Open Letter to Premier Horgan —You Have Not Made The Case

Dear Premier Horgan,

I have been reading the news reports of you and your Government’s latest efforts announced yesterday, April 19, 2021 concerning the Wuhan Virus. It is difficult to get any written material directly of what you said but only press reports of what you are alleged to have said. Your own website does not carry your comments, for example. And the travel section of your website on restrictions talks of regions, not health regions, although the press talk of health regions. One should not have to wait for such important issues to be clarified now thirteen months in.

Additionally, Government pronouncements on the facts have been limited.  These often talk of cases as if they were all sick people, and I have not see the numbers of total acute care beds in the Province and total ICU beds. I have had to look elsewhere to find such information. What percentage of cases end up as hospitalization, what is the fatality rate for various age groups? What is the recovery rate? There seems to be no balance of all the facts but rather a concentration on the dire straits we are all in. Surely some context is necessary.

Sadly, you have followed the mantra of so many places where lockdowns have been implemented and have ignored the efforts of jurisdictions who have refrained from lockdowns or implemented mild ones.

If you had looked at this information, you would have seen that places like Florida have been successful without resorting to extreme measures as you and your Government are now implementing.

But what is most disconcerting for me are two things:

A. You and your Ministers have paid little attention, if any, to providing citizens with any type of cost benefit analysis when you announce your restrictive measures. This, in my view, is a major failing.

When the pandemic first affected this province, one perhaps could find sympathy with the view of move fast, figure out later. But not now. You have had time with your scores of advisors, experts, etc. to take a more thoughtful approach and examine the evidence. Have you, for example, read The Great Barrington Declaration of October 04, 2020? This has been authored, as of this date, by 13,985 medical and and public heath scientists and 42,520 medical practitioners.  Three of the founders of this declaration are world renowned professors and researchers at Oxford, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Stanford, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Harvard, Dr. Mutha Kulldorff, two Canadians, Dr. Matthew Strauss of Queen’s University and Dr. Annie Janvies, University of Montreal. Have you contacted these Canadians to get an alternative point of view?

Dr Joseph A. Ladapo, Professor of Medicine , UCLA, writing in the Wall Street Journal today, comments in his article entitled ‘An American Epidemic of Covid Mania’ :

‘Covid mania has also wreaked havoc on science and its influence on policy. While scientists’ passion for discovery and improving health has fueled research on the novel coronavirus, Covid mania has interpreted scientific advancements through an increasingly narrow frame. There has only been one question: How can scientific findings be deployed to reduce Covid-19 spread? It hasn’t mattered how impractical these measures may be. Discoveries that might have helped save lives, such as better outpatient therapies, were ignored because they didn’t fit the desired policy outcome.’

As an elected public official, I submit you have not made your case regarding the new restrictions taking into account a cost benefit analysis. At least the public has not seen any such analysis, which I think they deserve.

B. In all the statements that you, your Ministers and officials have made since the beginning, I find a blatant disregard for the provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of our Constitution. One would have thought that you would have shared with the public your appreciation for these provisions and provided what you thought was a reasoned analysis of why you believed your Government’s measures could constitutionally override these Charter provisions. To not have done so is, in my view, a dereliction of your obligation as the First Minister of this Province. Already, various Provincial orders and regulations are being questioned and overridden by the courts.

I must remind you as one who was intricately involved in the Charter that it contains the following:

Fundamental freedoms

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.

And

Mobility of citizens

6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada

Rights to move and gain livelihood 
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

And

Life, liberty and security of person

7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

And

Treatment or punishment

12 Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or Provincially punishment.

I submit that you have not made the case for your Government’s orders and regulations in the context of the Charter provisions, and that such a consideration and analysis is necessary and made public, a requirement I would think, before embarking on measures which clearly breech  fundamental rights and freedoms in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is a part of The Constitution of Canada.

No one doubts the seriousness of the situation, but in a democracy like ours one is not relieved of fundamental responsibilities when the health of all citizens and rights and freedoms of all those citizens are crucially at stake.

Hence, taxpayers and citizens, deserve a full cost benefit analysis of the measures and a full constitutional analysis. Only then can severe restrictions be soberly assessed.

Hon. A. Brian Peckford, P.C.

An American Epidemic of ‘Covid Mania’

The problem isn’t only the overreaction to the virus but the diminution of every other problem.

By Joseph A. Ladapo

April 19, 2021 6:30 pm ET

What are the lessons of Covid-19? It depends who you ask. Some believe politicization of the pandemic response cost lives. Others believe a stronger U.S. public-health system would have reduced Covid-19 deaths significantly. Still others say lockdowns should have been longer and more stringent, or that they were ineffective. But one lesson that should transcend ideological differences: Don’t put one illness above all other problems in society, a condition known as “Covid mania.”

The novel coronavirus has caused suffering and heartbreak, particularly for older adults and their loved ones. But it also has a low mortality rate among most people and especially the young—estimated at 0.01% for people under 40—and therefore never posed a serious threat to social and economic institutions. Compassion and realism need not be enemies. But Covid mania crowded out reasoned and wise policy making.

Americans groaned when leaders first called for “two weeks to slow the spread” in March 2020. Months later, many of these same Americans hardly blinked when leaders declared that lockdowns should continue indefinitely. For months Covid had been elevated above all other problems in society. 

Over time new rules were written and new norms accepted.

Liberty has played a special role in U.S. history, fueling advances from independence to emancipation to the fight for equal rights for women and racial minorities. Unfortunately, Covid mania led many policy makers to treat liberty as a nuisance rather than a core American principle.

