Topics range from the Calendar to Christmas in Australia and Sacramentals.
0:00 Intro 0:10 British Cultural Things 7:38 Commonwealth Politics 10:17 Calendar 13:10 Constitutional Monarchies 27:00 Back to Calendar 29:20 Christmas Carp & Misc Rambling 36:18 Memes of Production 42:07 Neo-Feudalism 45:20 Australian Christmas 55:40 Jack Kerouac 1:01:46 Elizabeth I 1:03:45 Famous Thrones 1:09:20 Blessed Sacramentals 1:16:16 Closing Thoughts
Today is the Feast of St Andrew the Apostle in both the Western and Churches.
In the West, here is what Dom Prosper Guéranger has to say about him:
Let us read the life of this glorious fisherman of the lake of Genesareth, who was afterwards to be the successor of Christ Himself, and the companion of Peter on the tree of the Cross. The Church has compiled it from the ancient Acts of the Martyrdom of the holy Apostle, drawn up by the priests of the Church of Patrae, which was founded by the Saint. The authenticity of this venerable piece has been contested by Protestants inasmuch as it makes mention of several things which would militate against them. Their sentiment has been adopted by several critics of the 17th and 18th centuries. On the other hand, these Acts have been received by a far greater number of Catholic writers of eminence, among whom may be mentioned the great Baronius, Labbe, Natalia Alexander, Gallandus, Lumper, Morcelli, etc. The Churches, too, of both East and West, which have inserted these Acts in their respective Offices of Saint Andrew, are of some authority, as is also Saint Bernard, who has made them the groundwork of his three admirable sermons on Saint Andrew:
Andrew, the Apostle, born at Bethsaida, a town of Galilee, was brother of Peter and disciple of John the Baptist. Having heard his master say, speaking of Christ: “Behold the Lamb of God!” he followed Jesus and brought to Him his brother also. When, afterwards, he was fishing with his brother in the sea of Galilee, they were both called, before any of the other Apostles, by our Lord who, passing by, said to them: “Come after me. I will make you to be fishers of men.” Without delay, they left their nets and followed Him.
After the Passion and Resurrection, Andrew went to spread the faith of Christ in Scythia in Europe, which was the province assigned to him. Then he travelled through Epirus and Thrace, and by his teaching and miracles converted innumerable souls to Christ. Afterwards, having reached Patrae in Achaia, he persuaded many in that city to embrace the truth of the Gospel. Finding that the Proconsul Aegeas resisted the preaching of the Gospel, he most freely upbraided him for that he, who desired to be considered as a judge of men, should be so far deceived by devils as not to acknowledge Christ to be God, the Judge of all. Then Aegeas being angry, said: “Cease to boast of this Christ, whom such like words as these kept not from being crucified by the Jews.” But finding that Andrew continued boldly preaching that Christ had offered Himself to be crucified for the salvation of mankind, he interrupted him by an impious speech, and at length exhorted him to look to his own interest and sacrifice to the gods. Andrew answered him: “I offer up every day to almighty God, who is one and true, not the flesh of oxen, nor the blood of goats, but the spotless Lamb upon the altar. I of whose flesh the whole multitude of the faithful eat, and the Lamb that is sacrificed, remains whole and living.” Whereupon Aegeas being exceeding angry, ordered him to be thrust into prison, where the people would easily have freed Andrew, had he not himself appeased the multitude, begging of them, with most earnest entreaty, that they would not keep him from the long-sought-for crown of martyrdom, to which he was hastening. Not long after this, Andrew was brought before the tribunal,where he began to extol the mystery of the Cross and rebuke the judge for his impiety. Aegeas, no longer able to contain himself on hearing these words, ordered him to be hoisted on a cross, and to to die like Christ.
Having been brought to the place of execution and seeing the cross at some distance, Andrew began to cry out: “O good Cross, made beautiful by the body of my Lord! so long desired, so anxiously loved, so unceasingly sought after, and now at last ready for my soul to enjoy! Take me from amidst men, and restore me to my Master, that by you He may receive me, who by you redeemed me.” He was therefore fastened to the cross, on which he hung alive two days, preaching without cessation the faith of Christ, after which he passed to Him, whose death he had so coveted. Andrew’s relics were first translated to Constantinople, under the emperor Constantine, and afterwards to Amalfi. During the Pontificate of Pius II the head was taken to Rome and placed in the Basilica of Saint Peter.Dom Prosper Guéranger:
This feast is destined each year to terminate with solemnity the Cycle which is at its close, or to add lustre to the new one which has just begun. It seems indeed fitting that the Christian year should begin and end with the cross which has merited for us each of those years which it has pleased the divine goodness to grant us, and which is to appear, on the last day, in the clouds of Heaven, as the seal put on time. We should remember that Saint Andrew is the Apostle of the Cross. To Peter, Jesus has given firmness of faith, to John warmth of love. The mission of Andrew is to represent the Cross of His divine Master. Now it is by these three, faith, love and the Cross, that the Church renders herself worthy of her Spouse. Everything she has or is, bears this threefold character. Hence it is that after the two Apostles just named, there is none who holds such a prominent place in the universal Liturgy as Saint Andrew.
The Greek Church is as fervent as any of the Churches of the West in celebrating the prerogatives and merits of Saint Andrew. He is the more dear to it because Constantinople considers him as her patron Apostle. It would, perhaps, be difficult for the Greeks to give any solid proofs of Saint Andrew’s having founded, as they pretend, the Church of Byzantium: but this is certain, that Constantinople enjoyed for many centuries the possession of the precious treasure of the Saint’s relics. They were translated to that city in the year 357, through the interest of the Emperor Constantius, who placed them in the Basilica of the Apostles built by Constantine. Later on, that is, about the middle of the 6th century, Justinian caused them to be translated a second time, but only from one part of that same Basilica to another.
