Hillier ruling strengthens Charter right of assembly

In this year's case of Hillier v. Ontario, for the first time ever, a Canadian court has invoked the Charter right of peaceful assembly to overturn a law as unconstitutional.   

Hillier at 2021 anti-lockdown protest, Niagara Falls, Ont, Photo: Beth Baisch, Dreamstime

Ontario court ruling in Hillier case a positive sign for Charter freedoms | Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms | John Carpay:

April 10, 2025 - "Since lockdowns were imposed in March 2020, governments across Canada have admitted in numerous court challenges that provincial and federal health orders did violate one or more of the Charter freedoms of conscience, religion, expression, peaceful assembly, association, and mobility. In like manner, governments have admitted that vaccine mandates violated the Charter right to bodily autonomy. Canadian courts have consistently upheld these Charter violations as being reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society — until the Ontario Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Hillier v. Ontario on April 7.

"Randy Hillier, a former Member of Ontario’s Provincial Parliament, challenged Ontario’s total and absolute ban on all outdoor protests, which the government imposed on citizens in April and May of 2021. While up to 10 people could gather for a wedding or funeral, or for a religious service or ceremony, it was illegal for two people to meet outdoors for a peaceful protest!

"Mr. Hillier faced charges and fines up to $100,000 for organizing peaceful political protests in Kemptville and Cornwall, and for attending protests in Smiths Falls, Belleville, Peterborough, Stratford, Kitchener, and Chatham throughout April and May 2021. His defence to these charges was that Ontario unjustifiably restricted his Charter freedom of peaceful assembly. In court, Ontario presented no evidence that its total ban on outdoor protests, including those in which Mr. Hillier participated, would reduce the spread of Covid.

"Overturning the November 2023 lower court ruling, Court of Appeal Justices Lauwers, Zarnett, and Pomerance ruled unanimously that Ontario’s absolute ban on peaceful assembly in 2021, particularly outdoor political protests, was an unjustified violation of the freedom of peaceful assembly as protected by Section 2(c) of the Charter.... The court declared that it could not countenance 'an outcome in which the state eliminates the free exercise of a fundamental freedom, without giving that elimination any actual thought'.... While stating that 'the pandemic posed significant challenges for Ontario,' the court declared that 'the Constitution does not fade from view in times of crisis.' 

"For the first time in Canadian judicial history, an appellate court has outlined the nature, purpose, and benefits of the Charter section 2(c) freedom of peaceful assembly, declaring it 'elemental' and 'integral to a functioning democracy.' Previously, peaceful assembly has been ignored and subsumed into the other Charter section 2 freedoms.... Peaceful assembly differs from the other fundamental freedoms because 'a demonstration is an act of solidarity, a coming together of similarly minded individuals,' who can 'make visible the extent and depth of support for a position,' the ruling said.

"The freedom of peaceful assembly protects the ability of citizens to get the community to pay attention to their message of protest or dissent, and entice others to become involved in redressing grievances. The court noted that 'outdoor protests are especially effective at amplifying minority voices and expressing political dissent.' Ontario’s total ban on peaceful protests denied citizens of their 'opportunity to influence public policy by this time-honoured method.' Significantly, the court ruled that social media and virtual gatherings ... cannot replace the 'traditional means of participating in public assemblies'..... 

"Governments across Canada have been put on notice that they cannot ban peaceful political gatherings. Freedom-loving Canadians can be encouraged that the Ontario Court of Appeal has elevated a previously 'forgotten freedom' to overturn a Covid-era ban on the exercise of that same Charter freedom. Could protection of Charter freedoms in Canada be making a comeback?"

Read more: https://www.jccf.ca/ontario-court-ruling-in-hillier-case-a-positive-sign-for-charter-freedoms/

The bridge to Freedom is never too far. Hillier Wins-Government loses! |  Randy Hillier | April 7, 2025:

Canada's Supreme Court won't rule on lockdowns

In March, Canada's Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a Manitoba court ruling that public health officials should not be "second guessed" on whether lockdown policies were a justifiable violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

Supreme Court will not hear case about government’s violation of rights and freedoms | Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms:

March 14, 2024 - "The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is disappointed that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided not to hear the appeal of the challenge to Manitoba’s lockdown restrictions. The decision was announced on Thursday, March 14, 2024. The Leave to Appeal application, under the name Gateway Bible Baptist Church et al. v. Manitoba et al., was filed on September 18, 2023. 

"Five Manitoba churches, a pastor and a deacon [had] asked the Supreme Court of Canada to hear their appeal of the lower courts’ dismissal of their constitutional challenge to closures of churches and restrictions on outdoor gatherings during Covid lockdowns in late 2020 and 2021. Included in the application was protester Ross MacKay, who had been ticketed and who was seeking to appeal the lower courts’ dismissal of his constitutional challenge to the outdoor gathering limits.

"Through public health orders, Manitoba had closed churches while permitting businesses to continue to operate. Taxis, in-person university classes, film and tv productions, law offices, and liquor stores were allowed to remain open. The Winnipeg Jets could meet and train indoors with their extended crew, and summer Olympic competitors were allowed to train indoors. Outdoor gatherings were reduced to no more than five people, while at the same time hundreds of people could legally gather indoors at big box stores.

"The initial case was heard in May 2021 before the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench. The province did not produce any evidence that Covid spreads outdoors, or that outdoor gatherings were risky activities. That hearing did produce a significant admission from a government expert witness, Chief Microbiologist and Laboratory Specialist Dr. Jared Bullard, who, under questioning from Justice Centre lawyers, admitted that 56 percent of positive Covid cases were not infectious.... The Manitoba Court of King’s Bench ruled that the government’s public health officials should not be 'second guessed' and that the government need not meet a high threshold of providing persuasive evidence to demonstrably justify that violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were reasonable. 

"The Manitoba Court of King’s Bench did not order the unsuccessful Applicants to pay court costs, finding there to be significant public interest in having this case adjudicated. In December 2022, the Applicants appealed. The appeal was dismissed by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in June 2023.

"In the Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, lawyers provided by the Justice Centre argued that the case raised issues of national importance. For instance: 

• How are constitutionally protected activities to be juridically measured against comparable non-constitutionally protected activities? 
• What is the proper approach to the minimal impairment stage of the Oakes analysis with respect to public health orders that fully prohibit Charter-protected activities (e.g. In- person religious worship) while permitting comparable non-Charter-protected activities[?].... 
• Does reliance on the 'precautionary principle' satisfy the state’s onus under Charter section 1 to provide 'cogent and persuasive' evidence to justify Charter-infringing measures?

"The Applicants’ legal team believed the case was critically important, as it could have served as guidance for governments in crafting public health measures on efforts needed to accommodate Charter-protected rights and freedoms. Allison Pejovic, lawyer for the Applicants, stated, 

Our clients are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear their appeal. It was past time to have a conversation with Canada’s highest court about whether Charter-protected rights such as rights to worship and assemble ought to be prioritized over economic interests, such as ensuring that the Winnipeg Jets could practice indoors and that movie productions could continue. It was also critical to hear from the Court on the importance of respecting the Charter during a declared ’emergency’. Governments urgently needed the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance as to the degree to which they should accommodate Charter rights during a future pandemic or other emergency proclaimed by government. Leaving that issue undecided at the highest level is a grave injustice for all Canadians."

Read more: https://www.jccf.ca/supreme-court-will-not-hear-case-about-governments-violation-of-rights-and-freedoms/

Pass my bill without reading it, Canada's Deputy PM tells Senate

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland recently told Canada's Senate to pass an almost $9 Billion spending bill without reading it.  (Note: This is not an April Fool's story.)

