Who is to be held to account?
Last year, Trudeau’s use of the Emergency Act brutally to subdue the truckers was scrutinised by a public inquiry, with the preposterous verdict that the federal government had reached the ‘very high threshold’ for such action. Here was the establishment marking its own homework. Concerns have been raised in the UK about the behaviour of banks following Nigel Farage’s exposé of Coutts, but in Canada it was government policy to close accounts of anyone involved in the truckers’ rebellion. Showing little remorse for three years of abject tyranny, presumably the Trudeau administration wants to be credited with competent handling of a crisis, with tough but difficult decisions taken.
However the BMJ report is not concerned with state persecution of peaceful protesters, focusing instead on lack of sensitivity to marginalised groups. The authors assert that ‘Canada is among the healthiest and most diverse nations in the world’, that ‘multiculturalism is protected in national law’ and that ‘amongst a population of 40million people about a quarter are foreign-born’. What is the relevance of this to lockdown and forced injection of experimental mRNA vaccines?
Allegedly, immigrant and indigenous communities were treated particularly badly, but ‘what saved Canada was a largely willing and conforming populace that withstood stringent public health measures and achieved among the world’s highest levels of vaccination coverage’.
I suspect that the BMJ critique has ulterior motives. Arguably, it is to undermine what the authors refer to as the currently running ‘so-called National Citizens’ Inquiry’. The National Post highlighted the report’s disdain for the resistance movement:
‘According to the BMJ editorial the “National Citizens Inquiry (a citizen-led inquiry originally launched by former Reform Party leader Preston Manning) appears fuelled by vaccine safety misinformation and ideological concerns” about stringent COVID measures. The BMJ goes on to say it “is far from the full, national and public inquiry led by independent experts that Canada’s pandemic performance deserves”.’
This attitude will not surprise any critical thinker observing the UK government’s Covid-19 whitewash, which rather than engaging the multitude of sceptical views gave a platform to extremists of the ‘Independent Sage’ group. Few lessons will be learned from the BMJ report. Instead of incisive probing into the Canadian authorities, the purpose appears to be to swing the pendulum back from increasing citizens’ doubt to the official narrative that Covid-19 was a deadly contagion necessitating exceptional interference in lives and liberties.
Comments beneath the National Post article were mostly critical of the Canadian government, for example:
‘The Convoy demonstrated that the Federal Government was not following science, but was more interested in autocracy and bullying tactics that saw civil liberties suspended, even though science did not warrant such.’
‘The unvaccinated deserve a huge apology from everyone.’
The BMJ was one of many publishers to provide free access to Covid-related material during the pandemic. Although the peer-review system may have been biased against contrary evidence and argument, such literature remains independent of official bodies such as the World Health Organization, which the globalist technocrats are exploiting for a huge power-grab.
Nonetheless, the BMJ’s call for an ‘expert’ inquiry in Canada should be taken with a pinch of salt. Covid-19, like the contrived climate crisis, showed how ‘the science’ is deployed to suppress debate and fix truth to official narrative. A contrived ‘scientific consensus’ is no more valid as a representation of reality than a vote in parliament or a public opinion poll. As Carl Sagan said, appeals to authority should be rejected. Science is not a popularity contest but often (to quote Al Gore) ‘an inconvenient truth’.
The veneer of expertise has rubbed off, as has trust in government. Official inquiries will not expose the facts, falsehood and fraud of the Covid-19 regime, because the officials conducting such inquiries want to preserve their power. In the real world, however, it is the people who decide what is right and what is wrong. Increasingly they realise that their governments – and the privileged managerial-professional class – are working against them.
**
For a product that Pfizer is in front of the Australian Senate admitting was never tested for reducing transmission. He needs to be incarcerated as he incarcerated others. https://t.co/3LT6ZBfSZD
— Sheldon DuMont (@seaforthdoctari) August 3, 2023
Oh, a technicality! Well!:
An Albertan court ruled on Tuesday that lockdown orders enacted in response to Covid were invalid.
The ruling in Ingram v. Alberta will likely force prosecutors to withdraw charges against individuals, churches, and other organizations in several other standing cases.
Justice Barbara Romaine ruled in favor of the applicants because the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) delegated her decisions to the cabinet, which she was not authorized to do under Canadian law. The CMOH herself testified at trial that she provided only advice and recommendations to politicians but did not make the decisions herself.
Justice Romaine did conclude that although they violated the rights in section 2 of the Canadian Charter, lockdowns would not have violated the Charter if they had been implemented legally.
No comments:
Post a Comment