Prof. Bruce Pardy was part of this new conference of those who support the freedom movement in Ottawa. His short speech there is quite impressive and worth sharing. I have transcribed it below.
You may heard suggestions that the truckers have made their point and they should pack up and go. And you may have also heard that what needs to happen next is a negotiation. Both these ideas are misguided. They miss the point.
The point is that vaccine mandates and other Covid rules are illegitimate. Not just bad policy. Not just inconvenient. They are illegitimate. The truckers were very clear before they arrived: they are free people. They are not about to agree to not be free. I think you’ll find that the truckers regard their freedoms as non-negotiable.
And I don’t think you’ll find them leaving until the mandates are gone. So there’s really no point in pursuing negotiation. And in particular there’s nothing much that the City of Ottawa can do to achieve this aim … the mandates and other Covid rules are both federal and provincial. It’s not just a federal problem. This is federal and provincial. This is a national problem …
It may carry on for a good while until the change that we need is achieved. Second, liberal democracies depend on the theory of the consent of the governed. The behaviour of public authorities during this Covid period has undermined that consent. It has undermined trust in government institutions.
These people, the truckers and the people who support them, and are essentially saying they do not consent … This is not a protest. This is a movement. It’s organic, it’s spontaneous. People of all kinds are pitching in to help. There are lots of organizations who are independently working together to support our truckers.
And please note that Ottawa may be ground zero, but this is spreading far and wide, spontaneously, organically, in Canada, and outside. Don’t think this is just a few trucks blocking a few streets. That would be to misconstrue what is going on.
People in this country have been sleeping and our truckers have woken them up. It’s significant not just because of Covid. It looks like Covid is the problem and believe me, the Covid rules and regime is the most immediate problem.
But this is really a challenge to the nanny state, to the authority of our ruling class. And this is why they’re so upset about this. It’s not just a few streets being blocked. That’s not a big deal.
This is a challenge to the legitimacy and the authority of our ruling class. There’s a movement coming together that says “enough!”
We are challenging the idea, the very idea that experts, officials, and politicians should be able to tell us how to live. And that transcends Covid. Once Covid rules are gone, then we have something else to talk about.
Here are some articles by Bruce Pardy in the Epoch Times.
This was written a few months ago. It’s worth sharing:
by Bruce Pardy, National Post, Nov. 20, 2021
Many years ago, as a new law student, I had a moment of disbelief. “Surely it doesn’t really work this way,” I thought to myself as I sat in an early class. The law, I discovered, is not a set of immutable rules, predictable and secure. Instead, it is rife with ambiguity, riddled with uncertainty, and subject to the whims, temperaments and follies of human beings who make and apply it. And yet, as I also came to realize, it has often worked well. The Western legal tradition, upon which the Canadian system is based, has protected individual autonomy better than any other legal system in history. The problem is that for decades that tradition, and the culture from whence it came, have slowly been eroding. And now, during COVID, when the law has let us down, there is a tide in the affairs of Canadians.
Late last week, three colleagues and I launched the Free North Declaration, a call to defend civil liberties in this country, which lawyers and members of the public are invited to endorse. So far more than 6,000 have done so, including over 100 lawyers. The declaration outlines the ways in which legal authorities — legislatures, governments, public health officials, professional regulators, administrative bodies and public institutions — have restricted Canadians’ liberties during the COVID-19 pandemic. They have done so shrewdly, to attempt to remain inside the strict letter of the law and to avoid triggering protections in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Over the past year and a half, legal challenges to lockdowns and quarantines have mostly failed in the courts, whose decisions have largely embraced governments’ COVID narratives.
Canada was in trouble as soon as COVID hit. “Crises are an ideal time for the state to advance into territory from which it will not wish to retreat,” I wrote in the Financial Post in April 2020. “In this new era, we will discover that leaders of all political stripes have more than a little Lenin in them.” It is 20 months since “two weeks to flatten the curve,” and Canadians’ liberties are under siege like never before.