Freeland urges senators to pass last-minute $8.9 billion bill before reading it | Western Standard | Jen Hodgson: 

Chrystia Freeland, 2017. Wikimedia Commons.

 

March 29, 2024 - "Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland provoked outrage after asking senators to pass an $8.9 billion budget bill they had not yet read, Blacklock’s Reporter reports. The greatest portion of Freeland’s last-minute increased spending bill tacks on $3.2 billion to cover interest charges on the national debt.... This is not the first time the Trudeau Liberals have tried to get a bill passed before it was adequately reviewed.

"Bill C-67 An Act For Granting To His Majesty Certain Sums Of Money, seeking approval for new spending in the billions to take care federal expenses until the end of the fiscal year (March 31, 2024), without disclosing the legal text of the bill.  'Prudent spending is the government’s focus,” said Sen. Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Cabinet’s legislative deputy in the Senate, adding the failure to publish the bill in advance was 'really a House of Commons problem.'

“'You need the bill to vote on it,' said Sen. Elizabeth Marshall, a former provincial auditor. 'I haven’t seen the bill. It’s not posted. I don’t know how we can vote on a bill that we haven’t seen'.... 

"Senators suspended the meeting for an hour while clerks distributed copies of the bill. 'This is an embarrassment,' said Senate opposition leader Senator Donald Plett.... 

"In addition to the $3.2 billion to go towards paying interest charges on the national debt, Freeland’s bill proposes $2.2 billion more for national defence and $1.2 billion in pay increases for federal employees. The bill granted Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation (CMHC) an extra $101 million to cover loan losses and write-offs under the National Housing Act and approved an extra $34.6 million to run the federal prison system.

“'I want to bring up a little bit of history,' said Sen. Denise Batters. 'This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened.' Parliament from the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic on Friday, March 13, 2020 in less than two hours passed without debate three budget bills granting cabinet wartime spending powers for 90 days. The Commons then voted itself out of session for five weeks. Blacklock’s that day confirmed no text of the bills was disclosed until hours after they were signed into law.... Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government then used the bills to grant itself authority to borrow without parliamentary scrutiny a total $350 billion by March 31, 2020."

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/freeland-urges-senators-to-pass-last-minute-89-billion-bill-before-reading-it/53325 

Ontario Crown drops more Covid-related charges

Ontario pastors and former MP have 2021 lockdown tickets stayed | Western Standard | Lee Harding:

March 8, 2024 - "Some prominent Ontario activists who attended outdoor anti-lockdown rallies in 2021 have had their tickets stayed with help from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

"On May 8, 2021, former Member of Parliament Derek Sloan attended an outdoor anti-lockdown rally, organized by No More Lockdowns Canada. That rally attracted close to 1,000 participants.... On May 30, Pastor Henry Hildebrandt of the Church of God in Aylmer, Ontario participated in a similar outdoor rally in Woodstock, ON, attended by an estimated 350 people. 

"Both rallies were peaceful. There were no criminal charges, only tickets for violating the Reopening Ontario Act, which placed a total ban on indoor and outdoor gatherings during the spring of 2021, although there was no evidence to show that outdoor gatherings were significant contributors to the spread of COVID-19. 

"Sloan had faced charges for participating in peaceful protests across Ontario, in Stratford, St. Thomas, Chatham and Woodstock. All charges have been either stayed or withdrawn at the request of the respective prosecutors.... Hildebrandt spoke at many peaceful outdoor rallies during the lockdowns and was charged more than six times in the first half of 2021 with violating the Reopening Ontario Act.  

"Pastor Nathaniel Wright of the nearby Crossroads Alliance Church was charged with holding a church service on May 2, 2021. All charges against him were stayed in the same jurisdiction, Woodstock, on February 15, 2024. Wright was also involved in the resolution of the Trinity Bible Chapel case, where all charges against him were stayed for protests in Kitchener-Waterloo. The Justice Centre provided lawyers to defend these pastors who received tickets for exercising their Charter freedoms. All cases involving Sloan and Hildebrandt are now resolved.... 

"Hildebrandt previously pled guilty to defying the Reopening Ontario Act by holding an outdoor church service on June 6, 2021.... As a result of Hildebrandt's guilty plea in August 2023, related charges against him, his family, the Church of God, other church members and former politicians Sloan and Randy Hillier were dropped. Hildebrandt had to pay a $52,000 fine and a $13,000 victim surcharge."

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/ontario-pastors-and-former-mp-have-2021-lockdown-tickets-stayed/52971

Last charges finally dropped on 2022 protests at Ambassador Bridge | Western Standard | Lee Harding: 

March 8, 32025 - "An Ontario Crown attorney has withdrawn all criminal charges against William Laframboise, an alleged leader of the Windsor protests that blocked the Ambassador Bridge in February 2022. While the Crown attorney stated that there were triable issues, he also explained to the court that it was not in the public interest to prosecute Laframboise given the evidentiary challenges of the Crown’s case and other serious matters that were vying for trial time in a backlogged court system.

"The Democracy Fund (TDF) litigation director, Alan Honner, stood beside his client, LaFramboise, as the charges were withdrawn before Justice Campbell. 'Mr. Laframboise has always maintained his innocence,' says Honner. 'He insisted on his right to trial and we believe he would have been acquitted had the charges not been dropped.'

"A six-day blockade at the Ambassador Bridge that links Windsor, ON to Detroit, MI took place in February of 2022.... 

"Laframboise was arrested approximately six months after the fact. His arrest was the result of an ongoing police investigation which sought to identify an organizer of the protests.... Nycole Dicredico and William Laframboise were charged with mischief in connection with leading the blockades. However, Dicredico's charges were dropped in November shortly before trial at the Ontario Court of Justice."

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/ontario/last-charges-finally-dropped-on-2022-protests-at-ambassador-bridge/52996

Canadian courts defer to gov'ts in Covid cases

COVID Cases: For Some Judges, Government Can Neither Deceive Nor Be Deceived | Epoch Times | John Carpay:

Decembr 27, 2024 - "The years 2022 and 2023 have seen numerous court rulings in which some Canadian judges upheld government violations of our charter freedoms of association, expression, religion, conscience, mobility, peaceful assembly, and bodily autonomy. These outcomes are disturbing, but worse yet was the failure of some judges to require governments to show 'demonstrably' (with persuasive evidence) that their violations of charter rights or freedoms were doing more good than harm. 

"The 1986 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in R. v. Oakes requires judges to place the onus on government to show that its freedom-violating law, policy, regulation, or decision is rational, violates the charter right or freedom as little as possible, and actually brings benefits that exceed the costs and harms. When governments claim that their freedom-violating health orders and mandatory vaccination policies are based on science, both the Oakes test and the charter itself require judges to take a hard look at the government’s 'science' claim, to determine its veracity....

"Judges have signed-up for a job that requires listening to competing experts, analyzing their reports, weighing the evidence, [and] arriving at a conclusion.... Judges have no qualms about assessing the scientific strength of clashing claims and competing expert reports when dealing with criminal law, family law, and all kinds of civil claims. Oddly, some judges suddenly lose their willingness to apply the same thinking, reasoning, and analytical faculties when confronted by a government chanting 'science' as a mantra or slogan.... Judges then simply rule in favour of the government, without seriously analyzing the actual evidence that was put before them by both sides.

"For example, in the case of Ontario v. Trinity Bible Chapel, paragraph six of the judge’s ruling says:

 Various affidavits were filed on this hearing, including evidence from medical experts. These experts disagree on several points, including the extent to which Covid-19 posed an unprecedented threat to public health, the extent to which the virus can be transmitted outdoors, and the extent to which religious gatherings pose a greater risk of transmission than retail settings. My role is not that of an armchair epidemiologist. I am neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific debates and controversy surrounding Covid-19. The question before me is not whether certain experts are right or wrong. The question is whether it was open to Ontario to act as it did, and whether there was scientific support for the precautionary measures that were taken.

