Tamara Lich, who was imprisoned on a charge ‘to counsel to commit mischief’, has been released from prison on bail this week but her lawyer describes her bail conditions as worse than jail. Her bail conditions “would make Putin envious,” Keith Wilson states. “She is not allowed to criticize the government. She is not allowed to criticize or speak against covid-19 restrictions or do anything in support of the Freedom movement. She is not allowed to be on social media. She is not allowed to directly or indirectly communicate or support with anyone in those things.” Even Putin’s strongest critic can do more from his prison cell than she can, Willson says.
Watch the Western Standard interview of Tamara’s lawyer, Keith Wilson, who spent nineteen days on the ground in Ottawa during the protests, working on behalf of the truckers to free GoFundMe funds. Wilson is on contract with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom. He is also currently representing Brian Peckford in his challenge of the constitutionality of the government of Canada’s travel mandates. Brian Peckford helped draft the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights in 1982 so he is arguably the best living authority on the rights of Canadians as set out in our Constitution.
Tamara Lich’s lawyer describes her as the “average concerned, honest Canadian,” and adds that she was was never going to put anyone at risk, so her treatment is entirely unwarranted. When she set up the GoFundMe, Lich anticipated raising a few thousand dollars but ended up receiving an overwhelming show of support with the total donations exceeding ten million dollars. This was very nearly matched, later, on GiveSendGo, after GoFundMe was shut down under pressure from the government of Canada. Americans took note that they could be the next victims, as this article reveals. GoFundMe’s claimed to shut down the funding for the truckers because of “reports of violence and other unlawful activity,” yet these reports remain unsubstantiated. Meanwhile, as has been pointed out, actual violent protests in the U.S. were never in violation of GoFundMe policy. All of the targeted shutting down of accounts happens from one end of the political spectrum.
The level of misrepresentation of what happened in Ottawa is startling. For example it is a blatant lie that the RCMP contacted people before their bank accounts were frozen. People who donated as little as $20 to the truckers ended up discovering their accounts were frozen, meaning they couldn’t pay for their mortgage, their gas, their food, their daycare. It is incredulous that this happened in Canada and the whole world is shocked. Cory Morgan says it well in the interview, “The blanket punitive approach that this government has taken on this has been horrific.”
Wilson’s analysis of the past weeks is that the government of Canada, meaning the Prime Minister and his support team, just could not accept that a large number of Canadians disagreed with what the government has been doing and that Canadians are deeply troubled by government over-reach. Trudeau found this so threatening that he threw everything in his arsenal at the convoy, including invoking the Emergencies Act.
A literal witch hunt ensued, tracking down anyone remotely supportive of the Freedom Convoy. Gerald Butts, a former highly influential staff member of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, shared hacked donor information from GiveSendGo publicly on Twitter. There ought to be legal repercussions for that. Even the lawyer, Keith Wilson felt he might be victimized by the government. We are in a serious place when legal representation is threatened.
The announcement by Deputy Prime Minister, Chyristia Freeland, that the government would be going after donors to the Freedom Convoy meant the possible targeting of roughly 200,000 people with average donations around $35, according to Wilson. I am thinking that these donors each represent a lot of Canadians who did not donate. The Prime Minister really should take note. The donations to GoFundMe and GiveSendGo represented an undeniable opinion poll and were were evidence of the Canadian support behind what the truckers wanted–the removal of vaccine mandates and travel restrictions. The significance of this is not lost, even if the truckers never receive any of the money.
The interview of Tamara Lich’s lawyer, Keith Wilson, appears to have less than 2000 views on Youtube. I think every Canadian citizen owes it to themselves to watch this and become aware of the gravity of the situation in which we find ourselves and the direction we are headed as a country.
It was pressure from the banking sector that caused Trudeau to wake up and reconsider going forward with the Emergencies Act after he had already intimidated Liberal and NDP members of parliament into voting for invoking the act only two days earlier. They must feel like they have been played. Remember, too, that the Prime Minister slighted politicians by announcing his invoking of the act to the media before presenting it to parliament and he then enforced the act before any vote whatsoever.
When people began to withdraw their money from banks, the banking conglomerates, legitimately, began to become nervous. Yes, there were bank runs, and understandably so. Bankers saw they were losing the confidence of the public. In their case, and Trudeau’s, money talks.
The Emergencies Act still had to pass a vote in the senate but it never came to that. However, the senators’ debate on the matter began and we can be thankful for the thoughtful remarks. I encourage every Canadian to listen to a sampling of the speeches of the senators as part of their civic duty. Two particularly impressive speeches are the ones by Donald Neil Plett and Denise Batters.
Key to all of this, as Wilson says, is the “sort of narrative that the government created and is acting out on it, despite the evidence of what really happened on the ground.” Wilson believes we must have a public inquiry.
In the meantime, Lich’s bail conditions are going to be appealed to address her restrictions on travel and mobility, her right of association and her right to freedom of expression.
I am trying to imagine a scenario in which vaccine mandates would be a good plan and it’s difficult to actually come up with any situation. If people were dying so rapidly that everyone knew we were doomed, and only those who were vaccinated lived, a mandate would not be required because people would be desperate and lining up and demanding the vaccine. Unfortunately, if we were in this dire situation, it is unlikely that a vaccine could be produced in time to save the planet.
Event 201, held in October of 2019 and hosted by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation proposed a response to a theoretical pandemic. One part of the strategy to ‘diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences’ of a pandemic was to focus on the control of misinformation.
I think this part of the strategy has seen abuse. Information around the pandemic has been tightly controlled to the point of being misleading because of what has been omitted.