Covid mania has also wreaked havoc on science and its influence on policy. While scientists’ passion for discovery and improving health has fueled research on the novel coronavirus, Covid mania has interpreted scientific advancements through an increasingly narrow frame. There has only been one question: How can scientific findings be deployed to reduce Covid-19 spread? It hasn’t mattered how impractical these measures may be. Discoveries that might have helped save lives, such as better outpatient therapies, were ignored because they didn’t fit the desired policy outcome.

A prime example is mask research. However one feels about wearing masks, look at the evidence from California. Despite a mask mandate imposed last April and steady, high rates of compliance, California experienced a surge in Covid-19 cases over the winter.

Mandating masks may help in some settings, but masks are not the panacea officials have presented them as. In September, then-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Robert Redfield declared that “this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against Covid than when I take a Covid vaccine.”

The statement was remarkable because he made it before seeing vaccine trial data. Those data and data from people who have recovered from Covid clearly demonstrate that this statement is false. Immunity is far more effective than whatever efficacy masks may offer.

Covid mania is also creating new conflicts over vaccine mandates. The same people who assured the public that a few weeks of lockdown would control the pandemic now argue that vaccinating children, for whom no vaccine has yet been approved, is essential to end the pandemic. Children account for less than 0.1% of Covid deaths in the U.S. Is enough known about vaccines to conclude that their benefits outweigh potential risks to children?

“Yes” is the answer of a salesman, not a scientist. Mandating a vaccine for children without knowing whether the benefits outweigh the risks is unethical. People who insist we should press on anyway, because variants will prolong the pandemic, should be reminded that a large reservoir of unvaccinated people in the U.S.—and in the world—will always exist. We cannot outrun the variants.

The good news is that recent state legislative efforts in Utah, Tennessee and Ohio to ban vaccine passports may burst the Covid mania bubble. If passports are banned, then risks from Covid must be assessed in the same way other risks—such as playing a sport or starting a new medication—are considered. 

In many places throughout the country, zero has become the only tolerable risk level. Why else are people who have been vaccinated or recovered from Covid still asked to wear masks? Reasonable policies cannot sprout from unreasonable levels of risk tolerance.

9117498240825147147.gif

The pandemic has been devastating for many Americans, but policies grounded in Covid mania have compounded the harm and delayed a return to normal life. The challenges ahead require rational decision making that considers costs and benefits and keeps sight of the countless things in life that matter.

Dr. Ladapo is an associate professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine.

Another Trump Blame Game Comes Crushing Down . This Time By A Medical Examiner.

The Media Lied Repeatedly About Officer Brian Sicknick’s Death. And They Just Got Caught.

Glen Greenwald writing in SubStack 

Just as with the Russia Bounty debacle, they will never acknowledge what they did. Their audience wants to be lied to for partisan gain and emotional pleasure.

It was crucial for liberal sectors of the media to invent and disseminate a harrowing lie about how Officer Brian Sicknick died. That is because he is the only one they could claim was killed by pro-Trump protesters at the January 6 riot at the Capitol.

So The New York Times on January 8 published an emotionally gut-wrenching but complete fiction that never had any evidence — that Officer Sicknick’s skull was savagely bashed in with a fire extinguisher by a pro-Trump mob until he died — and, just like the now-discredited Russian bounty story also unveiled by that same paper, cable outlets and other media platforms repeated this lie over and over in the most emotionally manipulative way possible. Just watch a part of what they did and how:

As I detailed over and over when examining this story, there were so many reasons to doubt this storyline from the start. Nobody on the record claimed it happened. The autopsy found no blunt trauma to the head. Sicknick’s own family kept urging the press to stop spreading this story because he called them the night of January 6 and told them he was fine — obviously inconsistent with the media’s claim that he died by having his skull bashed in — and his own mother kept saying that she believed he died of a stroke.

But the gruesome story of Sicknick’s “murder” was too valuable to allow any questioning. It was weaponized over and over to depict the pro-Trump mob not as just violent but barbaric and murderous, because if Sicknick weren’t murdered by them, then nobody was (without Sicknick, the only ones killed were four pro-Trump supporters: two who died of a heart attack, one from an amphetamine overdose, and the other, Ashli Babbitt, who was shot point blank in the neck by Capitol Police despite being unarmed). 

So crucial was this fairy tale about Sicknick that it made its way into the official record of President Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate, and they had Joe Biden himself recite from the script, even as clear facts mounted proving it was untrue.

Because of its centrality to the media narrative and agenda, anyone who tried to point out the serious factual deficiencies in this story — in other words, people trying to be journalists — were smeared by Democratic Party loyalists who pretend to be journalists as “Sicknick Truthers,” white nationalist sympathizers, and supporters of insurrection.

For the crime of trying to determine the factual truth of what happened, my character was constantly impugned by these propagandistic worms, as was anyone else’s who tried to tell the truth about Sicknick’s tragic death. Because one of the first people to highlight the journalistic truth here was former Trump official Darren Beattie of Revolver News and one of the few people on television willing to host doubts about the official story was Tucker Carlsonany doubts about the false Sicknick story — no matter how well-grounded in truth, facts, reason and evidence — were cast as fascism and white supremacy, and those raising questions smeared as “truthers”: the usual dreary liberal insults for trying to coerce people into submitting to their lies:

603ab9c5-bb7c-4b1b-99b5-6292e742c760_5208x1234.jpeg
4699aaf9-5913-490b-bf23-56dc4a58ee15_2115x1234.jpeg

Because the truth usually prevails, at least ultimately, their lies, yet again, all came crashing down on their heads on Monday. The District of Columbia’s chief medical examiner earlier this morning issued his official ruling in the Sicknick case, and it was so definitive that The Washington Post — one of the media outlets that had pushed the multiple falsehoods — did not even bother to try to mask or mitigate the stark conclusion it revealed:

The first line tells much of the story: “Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes a day after he confronted rioters at the Jan. 6 insurrection, the District’s chief medical examiner has ruled.” Using understatement, the paper added: “The ruling, released Monday, likely will make it difficult for prosecutors to pursue homicide charges in the officer’s death.”