"One can see the contradictions in this statement. While declaring that she is 'neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific debates and controversy surrounding Covid-19,' the judge nonetheless ... effectively resolves the scientific debates and controversy in favour of the government.... If the judge is not equipped to resolve scientific debates and controversy, how can she possibly assess whether the government has any 'scientific support' (let alone enough “scientific support') to justify violating the fundamental charter freedoms of citizens? While upholding the government’s violations of Ontarians’ freedoms, the judge makes no effort to explain why or how the government’s evidence is better or more persuasive than the evidence presented to her by citizens who depend on her to defend their charter rights....

"In other words, what the judge really says is: The government need only show me a little bit of scientific 'support' (not proof and not compelling evidence) and I will then readily approve and endorse the government’s violations of Charter rights and freedoms. I will not hold the government accountable to the full weight of the charter; I will not require the government to justify demonstrably with persuasive evidence that its freedom-violating laws are rational and are actually doing more good than harm. I refuse to weigh the evidence that is put before me by competing experts, even though I do this all the time in other legal disputes....

"Sadly, this is not the only case where the charter’s standard that governments must 'demonstrably justify' any violation of a charter right or freedom was overlooked. The new standard adopted by judges seems to be that the federal and provincial governments can violate our human rights and constitutional freedoms with impunity, provided the government claims that some emergency exists and that there is some unknown quantity of 'scientific support' for charter-violating laws and policies. These same judges are likely to approve new laws to confine us to the '15-minute city' where we live, and uphold the government’s violation of our charter-protected mobility rights. The government would simply need to claim that a 'climate emergency' exists and trot out a vague amount of 'scientific support'....

"As the judge in the Ontario v. Trinity Bible Chapel case said, “I am neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific debates and controversy” … although she does consider herself to be sufficiently equipped to rule in favour of the government violating our charter rights and freedoms.

Read more: https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/covid-cases-for-some-judges-government-can-neither-deceive-nor-be-deceived-555259

Canada's Citizens' Inquiry on COVID issues report

After 24 days of hearing from more than 300 witnesses in eight cities across Canada, the National Citizens' Inquiry on COVID-19 has issued its final report.  

National Citizens Inquiry says COVID restrictions caused profound damage to Canadian society | Western Standard | Lee Harding:

November 28, 2023 - "The Final Report of the National Citizens Inquiry into Canada’s response to COVID-19 was released during a virtual hearing on Tuesday. The report contains hundreds of recommendations impacting all segments of Canadian society. It was based on the testimony of more than 300 members of the public and expert witnesses during 24 days of hearings in eight cities and additional virtual hearings ... with no funding from government and no large corporate funding.... [A]lthough subpoenas were issued to 63 members of government, regulators and authorities urging them to testify, none appeared....

"The primary recommendations of the report concerned COVID-19 'genetic vaccines.' The report said their use 'should be stopped immediately.' In addition, 'A full judicial investigation of the process under which the COVID-19 vaccinations were authorized in Canada must be carried out. Criminal liability, if discovered, may be dealt with under existing Canadian law.'

"A press release from the NCI summarized a broad list of recommendations.

• Conduct a thorough review of the Canadian courts’ handling of pandemic-related cases and their impact on the rule of law. Rebuild public confidence in the justice system by addressing concerns raised during the pandemic.
• Examine and reform the extent of executive authority during emergencies, ensuring proper checks and balances to prevent unelected officials from making far-reaching decisions without accountability or oversight.
• Establish a clear framework for the oversight of public health authorities’ decision-making processes during emergencies to balance public health needs with individual rights and freedoms.
• Enact legislation that requires administrative bodies to demonstrate their expertise and rationale for decisions, particularly when those decisions infringe on individual and human rights.
• Establish a clear framework for the oversight of public health authorities’ decision-making processes during emergencies to balance public health needs with individual rights and freedoms.
• Conduct an independent, multidisciplinary inquiry into the governance of professional colleges, especially those governing medical professionals, to ensure transparency, independence and accountability in their decision-making and that activities of the colleges adhere to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• Safeguard healthcare professionals’ freedom of expression while ensuring they provide accurate and evidence-based information to the public.
• Review the ability of regulators to interfere in the patient–practitioner relationship, ensuring that professional judgment remains independent and guided by the best interests of the patient, including privacy protection of patient medical information....
• [R]eview labour laws to ensure they provide adequate protection to both unionized and non-unionized employees during health emergencies such as the pandemic. This should include mechanisms for addressing workplace issues related to mandates and safety concerns.
• Ensure that in-person learning remains the primary mode of education, even during public health crises. Remote learning should only be used as a last resort and for a limited duration and in conjunction with parental consultation.
• Develop strategies to support vulnerable populations, such as the homeless, those struggling with addiction and victims of domestic abuse, during crises. Ensure access to essential services is maintained....
• [R]einforce the importance of Informed Consent, especially in the context of medical treatments such as vaccines. It should ensure individuals have access to comprehensive information about medical treatments, including potential risks and benefits and have the right to refuse treatment without coercion.
• Immediate[ly] develop[] ... a Judicial Panel, overseen by citizens, with the responsibility to investigate the human rights violations that were committed by both government and private corporations during the pandemic.
• Carry out immediate judicial reviews of all pandemic-related court cases that were denied on the basis of mootness or judicial notice.....
• [R]ecognize that all religions ... must be afforded all protections and shields guaranteed under the Criminal Code, the Canada Constitution, 1867, the Bill of Rights, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• Commission a study to determine the validity of setting up a National Crisis Oversight Council to safeguard democratic principles, protect individual rights and maintain public trust during future emergencies, such as pandemics.

"The NCI also recommends that 'Canada register immediate reservation against the Pandemic Convention and the amendments to the International Health Regulations once they are put forth by the WHO to allow time for proper consideration of the initiatives and their potential impact on Canada. At the same time, Canada should conduct a public inquiry and consultation into the benefits and risks of both its current obligations under the WHO, and the proposed Pandemic Convention and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.'

"Digital copies of the Report are available at https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca."

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/national-citizens-inquiry-says-covid-restrictions-caused-profound-damage-to-canadian-society/50572

Citizen’s Inquiry on COVID-19 Response Releases Final Report | cpac | November 28, 2023: 

Ontario lawyer defends the unmasked underdog

Windsor lawyer defends rights of maskless | Western Standard | Lee Harding: 

November 13, 2023 - "A Windsor, Ontario lawyer who defends clients regarding pandemic regulations said an unsuccessful public health case against him was a waste of tax dollars and public resources. Antoine d’Ailly was charged in December 2020 under the Reopening Ontario Act for not demanding proof from maskless members of the public in his office who claimed a mask exemption.  Inconsistencies in the evidence  provided November 1 by the Essex County Health Unit's enforcement officer led to the prosecution withdrawing charges mid-trial.

Antione d'Ailly, LinkedIn.

"D’Ailly said his office did not interrogate people regarding their mask exemption, something the city’s own lawyer advised.... In a memorandum dated August 18, 2020, city solicitor Shelby Askin Hager wrote responses to questions posed to her including, 'Can members of the public be asked for proof that they qualify for an exemption? To this, Hager wrote, 'No. This would constitute a human rights infringement.'

