-Ranking Judge
The Honourable Jocelyne Gagné is the Associate Chief Justice of Canada’s Federal Court. In spite of her sparse CV, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau elevated Justice Gagné to her current position in 2018. See this.
In mid-October of 2022 Justice Gagné pulled back from hearing more evidence concerning a group of cases involving a COVID-related travel ban directed specifically at impeding the air and train movement of the so-called “unvaccinated.”
Justice Gagné shut down the cases and thereby freed herself from the responsibility of making judgments on matters that go to the very heart of the legal character of government-citizen relations. Rather than hold her ground to conscientiously bear the enormous responsibility of addressing the very consequential legal questions entrusted to her court, the judge opted to make a fast exit. She opted to let herself off the hook by invoking the seemingly magical powers unleashed by the invocation of the single legal word, “moot.”
There is ample reason to stop and carefully reflect on the ignominious desertion of a high-ranking judge who abandoned the scene of one of the most significant convergences of legal arguments in the history of Canadian jurisprudence.
The dishonorable exit of Justice Gagné from the call of professional duty highlights a growing pattern of negligence among the heavily politicized judiciary of Canada. This failure of the judiciary to defend the rule of law throughout the coronavirus con job has been quite noticeable in many countries besides Canada. The Gagné scandal in Canada’s Federal Court calls attention to the systematic failure of many Canadian judges to deal competently and fairly with the proliferation of legal disputes concerning COVID restrictions and mandates imposed by the federal and provincial governments.
Justice Gagné has decided not to hand down a ruling on the relevant cases alleging that the Trudeau government violated Canada’s constitution with its prohibition on air and rail travel for the unvaccinated. The cases were put before the courts by litigants who accused the government of violating the mobility rights of Canadians as recognized and affirmed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Honourable Brian Peckford, former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, has been the most visible and outspoken public proponent of the core principles that have now been denied their day in court by Associate Chief Justice Gagné. In 1981 Premier Peckford helped draft the Charter. He was one of the ten provincial and federal First Ministers who led their governments in ratifying the Charter as part of a larger package of constitutional amendments known as the Constitution Act 1982.
In his public explanation to Canadians of his decision to use the courts as a means of trying to nudge the Trudeau government to respect the rights and freedoms of Canadians as articulated in the Charter, he described the document at issue as Canada’s “National Law.” According to Peckford, the dismissive treatment of the Charter, first by the Trudeau government and now by the Federal Court, is reflective of Canada’s sorry “state of acquiescence and servitude unworthy of our history.” See this
Justice Gagné based her decision on her acceptance of the Trudeau government’s argument that the matter was “moot.” She adopted the core arguments in the submission of the Canadian Attorney General, David Lametti, the current chief law officer of the federal Crown. The federal submission argued that since federal travel restrictions have been “suspended” since June, there are no longer any pressing issues to be addressed. See this.
David Lametti has the dubious distinction of having been chosen by Justin Trudeau to replace Jody Wilson-Raybould. Wilson Raybould-Wilson is the former Attorney General who left her position as Canada’s chief law officer because the Prime Minister reportedly tried to intervene politically in the independence of her legal decision to press criminal charges against the federal Liberal Party’s primary corporate ally and backer, SNC Lavalin
As the new round of Liberal Party scandals gets underway, a spotlight is once again being placed on the Office of the Attorney General. In representing the Crown, the chief law officer of Canada is supposed to put his responsibility to represent the legal rights and public interests of Canadians above partisan politics. It seems Trudeau learned from the Wilson-Raybould episode to protect himself by appointing an Attorney-General who would have no qualms about allowing politics to overcome his duty of non-partisanship when it comes to his duties as the Queen of Canada’s lead representative in the realm of the courts.
In response to Justice Gagné’s decision, Alison Pejovic, a legal counsel for the applicants that brought the cases against the Canadian government, commented, “the travel mandate represents one of the most egregious infringements of Canadians’ mobility rights in Canadian history, and in our view, striking the lawsuit out before it is heard– and while the Canadian Prime Minister continues to threaten Canadians with further COVID restrictions, is a grave injustice.” See this.
Karl Harrison, a businessman who was one of the applicants in the cases put before the Federal Court, commented,
“Six million Canadians, deprived unconstitutionally of protected rights for nearly a year and subjected to discrimination, will be as offended as we are that this judge felt that their concerns were not worth the cost of a 5 day hearing in the Federal Court,” he said.