The Church of Constantinople, so devoted, as we have seen, to the glory of Saint Andrew, was at length deprived of the precious treasure of his eelics. This happened in the year 1210 when the City was taken by the Crusaders. Cardinal Peter of Capua, the Legate of the Holy See, translated the body of Saint Andrew into the Cathedral of Amalfi, a town in the Kingdom of Naples, where it remains to this day, the glorious instrument of numberless miracles, and the object of the devout veneration of the people. It is well known how, at the same period, the most precious relics of the Greek Church came, by a visible judgement of God, into the possession of the Latins. Byzantium refused to accept those terrible warnings and continued obstinate in her schism. She was still in possession of the Head of the holy Apostle, owing, no doubt, to this circumstance, that in the several Translations which had been made, it had been kept in a separate reliquary by itself. When the Byzantine Empire was destroyed by the Turks, Divine Providence so arranged events as that the Church of Rome should be enriched with this magnificent relic. In 1462, the Head of Saint Andrew was, therefore, brought there by the celebrated Cardinal Bessarion. And on the twelfth of April of that same year, Palm Sunday, the heroic Pope Pius II went in great pomp to meet it as far as the Bridge Milvius (Ponte Molle), and then placed it in the Basilica of Saint Peter, on the Vatican, where it is at present, near the Confession of the Prince of the Apostles. At the sight of this venerable Head, Pius II was transported with a religious enthusiasm, and before taking up the glorious relic in order to carry it into Rome, he pronounced the magnificent address which we now give:
“At length, you have arrived, O most holy and venerable head of the saintly Apostle! The fury of the Turks has driven you from thy resting-place, and you are come as an exile to your brother, the Prince of the Apostles. No, your brother will not fail you. And by the will of God, the day will come when men will say in your praise: happy banishment which caused you to receive such a welcome! Meanwhile, here will you dwell with your brother and share in his honours. This is Rome, the venerable City, which was dedicated by your brother’s precious blood. The people you see, are they whom the blessed Apostle, your most loving brother, and Saint Paul, the Vessel of Election, regenerated to Christ our Lord. Thus the Romans are your kinsmen. They venerate, and honour, and love you as their Father’s brother, nay, as their second Father, and are confident of your patronage in the presence of the great God. Most blessed Apostle Andrew! Preacher of the truth and defender of the dogma of the most Holy Trinity! With what joy do you not fill us on this day on which it is given us to behold your sacred and venerable head which deserved that, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Paraclete should rest on it in the form of fire! O you Christians that visit Jerusalem out of reference for your Saviour, that there you may see the places where His feet have stood: Lo! here is the throne of the Holy Ghost. Here sat the Spirit of the Lord. Here was seen the Third Person of the Trinity. Here were the eyes that so often saw Jesus in the flesh. This was the mouth that so often spoke to Jesus, and on these cheeks did that same Lord doubtless impress His sacred kisses.
O wondrous Sanctuary in which dwelt charity, and kindness, and gentleness, and spiritual consolation. Who could look upon such venerable and precious relics of the Apostle of Christ and not be moved? and not be filled with tender devotion? and not shed tears for very joy? Yes, O most admirable Apostle Andrew, we rejoice, and are glad, and exult, at this your coming, for we doubt not but what you yourself are present here and bear us company as we enter with your head into the Holy City.
The Turks are indeed our enemies, as being the enemies of the Christian Religion, but in that they have been the occasion of your coming among us, we are grateful to them. For, what greater blessing could have befallen us than that we should be permitted to see your most sacred head, and that our Rome should be filled with its fragrance? Oh that we could welcome you with the honours which are due to you, and receive you in a way becoming your exceeding holiness! But, accept our good will and our sincere desire to honour you, and suffer us now to touch your relics with our unworthy hands and, though sinners, to accompany you into the walls of the City. Enter, then, the Holy City, and show your love to her people. May your coming be a boon to Christendom. May your entrance be peaceful, and your abode among us bring happiness and prosperity. Be our advocate in Heaven and, together with blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, defend this City, and protect, with your love, all Christian people that, by your intercession, the mercy of God may be upon us, and if His indignation be kindled against us by reason of our manifold sins, let it fall upon the impious Turks and the pagan nations that blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.”
Thus has the glory of Saint Andrew been blended in Rome with that of Saint Peter. But the Apostle of the Cross whose feast was heretofore kept in many Churches with an Octave, has also been chosen as Patron of one of the Kingdoms of the West. Scotland, when she was a Catholic country, had put herself under his protection. May he still exercise his protection over her, and, by his prayers, hasten her return to the true faith!
Let us now, in union with the Church, pray to this holy Apostle, for this is the glorious day of his feast: let us pay him that honour which is due to him, and ask him for the help of which we stand in need.
God grants us to meet you, O blessed Andrew, at the threshold of the mystic Season of Advent on which we are so soon to enter. When Jesus, our Messiah, began His public life, you had already become the obedient disciple of the Precursor who preached His coming: you were among the first of them who received the Son of Mary as the Messiah foretold in the law and the prophets. But you could not keep the heavenly secret from him who was so dear to you. To Peter, then, you bore the good tidings, and led him to Jesus. O blessed Apostle, we also are longing for the Messiah, the Saviour of our souls. Since you have found Him, lead us also to Him. We place under your protection the holy period of expectation and preparation which is to bring us to the day of our Saviour’s Nativity, that divine mystery in which He will manifest Himself to the world. Assist us to render ourselves worthy of seeing Him on that great night. The baptism of penance prepared you for receiving the grace of knowing the Word of life. pray for us that we may become truly penitent and may purify our hearts during that holy time, and thus be able to behold Him who has said: “Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.”