"D’Ailly said this was only one more reason the city should not have targeted him. Despite that opinion, local enforcement officials went ahead and 'aggressively enforced masking requirements anyways' he said. 'You look at the massive waste of resources on this issue. The health unit was conducting surveillance, they were camped outside of my office, they took this to trial – I think it's all an unnecessary waste of tax dollars'.... 

"In his legal practice, d’Ailly said he has filed over 30 applications to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, including a couple calling for judicial review because personnel at the human rights tribunal 'appear to be skirting the issue of jurisdiction.'

“'It seems pretty obvious to us that the Human Rights Tribunal in Ontario is doing everything they can to pretend it doesn't have jurisdiction over these types of cases. As soon as they admit they have jurisdiction, their enabling legislation requires them to hold an oral hearing,' he said. 'You've got instances where somebody with a signed medical note, stating they have a medical condition which precludes them from being able to wear a mask is being discriminated against by the enforcement of a no mask, no service, no exceptions policy. The tribunal's response is essentially, "I don't see how this is within our jurisdiction," and then your remaining remedy is to seek judicial review'.... D'Ailly said this means some people only get the justice they can afford instead of the justice they deserve. 

"He says there are many valid reasons why some people are unable to mask.... 'The reality is a lot of these people that were unable to mask endured a lot of trauma by being berated and even assaulted while trying to access essential services. Oftentimes, they don't have the medical evidence that some businesses or even the Human Rights Tribunal demanded. I think there's injustice there.'

"D’Ailly has some public successes across Ontario under his belt. 

• A judge ruled an elderly Burlington couple did not have to wear masks in their building, despite the condo board’s wishes. 
• A North Bay businesswoman charged for opening her store had charges dropped against her. 
• And, a woman in Wallaceburg  was successful after a full day trial resulted in the court dismissing a charge for organizing an anti-lockdown rally in November 2020.

"Defending fundamental liberties in such cases is important, d’Ailly insisted. 'I think more Canadians need to stand up to preserve our hard-won rights' he said."

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/ontario/windsor-lawyer-defends-rights-of-maskless/50188 

Belgian tribunal: mask mandate unconstitutional

Enforced wearing of masks declared unconstitutional | UK Human Rights Blog - Rosalind English: 

January 25, 2021 "The police tribunal in Brussels issued a judgment on 12 January acquitting a man summoned for non-wearing of a mask, according to his lawyer, Hélène Alexandris. The judge concluded that the enforced wearing of the mask in public space was unconstitutional. Interior Minister Annelies Verlinden said the public prosecutor has appealed against the decision.

"The court recalled that the two articles of law relating to public security, the ministerial order of 30 June 2020, on the basis of which the infringement was established, were exceptions to the principle of freedom of movement. The judge recognised that the current health situation justifies a restriction of freedom of movement and the imposition of certain measures. However, he considered that these measures must have a legal basis – parliament had not legislated to authorise the restrictive measures taken by the various ministers since the beginning of the crisis – and that they must be compatible with the other rights in force.

More specifically as regards the wearing of masks, it is clear that the minister is dealing in the same way with different situations, i.e. cases in which people find themselves alone on the street or, on the contrary, in a shopping street in the company of many fellow citizens. To settle different situations in an identical manner is a violation of the principles of equality and non-discrimination*....

"The Minister of the Interior reacted by stressing that

the ministerial decision, which is the legal basis for the application of the corona measures, remained. The rulings handed down by the Council of State in recent months also confirm the legal bases on which the measures of the ministerial decree are based.*

"Mrs Verlinden also pointed out that the public prosecutor’s office had appealed against this decision of the Brussels tribunal."

*Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Read more: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2021/01/25/enforced-wearing-of-masks-declared-unconstitutional/

German court strikes down personal contact ban

German District Court declares Corona Ordinance Unconstitutional UK Human Rights Blog - Rosalind English:

25 January 2021 -"In a landmark judgement on January 11, a district court judge in Weimar declared the prohibition on social contact unlawful as contrary to the German Basic Law (Gründgesetz). Its order at the time had been unconstitutional because the Infection Protection Act was not a sufficient legal basis for such a far-reaching regulation as a contact ban, the ruling said. The order of the contact ban had violated human dignity and had not been proportionate. (Reported in MDR Thüringen on 22 January 2021). In this case a citizen of Weimar had been prosecuted and was to be fined €200 for celebrating his birthday together with seven other people in the courtyard of a house at the end of April 2020, thus violating the contact requirements in force at the time. This only allowed members of two households to be together.... 

"This is the first time a judge has dealt in detail with the medical facts, the economic consequences and the effects of the specific policy brought about by the Coronavirus pandemic... With Germany having a federal legal system, there is no uniform case law yet on this point....

"Part of the rule of law is the requirement that laws be definite. Laws may not simply make blanket decrees and thus encourage overenthusiastic interpretation by the authorities leading to arbitrariness. According to the Infection Protection Act, the 'competent authority shall take the necessary protective measures'. In the normal course of events, this means that infected people or those suspected of infection can be isolated or contaminated premises closed. The Infection Protection Act does not provide for a general ban on contact that also covers healthy persons. However, as has been argued by many administrative courts to date, an overstepping of the regulatory circle of the Infection Protection Act beyond the normal course of events can be justified if it is an 'unprecedented event' that is so new that the legislature could not possibly have made the necessary regulations beforehand.

"The judge did not accept this exception to the rule of law. As early as 2013, the Bundestag prepared a risk analysis of a pandemic caused by a 'virus Modi-SARS' with the cooperation of the Robert Koch Institute, in which a scenario with 7.5 million deaths in Germany in a period of three years was described.... In view of such an event, which was considered at least 'conditionally probable' ... the legislator could therefore have examined the regulations of the Infection Protection Act and adapted them if necessary. This policy failure, as a result of which Germany had run into the epidemic virtually unprepared – without legal precautions to combat it, without stocks of masks, protective clothing and medical equipment, could not now lead to politicians being allowed to close any regulatory gap as they saw fit....

"The judge’s conclusion: there were no 'unjustifiable gaps in protection' that would have justified resorting to general clauses. These measures would have violated human dignity, which is 'inviolably guaranteed' in Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law'.... 

It is one of the fundamental freedoms of people in a free society to be able to determine for themselves with which people (assuming they are willing) and under what circumstances they enter into contact. The free encounter of people with each other for the most diverse purposes is at the same time the elementary basis of society. The state has to refrain from any purposeful regulating and restricting intervention. The question of how many people a citizen invites to his home or with how many people a citizen meets in public space to go for a walk, to do sports, to go shopping or to sit on a park bench is of no fundamental interest to the state....

"In January 2020, hardly anyone in Germany could imagine that the state could forbid them from inviting their parents to their home under threat of a fine, unless they sent the other members of their family out of the house for the time they were there. Hardly anyone could imagine that three friends could be forbidden to sit together on a park bench. Never before has the state thought of resorting to such measures to combat an epidemic. Even in the [2013] risk analysis ... which after all described a scenario with 7.5 million deaths, a general ban on contact (as well as curfews and the extensive shutdown of public life) is not considered. Apart from quarantining contacts of infected persons and isolating infected persons, the only anti-epidemic measures mentioned are school closures, the cancellation of major events and hygiene recommendations (BT-Drs. 17/12051, p. 61f)....

"The district judge meticulously examined studies that show how ineffective the no-contact order is. He weighed the restrictions on freedom against the fact that protection has been neglected in old people’s homes, while the less vulnerable population is no longer allowed on the streets. At the same time, the judge dealt in detail with the collateral damage of the lockdown decisions, which is now becoming increasingly apparent.... 