“The issues here are no more moot than is the behavior of an abusive spouse who beats their partner for a year, and demands absolution for doing no more than temporarily stopping whilst threatening to start all over again sometime in the future.” See this.
The Stark Contradiction between the Charter’s Protection of Rights and Freedoms and the Imposition by Governments of COVID Restrictions and Mandates
We are now almost three years into the manufactured COVID crisis. Throughout this period the judiciary in Canada has neglected to do due diligence by clarifying for us citizens how to navigate the stark legal contradiction that has engulfed the Canadian polity since the celebrity virus began to be featured as the primary subject in world news.
This contradiction sets the Charter of Rights and Freedom adopted in 1982 against the COVID restrictions and mandates imposed by the federal and provincial governments. The Charter was meant to protect mobility rights as well as the full array of other individual rights including those of freedom of expression, assembly, religion, and bodily autonomy.
As in many countries, the individuals’ rights once proclaimed as sacrosanct were made to sink beneath the weight of the COVID restrictions and mandates. For instance, many have faced all manner of discriminatory recriminations, including loss of employment and access to education, for opting not to receive government-mandated jabs that we now know to be killing and injuring many millions worldwide.
This state of affairs in the ill-defined twilight zone between Canadians’ Charter of rights and the coercive impositions of government dictates extending even into the very bodies of the Canadian people, remains shrouded in uncertainty. Our governments have been pushing us coercively in one direction while the apparent force of Canada’s “supreme law”– including the Charter– attracts many of us in the opposite direction.
The creation of such tension, confusion, and uncertainty in determining what conduct lies inside or outside the rule of law is not conducive to social stability, sound economic interactions, or personal well-being. Many police officers throughout Canada and many other countries for that matter, have been put in especially stressful and difficult positions.
The higher conscience and sense of personal duty of many law enforcement officials have drawn them to want to use their professional discretion on the job to uphold the Charter. Concurrently, their sense of responsibility as, for instance, the primary breadwinners of their families might cause police officers simply to follow orders emanating from chains of command that are most often very politicized. One such chain leads upwards to the anti-Charter zealots presently inhabiting the Office of the Canadian Prime Minister.
The dilemma facing police officers is representative of many variations of similar conflicts experienced not only between groups but within individuals. Since 2020 countless variations of the widespread phenomena of conflicting loyalties have permeated human interactions across many realms of personal and collective activity.
The courts are the only institutions in a position to legally resolve the widespread conflict of interest, loyalties, perceptions, and actions. But for some cruel and unexplained reason, the judiciary right up to the Supreme Court of Canada has denied the Canadian people the sole remedy that would have injected a degree of certainty into the unfolding fiasco that since 2020 has destabilized the world in such deep, pervasive and proliferating ways.
The judiciary has been playing fast and loose with the rule of law during the duration of this WHO-declared pandemic. This judicial folly is now highlighted and symbolized by Justice Gagné’s atrocious non-decision decision. From her judicial podium, Justice Gagné has declared that the issues raised by an intrusive and far-reaching government attack on individuals’ rights, freedoms, and liberties have simply become “moot.” Unfortunately, this kind of low-end thinking at the high end of power is all-too-typical of the sad state of Canada after seven years of Justin Trudeau’s reign of increasingly inept, irresponsible, and sometimes criminal governance.
The Violated Charter Rights of Canadians Have Now Become “Moot”
The Federal Court’s refusal to address the elephant in the room is thoughtfully described in an article by Alexander Brighton entitled “Justice Delayed, Justice Denied.” Brighton asserts, “The entire handling of these challenges [concerning government travel prohibitions for the “unvaccinated”] is a grave miscarriage of justice, a part of a deeply concerning trend occurring in Canada, both generally, and in particular concerning any attempt to hold the provincial or federal governments accountable for their pandemic policies.”
The author goes on to make a striking comparison. He writes, “Imagine the court ruling on the government’s use of residential schools as ‘moot.’ Stop living in the past! The schools are closed! It was a different government.”
Brighton sums up his argument, writing, “In short, to Justice Gagne, the most unprecedented government restrictions of civil liberties since the FLQ crisis in the 1970s are moot now. Harms from government policies are hypothetical or abstract.”