You have a special power of leading souls to Jesus, O glorious Saint! for even he, who was to be made the pastor of the whole flock, was presented to the Messiah by you. By calling you to Himself on this day, our Lord has given you as the patron of Christians who each year, seeking again that God in whom you are now living, pray to you to show them the way which leads to Jesus.
You teach us this way: it is that of fidelity, of fidelity even to the Cross. In that way you courageously walked, and because the Cross leads to Jesus Christ, you passionately loved the Cross. Pray for us, O holy Apostle, that we may begin to understand this love of the Cross, and that having understood it, we may put it in practice. Your brother says to us in his Epistle: “Christ having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought” (1 Peter iv. 1) Your feast, O blessed Andrew, shows us you as the living commentary of this doctrine. Because your Master was crucified, you would also be crucified. From the high throne to which you have been raised by the Cross, pray for us that the Cross may be to us the expiation of the sins which are upon us, the quenching of the passions which burn within us, and the means of uniting us by love to Him, who, through love alone for us, was nailed to the Cross.
Important, indeed, and precious are these lessons of the Cross. But the Cross, O blessed Apostle, is the perfection and the consummation, and not the first commencement. It is the Infant God, it is the God of the Crib that we must first know and love. It was the Lamb of God that Saint John pointed out to you, and it is that Lamb whom we so ardently desire to contemplate. The austere and awful time of Jesus’ Passion is not come. We are now in Advent. Fortify us for the day of combat, but the grace we now most need is compunction and tender love. We put under your patronage this great work of our preparation for the Coming of Jesus into our hearts.
Remember also, O blessed Andrew, the holy Church of which you were a pillar and which you have beautified by the shedding of your blood: lift up your hands for her to Him whose battle she is forever fighting. Pray that the Cross she has to bear in this her pilgrimage may be lightened, that she may love this Cross, and that it may be the source of her power and her glory. Remember with special love the holy Roman Church, the Mother and Mistress of all Churches. And by reason of that fervent love she has for you, obtain for her victory and peace by the Cross. Visit anew, in your Apostolic zeal, the Church of Constantinople which has forfeited true light and unity because she would not render homage to Peter, your brother, whom you honoured as your chief, out of love to Him who is the common Master of both him and you.
And here is his story from the East:
Today is the Feast of the Holy and All-Praiseworthy Apostle Andrew the First-Called.
It's good to see that not all Canadians have forgotten that the Charter opens with the words 'Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law,' and that it guarantees the
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
There is a great letter supposedly written by an employee of the OAG, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Could this be another Jody Wilson-Raybould moment of truth to power? We have no evidence of the person's identity because it's only signed with the word "Thanks." However, this does not take away from the importance and truth of what is said, as all levels of government are stripping away freedom and civil rights from Canadians purportedly to deal with the on-going "pandemic". We could accurately say that the letter is signed by all Canadians of good will who treasure freedom, respect for life and democracy. We share the letter with our readers.
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021, 11:21:44 a.m. EST
Subject: A Response to the OAG Vax Policy
Dear Executive Team
The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law; …
Preamble, Canadian Bill of Rights
To say that it is appalling and astounding that you have ordered mandatory inoculation and coercion of private medical information to OAG employees would be an understatement. Specifically, the submission of employees to the experimental gene therapy injections for Covid-19, commonly referred to as “vaccines”, currently in the Phase III trials until 2023. The OAG has joined the bandwagon with so many organizations to implement tyranny on their employees, showing little regard for the care and wellbeing of fellow humans.
This unlawful policy seeks to remove our fundamental freedoms and rights and seeks to take away our rights to privacy, autonomy, and consent, breaking numerous established Canadian and International laws. It seeks to segregate Canadians and draws hateful lines of division. It does so at a time when we could desperately use some unity. The claim that this policy has anything to do with improving public health and safety remains illegitimate at best, and diabolically unreasonable at worst. These claims are particularly concerning considering that we have been working inside the closed walls of our homes for nearly two years. This barbaric policy seeks to deprive individuals and families of their livelihoods through threat, coercion, and intimidation. The provisions of this policy unlawfully place employees on Leave without Pay, taking away their fundamental right to earn a living and provide for their families. There is no provision in the Collective Agreement for employer initiated LWOP. This action blocks workers’ access to Employment Insurance benefits. You are on course to punish Canadian Public Service employees and their families for refusing to give up their divine and legal rights and freedoms. The fact that you approve of implementing such unwarranted and tyrannical measures is nothing short of contemptible.
The failures of public officials and administrators must not be downloaded onto Canadians in the form of systematically inflicted pain and suffering. It is a tragic state of affairs indeed that while the leadership of this organization claims to consider employees to be equal, but is evidently busy designating some to be less equal through instituting a system of medical apartheid. It is as if you take us to be inert blunt objects that you can move around on a game board to suit your whims. We are not your subjects, nor do you possess any authority what so ever to inject dangerous foreign materials into our bodies. Our rights are inalienable and ours by virtue of being born human. You do not give us rights. You are required to respect and abide by the law like everyone else.
Let it be perfectly clear that the choice available to the individual is and always has been to choose the injection or to reject it. The choice is NOT between choosing the injection and getting ejected from society. This includes the right to earn a living without prejudice, discrimination, and outright expulsion.
Holding people hostage over their sovereignty, freedoms, and livelihood amounts to extortion under the Canadian Criminal Code. Never have we encountered a cataclysmic conundrum such as this, where the so called protected need to be protected from the alleged unprotected against which they have already been protected with something that has been shown not to protect the protected. At some point during this insanity one must stop and ask the question, is this still about public health and safety? Or is this about concerted harm and subjugation?