Canadians’ liberties are under siege like never before
It may not seem that way if you are double-vaccinated and going to restaurants and concerts again, but keeping your hall pass will require booster shots on schedule. The caring arms of the pharmaceutical industry and public health are now reaching out to protect kids from nonexistent risk. The purpose of vaccine passports, authorities have acknowledged, is not to control spread of the virus, which vaccinated and unvaccinated both can do, but to pressure people to get jabbed. How much and for how long vaccines reduce the risk of infection are in dispute. Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has no record of any unvaccinated person spreading COVID after recovering from it. Masking persists everywhere, along with the idea upon which this tragedy began: Governments must keep us safe from viruses and the vicissitudes of life.
The panic-demic did not start the fraying of the Western legal tradition, which has been underway for decades. In 1975, Prof. Harold Berman lamented that the idea that law transcends politics and is distinct from the state — a feature of that tradition — had “yielded to the view that law is at all times basically an instrument of the state, a means of effecting the will of those who exercise political authority.” The instrumentalist, managerial state runs on the arrogance of experts, who believe that ordinary people cannot make their way in the world without direction from them. As Friedrich Hayek wrote, “there could hardly be a more unbearable — and more irrational — world than one in which the most eminent specialists in each field were allowed to proceed unchecked with the realization of their ideals.” But experts now have control, and they do not plan to give it up.
- Raymond J. de Souza: Government overreach on COVID measures has been about power — not the pandemic
- Bruce Pardy: Even in a COVID snitch society, surveilling your judge is wrong
No longer does the individual have the right to act without regard for “public good.” Instead, authorities will return the freedom to make your own choices only when it is safe to do so. While we were sleeping, the individual became subordinate to the collective. People are apt to believe that the law will save them when things go bad, but simply taking cases to court won’t fix this. The law is subject to cultural tides and currents, and when the culture goes askew, the law will provide little refuge.
Alone, the Free North Declaration will change nothing. It will not influence omnipotent moral busybodies exercising tyranny for the good of its victims, as C.S. Lewis put it. Nor will it move people comfortable with giving up responsibility for their own decisions. Instead, the declaration is for those who see that something is not right in this country, and who need to know that others see it, too — and that there are still lawyers who will stand up for their freedoms. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote, let each of us make a choice: “Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood — of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies — or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect … And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general — let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.”
When the tide comes, we must take the current or lose the country. Please join us in the voyage of our lives.
Free North Declaration
We are Canadian lawyers. In our country, civil liberties are under unprecedented attack. Governments, public health authorities, universities, public and private employers, municipalities, and businesses are trampling Canadians’ rights and freedoms. Our free society is at risk.
COVID rules restrict citizens’ abilities to work, shop, travel and socialize. They erode civil liberties strategically, attempting to not run afoul of the law or to trigger protections in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms such as liberty and security of the person, the freedoms of association, assembly, expression, conscience, religion, and mobility rights. Where COVID rules appear to have violated the Charter, courts have deferred to the state to take whatever measures it deems necessary, whether demonstrably justifiable or not.
Legislatures have passed statutes that delegate broad discretionary powers to unelected public health officials, who then create draconian legal restrictions by fiat, without public scrutiny or open debate. These directives give private and public employers cover to suspend and dismiss workers who insist on their right to decide their own medical treatments. In our system of law, no principle is more important than the right to control your own body and to make your own medical and health decisions. An anxious populace, swept up in a deliberate campaign of fear, now believes that individual liberties upon which our liberal democracy is founded are dangerous and selfish. A growing collectivism that demands safety at the expense of autonomy shapes public policy.
Courts have embraced the pandemic narrative, some taking judicial notice of the nature of risks of the virus and safety of vaccines to adults and children. But the facts are anything but settled. Courts are supposed to be neutral. On COVID, as on any other contentious subject, their mandate is to find facts exclusively upon the evidence adduced by the parties in the courtroom. Instead, courts appear to have taken a side on COVID. Access to justice and the rule of law are now at risk. Unvaccinated persons are banned from juries, throwing into question the ability of all to obtain a fair trial heard by a jury of their peers. Irrational policies born of panic affect no one more than disadvantaged communities who already suffer from lack of access to justice.