Justice Gagné’s finding that problems with medical restrictions and mandates are now over and done with, constitutes a grave misapprehension that calls into question the professional acumen of Canada’s Federal Court. The Federal Court presumably holds many of the keys that can unlock access to the proceedings of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Instead of pushing along a major constitutional challenge to the highest court in the land, however, the Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court is doing her best to incarcerate a core Canadian controversy in permanent quarantine.
Who benefits from her decision to evade the most conspicuous area of legal uncertainty in Canada these days? Certainly, it is not the Canadian people. For almost three years now the Canadian judiciary has denied us a sound legal explanation from a high court on how to be law-abiding in navigating new kinds of government mandates and restrictions.
The continuing nature of the manufactured COVID crisis was underlined when, in mid-October, Justin Trudeau resumed his imperious issuing of implied threats to promote the continuing booster shots along with flu shots for Canadians. On October 17 it was reported that the Prime Minister said, “If we are able to get a high enough level of vaccination, we can reduce the danger of having to take other health measures to make sure that we’re all safe and not overloading our hospitals.”
What “other health measures” is Trudeau contemplating if Canadians fail to comply in large numbers with his prime ministerial instructions? What is to be said of yet another attempt by a public official to threaten and scare us into compliance by recycling yet again unfounded prophecies of “overloaded hospitals” to come? Do you remember the flood of dance videos filmed by COVID nurses with time on their hands in empty hospitals?
When will the regime media stop disgracing itself by reproducing Trudeau’s retrogressive pronouncements without putting his lies-based fear-mongering in context?
In spite of the zealousness of the ongoing cover-up, the news has now become inescapable even in the dark enclaves of government health departments that the COVID jabs are sometimes deadly and often injurious. Justin Trudeau is doing himself no favors by appearing on television to flaunt either his utter dishonesty or his ignorance in totally denying what is widely known to be going on.
Sooner or later Trudeau will have to face some reckoning with his own prominent role in the genesis of the massive healthcare disaster currently unfolding in Canada and around the world. With his ongoing repetitions of the unscientific mantra that the mRNA gene insertion injections are totally “safe,” is the Prime Minister drawing citizens towards unnecessary injuries or worse? Will Trudeau ever face trials himself as the accused in major criminal proceedings for his nation-destroying mode of handling of the COVID files?
Many other signals are being sent that more invasive restrictions are on their way, restrictions now starting to turn the corner from COVID towards a probable onslaught of ill-considered “Green” restrictions and mandates. Did the illegal COVID Lockdowns prepare the way for Climate Change Lockdowns to come? Who is pushing this agenda? By now it is well established that Trudeau is one of the most notorious political puppets of the Big Money corporatists who base their globalist enterprises at the WHO, at the other Bill Gates “philanthropies,” as well as at BlackRock Corp. and the World Economic Forum. This list is far from complete.
We may or may or may not be moving away from yet another phase of the COVID crisis. Nevertheless, the protagonists in what I have described as the COVID-19 power grab have made it clear they are not done with us yet, far from it. Unfortunately, it seems the protagonists can anticipate that the Canadian judiciary will remain compliant with their agenda of the “Great Reset” that serves the few by further eliminating, genetically modifying, and subjugating the many.
Liberal Party Judges on the Make
Independent research points quickly to evidence that the Liberal Party minority government of Canada is politically manipulating some members of the judiciary. As noted above, some of the background and context of the story outlined here involves Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s elevation of Justice Gagné in 2018 to her current role as Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court. See this.
The Trudeau government also appointed another known Liberal Party Judge, Paul Rouleau, to the job of chairing the parliamentary inquiry into the Liberal-NDP decision to invoke the Emergency Act in February of 2022. Of Rouleau, the Edmonton Sun reported that he is “a member of the Liberal party, a supporter of the Liberal party, worked for the Liberal party and was appointed to the bench by a past Liberal prime minister, Paul Martin.” See this.
Moreover, Rouleau was for a time a partner at Heenan Blaike, the Montreal law firm that employed Justin’s father, the former Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Julie Bourgeois embodies the most obvious case of a Liberal Party judge jumping in to assist the Liberal Party leader in carrying out an aspect of his very personal political vendetta against a key leader of the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy. With great effectiveness, this Convoy and its supporters famously embarrassed the inept Canadian Prime Minister in front of a global audience.
The Truckers and their supporters brought wide public attention in North America and across the world, to the intellectual and ethical poverty of the COVID policies promoted by the Canadian government and by other WEF puppet governments such as those in the Netherlands, New Zealand, California, Australia, and France.