Based on what has been said, there can be no doubt that the number of deaths attributable to the lockdown policy measures alone exceeds the number of deaths prevented by the lockdown many times over. For this reason alone, the standards to be assessed here do not satisfy the proportionality requirement. Added to this are the direct and indirect restrictions on freedom, the gigantic financial damage, the immense damage to health and the non-material damage. The word “disproportionate” is too colourless to even hint at the dimensions of what is happening. The lockdown policy pursued by the state government in the spring (and now again), of which the general ban on contact was (and is) an essential component, is a catastrophically wrong political decision with dramatic consequences for almost all areas of people’s lives, for society, for the state and for the countries of the Global South.

"However, this ruling is by no means the end of the story.... Thüringen’s equivalent of the DPP has already appealed the matter to the LandesGericht. Their judgment will definitely be available online, and I will report on that when it comes through."

Read more: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2021/01/25/german-district-court-declares-corona-ordinance-unconstitutional/

Court dismisses CA county's anti-lockdown suit

San Bernardino County sues Gov. Newsom to stop coronavirus lockdown | San Bernardino Sun - Ryan Hagen: 

December 15, 2020 - "San Bernardino County is going to the California Supreme Court in an attempt to stop the stay-at-home order that went into effect in Southern California on Sunday, Dec. 6. In a lawsuit filed directly to the state’s top court late Monday night, Dec. 14, the county argues that Gov. Gavin Newsom had no authority to ban all gatherings except protests and religious services, close many businesses designated as nonessential, end in-person dining at restaurants and cap restaurant’s occupancy at 20%. It asks for a decision by Monday, Dec. 28, when the three-week stay-at-home order is set to either expire or be renewed.

"Newsom’s press office did not respond to an email seeking a response to the lawsuit or the legal authority for the orders.

"Not only does the county think those closures lacked legal authority, it thinks they hurt businesses while only worsening the spread of the novel coronavirus, said Curt Hagman, chairman of the county Board of Supervisors.

"'We feel that we in local government have a better feel for what would work in our communities,' Hagman said in an interview Tuesday. 'When you say people can’t go to restaurants, stores, churches, you’re basically forcing people indoors.' And indoors is where the virus spreads worst, especially if people aren’t wearing masks — which authorities can’t realistically force people to do inside their home, Hagman said.

"In announcing the stay-at-home order — which went into effect when a region has less than 15% of its intensive care unit capacity remaining and last at least three weeks — Newsom said it was necessary to slow the spread of the coronavirus. The virus has spread rapidly since."

Read more: https://www.sbsun.com/2020/12/15/san-bernardino-county-sues-gov-newsom-to-stop-coronavirus-lockdown/

California Supreme Court denies San Bernardino County’s lawsuit to overturn stay-at-home order | East Bay Times - Steve Scauzillo:

January 14, 2021 - "The California Supreme Court ruled against San Bernardino County on Wednesday, Jan. 13, denying its petition to overturn the state’s current stay-at-home order, court records show.... San Bernardino County filed a lawsuit Dec. 14 arguing the order — intended to slow the spread of the coronavirus by banning all gatherings except protests and religious services, closing many types of businesses and halting outdoor dining at restaurants — is illegal and an abuse of power.

"Reasons for not granting the county’s petition were not given. 'I am surprised we didn’t get some kind of legal opinion. I expected the Supreme Court would’ve put some thought behind the denial,' said county Supervisor Curt Hagman on Wednesday....

"In December and earlier this month, the county had received supportive court filings from Yucaipa and Chino Hills. The cities agreed with the county that business closures were hurting the livelihood of proprietors, causing joblessness and were not effective in slowing the spread of the virus. The court’s ruling came down a day after Rancho Cucamonga became the third city to join the lawsuit by filing an amicus curiae, or 'friend of the court,' brief on Tuesday, Jan. 12."

Read more: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/01/14/california-supreme-court-denies-san-bernardino-countys-lawsuit-to-overturn-stay-at-home-order/

Big business got bigger in US during pandemic

America’s biggest companies are flourishing during the pandemic and putting thousands of people out of work | Washington Post - Douglas MacMillan, Peter Whoriskey & Jonathan O'Connell:

December 16, 2020 - "As the coronavirus pandemic devastated small businesses and plunged millions of Americans into poverty this summer and fall, executives at some of the country’s largest corporations sounded surprisingly upbeat.... With few exceptions, big businesses are having a very different year from most of the country. Between April and September, one of the most tumultuous economic stretches in modern history, 45 of the 50 most valuable publicly traded U.S. companies turned a profit, a Washington Post analysis found.

"Despite their success, at least 27 of the 50 largest firms held layoffs this year, collectively cutting more than 100,000 workers, The Post found.... On one side, corporate leaders are touting their success and casting themselves as leaders on the road to economic recovery. On the other, many of their firms have put Americans out of work and used their profits to increase the wealth of shareholders.

"When the coronavirus struck, big companies promised to help battle the crisis. Dozens of prominent chief executives, who last year signed a public pledge to focus less on shareholders and more on the well-being of their employees and broader communities, appeared eager to make good on that promise. Many suspended payments to investors and vowed not to hold layoffs.

"Then, 21 big firms that were profitable during the pandemic laid off workers anyway. Berkshire Hathaway raked in profits of $56 billion during the first six months of the pandemic while one of its subsidiary companies laid off more than 13,000 workers. Salesforce, Cisco Systems and PayPal cut staff even after their chief executives vowed not to do so.... Walmart, whose CEO spent the past year championing the idea that businesses 'should not just serve shareholders,' nonetheless distributed more than $10 billion to its investors during the pandemic while laying off 1,200 corporate office employees....

"The Post contacted all 27 large firms that held layoffs this year. Many said the cuts were not related to the pandemic, but instead a necessary part of broader 'restructuring' plans, where companies shift spending from declining lines of business to growing ones.... Several emphasized that they hired more people this year than they let go.... Others pointed to the work they have done to help ease the pain in their communities, such as expanding health and family benefits to employees and distributing personal protective equipment to front-line workers. Cisco gave $53 million in cash and PPE to vulnerable populations and PayPal pledged $530 million in investments in minority-owned small businesses....

"The majority of the largest American corporations have prospered in the coronavirus economy. Millions of consumers spent more time and money online during government-mandated lockdowns, watching Netflix, viewing ads on Google and Facebook pages, filling Amazon shopping carts and turning the video game business into a bonanza for Nvidia, Microsoft and others. (Amazon founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)... 

"Shoppers began splurging on cleaning supplies, hobbies, home cooking and home improvements, driving record growth at big-box stores including Home Depot and Walmart. Even in the hardest-hit sectors, such as restaurants, travel and hospitality, the biggest companies were largely insulated from the worst of the virus’s reckoning. While independent restaurants struggled to survive, McDonald’s ramped up its takeout and drive-through operations, rolling out new apps and technology catering to on-the-go orders.... In many industries, the giants devoured market share ceded by small businesses, who lacked the resources to keep stores open during unpredictable swings in customer demand,

"While the 50 largest companies averaged 2 percent revenue growth over the first nine months of 2020, small business revenue shrank 12 percent over the same period, according to data collected by software provider Womply from thousands of small firms."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/business/50-biggest-companies-coronavirus-layoffs/

German lockdown fails so govt locks down harder

Germany to close shops and schools in Covid Christmas lockdown | The Guardian - Philip Oltermann:

December 13, 2020 - "Germany will close most shops from Wednesday until 10 January and ban the sale of fireworks for New Year’s Eve, after Angela Merkel and state leaders agreed to impose a national lockdown in order to regain control of rising coronavirus infection rates before a 'very difficult Christmas'.