This definitive finding from the medical examiner not only rids us of the Fire Extinguisher lie but also the second theory to which these media outlets resorted once they had to face the reality that they spent weeks spreading an outright lie (needless to say, they provided no real accountability or even acknowledgement for the fact that they did spread that Fire Extinguisher tale, instead just seamlessly moving to their next evidence-free claim). They changed their story to claim that pro-Trump protesters still murdered Sicknick, not with a fire extinguisher but with bear spray, which video shows at least one protester using in his vicinity.

50aa372b-8014-4819-8a27-fdeb7ddf70f0_1488x620.png

Clockwise: Tweet of Associated Press, Jan. 29; Tweet of NBC’s Richard Engel, Jan. 9; Tweet of the Lincoln Project’s Fred Willman, Jan. 29; Tweet of The New York Times’ Nicholas Kirstof, Jan. 9

The problem with that theory is that bear spray is not usually fatal, and the medical examiner’s findings ruled out the possibility that this is what caused his death:

In an interview with The Washington Post, Francisco J. Diaz, the medical examiner, said the autopsy found no evidence the 42-year-old officer suffered an allergic reaction to chemical irritants, which Diaz said would have caused Sicknick’s throat to quickly seize. Diaz also said there was no evidence of internal or external injuries….

Diaz said Sicknick suffered two strokes at the base of the brain stem caused by a clot in an artery that supplies blood to that area of the body. Diaz said he could not comment on whether Sicknick had a preexisting medical condition, citing privacy laws.

So there goes that second fairy tale. The Post did note the medical examiner’s observation regarding Sicknick’s participation in defending the Capitol that day that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.” That of course is true: just as it is true for the two pro-Trump supporters who had heart attacks that day and the other pro-Trump supporter who died from too much amphetamine in her system, having a stressful encounter as a police officer likely played a role in why someone would have two strokes the following day. 

But police officers are trained for stressful encounters, and that obviously is a far cry from being able to claim that any pro-Trump supporter murdered Sicknick.

I’ll have much more on this story as it unfolds. A significant amount of media accountability is warranted. But you’re seeing why there is so much resentment and so many attacks on platforms like this one that permit journalists to report and analyze facts and dissect media narratives without being constrained by liberal orthodoxies and pieties and while remaining immune from liberal pressure tactics: it’s one of the few ways that real dissent to their lies and propaganda can be aired.

$500,000,000,000–Half Trillion —Two Year Deficit —Federal Budget

That’s our deficit last year plus this year. That will be now piled on our debt which will now top $1 trillion this year, actually $ 1.079 trillion. From 2020 to 2025 we will almost double our debt from $721  billion to $1.411 trillion. 

A budget always sounds good for the first few minutes.

Then you ask yourself. 

Who is going to pay for all this? 

Just a few years ago a $10 billion deficit was a bad thing. 

Last year $354.2 billion 

This  year over $154.7 billion.

Over one half trillion in two years 

After that who knows —-it is predicted on page 325 of the 724 page document that we will still have a deficit of $30 billion in 2025. Chances are , if past predictions are anything to go by , it will be much more. 

So no talk of balancing our budget—you know paying your way??? What a foreign concept? 

And GDP growth , even by the Government,  is predicted to taper off after this year of stimulus. 

And guess what I found ?

Do you remember that Phoenix pay system that did not work. People did not get paid, paid too much or paid too little? 

It’s still around.

There’s a provision for another $45 million to be spent to clear it up. I have lost track how much has now been spent on this fiasco. 

Oh ,there are two new taxes one a digital tax that is suppose to bring in billions and a luxury tax on big luxury boats and planes. 

There are 24 big categories named in the Budget  each with 12 sub categories  —there is no where you can hide —The Government is everywhere , into everything. 

There’s no turning back —-our Finance Minister is well named —Free-Land. 

Why Did WHO Change Definition Of Herd Immunity Last Year ?

John Carpay, President  of the Center of Constitutional Freedoms brought to my attention through one of his videos , podcasts this startling fact. 

On the WHO website for June 9 , 2020 the following definition is given for herd immunity :

‘ Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection ‘

On November 13, 2020 the definition was changed to:

‘Herd immunity also known as ‘population immunity’ is a concept used for vaccination in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.’

The Mayo Clinic says that that there are two paths to immunity for COVID , vaccines and infection. 

Now , there is a the persuasive idea that vaccines are necessary to get to herd immunity quicker than just through infection but Mayo does tell the truth that there are two ways to reach herd immunity .

If one looks up John Hopkins  Medical School and type in herd immunity they immediately have an article attacking natural immunity and supporting vaccine immunity. But it mentions both. It was written last August. It says Sweden who did not get into severe lockdown paid a big price in deaths comparing it to Finland and Norway. However, this world leading Institution has not updated this article to show that since last August many European countries that had severe lockdowns incurred death rates higher than Sweden —worldometer says Swedish death rate was 1359 per one million —-France is 1541, UK 1867 , Italy 1941. 

