A Letter to Public Health Officers

(Traduction en français disponible ici)

Civil liberties are under attack in Canada and worldwide. On the basis of public health acts and infectious disease laws, limitations to constitutional rights are imposed through emergency orders by Canada’s medical officers of health and by unelected bureaucrats elsewhere.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was written specifically to limit government overreach. In a crisis such as this, it is more important than ever to uphold Charter rights. Whether the COVID-19 mandates and restrictions represent reasonable and necessary limitations has yet to be seen.

Members of the newly formed group Canadian Academics for Covid Ethics and other independent scholars address these questions in a letter to our public health officials. The authors summarize the many uncertainties around the severity of the pandemic, reliance on problematic testing procedures and erratic modeling, ineffective non-pharmaceutical interventions, suppression of alternative treatments, disregard for natural immunity, and the destructive focus on vaccines as the only solution.

The Open Letter has been sent directly to the federal, provincial and Ontario regional Public Health Officers, to ensure that they receive it, and to politicians and the media.

Open Letter to Public Health Officers

After months of fear, misinformation, lockdowns, mandates, and broken trust, Canadians are starting to wake up in disbelief:

What have you done?!

You have convinced and continue to attempt convincing the public that we are in the midst of a major health crisis, and thrust our country into chaos. Meanwhile, all-cause mortality in Canada is in-line with trends from the past several years and indicates no such crisis. You have instilled fear in the general public of COVID-19 by publishing egregious data (such as daily cases and ICU numbers) without putting those numbers into context. How serious are those ‘cases’? How many were asymptomatic? What would similar case numbers be in any past years for other illness such as the flu? How does ICU occupancy compare to previous years? You are misleading the public and priming us for unwarranted future restrictions.

What have you done?!

You have not been transparent about the favourable survival rates from COVID. Instead, you convinced us that a positive test result is a death sentence, when in reality the virus overwhelmingly affects elderly people and those with specific vulnerabilities. COVID remains relatively harmless for the majority of the population.

What have you done?!

You have driven up case numbers by relying on the PCR test, deemed to be inappropriate as a diagnostic tool by its inventor and known to yield too many false positives at the cycle thresholds that have been used. In fact, the WHO recommended, on June 25 of this year, that ‘widespread screening of asymptomatic individuals is not a recommended strategy’. And yet, you insist on driving up the case numbers by mass testing of healthy, asymptomatic individuals. You have made Canadians irrationally fearful of one another, convincing us that asymptomatic transmission is a driver of infections, while multiple studies demonstrate that this is false. Yet, you fail to update the public on the changing science.

What have you done?!

You have coerced an entire population to wear masks, despite the fact that their ability to prevent transmission of COVID-19 has been seriously called into question by recent systematic reviews of the medical literature. This is also readily observed by comparing regions with and without mask mandates. Cloth masks and most mass-produced face masks are not approved medical devices, rather their real purpose appears to be the creation of heightened public anxiety, isolating the wearers, and posturing visual compliance to unfounded public health diktats. This insidious form of psychological control has immeasurable health, social and psychological consequences, especially for children, which you fail to acknowledge.

What have you done?!

You have utilized lockdowns as a sledgehammer to bring down COVID cases, while neglecting the resulting collateral damage from lost livelihoods, stalled cancer and transplant surgeries, and increased rates of depression, drug overdose, and suicide. You have failed to take a holistic approach, and your “cure” is proving far worse than the disease. There are multiple studies demonstrating the ineffectiveness of lockdowns, easily seen by simple comparison of jurisdictions that locked down with those that didn’t. You are failing us by failing to understand the evolution of knowledge.  We learn by and through mistakes.  The ethical principle is to own up to mistakes.  Without that first step, ignorance flourishes.

What have you done?!

You have provided madcap computer model predictions to justify lockdowns, proclaiming the lockdowns as successful, when the predictions did not materialize. This is not proof. This is manipulation. Computer models have provided too many nonsensical predictions and should have been ignored. After decades of model refinement, we still cannot accurately predict the weather, even a day in advance. Yet, you present COVID model results as if they are accurate over the span of months.