"Non-essential shops, excluding food retailers, pharmacies and banks but including hairdressing salons and beauty parlours, will have to close their doors from 16 December. Schools and nurseries will also be required to offer only emergency care for essential workers for the last three days before the start of the scheduled Christmas holidays, with parents asked to look after their children at home 'whenever possible.

"Under the terms of the national lockdown, which Merkel and the leaders of Germany’s 16 federal states agreed in under an hour in an emergency summit on Sunday morning, employers are urged to either release workers for early holidays or allow for more generous remote working arrangements. 

"Restrictions on social gatherings will now be relaxed for a shorter period than previously announced, from 24-26 December, allowing each household to be visited by four family members above the age of 14....Tighter rules will come into force for New Year’s Eve, banning the customary firework displays in large public squares, the sale of pyrotechnics for personal use and the outdoor consumption of alcoholic drinks....

"Germany has been in a 'soft lockdown' mode since 4 November, with bars and restaurants closed, while stores and schools have remained open. But the compromise arrangement has failed to make a significant dent in the daily coronavirus rates, with the number of new infections reported by country’s disease control agency holding at about 20,000 cases.

"Germany is the only major country in Europe in which the number of people dying of or with Covid-19 has been steadily climbing since November, surpassing the peak seen in the spring."

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/13/germany-to-close-shops-and-schools-in-tightened-covid-lockdown

More lockdowns across USA

Millions of Californians put under strict Covid lockdown | The Guardian - Vivian Ho:

December 7, 2020 - "More than three-quarters of California’s population are now living under the harshest lockdowns in the US, as Covid-19 cases hit record levels in the country’s most populous state. Regional stay-at-home restrictions went into effect for nearly 23 million residents in southern California and 4.4 million residents in a large swath of the Central Valley on Sunday night, as ordered by the state governor, Gavin Newsom.... The southern California region and the San Joaquin Valley region joined five counties in the Bay Area region whose local leaders pre-emptively ordered its 6 million residents to enter lockdown starting at 10pm on Sunday.... The restrictions, which require people to stay home and minimize contact with other households, will remain in place for at least three weeks, covering the Christmas holiday. 

"All retail stores can stay open, although at 20% capacity, along with outside spaces such as parks and beaches, but restaurants, bars, hair and nail salons and tattoo shops are required to close."... The new shutdowns were a gut-wrenching move for small businesses. Michelle Saunders James was in tears on Friday at the thought of closing down her Oakland nail salon just five weeks after reopening. 'We wear [face] shields. We take temperatures. We do everything we are told to do so everyone feels safe, including our staff and team,' she told KGO-TV. 'So I don’t understand why it’s not enough, and I’m terribly sad and afraid.'"
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/06/california-covid-lockdown-us-new-cases-hospitalisations-deaths-stay-at-home-order

Whitmer extends Michigan's partial lockdown through Dec. 20 | The Hill - Zack Budryk:

December 7, 2020 - "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) on Monday extended her statewide partial lockdown order through Dec. 20.... The order ... closes bars and restaurants for dine-in services and restricts in-person instruction at colleges and high schools."
Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/529109-whitmer-extends-michigans-partial-lockdown-through-dec-20 

New coronavirus restrictions: Here's what your state is doing to combat rising cases and deaths | USA Today - Grace Hauck & Chris Woodyard: 

December 8, 2020 - "Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker instituted a partial stay-at-home order effective Nov. 6. The revised order seeks to restrict late-night congregating, telling residents to stay home from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. ET. But it allows trips to work, running "critical errands," such as going for groceries or for health reasons, and allows people to take walks. Restaurants, liquor stores, gyms, hair salons, theaters and some other recreational businesses and attractions must close from 9:30 p.m. to 5 a.m. as well....

"New Mexico ... Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Nov. 13 announced a two-week 'reset' of heightened public health restrictions from late March and early April. Citizens were ordered to shelter in place, leaving home only for essential trips for health, safety and welfare. All nonessential businesses and nonprofits were to cease in-person activities, per the order.... 

"Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine announced a three-week, overnight stay-at-home order for Ohioans starting Nov. 19 ... aimed at getting people to stay home from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. nightly.... DeWine also said most retail businesses will be closed during those hours....

"Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf on Nov. 23 issued a stay-at-home health advisory advising residents to only leave home to go to work or school, or for essential needs, like seeking medical care, going to the grocery store or pharmacy, picking up food or exercising. The advisory will remain in place through Jan. 4, unless an additional advisory is issued."
Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/13/covid-restrictions-state-list-orders-lockdowns/3761230001/ 

2 countries open borders to Covid recovered

'Immunity passports' are already here. But they come with warnings |  CNN - Scott McLean and Florence Davey-Attlee:

December 6, 2020 - "With miles of barbed wire and electric fencing along its border and open government hostility to migrants, Hungary's borders aren't always the friendliest place for foreigners.... Amid the pandemic, Hungary has shut its doors to almost everyone, even its European neighbors. Unless, they've had Covid-19....

"The policy, which came into force in early September, opens the door to visitors who can provide evidence that they've recovered from Covid-19 -- proof of both a positive and negative test in the past six months. Iceland has plans for a similar policy beginning next week -- and it already gives citizens who have previously been infected permission to ignore the nationwide mask mandate. Experts call these types of policies a kind of 'immunity passport.' 

"But does beating the virus actually give you immunity? The evidence so far suggests that for most people, it does. 'It's certainly theoretically possible that some people even who have antibodies may not be protected," Dr. Ania Wajnberg tells CNN outside her lab at Mount Sinai Hospital's Icahn School of Medicine in New York. 'But I think the majority of people that test positive for antibodies will be protected for some time.'

"Wajnberg is leading a massive study of more than 30,000 people who had mild to moderate cases of Covid-19. Her latest research published in October found that more than 90% of people have enough antibodies to kill the virus for many months after infection, perhaps longer.... 'This may be a reasonable way to begin to reopen society and allow for travel and business,' she says.

"Iceland's chief epidemiologist Thorolfur Gudnason has reached the same conclusion based on his country's own data, and studies from abroad.... The testing and quarantine exemption at the border begins December 10. The North Atlantic tourist magnet will accept documented proof of a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that is at least 14 days old, or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test that measures antibody levels -- provided it's issued by an approved European lab. Thorolfur says Icelanders who have beat the virus are also exempt from the nationwide mask mandate with a letter from their doctor -- though he says most people wear them anyways because of social stigma. 

"He's never heard of anyone intentionally getting infected, especially with a vaccine coming soon. 'That is possible. But on the other hand, I think it's also unfair to people who have had the infection. Why should they not be allowed to travel freely?' he said. 'I think it's a question of justice, basically. If you have the medical condition that you are not spreading or having the virus, you're not a risk to the environment, then you should be sort of recognized for that.' Iceland is also in talks with the other Nordic countries -- Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway -- so that people with that exemption can travel freely without restrictions....  

"Thorolfur was unaware of Hungary's policy. The central European country has had virtually nothing to say about the success or failure of its unique exemption, what science it's based on, and how it weighed the pros and cons. The Hungarian government declined interview requests and sent only a statement describing the policy itself. Many of the experts approached by CNN were unaware it was in place. It hasn't been widely discussed even inside Hungary.

"The World Health Organization (WHO) advised against immunity passports in April.... On Thursday, the WHO confirmed it has not changed its position, but, Regional Advisor Dr. Siddhartha Sankar Datta said it was looking to help countries implement electronic vaccination certificates."

Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/hungary-iceland-covid-immunity-passport-scn/index.html

Criminal charges laid against Toronto BBQ owner

Etobicoke restaurant owner facing new charges for again defying COVID-19 lockdown rules | CP24 - Joshua Freeman & Kerissa Wilson: 

November 26, 2020 -"Two men are now facing criminal charges and the city has completely seized a building following a raucous three day-long dispute between police and city officials and a restauranteur who brazenly declared that he would open up to serve customers despite lockdown orders.... Adam Skelly, the owner of the Adamson Barbecue restaurant in Etobicoke, was arrested by Toronto police officers Thursday afternoon after a crowd of supporters allegedly broke through a cordoned-off section of the building by smashing down drywall in an effort to reopen the shuttered restaurant.

"Speaking with reporters Thursday afternoon, Supt. Domenic Sinopoli said police allowed Skelly into a section of the building “in good faith” because they didn’t believe that it fell under a closure order from Toronto Public Health. However a crowd of supporters then tried to smash through the walls to reopen the facility.... 

"Sinopoli said Skelly, 33, now faces one count of attempting to obstruct police, one count of mischief under, one count of failing to comply with a continued order under the Reopening Ontario Act, and one count of failing to leave when directed under the Trespass to Property Act.... He said 27-year-old Michael Belito Arana of Markham is now facing a slew of charges, including one count of obstructing police, six counts of assaulting a police officer, two counts of uttering a death threat, and one count of failing to comply with a continued order under the Reopening Ontario Act. 

"Both men are expected to appear in court via video link tomorrow morning for a bail hearing. Toronto Public Health has now taken occupancy of the entire premises and police will be posting trespassing signs prohibiting people from entering the building or the adjacent parking lot, Sinopoli said.... City spokesperson Brad Ross told reporters that workers will be boarding up the building and changing the locks tonight to prevent re-entry....

"At around 6 a.m. Thursday, police returned to the restaurant for a third day in a row to change the locks under an overnight order made by Toronto Public Health. Skelly was seen first arriving at the premises shortly before 8 a.m. He asked the media to stay off the property and was seen talking with police officers. Shortly after, he entered a portion of the building where there is no access to the restaurant, through a back door to obtain personal belongings. Adamson Barbecue posted an Instagram story on their account Thursday morning saying 'need locksmith & other hands at Etobicoke asap.'

"A crowd of people surrounded the establishment in support of Skelly, who vowed to continue reopening his business despite provincial COVID-19 lockdown rules in Toronto and Peel Region that prohibit indoor dining to curb the spread of the virus.

"Crowds formed around the premises throughout the morning and many people were seen without masks or face coverings. At around 12:30 p.m., Skelly and another man were taken away from the premises in handcuffs by police officers."

Read more: https://www.cp24.com/news/etobicoke-restaurant-owner-facing-new-charges-for-again-defying-covid-19-lockdown-rules-1.5205287

Adamson BBQ Legal Defence Fund: https://ca.gofundme.com/f/adamson-bbq-legal-defence-fund

Ontario MPP charged after lockdown protest

Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston MPP to lead anti-lockdown rally at Queen's Park | Ottawa Matters: 

November 26, 2020 - "Anger over the COVID-19 lockdown in Toronto and Peel Region is prompting a protest in downtown Toronto on Thursday morning. The ‘No More Lockdown’ rally will take place outside Queen’s Park at 10 a.m. Independent Member for Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston, MPP Randy Hillier says on twitter he will be ‘testing the law’ and leading the rally on the lawn of the Ontario legislature. Hillier is imploring others to join his protest.

"The independent MPP also praised Adam Skelly, the owner of Adamson BBQ, for defying provincial lockdown orders and offering dine-in services at his Etobicoke location. 'Today I recognized Adam Skelly of Adamson BBQ for his courage & conviction. He tested the law & I encourage others to do the same'.... 

Skelly has vowed to open his Etobicoke restaurant for the third straight day on Thursday ... despite being forced to shut down following orders from the city on Tuesday [and] being hit with provincial and local charges after opening up the location for a second time on Wednesday."

Read more: https://www.ottawamatters.com/local-news/lanark-frontenac-kingston-mpp-to-lead-anti-lockdown-rally-at-queens-park-3129235

Ontario MPP charged after lockdown protest | Global News - Bill Hutchins:

November 26, 2020 - "Randy Hillier, a Kingston, Ont.,-area MPP, has been charged under the Reopening Ontario Act after organizing an anti-COVID-19 lockdown rally outside Queen’s Park Thursday morning.

"Supporters banged pots and carried placards ... on the front lawn of the legislature. This is the second rally organized by Hillier in as many months to claim that the pandemic restrictions and lockdowns are unlawful and are causing more harm than good....

"During Toronto’s lockdown, only 10 people are allowed to gather outside. Hillier’s gathering far exceeded that limit.

"Hillier said in a phone interview on Thursday that he is looking forward to his day in court, so that he can challenge the constitutionality of Ontario’s COVID-19 restrictions."

Read more: https://globalnews.ca/news/7486860/mpp-randy-hillier-charged-covid-19-lockdown-rally/

SCOTUS blocks NY religious restrictions

Supreme Court rules that Cuomo can’t limit attendance at New York religious services due to COVID-19 | Market Watch -Jess Bravin:

November 26, 2020 - "The Supreme Court blocked New York from imposing strict limits on attendance at religious services to combat Covid-19, with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett casting the pivotal vote to depart from past cases that deferred to state authorities on public-health measures.

"In orders issued shortly before midnight Wednesday, the court, in a 5-4 vote, set aside attendance limits that Gov. Andrew Cuomo imposed on houses of worship in areas most severely affected by the coronavirus: 10 people in red zones and 25 in orange zones. Chief Justice John Roberts and three liberal justices dissented.

"New York classifies places where coronavirus infections are of increasing severity as yellow, orange or red. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish organization, alleged that the limits violated their First Amendment rights of religious exercise.

"The Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion found that the religious plaintiffs were likely to prevail and, overruling federal courts in New York, suspended the governor’s orders while the litigation proceeds."

"An expanded version of this story appears on WSJ.com

Read more: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/supreme-court-rules-that-cuomo-cant-limit-attendance-at-new-york-religious-services-due-to-covid-19-2020-11-26

Covid-19 pandemic is a crisis of democracy

A Crisis of Democracy

by George J. Dance

Image courtesy U.S. Global Leadership Coalition.

It is no exaggeration to call the coronavirus pandemic a crisis. While the virus itself has turned out to be less dangerous than Covid Cultists believe – not one country has experienced the millions of deaths they have been prophesying since March – governments' responses to it throughout the democratic world have spawned numerous other crises, from mass unemployment to civil unrest, that have been progressively tearing away at the social fabric. The very idea of a democratic state, as a viable form of government, is being called into serious question. 

"Democracy" (rule by all the people) has always been not one concept, but a bundle of coexisting ones. Two of those concepts of democracy have always been in conflict. The coronavirus crisis has exposed those hidden conflicts as never before.   

One vision of democracy, which we can call liberal or libertarian democracy, was summed up by economist (and armchair sociologist) Ludwig von Mises this way:

For the sake of domestic peace liberalism aims at democratic government. Democracy is therefore not a revolutionary institution. On the contrary; it is the very means of preventing revolutions and civil wars. It provides a method for the peaceful adjustment of government to the will of the majority. When the men in office and their policies no longer please the majority of the nation, they will – in the next election – be eliminated and replaced by other men espousing different policies. 

Democracy, in other words, served a libertarian end: as a means of eliminating force from politics, it was a major step toward the libertarian ideal of eliminating force from social relations. So it was good in itself. As well, as many libertarian ideas do, it brought other significant benefits. 