What WHO should have done was kept  the definition for honesty sake ( rather important one would think) and proceed as Mayo did and explain both methods fully.

But in their zeal to be a vaccine partisan they sacrificed honesty. 

The other points that are important and not discussed even by Mayo or Hopkins are

  1. The vaccines presently available are experimental —special exemptions by Governments 
  2. Hence , we know not what are possible negative effects to these

vaccines , even six months out let alone a year or two.

3. Up until now vaccines took two to four years to be approved 

4. Given that the companies are provided their own legal immunity from any negative effects of the vaccines , talking about immunity, one has to wonder just how effective these vaccines are going forward. There is even talk now that they are effective for only one year and boosters will be needed. 

5. And perhaps the biggest fault of all of all these BIG INSTITUTIONS AND MEDICAL EXPERTS was and is to downplay preventive measures which would have lessened the the number of sick people from using vitamin D, to invermectin to hdroxchoroquin and many other treatments.

Morale of the story :

A. It is hard to find the unvarnished truth . 

B .One has to dig hard and deep . 

C. Even leading reputable heath institutions are not above bias 

D. And the WHO ? Rotten as ever. 

Why Are Alberta Authorities( Government and Court) Delaying Presenting Evidence To The Court?

This is outrageous . The Government imposes restrictions based they say on science , the science they deny producing .

Court permits Government to avoid producing Dr. Hinshaw’s evidence on lockdowns at May 3 trial of Pastor James Coates

POSTED ON: APRIL 16, 2021

EDMONTON: The Justice Centre today announced that the trial of Pastor James Coates, of Grace Life Church, will proceed on May 3, 2021 at Provincial Court in Stony Plain, however the Court granted the Government’s request that Pastor Coates not be permitted to challenge the constitutional validity of Dr. Deena Hinshaw’s orders at the trial. The government will not be required to produce scientific evidence in support of Dr. Hinshaw’s orders. Government lawyers told the Court that the Alberta Government could not produce any scientific evidence in support of Dr. Hinshaw’s orders in time for the May 3 trial.

Pastor Coates’ Charter challenge to the constitutionality and legality of Dr. Hinshaw’s orders will be heard by the Court at an unknown later date.

Pastor Coates and Grace Life Church, near Stony Plain Alberta, are charged with violating the Public Health Act for holding normal church services after more than one year of government restrictions. Pastor Coates spent one month and six days in jail before his release on March 22, 2021 because he would not sign an agreement to stop pastoring his church according to the congregation’s beliefs.

Representing Pastor Coates and Grace Life Church, the Justice Centre has challenged the constitutionality of Dr. Deena’s Hinshaw’s Health Orders in Court, arguing that they are an unjustified violation of Charter rights and freedoms. The Justice Centre was, and still is, prepared to present extensive scientific and expert witness medical evidence at Pastor Coates’ trial that demonstrate Dr. Hinshaw’s lockdown orders are unscientific, unnecessary and ineffective.

“After 13 months of violating Charter freedoms, the Alberta Government refuses to present evidence in support of lockdowns in Court, and unfortunately the courts have permitted the government to delay facing accountability in regard to Charter violations,” states lawyer John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre.

“Justice delayed is justice denied. It is clear that the government’s approach to any challenge to its lockdown policies is to withhold the evidence and delay as long as it can,” continues Mr. Carpay.

“We are now in our thirteenth month of Charter-violating lockdowns, in what was supposed to be a temporary two-week measure to flatten the curve. By May 3, the government will have had fourteen months to assemble proper medical and scientific evidence to justify lockdowns and the resulting violations of our fundamental Charter freedoms. For the Alberta Government to request that it not be required to provide evidence on May 3 in support of Dr. Hinshaw’s Orders, while at the same time barricading the church, is both reprehensible and pathetic,” states Mr. Carpay.

“The Alberta government supposedly has enough medical and scientific evidence to shut down hundreds of small businesses, pushing many of them into bankruptcy, and to cancel over 20,000 medically necessary surgeries, and to force Albertans into a third lockdown. But when asked to produce this medical and scientific evidence at trial, the Alberta government declares itself incapable of doing so,” continues Mr. Carpay.

“Albertans who are suffering financially, emotionally and mentally under another lockdown, with more restrictions being threatened, are rightfully going to be outraged at this news,” notes Carpay.

“In the Charter challenge to Dr. Hinshaw’s orders that was filed in the Court of Queen’s Bench in December 2020, the Court has given the government until July 2021 to file its scientific evidence, even though the Justice Centre already filed its scientific evidence in January. Due to procedural steps and delays on the part of government lawyers, that court challenge will not be heard until at least September 2021. The court challenge to Bill 10 has faced similar delays,” continues Mr. Carpay.

At the trial on the week of May 3, the Justice Centre will argue that multiple Charter rights and freedoms were violated by the ticketing, arresting and jailing of Pastor Coates and that such violations of constitutional rights demand that the Court throw out the single Public Health Act charge remaining against Pastor Coates.

“Pastor Coates is defending freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly, which are freedoms exercised by the entire population, not just churchgoers. This is likely the first time in Canadian history that a federal or provincial government has directly restricted religious freedom. Unscientific and arbitrary health orders have been imposed by an unelected and politically appointed doctor, whose Orders are not scrutinized by elected Members of the Legislative Assembly,” continues Mr. Carpay.

Justice Centre successfully defends Ontario church against government attempt to lock its doors

POSTED ON: APRIL 16, 2021

WATERLOO: The Justice Centre was in court today on behalf of Trinity Bible Chapel (Trinity), after the Attorney General went before a Justice for an urgent ruling that the church and its leaders were in contempt of court, and requested an order directing Sheriffs to immediately lock the church’s doors.