What have you done?!

You have not provided any solid scientific evidence that any of the measures you have imposed on the public are either necessary or effective. You have ignored a body of scientific literature that does not support your measures, and you have not engaged with experts who have raised concerns or evaluated the same evidence in a way that does not align with your views. You have not allowed public scientific debate on these issues, choosing rather to ignore, censor or smear those brave enough to bring them to the public.

What have you done?!

You have ignored early treatment protocols for safe, effective, and inexpensive treatments of COVID 19 with multidrug therapies, despite the massive evidence both from front-line doctors and meta-analysis of the medical literature, with published studies showing their efficacy around the world. Instead, you have convinced citizens that COVID-19 is a death sentence and that only vaccination, indeed vaccine mandates, will save us.  You have withheld important information from the public and from frontline doctors, and more shockingly, you have intimidated, demonized, and threatened with loss of license doctors who have had the courage to prescribe lifesaving treatment to their patients. What a waste of lives!

What have you done?!

You are now relentlessly pushing experimental vaccines on the general population as ‘safe’. Nothing could be further from the truth, as shown by almost 14,000 deaths reported in the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Since December of 2020, the number of reported covid vaccine-related deaths are already more than one-and-a-half times the number of deaths reported in conjunction with all other vaccines combined since the implementation of the system in 1990. Furthermore, there is a lack of long-term safety data. These genetic-based therapies only received emergency interim authorization, and have not undergone the same type of review as fully approved products. You are not providing the public with the information they need to be able to give informed consent.

What have you done?!

You forced family and emergency doctors to abandon their Hippocratic oaths to “first do no harm.” You have destroyed the science surrounding COVID and replaced it with baseless behavioural prescriptions. You have divided citizen from citizen, parent from child, brother from sister. Overall, you have participated in destroying a country that was once prosperous, strong and free.

What should you do?

Publicly admit that your recommendations and orders are both harmful and baseless. Retract all of your recommendations and orders immediately. Stop vaccine mandates. Apologize to Canadians and resign.

Anton de Ruiter, PhD
Jan Vrbik, PhD
John Zwaagstra, PhD
Claudia Chaufan, MD, PhD
Maximilian Forte, PhD
Denis Rancourt, PhD
Angela Durante, PhD
Valentina Capurri, PhD
Alexander Andree, PhD
Janice Fiamengo, PhD
Laurent Leduc, PhD
Jens Zimmermann, PhD

Update: This letter has been translated into German.

Posted in COVID | Comments Off on A Letter to Public Health Officers

Professors Write Open Letter Regarding University Vaccination and Testing Mandates

Four professors from the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University sent an open letter to their university presidents on Sept. 1 stating their deep concerns with the universities’ COVID-19 vaccination and testing policies.

The authors argue, with many references, that the universities’ policies violate campus members’ fundamental rights in five ways. These five themes are listed below, along with a short excerpt from each one:

  1. Discrimination:

    “The policy explicitly divides the our university communities into two groups, the  vaccinated and the unvaccinated, and then adds to the latter group a requirement to seek an exemption and to regularly undergo onerous biological testing—this falls squarely within the definition of ‘discrimination’. Furthermore, since certain minority, ethnic and religious groups are less likely be vaccinated, the policy will systemically discriminate against these already disadvantaged groups. Universities should be especially understanding of vaccine hesitancy in some minority groups in light of past unethical medical experiments that have targeted minorities (e.g., the Tuskegee experiments).” […]

  2. Basic rights

    “Ontario universities have long supported the notion of “my body, my choice;” is this mantra now to be replaced with “my body, the university administration’s choice?” We hope our universities will continue to be a robust champion of basic human rights and freedoms, even during a pandemic.” […]

  3. Scientific evidence

    “The COVID-19 policy fails to take into account and make available all scientific knowledge regarding the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. First, by requiring regular testing of only the unvaccinated, the COVID-19 policy ignores data showing that vaccinated individuals can harbour and transmit SARS-CoV-2. If the university is interested in tracking COVID-19 infections on campus, why are possible ‘breakthrough infections’ in the vaccinated not being monitored by regular testing of the vaccinated?” […]