The right to privacy and control of personal medical information has been abandoned. Disclosure of vaccination status is becoming a requirement for working, travelling, entering public and private establishments, crossing the border, and sometimes medical treatment. Those who cannot or will not disclose face aggressive social disapprobation. Vaccine passports create the infrastructure for a global digital surveillance system. Institutions that last year were prohibited from collecting individual medical history now demand it as a condition of employment or admission. University and college students are being denied their education for refusing to disclose their own medical choices.
Medical regulators have become dictatorial. They have warned doctors not to express medical opinions that might conflict with official COVID policies, effectively censoring them, and directed them not to certify grounds for medical exemptions from vaccination requirements, rupturing the physician-patient relationship and breaching the principle that only a practitioner who has examined a patient is equipped to give a diagnosis. Human rights commissions, which until recently championed expansive interpretations of human rights, have issued edicts narrowing grounds for accommodations.
COVID rules are inconsistent and irrational. Authorities enforce them selectively and preferentially, coming down hard on common people while turning a blind eye to the privileged. COVID vaccines do not prevent people from becoming infected or from transmitting the virus to others, but only unvaccinated persons are banned or required to undergo testing. People who have recovered from COVID and therefore have natural immunity are still subject to vaccination mandates even though the purpose of vaccination is to mimic natural immunity. Governments, public health authorities and employers advise that COVID vaccinations are safe, but pharmaceutical companies have been granted immunity from liability and no employers will accept legal responsibility for side-effects or adverse events, whether minor or serious, suffered by their employees who take a vaccine that they do not want. The risks posed by COVID vaccines may be in dispute, but they are not zero. Particularly for children and healthy young adults, they may be riskier than the virus.
We fear the erosion of our free society. We question the single-minded fixation on a virus that poses little risk to most people. We protest the uncalculated harms that COVID policies are causing to people’s health, livelihoods, relationships, and mental states. We oppose the mass hysteria and anxiety that governments and the media are fuelling. Most of all, we object to the deterioration of our civil liberties and the failure of our legal institutions — legislatures, governments, administrative bodies, and courts — to protect them.
We are appalled by what is happening in our country. We call for the immediate end of vaccine passports and mandates. We propose a public inquiry into the handling of all aspects of the declared pandemic. Canadians should have control of their own lives and have the right to make their own decisions about their health, medical treatments, personal information, travels, and associations. Canada is supposed to be a free country governed by the rule of law. Restore it now or risk losing it for good.
Bruce Pardy, LLB, LLM.
Lisa Bildy, JD, BA.
W. Christopher Nunn, BA (Hons), LLB.
Stephen J.W. Penney, JD, MA.
To inspect the full list of lawyer signatories, or to sign the Declaration, visit https://www.freenorthdeclaration.ca
And here are two articles by John Carpay for the The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a group fighting for Canadians’ basic rights at the present time.
POSTED ON: JANUARY 18, 2022
By John Carpay – The Interim
A friend of mine, a priest I have known for 32 years, recently told me to stop complaining about vaccine passports and various lockdown measures (masks, anti-social distancing, etc.) because they exist for the common good and are intended to save lives. Referencing the encyclical Diuturnum Illud, my priestly friend says that disobeying the law is a sin, unless that law is “openly repugnant to the natural law or the divine law.”
In similar fashion, pastors have told me that people should simply obey lockdown measures because Romans 13:1 says, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” However, the verses which follow after Romans 13:1 describe an authority which is “a servant of God” that “brings punishment on the wrongdoer” and “holds no terror for those who do right,” so Romans 13:1 is no endorsement of blind, unthinking obedience to every law.
A law must be an ordinance of reason for the common good. A law that deviates from reason is unjust, according to the Summa Theologiae, I-II Q93, article 3. The goal of preserving human life is legitimate. But this goal does not justify irrational laws that disregard known facts. Part of the common good is to promote the flourishing of human life and society. Our rights and freedoms are needed for a just, good, and healthy society, and ought not to be confiscated on the basis of irrational fear or unfounded speculation.