Before opting to help her friend. Justin Trudeau, in his attempt to criminalize the imagery of the Canadian Truckers, Judge Bourgeois was an unsuccessful Liberal candidate in the federal election of 2011. Justin Trudeau personally endorsed the Bourgeois campaign. See this.
On February 22 Judge Bourgeois denied bail to Tamara Lich, the very amiable founder of the Freedom Convoy movement. Lich was jailed in Ottawa for the alleged crime of “counseling mischief.”
Having been convicted of nothing, Ms. Lich faced harsh condemnations in her first court hearing before Judge Bourgeois. Reports show that the presiding judge found the Convoy leader was “obstinate and disingenuous” in answering questions. On this basis Judge Bourgeois ordered that the alleged counselor of mischief must stay in jail because her continued detention without conviction was “necessary for the protection and safety of the public.” See this.
When she discovered later that the judge who had decided to deny her bail had been a Liberal candidate endorsed by Justin Trudeau, Ms. Lich signed an affidavit. In it, Ms. Lich stated that if she had had the relevant information, she would have asked that Judge Bourgeois recuse herself from the case.
The infatuation of some Canadian judges with denying bail to members of the Canadian Truckers movement, in four cases in Alberta for at least a year and a half, makes mincemeat of habeas corpus principles. These principles evolved in more recent times into the widespread principle that respect for universal human rights requires that innocence must be assumed until guilt is proven in court.
This pattern of Liberal infiltration of the judiciary extends also to Liberal infiltration of the RCMP and other branches of the criminal justice system. As I have explained elsewhere, the propensity seems especially evident in the apparent efforts of some Crown officials to criminally entrap some individuals involved in the Truckers’ demonstration at Coutts Alberta. See this and this.
If there had been a timely and fair judicial process to assess the legal role of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in government responses to the appearance of the new coronavirus, perhaps much trouble could have been headed off. Perhaps there would have been no need for a Canadian Truckers’ movement to give expression to the response of many that there was something truly rotten going on in Canada as a result of the manufactured hysteria leading to the restrictions and mandates imposed in the name of fighting COVID-19.
The History of the Constitution Act 1982 including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms emerged from an era of Canadian history of avid competition between the forces of Canadian federalism and the forces of Québécois independence. Justin’s father, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, led the federalist forces. Premier Rene Levesque led a provincial party devoted to realizing the formation of an independent Quebec.
Trudeau beat Levesque in 1980 in a referendum asking Quebec citizens to vote yes or no on a plan to bring about Quebec independence. Energized and empowered by this major political win, Pierre Trudeau initiated a process aimed at realizing his vision of a rejuvenated Canada. He sought to legally remove Canada from its remaining constitutional ties to Great Britain. The British Armed Forces seized control of Canada from imperial France in 1759.
Trudeau’s initiative led 1981 to the formulation of a number of new constitutional instruments including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On the way to this outcome, the Trudeau government decided to call on the imperial Parliament in Great Britain one last time to make laws for Canada. The British role in creating an institutional foundation for Canada’s governance should not be underestimated. It was, for instance, the British Imperial Parliament that ratified the British North America Act of 1867. The BNA Act included a provision for a new National Parliament to be based on Canada’s new capital city of Ottawa.
Pierre Trudeau’s goal was to put in place a new legal framework that would enable the Canadian people and governments to develop our own made-in-Canada structures of governance. In other parts of the world, this same process of colonial secession from the British Empire was frequently described as “decolonization.”
As a so-called “White Dominion,” more recently described as a “settler colony, Canada’s constitutional evolution within the British Empire and the British Commonwealth has been somewhat different from the British colonial structures developed in Africa and Asia. Their Indigenous peoples never were marginalized to the same extent as happened in the colonization of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The British government treated its South African colony also as a “White Dominion” even though the Indigenous peoples there remained a sizeable majority population.
All of the new constitutional provisions, including the Charter plus new provisions “recognizing and affirming existing Aboriginal and treaty rights,” were sanctioned by the Legislatures of 9 out of 10 Canadian provinces. Ratification also took place in the Canadian Parliament, the British Parliament, and in a signing ceremony by Queen Elizabeth.