  4. Coercion

    “As currently formulated, the policy coerces students, staff and faculty into taking an invasive experimental medical treatment (i.e., COVID-19 vaccination) that has a largely unknown safety profile and possible life-long and even fatal side-effects …”

  5. Informed consent

    “The Nuremburg Code (1947) also stipulates that voluntary consent requires that the individual ‘should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him [or her] to make an understanding and enlightened decision.'” […]

Based on these concerns, the professors ask for the COVID-19 vaccination and testing policies to be immediately repealed and replaced with a policy that gives campus community members choice over vaccination and testing.

The full letter can be read HERE.

 

Posted in COVID | Comments Off on Professors Write Open Letter Regarding University Vaccination and Testing Mandates

Example of Pushback Against Vaccine Mandate in the Workplace

Julius Ruechel’s post “An Example of Courageous Pushback for Those Facing Vaccine Mandates in the Workplace” contains a letter sent by Toronto police constable Adrienne Gilvesy to her chief of police in response to an email sent to staff regarding mandatory vaccination.

In her principled and informed letter, Ms. Gilvesy states that she will not disclose her vaccination status to her employer, nor will she consent to any Covid-19 testing that her employer may mandate. She explains her position using relevant sections from privacy law, health law, and the Criminal Code of Canada, and ends the letter as follows:

“In conclusion, I hereby notify you that I will hold you personally liable for any financial injury and/or loss of my personal income and my ability to provide food and shelter for my family if you use coercion or discrimination against me based on my decision to not participate in Toronto Police Service’s COVID-19 vaccination and testing mandates nor will I disclose my vaccination status to you.”

Police On Guard For Thee has created a template of Adrienne’s letter that can be downloaded and modified for any employer. Note that nothing referred to in this blog post constitutes legal advice, including Ms. Gilvesy’s letter and the Police On Guard For Thee template. For legal advice, consult an employment lawyer.

 

Posted in COVID | Comments Off on Example of Pushback Against Vaccine Mandate in the Workplace

A Letter to the Vaccinated

(Traduction en français disponible ici)

Following their “Open Letter to the Unvaccinated”, an expanding group of Canadian scholars has now written a letter addressing “the vaccinated”. The writers expose the divisiveness of vaccination status and denounce the resulting rift in society.

Giving up civil liberties in exchange for a false sense of safety is futile. We must not accept a descent into medical apartheid in Canada and around the world.

The letter appeals both to those who chose to take the vaccine and those who were coerced. It reflects on the broader implications of our actions in an effort to collaborate on a constructive path forward.

Open Letter to the Vaccinated

Prime Minister Trudeau recently warned that “there will be consequences” if federal employees do not comply with vaccine mandates. This is a voice of tyranny that has reverberated fear and heightened agitation across our country. It has launched our nation into deep division around mass vaccination and brought our collective recovery from this pandemic to a critical head. In fact, it forces us, as a country, to finally ask: indeed, what are those consequences?

What are the societal consequences of being divided along the lines of vaccination status? What are the consequences of mandating such an insufficiently tested medical intervention? How is this all supposed to end well?

The consequences will be dire, to be certain. And the consequences will affect all of us, the vaccinated and the unvaccinated alike.

Over the last six months, many of us made our decision to accept the vaccine in good faith – doing the right thing in order to work, travel and visit the people we love. Sadly, some of us have been pressured or coerced. And now, mounting evidence worldwide shows that these vaccines cannot stop the transmission of the virus and variants, yet vaccination mandates continue.

Meanwhile, the pharma corporations are earning billions of dollars of public money, and pushing to fast-track the vaccines towards full approval, without due process or public discussion. It is abundantly clear that when money and politics intertwine, science and ethics take a back seat.

Maybe you once resented those who hesitated to get the vaccine, as people who were not doing their part; but maybe it is time to consider that we have all become passengers on the same runaway train. The meaning of “fully vaccinated” is rapidly changing as leaders demand the next booster upgrade and threaten ousting us from public spaces if we don’t comply. So, if you are among the “fully vaccinated” today, by tomorrow you may become one of the “insufficiently vaccinated” and be coerced into taking another shot.