Immunization is not mandatory in Canada
“Immunization” is not mandatory in Canada. According to the Canadian National Report on Immunization, 1996 (pg. 3), vaccination cannot be made mandatory in Canada due to the Canadian Constitution. A 2019 public information from Immunize Canada declares the same. It’s important to remember that this non-negotiable provision is due to the Canadian Constitution. Public health orders and guidelines do not override established laws. The right to deny medical treatment or to receive consensual medical treatment belongs to the individual. The state cannot force this decision onto a person and it certainly isn’t up to any person in this office. Indeed it is dumbfounding to observe that in an office full of capable professionals, such mind numbingly dangerous and unreasonable rhetoric is permitted to gain traction.
Let it also be clear that mandates, directives, and press conferences are NOT laws. Thus, do not compete with, nor supersede established laws, such as the Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C., 1960, c. 44. Laws to be legislated, in this country, are required to pass many steps of the legislative process through the Parliament and the Senate. Legislation must be discussed openly and voted on three occasions.
The Bill => First Reading => Second Reading => Committee Stage => Committee Report Stage => Third Reading => House of Commons => Royal Assent
The Canadian Bill of Rights, having received royal assent, protects our fundamental rights and freedoms as Canadians. Our rights and freedoms are inalienable and cannot simply be removed by some policy because someone in high office said so. This policy does not hold any such authority. Instead, there is plentiful to be found in it that breaks established laws, infringes upon individual and group freedoms, and that perpetuates a state of holistic terror in the hearts and minds of its victims. This political gangsterism in the name of public health cannot be permitted in a free and open society.
I will remind you of our country’s heritage in the words of John G. Diefenbaker:
“I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”
John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons Debates, July 1, 1960
Mandates and Mandatory
Black’s law dictionary provides the definition of a mandate. A mandate by definition is gratuitous and is ineffective unless agreed upon by the mandatary. It becomes effective ONLY if the mandatary, in this case the employee, voluntarily agrees to it. It is an offer to contract and it requires consent and agreement. Accordingly, it is meaningless and no contract is established. Because of the gratuitous nature of the mandate, it is done or performed without obligation. I do not agree to nor do I consent to this unlawful mandate.
In a normal world, all of this nonsense would be called out for what it is and responsible parties held accountable under the law for their transgressions. Instead, the past two years have shown that we live in an incredibly abnormal world, where adherence to the rule of law has been pushed aside to make way for incessant Draconian measures, where fear pornography reigns supreme, and where unquestioning acquiescence seems to be the order of the day. Any questioning of the official version of the story is immediately shunned and met with hostility, sentencing reasonable inquisitive voices to a reality reminiscent of outcasts. The examples are far too many to count here. This witch hunt in the name of health and safety is an insult to human intellect; it is an insult to rational inquiry; and it is an insult to policy making.
While we receive corporate emails about respect and civility, while we hear about workplace harassment, and while managers collect our emergency contact information, no qualms are held about implementing a criminal policy condemning workers into a state of Hegelian extortive control. You have essentially ordered OAG employees to accept highly dangerous and life threatening synthetic injectables or to prepare for the deep freeze living on the streets of Ottawa. The policy makers quite obviously forgot to don their “respect and civility” hats when constructing this curtailment of rights and freedoms and dared to label it a policy. Where is the respect and civility for the worker rights, their choices, their right to life and liberty, and by extension for the rights of their families?
There is quite the disconnect between demanding respect and civility and then enforcing this rights-infringing policy. So much for caring for people’s mental health. So much for diversity and inclusivity
LWOP – leave without pay
There is no provision in the Collective Agreement for the employer to force employees on leave without pay. The employer cannot just decide to put the employee on unpaid leave. While available as one of the options of leave, LWOP is initiated by the employee or it requires the voluntary consent of the employee. This means the employees can take an unpaid leave, but the employer cannot force them. There are no provisions in the Canada Labour Code, Part II and Part III that allow the employer to forcibly place employees on leave without pay.
Case Law: Cabiakman v. Industrial Alliance Life Insurance Co. [2004]
https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/46624
Summary: If the employee is available and willing to work, the employer cannot place an employee on administrative suspension without pay.
The Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Cabiakman v. Industrial Alliance Life Insurance Co. [2004] 3 S.C.R. 195, 2004 SCC 55, states that the following are required when placing an employee on administrative suspension:
§ The suspension must be necessary to protect the legitimate business interest;
§ The employer must be acting in good faith;
§ The suspension must be for a relatively short time period for a fixed term; and
§ Other than in exceptional circumstances, the suspension must be paid
I did not request any such item. I do not consent to being placed on leave without pay!
The Law
As pointed to earlier, immunization is voluntary in Canada. It cannot be made mandatory. Even if mandated by the government, there is no law that makes it legal to forcefully inject individuals. It is a gross violation of our fundamental Human Rights.
Forced genetic testing, analysis of DNA/RNA or chromosomes for the purposes such as prediction of disease or vertical transmissions risks, or monitoring, diagnosis or prognosis, and discrimination based on such information about an individual is illegal and unlawful under the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act. Further, it is unlawful to force any person to disclose the results of any such test and to discriminate against on the basis of.
1. The Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960
Section 1 guarantees the individual’s fundamental human rights and freedoms and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
Specifically, ss. 1(a) declares our right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of the law; The Bill’s provisions further declare the freedom of religion; of speech; of assembly and association; and freedom of the press.
Section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights expressly declares that every law in Canada must not abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared. These rights are inalienable. If the government endeavors to curtail our rights, it must be demonstrably shown through an Act of Parliament.
What authority do you have that has been demonstrably shown through an Act of Parliament to implement this unlawful policy?
2. Statutory Instruments Act, R.S.C., 1985
Section 3(2)(c) states that the Clerk of the Privy Council, in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, shall examine the proposed regulation to ensure that it does not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Charter and the Canadian Bill of Rights.
