The rates of death and injury from Covid-19 never justified the need for these experimental treatments in the first place. Not to mention the fact that a number of safe and proven treatments are readily available. However, to admit this would have precluded an Emergency Use Authorization which is what enabled the authorities to foist this on us. The vaccinations must be stopped and this whole matter fully investigated.
We believe the Covid-19 pandemic and the related vaccination program represents the biggest crime ever foisted on the people of this world.
It is such a vast conspiracy that it defies credulity, which is in large part how they were able to execute their plan.
About The INjustice
Legal and Ethical Issues:
- It is scarcely believable that western nations have all coerced their own citizens not merely to take a medical treatment (which would be bad enough), but to take an experimental medication with a novel mechanism of action. The newness of the COVID jabs makes them experimental by definition. This is in flat contradiction of the Nuremberg Code, developed in the aftermath of World War II, and adopted as a principle of medical ethics by virtually all western nations and many others. The Code’s purpose is specifically to prevent medical practitioners from violating their patients, by elevating voluntary informed consent (and therefore bodily autonomy) above any competing benefits that might arise from experimentation on the patient.
- In Canada and many people, the story is worse than this. Not only have citizens been forced to inject an untested substance into their bodies, those who have refused have been vilified, demonized, scapegoated and threatened. Many of them lost their jobs, incomes, scholarships and suffered abuse because they insisted on retaining autonomy over their own bodies. It is now also clear, from initial analysesxxviii of the clinical trial data that Pfizer has been forced to release, as well as from other sources, that these people have been vindicated. So, turning again to those who received the COVID injections, whether they did so out of concern about their own vulnerability, or trusting public health officials in good faith, or as a result of coercion by their employer or some other entity acting as an agent of the state (e.g., an airline following the vaccination mandate, which has been in place since November 30, 2021).
- The Canadian federal government (along with most provincial governments) has grossly violated their Charter rightsxxix. Perhaps more astonishingly than this, Canadian doctors have tamely allowed the desecration of the trusted doctor-patient relationship by not protecting their patients’ right of voluntary informed consent. There are likely several factors at play here, including the insular, cliquey nature of the medical profession, the overly cosy relationship of licensing organizations (and individual doctors) with pharmaceutical companies, and the fear and subsequent self-preservation instinct that were in overdrive in early 2020.
- It has been extraordinarily difficult for those with COVID vaccine injuries to be heard and attended to, let alone compensated. As if that were not enough, public health messaging continues to push indiscriminately for boosters (i.e., third and fourth jabs). For various reasons, including the simple reality that most Canadians are (reluctantly or otherwise) recognizing that both COVID and the vaccines were oversold, coercion efforts have been tamped down. Nevertheless, the damage has been done: Canadians have been lied to, manipulated and coerced, and too many Canadians, like young Sean Hartman, have paid with their lives.
- Government policies requiring vaccine passports (e.g., for air or train travel, school attendance) are an indirect infringement of the Charter’s section 2(a) protection of freedom of religion and conscience.
- Under s.6(1) of the Charter, citizens of Canada have the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada, and under s.6(2), both citizens and permanent residents have the right to (a) move to, reside in and (b) gain a livelihood in any province.
- For international travel, does the establishment of a COVID-19 vaccine passport regime at Canada’s borders constitutes an infringement of mobility rights.
- For inter-provincial travel, one has a right to move to a province without pursuing a livelihood, or pursue a livelihood in a province without establishing residence. Vaccine passports may erode these interprovincial mobility rights, particularly if provinces/territories establish a “patchwork” of non-interoperable passports
- Section 7 of the Charter provides that, “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.” This Charter guarantee includes an internal limitations clause, allowing governmental entities to limit these rights, provided that such limits are implemented in a manner consistent with principles of fundamental justice.
- Does the vaccine passport regime infringe one or more of the protected rights to life, liberty and/or security of the person? If so, are the infringements inconsistent with some principle of 8 fundamental justice, i.e., are they arbitrary, overbroad or grossly disproportionate
- If so, can the vaccine passport regime nonetheless be saved, under s.1 of the Charter, as proportionate and “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society?” Mandating injections that are not out of the testing phase and recording more adverse effects and deaths than all other vaccinations combined over the last twenty years, for a virus with less than a percentage point risk of death for anyone under 65 should not be demonstrably justified
- The Supreme Court of Canada, in a foundational case, established that in Canada freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint. If Canadian governments move to force or otherwise mandate vaccines, they need to be effectively and immediately challenged in court.
- The Charter’s s.15 guarantee of Equality Rights prohibits “discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability,” and the Supreme Court has ruled that certain other “analogous grounds” are protected as well and include characteristics that are immutable or at least difficult for a person to change (e.g., sexual orientation, citizenship)
- Allowing private entities to collect and use personal health information is invasive. Government is engaging in Public Private Partnerships that will allow corporate entities to collect and use your personal health information is highly invasive. Tying the ability to participate in public life with a persistent form of surveillance is a diminishment of the level of freedom we expect in a democracy that must be carefully examined for proportionality in the pandemic context.
- The creation of a digital health pass or vaccine passport linked to your personal ID will have far reaching consequences. Going digital adds complexity to the concerns due to the potential for data collection, combination, and breach.
- You may want to consider:
- What data is collected and used?
- Where does it come from?
- Where does the data live–your device or a central server?
- How is it transferred to a requestor? Authenticated? Updated? Secured?