If history is any indication, this will not stop with barring admission to concerts or bars. When you can no longer buy food, access banking, vote in person or cross a provincial border, it will be crystal clear that the same discriminatory practices that you hope to abolish will be ever more firmly established. The real consequences await all of us.

Perhaps you’ve had your full round of doses and are now having doubts about whether to continue based on the alarming number of infections among the vaccinated. Or maybe you know someone who has been vaccine-injured or are concerned about the mounting death reports in conjunction with vaccinations.

We keep asking ourselves, “Why is the data not allowed to be scrutinized and why are independent experts being censored if they attempt to do just that?” It is incomprehensible, and decidedly un-Canadian, to see the silencing of highly regarded doctors and health scientists in our country and around the globe.

History has taught us that one-sided arguments and outlawed dissent are signs of totalitarianism lurking at the doorstep. Soon, asking questions will make you an enemy of the State. Mandating vaccines is a breaking point. “My body, my choice” has been one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society, but this is changing. Canadians are being robbed of personal decision making.

With lockdowns already scheduled for the fall, and boosters at the ready, we are entering a watershed moment. Are we all willing to continue being injected indefinitely? In Canadian provinces and around the world vaccine passports are demonstrating our new, long-term relationship with medical coercion in exchange for basic freedoms. Thus far, each treatment has been promised to be the last, but it couldn’t be clearer that there is no end in sight.

And now they’re coming for our children.

With extremely low risk of becoming ill and practically no risk of dying from COVID-19, the mass vaccination of children and adolescents remains unwarranted. Lining up our healthy children for medical treatment was never part of the deal. Most disturbingly of all, we are being primed for mass vaccination campaigns in our schools that do not require parental consent. Does the government decide what is best for our children? Without question, the family ties that bind us are being undone. Justifiably, parents are appalled by this unprecedented overreach and are debating pulling their children out of schools.

Despite our best intentions, families are scarred, friends are divided, and partners are at odds with each other. We have been weakened by our division and manipulated through fear.

Just how far will we allow this to go? “All the way!” some of us declare. But “all the way” is a place we will never reach. We need to stop this medical catastrophe and face the truth: this isn’t about our health; it is about politics and it is about control.

The consequences of following Prime Minister Trudeau’s current orders are greater than his threatened consequences. We entered into this for one another, not for our politicians. We have done what we felt we had to do, and now we must say, ‘This is far enough, no more!’

Angela Durante, PhD
Denis Rancourt, PhD
Jan Vrbik, PhD
Laurent Leduc, PhD
Valentina Capurri, PhD
Amanda Euringer, Journalist
Claus Rinner, PhD
Maximilian C. Forte, PhD
Julie Ponesse, PhD
Michael Owen, PhD
Donald G. Welsh, PhD

Update: Translations available in French, GermanItalian, and Portuguese.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on A Letter to the Vaccinated

Statement on new Canadian government proposal to force injections on employees and travellers

(This statement is available as a PDF at the link here.)

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association opposes the Canadian government proposal to force employees and travellers to be injected with vaccine products.

This is an egregious violation of fundamental rights, an assault against personal integrity and dignity, and an attack against control over one’s own body.

There is no palpable reason for the injection campaign, beyond the media frenzy and constructed institutional bias surrounding COVID-19.

To our knowledge, the government has not made or reported scientific investigations to analyze and characterize the contents of batches of the vaccine products for substances and toxicity. The government has not performed independent analytical tests on these novel pharmaceutical products that are made for profit and injected directly into the bodies of citizens.

The government’s motivation on the eve of the coming federal election is clearly to create a wedge issue.  Such political exploitation, using a massively promoted health pretext, is unconscionable. It is wrong. All Canadians should be gravely concerned.

Relevant articles:

 

 

Posted in COVID, OCLA Opinion Statements | Comments Off on Statement on new Canadian government proposal to force injections on employees and travellers

Toronto District School Board considering motion to mandate vaccination or testing for staff

OCLA has been informed that the Toronto District School Board will consider a motion on August 17, 2021, to “develop a strategy and protocol to require COVID-19 vaccination or testing for staff”.