OAG’s Framework for Implementation of the Policy on Covid-19 Vaccination infringes upon numerous existing rights, freedoms, and laws protecting privacy and medical autonomy.
3. Emergencies Act, R.S.C., 1985
Preamble declares that the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;
A nationwide emergency has not been declared. Even if the government is taking special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies, the existing fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be removed.
4. Financial Administration Act, R.S.C., 1985
As discussed earlier in point #1, this act must not limit, nor eliminate in any shape or form the inalienable rights of Canadians protected in the Canadian Bill of Rights. Sections 1 and 2 of the Bill make this abundantly clear.
While sections 7 and 11.1 of the Financial Administration act provide for the administration of certain aspects of the Government of Canada, these activities must not infringe upon existing laws. The OAG policy on “vaccination” is a direct violation of the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights, and therefore is invalid.
5. Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985
The Criminal Code of Canada defines the enforcement of this “vaccine” policy as criminal offences under the following sections:
Section 264.1 (1) Uttering threats; Section 264.1 (1)(2) Punishment
Criminal Code s. 264.1 (1), (2), (3) describe that uttering threats is a criminal offence and everyone who commits an offence under these sections is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment.
Section 265 (1) Assault; Section 265 (3) Consent
Criminal Code s. 265 (1) states that a person commits an assault when (a) without consent of another person applies force directly or indirectly; (b) attempts to or threatens. S. 265 (3) further describes the invalidity of forced consent.
Section 346 (1) Extortion; ss. 346 (1)(1.1) extortion as indictable offence
Criminal Code s. 346 (1) and ss. 346 (1)(1.1) describe the extortive behaviour and it being an indictable offence. In this case, to obtain certain highly private information through coercion and threatening with retaliatory measures.
Section 319 (1) Public incitement of hatred
Criminal Code s. 319 (1) outlines public incitement of hatred against identifiable groups; it being an indictable offence; and liability of imprisonment.
With this policy you are openly and unlawfully threatening employees with non-consensual and invasive medical treatments. You are threatening employees with experimental “vaccines” and/or DNA/RNA testing, that if they don’t comply, you will remove their fundamental right to earn a living and provide for their families. You are publicly issuing threats to discriminate against identifiable groups of employees if they don’t sign away their rights and fall in line with certain draconian measures.
6. Case law on informed consent
a. Parmley v. Parmley, [1945]
Informed consent medical, page 645
Summary: Informed consent is required for medical treatments. Consent must be given freely and information about risks involved must be provided.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1945/1945canlii13/1945canlii13.html
b. Hopp v. Lepp, [1980]
Informed consent medical, page 196
Summary: Informed consent is required for medical treatments. Consent must be given freely and information about risks involved must be provided.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1980/1980canlii14/1980canlii14.html
c. R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999]
If no consent, then assault
Summary: If there is threat of harm, or reprisal, or pressure from an authority, then there is no consent. Thus, the act would be assault.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1684/index.do
7. Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, S.C. 2017
Under section 3(1) of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, it is prohibited for any person to require an individual to undergo a genetic test as a condition of (a) providing goods or services to that individual; (b) entering into or continuing a contract or agreement with that individual; or offering or continuing specific terms or conditions in a contract or agreement with that individual.
Section 3(2) prohibits refusal to engage in activities described in s. 3(1) with individuals who refuse to undergo genetic testing. Section 4(1) prohibits any requirement for an individual to disclose the results of a genetic test as a condition of engaging in activities described in s. 3(1) of the Act. Further, section 4(2) prohibits refusal to engage in activities described in s. 3(1) on the basis that an individual has refused to disclose the results of a genetic test.
This act makes it abundantly clear that it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of genetic characteristics, to require genetic testing, and to disclose the results of genetic test results analyzing DNA/RNA. This type of incredibly invasive forced testing is not permitted in this country. Section 7 of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act outlines the offences and punishments for contravening sections 3 to section 5 of the Act. Contraventions of the provisions of sections 3 to 5 of this Act are indictable offences punishable with fines and/or imprisonment. You cannot force the RT-PCR or any other type of genetic testing that analyzes DNA/RNA for the purposes described in this Act.
8. Canada Labour Code, Part II and Part III
There are no provisions for employers to forcefully place employees on leave without pay. This is an option available only to and requested by the employee.
Case Law: Cabiakman v. Industrial Alliance Life Insurance Co. [2004]
Summary: If the employee is available and willing to work, the employer cannot place an employee on administrative suspension without pay.
https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/46624
9. Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985
Section 3(3) of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the ground of refusal to undergo a genetic test or to disclose, or authorize the disclosure of, the results of a genetic test. This discrimination is deemed to be on the ground of genetic characteristics. Therefore, subjecting individuals to forced genetic testing and to further reveal the results of those tests is unlawful.
10. Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985
According to section 4 of the Privacy Act, No personal information shall be collected by a government institution unless it relates directly to an operating program or activity of the institution. The office has no business demanding and extorting employees for their private medical information. The privacy of employees must be respected.
11. Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C., 1985
Duty to publicize clinical trial information in ss. 3 (3)(3.3) of the Food and Drugs Act requires that clinical trial information is to be made public within the prescribed time and prescribed manner. If the injections continue to be in clinical trials until 2023, how can the clinical trial information be publicized, reviewed, and independently assessed? Furthermore, long term safety data of the said injections cannot be available for the same reasons. It is impossible to analyze the long term safety data of this new medical procedure.
Ontario:
12. Healthcare Consent Act, R.S.O, 1990
Section 10 (1) of the Ontario Healthcare Consent Act reads that consent is required for medical treatment. Treatment without obtaining consent is unlawful. You are not medical professionals and I do not consent to your “mandated” medical treatments.