The Levesque-led government of the province of Quebec did not take part in the process, including the process of drafting and ratifying the Charter. This placement of the province of Quebec outside the process of constitutional ratification continues to this day. The National Assembly of Quebec has not sanctioned, through a vote in the Legislature, the adoption of the Constitution Act 1982 including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Former Premier Brian Peckford took center stage in the public education campaign leading up to Justice Gagné’s recent snubbing of the Charter cases challenging the legality of the federal government’s COVID restrictions and mandates. Peckford contributed significantly to the circuit of live and social media presentations that also included the widely webcast information sessions hosted in Ottawa by Tamara Lich and the other members, allies, and supporters of the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy.
In explaining the genesis and attributes of the Charter, Brian Peckford made frequent reference to his own role in drafting the Charter and in ushering it as well as the rest of the Constitution Act 1982 through the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Charter as a Platform of Political Lobbying to Advance the “Rights” of Some Interests Over the “Rights” of Other Interests
Section 1 of the Charter presents an important qualification that potentially limits the scope of all the rights and freedoms of individual Canadian citizens. Section 1 asserts,
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
This seemingly innocuous phrase has proven to be hugely controversial. Some see the Charter controversies as the basis of a huge make-work project that has greatly enriched the Canadian legal profession including its judicial branch. The Charter has faced significant criticism because of the considerable discretion it creates for appointed judges to sometimes overrule the decision-making authority of elected officials. Section 1 of the Charter must be read in relation to Section 52 of the Constitution Act 1982. Section 52 (1) asserts
“The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”
This provision empowers members of the Canadian judiciary to affirm the existence and extent of Charter rights and freedoms, subject only to legal enactments that can be demonstrably justified as being consistent with the attributes of a free and democratic society. This “subject to” qualification has created a very large space for judges to exercise personal discretion in altering the shape of Canada’s legal landscape.
The process of giving a legal interpretation to the provisions of the Charter has been instrumental in helping to create the basis of a large and lucrative juridical industry in Canada. The elaborate procedures to interpret the Charter in ways that can be translated into real-world applications have generally been good to lawyers as well as to the judges that emerge from the practice of the law.
The jurists have enjoyed significant and well-remunerated opportunities to advocate for the rights of some interests over the “rights” of others. To the winners go the spoils.
The Charter in Action
A good example of the role of judges in the process of Charter interpretation took place in 1990 when the Supreme Court decided to see whether the “Hate Propaganda” laws in Canada’s Criminal Code should be retained in light of the Free Speech provisions in Section 2 (b) of the Charter. On his way to becoming Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau took part in a Committee that helped prepare the Hate Propaganda provisions before installing them in Canada’s Criminal Code in the early 1970s.
The “Hate Propaganda” sections were retained in 19090 on the basis of a bare majority vote by four of the seven Supreme Court Justices. Three Justices articulated the position that the “Hate Propaganda” laws in Canada’s Criminal Code should be eliminated in light of the institution of Canada’s then-recent “supreme law.” Judge Beverly McLaughlin drafted the position of the three dissenting Justices who agreed that the retention of the “Hate Propaganda” laws would have a “crippling effect” on the vitality and boldness of public discourse in Canada.
In discussing the lower court’s finding on the guilt of the defendant in the Keegstra case, Judge McLaughlin explained why the Hate Propaganda and Hate Speech provisions should be eliminated. She argued that the definition of Hate Speech in the Criminal Code was so vague as to be “virtually unlimited.”
In the view of the three judicial dissenters, the retention of the Hate Speech provisions in Canadian criminal law would have dangerously constrained the expressiveness of speech and publication in Canada. It would cripple and negate the liberating potential of the Charter’s Free Speech provisions. Dire consequences would grow if the Supreme Court extended backing to those wielding hate speech laws to silence or limit free expression. Canadians would be deprived of a key means of “fostering a vibrant and creative society through the marketplace of ideas; the value of the vigorous and open debate essential to democratic government and preservation of our rights and freedoms; and the value of a society which fosters the self‑actualization and freedom of its members. See this.
The Charter has established a framework to create and energize well-funded lobbies organized to influence public opinion, politicians, and especially the judiciary as the lead officers of the courts. One of the most powerful of these lobbies is devoted to promoting the interests of a foreign country.
The judges have it in their power to determine how far certain rights can be pushed before they become so demonstrably unreasonable that they become unjustifiable in “free and democratic society.” This combination of judicial and lobbying functions can easily produce slippage from legitimate legal interpretation into the realm of political advocacy veiled behind the guise of jurisprudence.