A PDF file containing the motion was attached to the email.

The text of the email is below:

Sent by: TorontoDistrictSchoolBoard@tdsb.on.ca

Good Afternoon Staff,

We hope you are continuing to enjoy the summer and, where possible, have been able to enjoy the company of friends and loved ones. While we are nearly a month away from the first day of school, we wanted to provide another brief update on our plans to reopen the TDSB for the 2021-22 school year. As you know, the Ministry of Education has already released the COVID-19: Health, safety and operational guidance for schools (2021-2022). Based on these guidelines, staff are actively working to develop TDSB guidelines which may, in some areas, augment the standards set out by the Ministry.

While some measures — such as masking — will primarily remain the same, other areas — such as the screening tool — will look different. We are working to finalize these pieces as soon as possible so that we can share with staff prior to school resuming. We continue to work closely with the Ministry and Toronto Public Health to ensure that we are doing everything we can to support a safe return to school and work.

We also wanted you to be aware of a motion related to COVID-19 vaccinations and testing of staff to be discussed at the TDSB’s Planning and Priorities Committee meeting on Tuesday, August 17 at 4:30 p.m. At this point in time, this has not been approved by the Committee or the Board, but we wanted you to be aware of what is being discussed in the upcoming days. This motion reflects the advocacy to prioritize education workers for vaccinations in the spring and the more recent public debate and new policies recently announced by the federal government and other prominent organizations across the GTA as one of the tools to promote greater health and safety. We have included the draft motion below so you are aware of what is being discussed. On Tuesday, you can watch the discussion online.

As always, we will continue to provide updates as additional details are confirmed.

Thank you.

Motion

Whereas, public education is the cornerstone and foundation of a healthy, vital and progressive society; and

Whereas, keeping schools open has been deemed a priority for children’s learning, mental health and well-being; and

Whereas, data shows that being fully vaccinated significantly reduces the risks of the most serious outcomes of COVID-19, including the variants of concern to date; and

Whereas, vaccines are readily available throughout the City of Toronto through pop-up clinics across the city and in schools, mobile units, pharmacies, and city-run vaccination centres; and

Whereas, it is incumbent upon society to protect children under 12 who are ineligible to be vaccinated at this time and vulnerable populations who are at highest risk of developing complications from COVID-19; and

Whereas, Ontario has a precedent for requiring vaccinations to protect children and ensure schools remain as safe as possible;

Therefore, be it resolved:

(a) That the Director work collaboratively with Toronto Public Health, local health partners, and TDSB employee groups to develop a strategy and protocol to require COVID-19 vaccination or testing for staff, which can include a multipronged approach involving education and incentivization, to ensure TDSB workplaces remain as safe as possible for students and staff alike;

(b) That, should part (a) be adopted:

  1. the finalized protocol and strategy be implemented prior to school reopening on September 9 if feasible, or as soon as practicable thereafter;

  2. OPSBA, all Ontario Public School Boards, and all TDSB employee groups be notified of this resolution.

Posted in Vaccines | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Toronto District School Board considering motion to mandate vaccination or testing for staff

Ontario resident shares efforts to have face mask exemption recognized by Windsor mall

Ontario resident Ben Weigl has shared his story with OCLA about his efforts to get his local shopping mall to include information about face mask exemptions in its posters notifying customers about the mall’s mask requirement.

As he explains below, Mr. Weigl was confronted by mall security who called the police because he was handing out letters to stores in the mall stating his request. Mr. Weigl filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), which is still in process one year later.

Mr. Weigl’s story can be read below:

EXERCISING MY RIGHTS UNDER THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE CONSIDERED SOLICITING A BUSINESS BY DEVONSHIRE MALL IN WINDSOR, ONTARIO

By Ben Weigl, August 1, 2021

The following is my story of what happened to me, an Ontario resident with a non-apparent disability, at Devonshire mall, when I requested under the Ontario Human Rights Code that the stores and the mall accommodate people with disabilities by adding the mask exemptions to their signs. And the process of filing an Ontario human rights complaint against the mall, which is still in its process at the time of this writing (August 1, 2021).