Sections 11 (1), (2), (3) describe the elements of consent and informed consent. Consent must be informed and it must be given voluntarily. In order to achieve informed consent, information about the expected benefits, material risks, side effects of the treatment and information about alternatives must be provided.
13. Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990
Section 63 (2) of the OHSA expressly states that no employer shall seek to gain access, except by an order of the court or other tribunal or in order to comply with another statute, to a health record concerning a worker without the worker’s written consent.
According to Section 66 (1), every person, who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of this act, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a financial fine or imprisonment.
Our rights to Privacy and personal information are further protected by the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA); Personal Health Information and Electronic Documents Act, 2000 (PIPEDA); and Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1990 (FIPPA).
Important internationally recognized declarations
14. The Nuremburg Code
The Code is a set of research and ethics principles that were established in response to and in the aftermath of Nazi medical experimentation on humans. It outlines the protections for participants, the importance of voluntary informed consent, and methods of conduct. This policy, the experimental and deadly impact of the “vaccine”, along with its forced implementation mean that all 10 rules of the Nuremburg Code are decimated.
15. Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, 2005
Articles 3-6, 9-11, 16, 20 speak about respect for human dignity, human rights, informed and voluntary consent to treatment. The declaration speaks about personal privacy and confidentiality, and about responsible management of medicine among other aspects. Canada being a member state of UNESCO since 1946 is committed to the principles laid out in this international declaration on bioethics and human rights. In the Covid dystopia, it seems these principles have been all but forgotten.
16. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Canada’s own human rights laws stem out of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration recognizes the universal rights of humans. Articles 1-3 discuss the basic and fundamental rights to be free and equal, the rights to life, liberty, and security, much like the rights recognized in our Canadian Bill of Rights. Articles 7, 12, 18-21 further discuss freedoms and discrimination free treatment of humans. Articles 23 focuses on the right to free choice of employment and the rights to discrimination free work.
One wonders how this can be achieved and respected with evidently unlawful work policies.
17. WMA Declaration of Helsinki
The Declaration of Helsinki is considered to be the cornerstone of ethical research principles involving humans. The forced inoculation of humans with experimental drugs violate several principles of this declaration.
Vax caused Deaths and Injuries
Vaccine development, testing, and regulation is a painstaking process that takes years of dedication and hard work to complete. Hastily rushed out the door experimental Covid-19 products have not gone through the same process and rigor. Long term safety and efficacy data that is crucial for assessment is not available. What’s worse, various injury reporting databases show the immediate after effects of vax-caused injuries and deaths has quickly reached unprecedented levels and continue to paint a dark and sinister picture.
The numbers of “vaccine” caused deaths and serious injuries are in the hundreds of thousands around the world. How can a reasonable, level headed person or authority recommend any such treatment, let alone enforce it, and let alone make it a condition of employment.
Analysis of the data reported by well known “vaccine” injury reporting systems provide an overview of deaths and adverse reactions caused by the various Covid-19 vaccine products.
§ American VAERS Covid Vaccine Data, as of November 12, 2021, shows over 894,000 adverse events reports and more than 18,800 deaths, with thousands requiring urgent care and hospitalization
§ United Kingdom’s Yellow Card Scheme, as of November 11, 2021, shows over 385,000 adverse events reports and 1,784 fatalities
§ The European EudraVigilance database, as of November 2021, reports similarly high injury and fatality rates
COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE PFIZER-BIONTECH
COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE MODERNA
COVID-19 VACCINE ASTRAZENECA
COVID-19 VACCINE JANSSEN
Elevated adverse events and deaths have become so noteworthy in Ontario that it prompted Ontario MPP Randy Hillier to formally write to Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner to open a criminal investigation into the issue. Public Health Ontario, as of November 14, 2021 reported 537 cases of myoc
arditis and thousands of adverse events following immunization in their report.
There is surmountable evidence that the so called benefits of Covid inoculation are highly contestable at best and tortuously lethal at worst. One finds it horrifying to think that these potions are being injected into our children.
In Conclusion
We are intelligent free thinking individuals. We must not be made victims of laborious collectivist ideology designed to achieve the goals of the few, while obliterating the freedoms of so many. As rational human beings, we must heed wakeful caution to our reality before too late and the fascist boot is slammed on us. Any reasonable individual, who has suffered under a socialist political regime knows it takes a revolution to get them out of it.
History has shown that dehumanization is one of the first steps in perpetrating great crimes against humans. This policy seeks to dehumanize Canadians effectively placing them into “us vs. them” groups, where the complicit “us” enjoy all the rights. Meanwhile, “them” and “those people” are ridiculed, written off the books as societal undesirables, and receive all the scoff society can muster up. By implementing and enforcing this unlawful policy, you’re helping create a tiered society of subhuman “untermenchen” and forced conformists, divided along dictatorial pharmaceutical lines. It is easy to place labels on groups sentencing them to a gloomy fate. It takes moral courage to recognize the wrong doing and to call it out for what it is.
How ironic is it that an office that seeks to provide a layer of accountability by auditing Canadian institutions to look after the best interests of Canadians, is now busy rolling out the purging of fundamental rights of the same Canadians. Upstanding Canadians, who have given years of conscientious hard work to achieve the objectives of this office, are now being given the boot for being rational, responsible humans and for defending Canadian rights. Historically, those who have continued to stew in their hedonist immorality in abject ignorance of the realities around them, have paid dearly with their arguably taken for granted freedoms. The dereliction of moral duty by this organization’s leadership is unbelievable.
Our actions as responsible citizens today will determine the future of our society and the world in which our future generations will reside. Our efforts today will decide if the society our children will live in is a free and open one, or will it be a malevolent evil entity directing them into a dark unhuman abyss. The fascist regimes of the past couldn’t possibly inflict brutal oppression on people, unless and until the capable intelligent people of the time turned a blind eye to it, and simply allowed it to happen.