Trinity has already faced contempt proceedings, after it continued to hold religious services against an enforcement order obtained by the government on January 22. On February 23, Trinity and its leaders were ordered to pay fines and costs totalling $83,000.

That enforcement order is being challenged by the Justice Centre on constitutional grounds, and the matter is expected to be heard in July.

The government had requested this latest order following two Sundays in April, when the church allegedly held services over the 15% capacity limit. The Justice Centre argued that the original order appeared to be limited to banning services over a 10-person limit, which was not the same as 15% capacity. The court agreed. Since the request for an order to lock the church doors was based on there being a finding of contempt, and it was questionable as to whether a contempt finding could be made given the changing government regulations, the Justice ruled against Ontario. He noted that the government lawyers could have easily brought a motion without notice to Trinity to get a new order to keep up with changing restrictions, but it had failed to do so.

After a recess, Justice Paul Sweeny dismissed the Attorney General’s request to lock the church doors at this time. The matter was adjourned until May 11, to allow the Justice Centre time to cross-examine the government witnesses and file responding materials.

Immediately thereafter, the AG’s lawyers requested a new order, without notice, that Trinity be obliged to follow all restrictions in force for services, now and in future, failing which it could again be cited in contempt. That order was granted.

The Justice Centre will immediately file a constitutional challenge against the new order, and will argue that the restrictions are unconstitutional, and that the Ford government has failed to meet the requirements for a declaration of emergency under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, and its backdoor emergency continuation, the Reopening Ontario Act.

“Ontario has failed to consider and balance the harms that flow from lockdown measures and restrictions on civil liberties, including the right for healthy people to attend worship services,” says Justice Centre Staff Lawyer Lisa Bildy, who represents Trinity. “It has ignored evidence that asymptomatic spread of Covid – the reason for all of these restrictions – has been proven through a meta-analysis of 54 studies to be virtually nil, and many other studies confirming that lockdowns do more harm than good.”

Ontario’s former Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Richard Schabas, who served as Chief of Staff at York Central hospital during the 2003 SARS crisis, has also spoken out against lockdowns stating: “Lockdown was never part of our planned pandemic response nor is it supported by strong science. Two recent studies on the effectiveness of lockdown show that it has, at most, a small COVID mortality benefit compared to more moderate measures. Both studies warned about the excessive cost of lockdowns.”

Dr. Schabas will be providing his expert opinion in the Justice Centre constitutional challenge on behalf of Trinity.

Why Canadians Are Reluctant About Taking A Wuhan Vaccine ?

Abacus Research says 28% of Canadians reluctant to take the vaccine and 8% will never take it. 

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. 

Credibility?????

  1. A couple of weeks to bend the curve 
  2. Buying medical equipment from China 
  3. Getting in bed with China on a vaccine
  4. Discriminating against religions vs Costco and Walmart and Liquor stores and Cannabis stores , hardware stores etc
  5. Thirteen months later and Governments here in Canada are still confused
  6. Planes coming and going at airports and one is encouraged , almost embarrassed into leaving one’s community ,  stay home is the mantra. 
  7. Promised hundreds  of millions of vaccine doses ——impression getting them immediately ——still not even 25% vaccinated . 
  8. Vaccines are experimental 
  9. Vaccine companies not liable for any problems with them 
  10. Mask are not necessary 
  11. Mask are necessary 
  12. Social distance six feet —
  13. Social distance now 3 ft for children 
  14. Surfaces big concern for catching virus
  15. Surfaces not a big concern —no record of anyone getting virus from surface. 
  16. A blatant disregard for peoples’ rights and freedoms’ as defined in our Constitution. 
  17. A BC Court rules against religions without any science , just believes unscientific Government statements 
  18. Government press information confusing —re borders , cases vs sick. 
  19. Government information incomplete —total beds —Total ICU ‘s. 
  20. Governments treating cases as if they were sick people in hospital —when only 5% of cases end up in hospital 
  21. Governments deliberate disregard on the negative effects of lockdowns as detailed by thousands of professional and experts who signed the Great Barrington Declaration. 
  22. How come more cases after mask mandates around the world ? UK, Spain , Belgium , California , Austria, France , Hawaii, North Dakota  etc—-
  23. How come fatality rate in Sweden with minimum lock down is equal or less than other parts of Europe where maximum lockdowns prevailed? 
  24. How come Florida has less fatalities with almost no lockdown than California with severe lockdowns? 

25 . PCR tests  questionable —cycles too high —false positives abound. 

26. How are deaths counted  —with Wuhan virus , from Wuhan virus? 

27. What happened to the flu? 

28. Continued association with WHO which has proven to be a Chinese leaning Organization —-

29. Where did the virus originate —-our friendly Chinese won’t tell us but we will meekly keep asking.

30. The billions spent ??Governments love printing money. 

Oh, planes landing today from Seoul -Incheon, Seattle. Sean Francisco, Los Angeles at Vancouver Airport. 

Going to Delhi —one leaves in 45 minutes from Vancouver. Better hurry, it’s  on time. 

BIG ESSAY # 67—Whither Humour ? The War Against The HUMAN SPIRIT !