I had seen and heard of too many instances, not just in Ontario but across the country, of how people were treated even when they told the businesses they had mask exemptions, including my own experiences. I was shocked and dismayed and hurt that Canadians, of all people, were treating their fellow citizens this way. In August of 2020, due to experiences at Devonshire Mall in Windsor, Ontario, where stores denied me service even though I have a mask exemption, I decided to exercise my rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code and write an accommodation to disability request letter and hand deliver that letter to each store in Devonshire mall.

Pic 1: Accommodation to disability request letter handed out to mall and stores

aug2020disbiltiyrequestomall 001--cropped

So on Monday August 17, 2020, with letter in hand, I went to Devonshire mall. I came across a mall security guard named Ryan and handed him the letter. He was reluctant to accept it.  So I proceeded to hand out my letters to the individual stores in the mall, indicating to each store that it was an accommodation to disability request. At about the 8th store, the same security guard who was reluctant to accept the letter told me to stop handing them out. I informed him I was exercising my rights under the Code and would continue to do so, at which time he informed me he would call police if I continued. I informed him if that’s what he had do, then go ahead.  I continued to hand out the letters, and I now noticed about 5 security guards who seemed to come out of nowhere discussing what they should do.

At about the 13th store I was now approached by Chris Savard, a mall representative and security – basically the same discussion – I was exercising my rights, was told to stop handing out the letters, and if I didn’t, they would call police. Again I refused to stop and continued.

Finally, the police were called. Two Windsor police officers showed up. We now had the two police officers, security guard Ryan, Chris Savard the mall representative and myself discussing the issue in front of guest services. I noticed the surveillance camera just above guest services, so I positioned myself so that the camera would capture everything and everyone.

The one police officer when I volunteered my ID quoted “6 feet, 6 feet” indicating I should stay back 6 feet from him.

When I tried to explain and requested they accommodate my disability and let me continue to hand out my letter, they said no because they considered it soliciting a business, and threatened me with trespass. I asked the police officers if I was being asked to leave.

Chris Savard said I could continue with being at the mall as long as I stopped handing out the letters.

At this point I figured it was time to stop and fight another day by making an Ontario human rights complaint.

Pic 2: Mall signage confirmed by the mall itself in response to my Ontario human rights application (notice that the signs do not indicate in any way that there are exemptions, only that masks must be worn to enter).

mallsigangeverifyedbymallinohrc

TIME TO FILL OUT AN ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT

Due to my experiences at the mall it was now time to fill out an Ontario human rights complaint of discrimination against disability, for the mall interfering in my accommodation to disability request letter which the Devonshire mall considers 1) the letter to be a flyer, and 2) handing out that letter to be soliciting a business.

Due to all the covid rules and shutdowns I knew it was probably going to take at least a year to be heard. I filled out the complaint at the end of August 2020 and received a response to the complaint in July of 2021. I had other complaints from August 2020 regarding other stores, and it seemed once I wrote to the tribunal that I did not receive a response to any of my complaints. With it now being July 2021, I asked them to make a decision on all my applications as in my opinion justice delayed was justice denied. About a week later, I received from the Tribunal the response from Devonshire mall and notices of intent to dismiss other cases I had going.

So the tribunal sent me the Devonshire mall response in July of 2021 when it was indicated on the response form that Devonshire mall responded by response form in September of 2020.

Remember because of lockdowns, tribunal members and staff were working at home from different locations. My Devonshire mall case was handled by one then passed off to another one. As I have stated previously at the time of this writing, ‎Sunday, ‎August ‎01, ‎2021, the application is still going through its process.

WHAT BOTHERS ME THE MOST

  1. Devonshire mall by their own admission in a HRTO response form indicate they knew there were exemptions as per the by-law and told the stores the same thing, yet Devonshire mall and stores chose not to post exemptions, only the sign or signs as above that masks are to be worn before entering.
  2. That Devonshire mall considers my accommodation to disability request letter to be a flyer and soliciting a business.