One benefit was to instantiate what sociologist Vilfredo Pareto called the "circulation of elites". Every human society of record has been divided into an elite, which lives the good life and calls the shots, and the riffraff underneath; perhaps, given how humans live in groups, that division is a necessary part of society. In precapitalist societies, that division was fixed: if you were born a lord you could expect to be a lord all your life; if you were born a peasant, you could expect to always be a peasant. The rise of capitalism, though, abolished that fixed order, making it possible for individuals to move into and out of the elite; the lowest floor sweeper in a factory could theoretically become a factory owner, and vice versa. Democracy extended the 'circulation' principle into government: in America any native-born child could grow up to be President. 

As a further benefit of adopting the 'circulation' principle, members of the governing elite now had to consider the point of view of the non-elite as well. A Prime Minister might be able to pile high taxes on the private citizens; but now he had to face the real possibility of becoming a private citizen and having to pay those taxes himself. That brought about a common interest, on the part of governors and citizens alike, in limiting what government could do to its citizens. Thus democracy led to the idea of limiting government power constitutionally, through formal checks and balances that restricted how governments could make law – the Rule of Law not men – and through bills of human rights, which limited what governments were allowed to make laws about. 

To libertarians, then, democracy was seen as a good because it was a means to achieving good ends. However, there were other democratic thinkers, to whom "pleas[ing] the majority of the nation" was not a means to an end, but the very end itself. In their view, a democratic government was the expression and will of the people – achieving the will of the people was the supreme political good –and therefore whatever a democratic government did (unless, of course, it were taken over by bad people) was always good. It followed that restrictions on government like bills of rights were bad things, encumbrances that prevented governments from doing as much good as possible.  

This second view can be called the totalitarian view of democracy. The word 'totalitarian' is no stretch; at the limit, it implies that government may do whatever it wants to any individual it wants, so long as a majority wants it to; in short, it contradicts the very idea of human rights. Novelist (and armchair philosopher) Ayn Rand called it:

a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.... 

If we discard morality and substitute for it the Collectivist doctrine of unlimited majority rule [Rand also wrote], if we accept the idea that a majority may do anything it pleases, and that anything done by a majority is right because it’s done by a majority (this being the only standard of right and wrong) – how are men to apply this in practice to their actual lives? Who is the majority? In relation to each particular man, all other men are potential members of that majority which may destroy him at its pleasure at any moment. Then each man and all men become enemies; each has to fear and suspect all; each must try to rob and murder first, before he is robbed and murdered.

Those two visions of democracy have always co-existed in precarious balance in democratic states; but the Covid pandemic has utterly destroyed that balance. 

Democratic governments' interventions in the pandemic have been paradigm examples of totalitarian democracy. Contrary to what some may believe, lockdowns (and their component  measures) are enormously popular. The Covid Cult that swept the world convinced millions that they were going to die of this new plague, and that only governments could save them. Since then, massive majorities throughout the world have been demanding that their governments save them, rewarding those who acted quickly to close down society, and punishing those who held back. It is wrong for libertarians to call the result 'tyranny,' for it is the very opposite: it is the government carrying out the popular will.

Meanwhile, the rights of the people are being trampled. People have seen their livelihoods taken away. They are routinely arrested, and even roughed up, by the police, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are being arrested for their social media posts. They are being shot for breaking curfew. Life under lockdown is becoming a human rights nightmare. 

Even the Rule of Law has vanished; for this Covid totalitarianism has been happening, for the most part without any opposition, as if the constitution and the normal laws do not exist. Those have not been amended but are simply ignored, with the executive branch of government dictating whatever it wants done by executive order. Opposition parties, with their eyes on the same polls the government is reading, simply play along. A few courts have stood up for the Rule of Law by striking down some government actions; but those too have been demonized by the Covid Cult as "endanger[ing] thousands of lives," and in some cases their decisions have been ignored and the laws they struck down have still been enforced.  

In short, totalitarian democracy has become the official program of most democratic nations, while libertarian democracy has been discarded. This is an example of 'spontaneous order': No one planned for their country to become totalitarian; democratic governments have simply stumbled into totalitarianism, or been pushed into it by their citizens.

The silver lining to that cloud is that, while democratic majorities still support Covid totalitarianism, they have never approved of totalitarian democracy. As they gain experience of life in a totalitarian state, they cannot be counted on to support its continuance. Its tenets are being challenged by a growing number of scientists, philosophers, thinkers and even politicians. Official protests against Covid totalitarianism, though small and sporadic, are each week growing in number; while noncompliance (euphemistically referred to by governments as 'pandemic fatigue') is soaring, as the soaring case rates of Covid in America and Europe make clear. The liberal or libertarian ideal of people running their own lives, including assessing their own risks, may be down but it is certainly not out.  

I believe that in a straightforward conflict between totalitarian democracy versus liberal or libertarian democracy, the latter would win. However, that can and will happen only if enough people understand the nature of the underlying conflict.   

The fallacies behind state Covid mandates

No ‘rule of six’, please, we’re British. We can make our own decisions | The Times - Jonathan Sumption:

September 13, 2020 - "The prime minister has declared that he will do 'whatever is necessary' to stop the spread of the coronavirus. One of the things that is necessary, apparently, is to stop us enjoying the company of our friends and family in numbers above six. There are at least three fallacies behind these bossy declarations. One is that the spread of an endemic virus is amenable to government control. The second is that legal coercion is a good way of doing it. The third is that stopping infections is all that matters, so that one does not have to count the human cost.

"If one thing has become clear over the past six months, it is that aggressive measures of social distancing make little difference in the long run. They buy time, but reduce deaths only if they last indefinitely. Even buying time comes at a heavy price in depression, mental illness and misery.... Spain took the most extreme and brutally enforced measures in Europe. Sweden had the mildest measures: no lockdown or school closures and only moderate measures of social distancing. Yet Spain now [i.e., September - gd] has the worst second spike on the Continent and Sweden none at all.

"There are many variables that affect the long-term progress of the disease, including the population’s state of health and age balance. But one thing that does not seem to affect it is government policy. The reason seems tolerably clear. People can spread Covid-19 before their symptoms appear — and even if they have no symptoms. So isolating known cases is always too late. Whatever distancing measures you take, short of shutting everyone indefinitely in a box and feeding them through a tube, the virus will still spread, but more slowly....

"Of all the ways of buying time, legal coercion is the most inefficient. Legal coercion is indiscriminate, whereas this virus discriminates. It attacks the old and clinically vulnerable. Across Europe and the UK, the upsurge of infections is heavily concentrated among healthy people under 50. 

"The increasingly absurd health secretary Matt Hancock gets cross about this being pointed out. But, with a handful of exceptions, the infected young will experience only mild symptoms or none. What matters is not infections but hospital admissions and deaths, which have increased relatively little, both here and in other European countries. This suggests that, while the young and healthy are getting on with their lives, the vulnerable are sheltering themselves. It is happening spontaneously.

"What is more, it is exactly what ought to be happening. People are making their own judgments, guided by their own vulnerabilities and their own tolerance of risk. The result is a far more discriminating approach than the government’s regulatory blunderbuss. Left to themselves, people can manage this virus better than Boris Johnson and Hancock because they can fine-tune their precautions to their own situation and that of the people around them. Taking the decisions out of their hands and imposing one-size-fits-all measures is despotic and ineffective....

"To justify their policies and command submission, ministers have to resort to fear, the classic tool of despotic regimes.... Will the public take it seriously?... Why should they? No one can respect laws made with no achievable objective or coherent plan. There is a limit to what people can be expected to put up with from a government that thinks hyperactivity is a substitute for thought, that seems incapable of matching the measures to the problem and has nothing but crocodile tears for the collateral damage to people’s lives."

Read more: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-rule-of-six-please-were-british-we-can-make-our-own-decisions-9j8zbh5nh