No Laughing Matter: The March of Killjoy Culture

David Solway—FROM THE C2C JOURNAL 

April 1, 2021

When the New York Times admonishes the unmistakeably satirical Babylon Bee for spreading “misinformation”, it’s likely a sign that humour is dying – or being killed off. Similarly when the formerly-fearless Bill Maher laments how it’s no longer safe to tell a joke at a party lest one be overheard by a Woke listener and ruined. And even more so when politicians threaten to ban internet memes that lampoon the elites. The eminently serious David Solway reminds us of the essential contribution of humour and laughter to the well-balanced and healthy life – of individual and culture – and points to the civilizational wreckage were levity stamped out. And before it’s too late, suggests we all head out for some subversive “gynecandrical” dancing.

And when I’m introduced to one
I wish I thought What Jolly Fun!
—Walter Alexander Raleigh, Wishes of an Elderly Man at a Garden Party

We may recall Iran’s Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini’s pronouncement in a 1979 radio sermon: “Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun or joy in whatever is serious.

The Ayatollah’s remarks constitute one of the points where Theo-Islamic conservatism and secular Leftist ideology meet around the totalitarian circle (there is more on the unfunny subject in this book). Inventive humor, as opposed to vulgar sarcasm and puerile putdowns – the current stock-in-trade of the Left – is contra-indicated. In particular, to joke about a dictator is to invite either a prison sentence or execution. In the progressivist mindset that now permeates the West, popular humour is also critically at risk, even in the private sphere, and may issue in public shaming and the loss of livelihood. A politically incorrect joke can mark the end of a career. That is also a sure-fire way to kill comedy routines since political incorrectness is one of the indispensable elements of the joke – the “outering” of that which everybody knows but nobody says.

Humour and laughter are essential components of a well-balanced and happy life – for cultures as well as individuals – but are under threat from the totalitarian circle.

The consequence is that we have become dour and fearful as the culture grows ever grimmer. When people can no longer trade dubious, shady, ambiguous or off-colour jokes, whether in speech or writing, we know something terrible has happened, that freedom of utterance, spoofing banter and plain exuberance have been expunged from daily living, that life has become more of a trial than a gift. Such is one of the defining features of any totalitarian system, whether fascist, communist or theocratic, and it is certainly a decisive hallmark of the political Left.

Granted, in the U.S. there currently isn’t much to laugh about under a Biden/Democrat Administration. Washington is under armed control. The Keystone XL Pipeline is moribund. The southern border is swarming with illegals, many of whom test Covid-positive. International relations are deteriorating, with North Korea rejecting bilateral talks and Russia recalling its ambassador. Economic storm clouds loom, with Ford announcing its intention to move a US$900 million project from Ohio to Mexico, and on the whole a massive number of stable and remunerative jobs being likely to disappear under the dead hand of a globalist, radical-environmentalist regime. 

Similar things are afoot in Canada, often derived from events in the U.S., such as the Liberal government’s weak opposition to the axing of Keystone XL as part of its climate-worshiping cult that intends, among other things, to wipe out Canada’s most productive sector and as a bonus casually destroy constitutional federalism.

These are sobering facts and there is nothing amusing about them. But these events are embedded in a repressive milieu associated with all Leftist dispensations in which freedom of action, thought and speech are severely constrained. The Left creates a joyless, puritanical and overly self-righteous atmosphere in which the individual is “cancelled” for resisting the imposition of a collectivist regime upon the practise of everyday life.

Life as more trial than gift: Dourness is a defining feature of any totalitarian system, whether fascist, communist or theocratic – as well as of our Woke left.

Humour is a necessary casualty of such managerial tyrannies since it represents a deflationary threat to autocratic or statist rule – not only because of its satiric thrust but because it is an expression of personal spontaneity and improvisation. 

In the words of Bill Warner, founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam, “To have a sense of humor about the world and yourself shows an inner strength and a balanced personality. It takes [a] mature person to laugh at their mistakes and foibles.” 

Today merely to joke about the conventionally impermissible takes a courageous person, perhaps even a foolhardy one, certainly one who is wealthy and/or old enough no longer to be concerned about the retaliatory destruction of their career.

An interesting approach toward understanding the profane theology of the Left may be modelled from the work of the great Russian cultural and literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin who, in Rabelais and His World, elaborated the notion of “carnival” as an analytic category. 

Laughter, says Bakhtin, “Demolishes fear and piety before an object…thus clearing the ground for an absolutely free investigation of it.” It allows for what he calls “cultural parody.”

Laughter, of course, is a complex phenomenon. It may also contain a sadistic component. But Bakhtin is clearly referring to laughter as it is commonly understood, as an evocation of high spirits, enjoyment of the unexpected (punch lines) and incompatible juxtapositions, and the disclosure of hidden or unflattering truths. 

Laughter, jokes, humour, wisecracks, puns, spoonerisms and parody thus become an enemy of every kind of tyranny and every totalitarian worldview, whether temporal or theological.

Laughter, as Bakhtin writes, ‘Purifies from dogmatism, from the intolerant and the petrified; it liberates from fanaticism and pedantry, from fear and intimidation, from didacticism, naïveté and illusion, from the single meaning, the single level…’

Humour punches holes in all the metaphorical Mercator projections of the world – laid out in dogmatic theologies and ideological systems, seemingly straight but full of endemic distortions. 

Laughter, as Bakhtin writes, “Purifies from dogmatism, from the intolerant and the petrified; it liberates from fanaticism and pedantry, from fear and intimidation, from didacticism, naïveté and illusion, from the single meaning, the single level…” It restores what he calls an “ambivalent wholeness” to the psyche of man and reconfirms the festal and material self against the pressure of “repressive transcendence.”

Of course, the counter-cultural Left – the Zeitgeist of the 60s – was no stranger to irony and burlesque, but it was not yet the pervasive Leftist juggernaut that had captured government, media, Big Tech and the economy. No longer the counter-culture but the culture, it has put humour, to use Jacques Derrida’s famous phrase, sous rature, under erasure.