I have experienced and seen people calling out other people and harassing them for not wearing a mask, because they see the “wear a mask” sign that has no indication whatsoever that there are exemptions.

In my case, I’m dealing with the disability exemption, so for me and I am sure for others who are disabled, the stigmas attached to people with disabilities prior to covid have increased dramatically due to people being unaware of exemptions. And in my opinion this has created a poisoned environment throughout the country for not only people with disabled exemptions but other exemptions as well.

HOW I TRY AND PROTECT MYSELF DURING THESE TYPES OF THINGS

Since the mall has security cameras everywhere, I knew everyone’s actions were monitored, therefore I always positioned myself in front of one when approached by mall staff.

When it comes to a trespass issue, leave the establishment and fight another day: file an Ontario human rights complaint.

If you can, write down the incident as soon as you get home, or after you depressurize from the incident.

Since I was forced to stop handing out my letter but was allowed to continue to be in the mall, I took time in the food court which was opened at that time to write down the incident.

Who, what, where, why, when and how.

CONCLUSION: IS THERE ANY?

Like I have indicated before, the Ontario human rights process is still ongoing.

 

Posted in COVID, Face Masks | Comments Off on Ontario resident shares efforts to have face mask exemption recognized by Windsor mall

A Letter to the Unvaccinated

(Traduction en français disponible ici)

OCLA researcher Dr. Denis Rancourt and several fellow Canadian academics penned an open letter to support those who have decided not to accept the COVID-19 vaccine.

The group emphasizes the voluntary nature of this medical treatment as well as the need for informed consent and individual risk-benefit assessment. They reject the pressure exerted by public health officials, the news and social media, and fellow citizens.

Control over our bodily integrity may well be the ultimate frontier of the fight to protect civil liberties. Read the letter below or as a PDF here.

Open Letter to the Unvaccinated

You are not alone! As of 28 July 2021, 29% of Canadians have not received a COVID-19 vaccine, and an additional 14% have received one shot. In the US and in the European Union, less than half the population is fully vaccinated, and even in Israel, the “world’s lab” according to Pfizer, one third of people remain completely unvaccinated. Politicians and the media have taken a uniform view, scapegoating the unvaccinated for the troubles that have ensued after eighteen months of fearmongering and lockdowns. It’s time to set the record straight.

It is entirely reasonable and legitimate to say ‘no’ to insufficiently tested vaccines for which there is no reliable science. You have a right to assert guardianship of your body and to refuse medical treatments if you see fit. You are right to say ‘no’ to a violation of your dignity, your integrity and your bodily autonomy. It is your body, and you have the right to choose. You are right to fight for your children against their mass vaccination in school.

You are right to question whether free and informed consent is at all possible under present circumstances. Long-term effects are unknown. Transgenerational effects are unknown. Vaccine-induced deregulation of natural immunity is unknown. Potential harm is unknown as the adverse event reporting is delayed, incomplete and inconsistent between jurisdictions.

You are being targeted by mainstream media, government social engineering campaigns, unjust rules and policies, collaborating employers, and the social-media mob. You are being told that you are now the problem and that the world cannot get back to normal unless you get vaccinated. You are being viciously scapegoated by propaganda and pressured by others around you. Remember; there is nothing wrong with you.

You are inaccurately accused of being a factory for new SARS-CoV-2 variants, when in fact, according to leading scientists, your natural immune system generates immunity to multiple components of the virus. This will promote your protection against a vast range of viral variants and abrogates further spread to anyone else.

You are justified in demanding independent peer-reviewed studies, not funded by multinational pharmaceutical companies. All the peer-reviewed studies of short-term safety and short-term efficacy have been funded, organized, coordinated, and supported by these for-profit corporations; and none of the study data have been made public or available to researchers who don’t work for these companies.

You are right to question the preliminary vaccine trial results. The claimed high values of relative efficacy rely on small numbers of tenuously determined “infections.”  The studies were also not blind, where people giving the injections admittedly knew or could deduce whether they were injecting the experimental vaccine or the placebo. This is not acceptable scientific methodology for vaccine trials.