This consideration sets the background and context for Justice Gagne’s decision to not decide the supposedly “moot” matter of how the Charter does or does not apply to the COVID restrictions and mandates of governments. This decision is right in line with the agenda of the powerful lobby responsible for originating and continuing the COVID-19 power grab.
Justice Gagné’s evasion of judicial responsibility to assess the dysfunction of the Charter and its advocates during the COVID crisis would not seem so conspicuous if it had not been for the huge resources of time and money poured into Charter-related activities.
Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the argument of the Trudeau government as mirrored by Justice Gagné. The PM, Attorney-General Lametti, and Justice Gagné apparently agree that there is no pressing need to arbitrate the federal COVID restrictions and mandates in light of the Charter’s promise to recognize and affirm the mobility rights of Canadians. Such issues are said to have become too abstract and ephemeral to justify a significant apportionment of expensive and scarce court time.
In the days following Justice Gagné’s decision to not render a decision on the constitutional controversies put before her court, the Associate Chief Justice issued her “reasons.” She ruled,
“There is no important public interest or inconsistency in the law that would justify allocating significant judicial resources to hear these moot applications.” See this.
What utter dribble! The manufactured crisis that began in 2020 and continues yet is jam-packed with “inconsistencies in the law,” inconsistencies that are regularly the source of many frustrations or worse for millions of Canadians regularly. Thus there is a huge “public interest” in putting an end to the most disruptive of these inconsistencies by taking the Peckford and other related cases to completion in the courts. Such an outcome with a thoughtful judicial ruling would shed light on how it is that section 2 of the Charter has been rendered inoperative when we needed it most. Section 2 asserts;
“2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.”
Doesn’t Justice Gagne’s decision to produce no ruling at all imply that the political branch of government is entirely within its constitutional rights to switch on or off the Charter, selectively or in full, without so much as a reference to the judicial branch of government? With that kind of logic, why do we need any further expenditure of “significant judicial resources” at all? If the courts continue to just watch on as totalitarian tyranny takes hold of Canada, why allow the judiciary to keep their perks while they let themselves become mere props in the fairy tale we continue to have a vibrant democracy? Are some judges actually willing agents of the totalitarian authoritarianism engulfing Canada and many other countries as the ethos of might makes right continues to gain ground?
It seems there are powerful interests with significant stakes in retaining the precedents set throughout the WHO-declared pandemic, precedents like those that support future medical experiments on human subjects without their informed consent. How much clear could it be that these powerful interests do not want certain questions asked let alone answered, especially within the extremely influential forum of judicial arbitration?
A Real Emergency Growing from a Manufactured Emergency
With some exceptions, judges in Canada have been mostly unwilling to demonstrate their judicial independence from the government policies and actions that have taken center stage during the COVID crisis. In case after case involving COVID-related legal disputes, the Canadian judiciary seems to be caught in the headlights of a festering constitutional crisis largely of its own making.
Generally, speaking members of the judiciary have done a very bad job adjudicating COVID cases simply by assuming the veracity of statistical and other evidence put forward by governments. In other words, Canadian judges have by and large accepted as “fact” the government side of adversarial cases. Such “facts” are often no such thing. Such “facts” often emerge from secret and flawed processes of governments that are often subject to all manner of political pressure to produce certain outcomes such as increasing the profitability of favored drug companies and privatized health care providers.
Judicial over-dependence on government interpretations as well as the judicial tendency in COVID-related matters to downgrade or disregard the evidence brought forward by individuals or by non-governmental organizations, is proving to have injurious and sometimes even lethal outcomes for members of the public. Too often government mistakes and even lies are translated by lazy, inept, or corrupt judges directly into legal “facts”.
Competent judicial determination of legal “facts” requires diligent and open-minded evaluation of the evidence brought forward by the litigants on all sides of the legal contentions at issue.
Was it ignorance or malice that found reflection in Justice Gagné’s unwillingness to patiently afford a full hearing of the Peckford approach to the constitutional crisis? The juridical hot spot in which Justice Gagné found herself was largely the outcome of almost three years of judging in Canada without serious judicial regard for the role of the Charter in the manufactured COVID crisis.
Quite likely there was a very effective global lobby helping to submerge the Charter away from serious judicial attention because similar phenomena prevailed in most of the world’s 195 countries. At the level of both domestic and international law, constitutional provisions to protect human rights and civil liberties were conveniently pre-empted once the WHO-declared pandemic was enacted.