- Is it used to simply display a credential (much like flashing a paper certificate or ID card) or scanned and recorded, and does the scan connect to a personal identifier accessible to the requestor?
- Is the credential tied to a central digital identifier? Is that identifier–such as a health card number–shared or kept private after it’s used to authenticate the user and vaccination status? How is that authenticated? Who certifies the authentication for external requestors?
- What kinds of data linkages are created and what linkages are made possible that may be undesirable? Will there be risk scores/AI-driven analysis as part of a system?
- Is it governments, a private sector vendor, or a collaboration that creates the tool, and which of those stakeholders has access to data collected on the app?
- You may want to consider:
- The choice to be vaccinated is not open to all. There are some people with pre-existing medical conditions or disabilities where vaccination would be counter-indicated, and it is unclear how many people that affects because the vaccines were generally (or primarily) only tested for emergency authorization on healthy adults. People who live with persistent illness or disability are among those who most need human rights protections to ensure equal treatment. Even if the passport simply indicates “medically exempt”, that categorization may affect how individuals are treated (even if such differential treatment is technically prohibited).
- There are other equality concerns too. Not all members of our society are at equal risk or have equal means to navigate the pandemic while maintaining their health, safety, and income.
- Front line workers in service and retail are often women, newcomers, racialized, and/or financially insecure, and a vaccination passport regime that predicates participation in the workplace or other activities on proof of vaccination will disproportionately impact those individuals who have little social or political power to resist.
- Socially sorting people based on vaccination status, will create a two tier system – one group will enjoy freedoms and opportunities that the other will not.
- Requiring proof of vaccination in order to participate in life will destroy freedom and democracy as we know it. If Covid affects primarily the elderly and infirm, protections should be put into place for those that are truly vulnerable, leaving the rest of us to resume normal, healthy lives.
- One of the proposed digital platforms is the V-Health passport. This is under consideration in the UK and other countries and is built upon V-Platform technology. This technology is designed to be an all purpose digital Passport & Payment It has already been designed to enable cardless, cashless shopping. Every product and ticket you purchase on and offline can be individually tracked and used to build your data record. This, combined with presentation at shops, transport stations, offices and entertainment facilities, also tracks your detailed public movements.
- As the marketing declares; “The possibilities are infinite. The VCode® links directly to any form of information such as websites, videos, photos, books, documents and much more. Your VCode® can store anything from identity details, health records, payment methods, car registration numbers, business card details, social media links and much more all from the same code”.
2 (Religious Freedoms, Freedom of Conscience)
6 (Mobility Rights)
- There is a lot of conflicting science being pushed out regarding the efficacy of all of the Covid vaccines. For every study that you find which demonstrates a positive efficacy, there are many others that demonstrate the opposite. All of this research is scientific with studies or data modelling being conducted by credible scientists on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, the overpowering narrative is portraying any “science” that is not “The Science” as not credible. For any free thinking human, this is a false assumption and is not helpful. Science is fluid. There are thousands of examples of scientific discoveries that turned out to have unanticipated results, sometimes deadly. Below are links to just a few
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide Vioxx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4843a5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html
- COVID-19 vaccines are a very lucrative business, yet these same vaccine manufacturers have shocking histories of fraud and illegal behaviour. AstraZeneca has already been caught faking their vaccine efficacy data. Please reference the wikipedia link below to see a full lists
- As of April 31, 2020 the College of Physicians And Surgeons has released a statement against doctors that prevents them from, speaking or using social media that questions any of the current government Covid Policies. Any doctors who speak out are threatened with disciplinary action that may result in them losing their medical licences.Academia
- The College of Nurses (CNO) stated that nurses are leaders in the community and the public’s trust in nurses may extend to their views on health matters communicated on social media and other forums. Statements made by nurses in public forums have the potential to impact the health and safety of the public. CNO’s practice standards do not apply to all aspects of a nurse’s private life. However, when a nurse communicates with the public and identifies as a nurse, they invoke their professional position as a nurse and are accountable to CNO and the public it protects. Nurses are expected to adhere to the standards of practice in carrying out their professional responsibilities. Nurses have a professional responsibility to not publicly communicate anti-vaccination, anti-masking and anti-distancing statements that contradict the available scientific evidence. Doing so may result in an investigation by CNO, and disciplinary proceedings when warranted.
- Similar requirements were put in place for the Chiropractic College and other healing practices in order to stifle public dissent with respect to the injections
- There are countless examples of professionals losing their practice and being driven out of favour due to their science based objections to the vaccines
- Employees who are members of a union have even more limited legal rights. While a non unionized employee has the right to fight a termination in civil court, a unionized employee can only defend at the behest of the union itself. Unfortunately, every public union in Canada sided with the government and was unwilling to defend it’s unionized members who were opposed to the injections. In this respect, the unions were complicit in policing the governments vaccination policies
- Much can be said about how the media has perpetrated the lies and misinformation around the injections and the associated adverse reactions and deaths. The liberal media has been in lockstep throughout the pandemic in reporting a very limited narrative.
- A very small group of politicians (Baber, etc.. – insert names here), have stood up for their values during the pandemic and have paid the price. They have been kicked out of their parties and publicly vilified for speaking their minds. The majority of politicians are supporting the prevailing narrative with no interest in making informed and personal statements regarding the injections and lockdowns. These politicians are all complicit in creating the current situation.