You are correct in your calls for a diversity of scientific opinions. Like in nature, we need a polyculture of information and its interpretations. And we don’t have that right now. Choosing not to take the vaccine is holding space for reason, transparency and accountability to emerge. You are right to ask, ‘What comes next when we give away authority over our own bodies?’

Do not be intimidated. You are showing resilience, integrity and grit. You are coming together in your communities, making plans to help one another and standing for scientific accountability and free speech, which are required for society to thrive. We are among many who stand with you.

Angela Durante, PhD
Denis Rancourt, PhD
Claus Rinner, PhD
Laurent Leduc, PhD
Donald Welsh, PhD
John Zwaagstra, PhD
Jan Vrbik, PhD
Valentina Capurri, PhD

Update: The letter has been shared widely on the Internet, and translated into several languages, including AlbanianCzech, Estonian, French, German, ItalianNorwegian, PortugueseRussianSpanish, and Thai.

Posted in COVID, Letters | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on A Letter to the Unvaccinated

Canadian government’s “Online Harms” legislation

The Canadian federal government sent an email this week to civil liberties associations and other groups announcing the opening of the government’s consultation period on its proposed “Online Harms Legislation”.

The email included slides in an attachment with information about the legislation, entitled “Technical Discussion Paper: Online Harms Legislation”.

The legislation will regulate social media expression that the government deems to be “hateful” or “harmful”.

The slides state “there is a clear role for Government” in regulating online speech and that “efforts by social media platforms are inconsistent and not enough”. The government proposes to “set new rules for social media platforms”, including:

  • Obligation to remove 5 categories of harmful content (hate speech, child sexual exploitation content, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, incitement to violence content, and terrorist content)
  • Harmful content to removed within 24 hours of being flagged
  • Transparency, reporting and preservation requirements
  • Procedural fairness for users, victims, and advocacy groups
  • Direct internet service providers (ISPs) to block access in Canada as a last resort with a court order, for platforms that persistently do not comply with orders to take down child exploitation and terrorist content

The legislation would also create a new Digital Safety Commission to “oversee and enforce new rules”, “make binding decisions on content removal”, and “provide independent recourse through a digital tribunal system”.

The forthcoming legislation may also:

  • Require social media platforms to inform the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) about certain types of information posted on their platforms (slide 10).
  • Provide CSIS with a new judicial authorization for obtaining consumers’ internet subscriber information such as the transmission data, customer name, address, phone number, billing information associated with IP address (slide 12).

The consultation period ends on September 25, 2021. Comments can be submitted to the government at: pch.icn-dci.pch@canada.ca.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Canadian government’s “Online Harms” legislation

Letter to Health Canada Calling for Ban on Glyphosate

(Traduction en français disponible ici)

OCLA researcher Dr. Denis Rancourt has written a detailed letter to the Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) asking for the herbicide glyphosate to be banned in Canada.

The letter, entitled “Glyphosate should be banned, not increased” was submitted in response to the PMRA’s invitation for comments from the public on its proposal to increase the maximum residue limit of glyphosate on many types of crops.

There is a strong correlation between glyphosate use and the incidence and death rates for many chronic diseases.  This is an area of extensive scientific research, which Dr. Rancourt reviews in his letter.

The letter’s Conclusion includes the following statements:

More than 38 weed species developed resistance to glyphosate, causing 20 countries to restrict or ban its use. The always increasing weed resistance to glyphosate drives increases in glyphosate application. You appear to be motivated to accommodate these foreseeable increases rather than primarily motivated to protect the health of Canadians.

If the present Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) are based on “a thorough risk assessment to confirm that eating foods treated with a pesticide would not result in any human health concern to any segment of the population, including pregnant women, infants, children and seniors”, as publicly asserted by Health Canada (“Glyphosate in Canada”, 28 August 2020; see above), then it is inconceivable how you would have concluded that new scientific research supports increasing the MRLs. In fact, the recent public-domain scientific work unambiguously points in the opposite direction: towards fundamental re-assessment, given newly identified risks.

 

 

Posted in Letters | Comments Off on Letter to Health Canada Calling for Ban on Glyphosate