Similarly, French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut points out in The Defeat of the Mind that the postmodern Left, with its multicultural pathology and sanctimonious invocation of identity politics, has become “a celebration of servitude…using threats of high treason to silence expressions of doubt, irony and reason.” Laughter is inflammatory and contagious, and thus must be extinguished.

Dalhousie professor Jure Gantar concurs. In The Pleasure of Fools he alludes to “ethical laughter,” which he describes as agonistic and unsettling, explaining why it is reproved by the more abstemious school of moralists and criminalized by dictatorial regimes of whatever kind. Comedy, he says, is subversive, launching volleys of laughter in a battle for political and intellectual freedom, and is therefore co-opted and smothered by the stolid authority of moral sobriety or political rigidity. 

The free individual cannot flourish in a “humourless limbo” that forbids “marginal and decentred discourses” founded in a “multiplicity of perspectives” and that stamps out the cauterizing process of irony, humour and laughter.

One thinks of the old Soviet-era samizdat joke about the shopper who asks the clerk, “You don’t have any meat?” To which the clerk replies, “No, we don’t have any fish. The shop that doesn’t have any meat is across the street.” Laughter is the vestibule to the Gulag. In our cancel culture, a politically incorrect joke can lead to the poorhouse—or as Michael Rectenwald writes, to the Google Archipelago.

Theories proliferate as to the cause and effect of laughter, and its study has become a discipline with a name of its own: Gelotology (from Greek γέλως, gelos=laughter). Some researchers posit that laughter has its roots in a specific area of the brain, a “laugh detector” that actuates a neural, endorphin-rich laugh circuit that accounts for the release of tension. 

In The Act of Creation, Arthur Koestler distinguishes three domains of creativity: Discovery, Art and Humour. All are problematic for absolutist regimes and all are dedicated to exposing hidden similarities between things, of which humour is the most aggressive. Speculation continues to abound.

Ironically, laughter can be dangerous not only to tyrants but also to its purveyors. In the Preface to Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town, Canadian humourist Stephen Leacock tells the story about two of his books, Literary Lapses and Nonsense Novels, works of

“…so humorous a character that for many years it was found impossible to print them. The compositors fell back from their task suffocated with laughter and gasping for air. Nothing but the intervention of the linotype machine – or rather, of the kind of men who operate it – made it possible to print these books. Even now people have to be very careful in circulating them, and the books should never be put into the hands of persons not in robust health.”

But obviously, the primary danger posed by laughter arising from its multiple sources is to despots and oligarchs (and their “linotypical” followers) whose reigns are built on censorship, book burning, wiretapping, surveillance, ostracism and more ruthless forms of coercion.

‘People seen experiencing joy during lockdowns are shouted at by the members of the new flagellants. The idea is that if you are failing to be miserable and sad, you are contributing to the spread of disease and thus prolonging the period of misery for those who are compliant.’

Enter Covid-19. The pandemic has become a godsend to the socialists for it allows dictatorial-leaning governments to impose even further restrictions on free, impulsive behaviour and to prevent both normal activity and the articulation of resistant sentiment. Parties and celebrations are forbidden (as is singing in Church in many places). 

As author of Liberty or Lockdown Jeffrey Tucker writes in an article entitled Massachusetts Bans Dancing Like It’s 1684, dancing at weddings is strictly regulated by the state, “So much so that it is effectively abolished….Going back to Colonial times, something very similar took place, not in the name of controlling a virus but rather controlling sin, witchcraft, heresy, and any belief or practice that contradicted Puritan teaching.”

Today, Tucker continues, “People seen experiencing joy during lockdowns are shouted at by the members of the new flagellants. The idea is that if you are failing to be miserable and sad, you are contributing to the spread of disease and thus prolonging the period of misery for those who are compliant.” 

Referring to the Reverend Increase Mather (1639-1723), who outlawed shoe buckles, disorderly walking and “Gynecandrical Dancing,” Tucker remarks on the narrow “ideological distance” between the Reverend and many of our current governors, between Puritanism and Wokeism.

The sumptuary laws that Covid-19 has facilitated apply equally to unfettered speech and humor, for Covid-19 culture, a child of Leftist authoritarianism, is also killjoy culture. Not only shall there be no more gynecandrical dancing, there shall be no more hijinks, no more irreverent humour, no more breaking of current taboos, no more iffy jokes expressing a contrary mind – no more “dancing” of any kind. 

By criminalizing the normal, Leftism is in effect a crime against humanity, fostering weakness, cowardice, abject obeisance, the uprooting of communality, feral aggression, economic vassalage, social misery and, as Finkielkraut wrote, both willing and unwilling servitude.

It is said that the devil has the best jokes. But the “devil” in aphoristic question here is not the incarnation of evil or the agent of cruel and irascible ridicule. He is not a late-night talk-show host telling unfunny jokes to a left-wing audience (since right-wing viewers have to work in the morning). He is not a Saul Alinsky who dedicates his book to Lucifer, but the servant of lively impudence, intellectual audacity and brash self-confidence, of lip and chutzpah in the service of freedom from uncivil duress and the shackles of repressive orthodoxy. 

As Bakhtin observes, laughter, irony, satire, humour and jokes rip the mask of deceit, sanctimonious self-regard and false authority off the true human face.

The Left in its bleak sullenness, no less than the Ayatollah or the Reverend Increase Mather, has killed the timbre of joy and laughter. A man walks into a bar…but in the Leftist world there are no bottles racked on the wall and the bartender is a cultural commissar. The laugh police have seen to that. 