Is a law a just law simply because politicians declare that that law is for the common good? I suggest that in order for a law to be just, it must actually be for the common good, in truth and in substance.
Lockdown measures, and legal discrimination against unvaccinated Canadians, are based on six falsehoods:
(1) Covid is an unusually deadly killer like the Spanish Flu of 1918, that everyone should fear;
(2) There are no treatment options for Covid, other than lockdowns and vaccines;
(3) Lockdowns have saved lives;
(4) Lockdown harms are mere inconveniences, far outweighed by lockdown benefits;
(5) the new Covid vaccines are safe and effective; and
(6) The new Covid vaccines stop the spread of Covid.
The truth is quite different from this six-part, fear-filled narrative promoted daily by power-hungry politicians and government-funded media.
First, Covid is not the 1918 Spanish Flu or the bubonic plague of medieval times. Covid is a serious threat to elderly-and-sick people in nursing homes, but mostly harmless to children and to the vast majority of healthy adults. For Canadians under 70, Covid is less dangerous than driving in a car.
Second, there are peer-reviewed scientific studies suggesting that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid. Ivermectin has been used to treat Covid in India, Japan, and other countries.
Third, governments have not provided actual evidence that lockdowns have saved lives. Repeated assertions constitute propaganda, not evidence.
Fourth, Simon Fraser University professor Douglas Allen, and other researchers around the world, have demonstrated that lockdowns have killed and harmed many more people than they have saved.
Fifth, there is mounting evidence of people being harmed and killed by the new Covid vaccine. For young males, the risk of the vaccine causing the serious heart condition myocarditis is higher than the risk of harm from Covid. In the absence of any long-term safety testing, it is utterly irresponsible for public health authorities to claim these vaccines to be “safe.” As for the Covid shots being “effective,” this seems to be true for only six months.
Sixth, the vaccine manufacturers have themselves stated publicly that Covid vaccines do not stop the spread of Covid. All that the vaccine purportedly does is reduce the severity of sickness in individuals who receive it. We see Covid spreading in places with very high vaccination rates like Ireland, Israel, and Gibraltar.
Regarding these six points above, I would challenge priests and pastors (or anyone else) to tell me specifically where I am wrong, and to provide specific authorities that show me why and how I am wrong. Daily media fearmongering does not qualify as a credible authority.
Mandatory vaccination policies, and other lockdown measures in the past 21 months, are openly repugnant to the natural law and the divine law, because they are based on fallacies and falsehoods rather than on facts and truth. The Romans 13:1 general teaching to submit to authorities needs to be interpreted in light of the command to reject unjust laws: “we ought to obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29).
POSTED ON: JANUARY 6, 2022
By John Carpay, The Post Millennial
In an editorial dated December 20, 2021 the Toronto Star argues that “refusing to get vaccinated (other than for religious or health reasons) is a willful, selfish, anti-social act that can no longer be condoned,” and asks “is it time for our political leaders to make vaccination against Covid-19 the law?”
The Star asserts the following as “irrefutable” facts:
- The government of Canada has declared Covid vaccines safe.
- Vaccines reduce the risk of death from Covid and lower the burden on doctors and nurses holding our health care system together.
- If you are not vaccinated, you put yourself at risk and intentionally burden the health care system supporting your family, friends, and colleagues.
- When our hospital critical care units become overwhelmed with Covid care, they can no longer function to treat other diseases, injuries, and accidents.
- With hospitals overwhelmed, our government will mandate forced lockdowns, resulting in social isolation that has been shown to contribute to increased drug overdoses, suicides, and spousal abuse.
It is certainly true that “the government of Canada has declared Covid vaccines to be safe” but government declarations do not create reality. In the 1940s, governments authorized the widespread spraying of the “safe” insecticide DDT on people, in a sincere effort to “save lives” from polio, but DDT was banned in the 1970s as dangerous to public health.
The safety (or lack thereof) of any medical treatment should be determined by the individual patient, based on her voluntary and informed consent according to the Nuremberg Code. Making vaccines mandatory (which has already happened in Canada to a very large extent) is a direct and blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Charter provides that each person can decide for herself what she wishes to have injected into her body, without pressure from the threat of job loss, expulsion from university, the inability to leave and re-enter Canada freely, or the second-class citizenship now imposed on Canadians who legitimately exercise their right to bodily autonomy.