When lies are told over truth and told wholesale with such frequency and conviction by so many, the truth becomes murky to the point that it ceases to be identifiable from falsehood. The price to pay for such large scale immorality must be most egregious.
Finally, I remind you kindly, but firmly that our rights, freedoms, and civil liberties are NOT yours to take away. Stop violating our rights and stop threatening us with injections and “boosters” just so we can keep our jobs.Thanks,
STYLITES. Pillar saints. They were solitaries who dwelled on the ruins of structures surmounting columns or pillars. In this way they practiced mortification, while also preaching to the people or giving spiritual counsel. The best known were St. Simeon (390-459) of Antioch and St. Daniel (d. 493) of Constantinople.
A look at TC and some of the essays in reaction to it from From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War. It's a great book. I'm reading it now.
From One Peter Five
By Julia Meloni
When Pope Francis released the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, he dropped what Dr. Peter Kwasniewski calls an “atom bomb” on the traditional Latin Mass. Now, as the fallout accumulates and the rubble builds up, Kwasniewski has edited and released From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War, a collection of brilliant, clarifying essays on Francis’s militant act.
“Stunning, sad, weird, baffling, vengeful, and crazy barely begin to describe this situation,” says contributor Michael Brendan Dougherty regarding Traditionis Custodes (84). But in an emergency situation that still leaves the mind reeling, Kwasniewski’s volume offers some much-needed lucidity. While it’s impossible to do justice to these seventy pieces in one short essay, here are six key takeaways from this razor-sharp book.
Pope Francis is, as always, very careful about how he words his subversion of tradition. As Kwasniewski notes:
It would be impossible in principle for a pope to abolish the venerable Roman rite, the Mass of Ages. …Francis in this motu proprio never dares to say ‘the rite in force before the liturgical form is abrogated,’ as neither did Paul VI before him. Rather, he abrogates Summorum Pontificum, and attempts to exclude the old Roman rite from being a legitimate lex orandi of the Catholic Faith. This is bizarre, untenable, and ultimately incoherent. The document is full of contradictions and mental fog (90).
Here Kwasniewski stresses the difference between abolishing something in principle and abolishing it in practice. To borrow a favorite formulation from historian Roberto de Mattei, Francis is a man of praxis, concerned chiefly with making things happen in practice. Thus, what matters to the revolutionaries is what Traditionis Custodes effects in reality.
And Traditionis Custodes is, for all its muddled logic, expertly programmed to make the on-the-ground reality hostile to the traditional Latin Mass. As Kwasniewski puts it, the papal text is “designed like a Swiss Army knife to equip bishops with as many ways of inconveniencing or hounding tradition-loving Catholics as possible” (17).
As Traditionis Custodes presses inexorably forward and groups such as the FSSP come under increasing pressure, it’s hard not to think of what contributor Christophe Geffroy writes:
[T]he stage is set for a future in which the traditional Mass will be celebrated only by the Society of Pius X and its satellites. The pope’s strategy seems to be to push the resistance toward the Society of St. Pius X so that the whole traditional world concentrates there, where they will be isolated and controlled on their little reservation, cut off from Rome and the dioceses, maintaining just enough connection to avoid formal schism. This explains why the pope is not seeking full reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, but has shown great generosity toward them by recognizing the full validity of their marriages and confessions… (29).
In other words, Pope Francis’s benevolent gestures towards the SSPX make sense if the point all along has been to shunt traditionalists into the society and then “isolate” and “control” them. When I asked fellow Catholics for their thoughts on this theory on Twitter, one prominent account pointed out the incredible amount of “careful planning” required to pull off this papal maneuver.
“They are playing chess,” the user said.
“For the last decade the Francis pontificate has moved back and forth between accelerationism and stalemate,” says Ross Douthat (213). Now, as actors have “become less inclined to play the long game and more inclined to take truly reckless steps,” Pope Francis’s “fear-driven crackdown on the TLM” has pushed “a decadent system toward a crisis” (213-214).
This is an important point. In my book The St. Gallen Mafia, I thematize the tension between, on the one hand, Pope Francis’s preference for acting patiently and, on the other hand, the pressures of some mysterious timer ticking in the background. Now, with Traditionis Custodes, an end game is clearly in play.
“The faction in power right now will do their utmost to suppress the old Mass altogether,” Kwasniewski warns. “It’s worse: they want the extinction of the usus antiquior in entirety—all the sacramental rites, the Breviarium Romanum of Pius X, the Rituale Romanum, the Pontificale Romanum, the whole works” (92).
Ultimately, this all-out war is part of a larger assault on the pre-conciliar past. As George Neumayr searingly puts it: “[Francis’s] decree against the traditional Latin Mass is designed to finish off the pre-conciliar Church” (161).
And as another contributor, Michael Fiedrowicz, says elsewhere, all of this is “frighteningly reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984.”
“Every memory of the past must be erased,” says Fiedrowicz.
From one perspective, Douthat speaks of the “total uncertainty about what now lies ahead” (177). Regarding the attempted suppression of the old Mass, Douthat notes that Francis’s “authority may not be strong enough to achieve this goal.” Everything from “decentralization” to “the role of the internet as a rallying point against disliked authority” will “make many bishops reluctant to act as Rome’s enforcers and probably allow the old Mass to persist” (178).
Meanwhile, Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson stresses that our situation remains “terribly worrisome” and yet still not hopeless (184). Ultimately, he describes Traditionis Custodes as “a scythe or a winnowing fan, which will further bring to light that good seed” (185).
“At some point the fuming and railing against us and the usus antiquior will subside or stop altogether,” the Archbishop predicts. “It has to, for we have a world to claim for Christ” (185).