Canadian judges on the bench have been overly inclined to make themselves agents and facilitators of government COVID policies. Increasingly these policies are showing themselves to be more the product of politics than science. To its everlasting shame, this dependence on politics over science seems to have taken hold of the judiciary as well. It is the political deeds of major power brokers that have been most responsible for causing economic and social devastation as well as the rise in injuries and deaths. The increase of deaths has been showing up in the form of huge increases in all-cause mortalities in 2021 and early 2022.
Alternatively, the Canadian judges have, like the regime media, been much too quick to disregard the evidence of many learned analysts whose diagnoses, interpretations, and predictions have proven to be much more accurate than the prognostications produced by bought-and-paid-for government experts.
By and large, most of our judges in Canada have simply bypassed their professional duty to dig down deep into the nitty gritty of competing collections of evidence and interpretations in order to identify the genuine truths and weed out mistakes, fabrications, distortions, and lies. Such open-minded yet skeptical assessment of all sides of the legal contentions in COVID-related cases is the only way to determine genuine “facts.” Anything else is judicial dependence on mere assumptions disguised as “facts” often put forward to advance the agendas of powerful interests working behind the scenes.
The unwillingness of most judges to give fair consideration to all sides of COVID contentions has not gone unnoticed. Over time the increased awareness of judicial bias is generating growing public hostility towards the courts and the judges that preside over them. This hostility shows similarities to the popular frustration that accompanied the decision of the US Supreme Court not to address the evidence of what seemed like massive fraud in the US presidential election of 2020. See this.
The US Supreme Court lost much respect and credibility in the eyes of many Americans when the country’s top judges refused to even look at the mass of evidence that seemed to show that vote-rigging had occurred on a massive scale. The same trajectory of soured public opinion is starting to emanate from the fact that Canadian judges are apparently attached to the large perks of their office but not to the heavy responsibilities they bear towards a society that depends on them to offer checks, especially when overzealous governments resort to coercive authoritarianism.
Just as citizens have been betrayed by our self-interested judiciary, so too have we been portrayed by the universities and most media venues traditionally have also been expected to provide strategic checks on excesses of government authoritarianism.
COVID and Alberta Independence
The failure of Canada’s federal courts combined with the failures of many other national institutions, including Parliament, is stimulating much propensity in Albertans, including me, to seek significant alternatives that break out of the Confederation paradigm enacted in the British Parliament in 1867. The antagonism towards the national government is becoming so marked that there is growing popular agitation for provincial assertions of Albertan sovereignty or maybe even outright Albertan secession and independence.
This mood is beginning to permeate the Office of the new Alberta Premier, Danielle Smith. Smith will face off next May in a provincial election with former NDP Premier Rachel Notley. The Smith government in Alberta is already drafting what the new Premier is describing as an “Alberta Sovereignty Act.”
Premier Smith recently made it clear she has lost patience with the subordination of Alberta healthcare institutions to the Trudeau government’s approach to medical restrictions and mandates. As Klaus Schwab regularly boasts, much of the cabinet in the Trudeau government takes their lead from the Davos-based World Economic Forum. See this.
The veering away of many Albertans from Justin Trudeau’s and Jagmeet Singh’s favorite international organization, the World Economic Forum, is reflective of a province that has sent exactly one Liberal Party MP to the Parliament in Ottawa in the last two elections. In the growing Canada-Alberta divide, the COVID restrictions and mandates are becoming clear centers of gravity in federal-provincial relations. To back up this contention I conclude with a short video where Danielle Smith acknowledges serious discrimination inflicted especially by the government on the so-called “unvaccinated.”
Prof. Anthony James Hall is a Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada where he has taught for 25 years. Along with Kevin Barrett, Tony is co-host of False Flag Weekly News at No Lies Radio Network. Prof. Hall is also Editor-In-Chief of the American Herald Tribune.
His recent books include The American Empire and the Fourth World (Part I) as well as Earth into Property: Colonization, Decolonization, and Capitalism (Part II). Both are peered reviewed academic texts published by McGill-Queen’s University Press. Prof. Hall is a contributor to both books edited by Dr. Barrett on the two false flag shootings in Paris in 2015.
Part II was selected by The Independent in the UK as one of the best books of 2010. The journal of the American Library Association called Earth into Property “a scholarly tour de force.” One of the book’s features is to set 9/11 and the 9/11 Wars in the context of global history since 1492.