Lowering “the burden on doctors and nurses holding our health care system together” is something that could have, and should have, been addressed decades ago, and has little to do with Covid or with vaccines. Canada has doggedly refused to learn from superior health care systems in France, Japan, Germany, Singapore, and dozens of other countries where “hallway medicine” and deadly waiting lists are unheard of. Instead, we cherish our ideological commitment to a dysfunctional government monopoly system that serves patients poorly. Blaming overcrowded hospitals on any one particular virus or disease is intellectually dishonest, considering the fact that Canadian hospitals have been periodically overcrowded for many years.
The Star laments the choices of individuals who put themselves at risk and “intentionally burden the health care system.” Would the Star support coercive government measures to force smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts and obese people to make whatever the government deems to be better health and lifestyle choices? If the Star insists that there are “good patients” and “bad patients,” should the latter be deprived of their human rights, civil liberties, and Charter freedoms? The Star argues that “when our hospital critical care units become overwhelmed with Covid care, they can no longer function to treat other diseases, injuries and accidents.” The same can be said of smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts and obese people, but presumably the Star supports their freedom to make their own unhealthy lifestyle choices, and to exercise their Charter rights in a free society.
The Star acknowledges that lockdowns result in “social isolation that has been shown to contribute to increased drug overdoses, suicides and spousal abuse.” What a shame that the Star, and every other government-funded media outlet in Canada, paid so little attention to lockdown harms in 2020. Instead, media allowed politicians to get away with dismissing and glossing over the severe and numerous lockdown harms that have killed and injured so many Canadians.
The Star states that “Ontario has enforced mandatory immunization for diphtheria, tetanus, polio, mumps, rubella and other diseases in schools” and asks “Why is Covid any different?” Covid is different because the statistical risk of a child dying from Covid is like the statistical risk of a child dying from a lightning strike: close to zero. Covid poses a much smaller risk to children than drowning, which claims the lives of over 50 Canadian children each year. Canadians under 70 face a greater risk of harm or death from driving in a motor vehicle than from Covid. Covid is much closer to the annual flu than to the Spanish Flu of 1918.
Government policy in the past 21 months has been based on the demonstrably false predictions of Dr. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College who put the entire world into a state of permanent fear by claiming that Covid would kill tens of millions of people, like the Spanish Flu did in 1918-20. Apart from Covid not being the unusually deadly killer that the Star and other media make it out to be, the Covid vaccine has not been subjected to any long-term safety testing. Its protection wears off after months, in contrast to other vaccines which provide permanent, life-long protection. These are only some of the reasons which make the Covid vaccine very different from vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, polio, and other diseases.
The Star compares mandatory vaccination to mandatory conscription during the Second World War, which “put a generation of our beloved young people into battle to face certain injury and death.” But forcibly injecting Canadians with a substance that has not undergone long-term safety testing, to defend against a virus that has far more in common with the annual flu than with the Spanish Flu of 1918, is the polar opposite of what our soldiers fought and died for, which was the preservation of Canada as a free society.
“The only clear path to normalcy is vaccination,” argues the Star. Wrong. Canada has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world and yet our governments are still imposing draconian lockdown measures, including a curfew in Quebec. “Normal” seems a distant memory now.
Further, more evidence emerges daily about successful early treatment protocols that allow Covid patients to get better without needing to go to a hospital. Rather than attempting to refute the abundant research on Covid treatments, governments instead merely repeat their tired, old assertion that “there are no treatments available, other than lockdowns and vaccines.” More significantly, the violation of our Charter right to bodily autonomy should never be accepted as part of “normalcy.”
In light of the fact that Covid vaccines do not stop Covid spread, there is no medical or scientific reason for governments to coerce or pressure anyone to get injected. Declining the Covid vaccine is neither selfish nor anti-social. It is a free and legitimate personal choice that governments should support and uphold.