The Left’s oft-remarked-upon “long march through the institutions” is in large part a brutal foray against wit, playfulness and the imaginative power of the individual. 

It represents the destructive element in human nature, specifically the traditional vices of envy, lust and sloth which subvert the principles of moral reciprocity and personal integrity as they do the spirit of festive expansiveness and self-determination – the best part of us.

For the war of the totalitarian Left is not, in its essence, an economic or social campaign. It is not a crusade to save the planet or eliminate privilege and inequality. The Left is not a redemptive political movement. It is not a benevolent enterprise that seeks a better future for humankind, as it inveterately proclaims. Whatever its origins and self-professed purposes, it leads inevitably to suffering and carnage, for it cannot change the gradients of fallen human nature as if by some species of political enchantment.

Fuelled at its deepest level by the resentment that lies within the uncompetitive and unproductive, 

Leftism is a war against personal merit and the consummate self – against, let us say, that aspect of human nature that struggles to rise above its natural default. 

Leftism is at bottom a war against the freedom to prosper, to be constructive and self-reliant, to make mistakes and assume responsibility for them, to take legitimate pride in one’s accomplishments, to speak one’s mind, to tell jokes, to have fun, to revel in one’s independence – ultimately, to express one’s individuality, one’s talent and one’s hard-earned ability to meet and triumph over challenges.

The Left will have none of this. The Left is waging a war. It is a war against the human spirit. 

But in the meantime, I’m heading for the nearest bar with an atheist, a priest and a rabbi.

David Solway’s most recent volume of poetry, The Herb Garden, appeared in 2018 with Guernica Editions. His manifesto, Reflections on Music, Poetry & Politics, was released by Shomron Press in 2016. He has produced two CDs of original songs: Blood Guitar and Other Tales (2014) and Partial to Cain (2019) on which he is accompanied by his pianist wife Janice Fiamengo. His latest book is Notes from a Derelict Culture, Black House Publishing, 2019, London.

Study: A Manly Father Is Good for Children

By Annie Holmquist , from The Intellectual Takeout website

In an age where feminism seems to rule, there’s a lot of pressure for fathers to start acting softer and more feminine in dealing with their children. Not a trace of that “toxic masculinity” should come through!

Perhaps that is why we see increasing condemnation of competition (“everyone gets a participation trophy!”) or “dangerous” activities like winter sledding (“little Johnny could hit a tree!”), or allowing children to stray a few blocks from home without adult supervision (“they might be kidnapped!”). Why would we want parents, particularly fathers, to stress the traditionally masculine virtues of competition and adventure to their children when we’re trying to root toxic masculinity out of society?

But while this mindset is subtly promoted by today’s culture, it is now being challenged by a new study published in the journal Psychology of Men and Masculinities. The study lists the stereotypical masculine characteristics—“competitive, daring, adventurous, dominant, aggressive, courageous and standing up to pressure”—as positive traits, and fathers who demonstrated these were “rated as showing good parenting behavior.”

Researchers expressed surprise at this link between masculine qualities and good parenting. The study’s lead author, Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan, acknowledged, however, that “fathers who see themselves as competitive and adventurous and the other masculine traits tended to be really engaged with their kids.”

Perhaps this is surprising to those living in a “woke,” politically correct, feminist society, but it shouldn’t be to those who look at fathers through history. Take Teddy Roosevelt, for example. In a letter to a friend in late 1900, Roosevelt explained how he had been a sickly child—likely the type who would have been teased and labeled a sissy by other boys his age. His father helped him through this difficult childhood, not only through gentleness, but also through his manly character. Roosevelt explains:

I was fortunate enough in having a father whom I have always been able to regard as an ideal man. It sounds a little like cant to say what I am going to say, but he really did combine the strength and courage and will and energy of the strongest man with the tenderness, cleanness and purity of a woman. … He not only took great and untiring care of me—some of my earliest remembrances are of nights when he would walk up and down with me for an hour at a time in his arms when I was a wretched mite suffering acutely with asthma—but he also most wisely refused to coddle me, and made me feel that I must force myself to hold my own with other boys and prepare to do the rough work of the world. [Emphasis added.]

Roosevelt’s father was manly—daring and courageous—and passed these traits on to his son, enabling him to stand firm under pressure. It was through these manly traits that Roosevelt’s father fostered respect and love for himself in the heart of his son:

I cannot say that he ever put it into words, but he certainly gave me the feeling that I was always to be both decent and manly, and that if I were manly nobody would laugh at my being decent. In all my childhood he never laid hand on me but once, but I always knew perfectly well that in case it became necessary he would not have the slightest hesitancy in doing so again, and alike from my love and respect, and in a certain sense, my fear of him, I would have hated and dreaded beyond measure to have him know that I had been guilty of a lie, or of cruelty, or of bullying, or of uncleanness or of cowardice.

However much one may despise or adore Roosevelt’s politics, one has to admit that he led an impressive life, showing courage on the battlefield, exhibiting both a strong intellect and a strong work ethic, and demonstrating leadership from the highest office in the land. Would he have achieved such success if his father had coddled him, refusing to balance the tender care of his sickly son with his manly qualities? It seems doubtful.

We have today what authors Warren Farrell and John Gray call a “boy crisis”—a crisis where boys fail to become men, struggle in school, get in trouble, and have difficulty finding wives. Would we see that crisis begin to be resolved if we encouraged fathers to practice and model their manly virtues once again, showing not only love and gentleness, but courage, competitiveness, and an adventurous spirit as well?