As Kwasniewski writes:
My wife and I decided to commit to a daily Holy Hour at an adoration chapel near our house, to pray for a resolution to this crisis, to pray for all the priests and laity it will affect, for all the bishops and, of course, for the pope. I would urge everyone to take some concrete step, even if it’s as simple as explicitly praying daily in the Rosary for the restoration of tradition to its rightful place. Enroll in the Brown Scapular of Our Lady if you haven’t already done so. Choose a day or days for fasting: Our Lord says some demons are driven out only through prayer and fasting (92).
Ultimately, Kwasniewski reminds us that “this crisis is not likely to clear up quickly” (92-93). In other words, we have to play our own long game—that of counter-revolution, offering up our prayers, works, and sacrifices for the restoration of the Mass we love.
Isn't it funny how we're supposed to 'follow the science' when it agrees with the Left ('climate change') but not when it disagrees (abortion or 'trans rights')?
From The American Thinker
By Norman Rogers
Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.
The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s critical facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be changed to tune a model to give a “good” result. Technically, a good result would be that the climate model output can match past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate catastrophe. That sort of “good” result has elevated the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.
Once money and status started flowing into climate science because of the disaster its denizens were predicting, there was no going back. Imagine that a climate scientist discovers gigantic flaws in the models and the associated science. Do not imagine that his discovery would be treated respectfully and evaluated on its merits. That would open the door to reversing everything that has been so wonderful for climate scientists. Who would continue to throw billions of dollars a year at climate scientists if there were no disasters to be prevented? No, the discoverer of any flaw would be demonized and attacked as a pawn of evil interests. Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer come to mind. There are many more skeptical scientists keeping quiet in varying degrees.
Testing a model against past history and assuming that it will then predict the future is a methodology that invites failure. The failure starts when the modeler adds more adjustable parameters to enhance the model. At some point, one should ask if we are fitting a model or doing simple curve fitting. If the model has degenerated into curve fitting, it very likely won’t have serious predictive capability.
A strong indicator that climate models are well into the curve fitting regime is the use of ensembles of models. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) averages together numerous models (an ensemble), in order to make a projection of the future. Asked why they do this rather than try to pick the best model, they say that the ensemble method works better. Why would averaging worse models with the best model make the average better than the best? This is contrary to common sense. But according to the mathematics of curve fitting, if different methods of fitting the same (multidimensional) data are used, and each method is independent but imperfect, averaging together the fits will indeed give a better result. It works better because there is a mathematical artifact coming from having too many adjustable parameters that allow the model to fit nearly anything.
One may not be surprised that the various models disagree dramatically, one with another, about the Earth’s climate, including how big the supposed global warming catastrophe will be. But no model, except perhaps one from Russia, denies the future catastrophe.
There is a political reason for using ensembles. In order to receive the benefits flowing from predicting a climate catastrophe, climate science must present a unified front. Dissenters have to be canceled and suppressed. If the IPCC were to select the best model, dozens of other modeling groups would be left out. They would, no doubt, form a dissenting group questioning the authority of those that gave the crown to one particular model. With ensembles, every group gets to participate in a rewarding conspiracy against humanity.
Fitting the model to climate history comes up against the fact that past climate history is poorly documented or unknown. There are scientific groups that specialize in examining and summarizing the vast trove of past climate history. Their summaries improve on the original data in ways that always seem to support global warming catastrophe. The website realclimatescience.com specializes in exposing this tampering with climate history.
Because so much of climate history is unknown, for example, climate influencing aerosols, the modelers have to make up the missing history. Each modeler is free to make up his own history, so the various models fit different assumed past climates. It would be very surprising if modelers weren’t manipulating their fabricated climates to make their models behave better.
Scientists are always cautioned not to fall in love with a theory or method. If they do, they will lose their objectivity. Facts that support their love will be celebrated, facts that cast doubt on their love will be ignored or forgotten. But if you spend years, or decades, married to a modeling methodology, divorce becomes less and less likely.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization in Washington, DC that touts itself as the science advisor to the government. Their advice has some common threads. They never criticize the scientific establishment and they always promote spending more money on science. Like the teachers’ unions, they pretend to support the common good but actually promote their constituency’s special interests.
The Academy sponsored a report on the future of climate modeling. They apparently saw nothing wrong with staffing the study committee with professional climate modelers. The report advocated more money for climate modelers and urged hiring professional public relations people to present results to the public.
The purported climate catastrophe ahead is 100% junk science. If the unlikely climate catastrophe actually happens, it will be coincidental that it was predicted by climate scientists. Most of the supporting evidence is fabricated. There Is no out-of-the-ordinary climate change taking place. The constant comparisons of the current climate with preindustrial climate are nonsense because according to climate theory and the models, the effect of CO2 was extremely minor before 1975. Since 1975 nothing points to a climate catastrophe or a new long-term trend.
The fake climate catastrophe has spawned a fake energy paradigm – replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar electricity. Wind and solar are claimed to be cheaper than traditional sources of electricity but non-fake accounting reveals that wind or solar electricity costs five or even ten times more than traditional electricity, exclusive, of course, of government subsidies and mandates. The reason it costs so much is that the erratic nature of wind and solar requires maintaining the traditional electricity generating system intact and ready to operate when wind and solar fail. Solar fails every night, every cloudy day, and more often in winter. Wind fails at random times, or somewhat predictable times, and often has a seasonal cycle. If the renewable energy advocates were logical, they would be advocating for nuclear. Nuclear is reliable and does not produce CO2.
Climate change and wind and solar electricity are a snipe hunts, diverting the country from serious problems in favor of imaginary problems with imaginary solutions that enrich the promoters and their political friends with status and money.