So much effort has gone into controlling the dialogue during the COVID-19 pandemic that people’s thoughts, if they have been following the media, are not truly original. We’ve been programmed as a result of a pre-determined narrative that has been fed to us, relentlessly.
My husband and I don’t have TV and Cable but we went out for his birthday to a restaurant with several TV’s on display and while we dined, every few minutes there was an image of a person having a needle put in their arm. First of all, it is an image that I find disturbing, but more importantly, I thought about the people who have seen this many more times than I have. I can’t imagine how many times this has come across the screen in the past couple of years, never mind the funding that has gone into this advertising.
What we are seeing now is new information coming out which doesn’t match the mainstream narrative and is creating confusion both among people without medical backgrounds and medical professionals. Questions are arising. Until now these were squashed pretty effectively but when literally “everyone” is getting sick, regardless of vaccination status, it becomes increasingly difficult to push the vaccine as the solution to a pandemic. Thankfully we do not see people dying at unprecedented rates. Some may say this is due to the vaccine, but even that is coming into question.
This brings me to the point of vaccine mandates.
There are psychological and sociological reasons why the vaccine mandates are a bad idea. I’m going to use a somewhat crass illustration. We take our dogs to the vet to get castrated. We don’t ask them. We do it for their good, or so we tell ourselves. Actually we are doing it for our convenience because we don’t want the responsibility of more dogs to care for, but none the less, we make the decision for them because we are the ones who know what is best for them. Ultimately, we are in a position to decide this on their behalf. We feed them, provide a home for them and care for them. We decide what sort of life they should have which is ultimately the kind of life we want for them. We don’t want a house full of dogs, because puppies grow up. So we implement the solution. And after a few days the dog gets over the pain and it appears that life for out pet goes on as normal.
A vaccine mandate is a little like that. It ignores the will of the people. It assumes a kind of unquestionable superiority.
This is not how people in society like to interact with one another. We have an aversion to bending unquestioningly and without options to the will of the other.
When one has the right to apply force, and the other is left without choice we understand this as victimization. It is not pleasant to be backed into a corner and threatened. It is definitely not good for the relationship.
If you have raised children you will have somewhat of an understanding of the dynamics here, but even if you do not have children, you will remember being a child. As a child, your parents tried to make decisions in your best interest. As children we accepted the decisions of our parents, sometimes reluctantly, but mostly we could see they were making choices for our good. Unless we were raised in a severely dysfunctional or abusive home, we knew they loved and cared for us and we could trust them.
The government and health authority assumed they could play the role of loving, caring parents and make decisions for us. However, the fact remains that these people are not our parents. They are our peers.
Peers consult with one another. Peers are open to alternate views. Peers respect each other’s choices. If you have a strong sense of self and healthy boundaries you quickly move on from a friend who thinks they can control you or make your decisions for you.
Dialogue and negotiation go into maintaining a trusting relationship. If you can sense there is a forgone conclusion being forced on you then dialogue begins to look like manipulation. Psychologically that is an abusive relationship. Most of us can sense this.
Many people are naively trusting. This is the majority that the government has relied on during this pandemic. These people do not spend time listening to alternative sources because they feel there is no need to do so. They trust the government. They trust the health authorities. They are afraid and need someone in charge to make decisions for them. They’ve been told that certain sources promote “misinformation” and believe that listening to them is potentially harmful. Rather than listening and determining this for themselves, they simply take the word of others and believe that these sources cannot be trusted and that they have malign motivations that are not in the best interests of the public.
I’ve listened to many sources during the pandemic and have tuned out many, but I’ve also thought to myself that if there was a grain of truth in among all the chaff then I wanted to find it. So I compared what I heard and weighed it. Fortunately I have more time than most, as a writer, to do this kind of “research.” Someone said to me, “Do you think you have some secret information?” Actually, I may have accessed information that others have not noticed, simply because I allowed myself to look.
During a pandemic people are afraid and typically we have a fight, flight or freeze response. There is really a very small percentage of the population who end up taking leadership roles or who end up seriously questioning the status quo. As a result, there is a small number of people who end up making decisions on behalf of the majority during a pandemic. Globalization and the WHO has meant we are much more on the same page than we might have been even a few decades ago. Someone I spoke to pointed out to me how all the world is saying the same thing, implying that this was evidence that the narrative was reliable. Maybe so.
I went back this week to why I have become suspicious even when all the voices are saying the same thing. I have a keen interest in parenting and so a number of years ago I wanted to know what the research showed regarding children and corporal punishment. It turns out that the research shows that mild, carefully and thoughtfully administered spanking positively affects children. I went back to the original resource to find this information, because all the news sources and articles, and there were probably hundreds, reported a different story. They all copied an article that had misinterpreted/misrepresented the actual research. If any of these journalists would have taken the time and effort to actually read the research they would not have written their articles in the way they did. That was the day I learned that we cannot simply gullibly accept what we are fed.
I’m sure you can’t have helped noticing how news sources tend to parrot one line. It is because they often have one source. Let’s say that source is the WHO. The whole world has access to what the WHO is communicating, so, understandably that will be the message that most of the world hears. And as I’ve already demonstrated, journalists can be lazy about doing research.
There is a comparatively small number of people, leaders in their own right, who don’t swallow everything. For some reason they don’t entirely trust the “step-parents” so to speak—the ones who have stepped into the parental role. We see this in about, what? 15% of the population?
Initially we were comforted by news from our government leaders and directives from health officials whom we saw as legitimately working on our behalf to mitigate a bad situation. But now, after two years, we have so much more information to fit into the picture. People are waking up to the possibility that allowing pharmaceutical companies to make decisions for us far into the future in terms of an indefinite number of boosters might not be a good thing. Clearly something is not working as advertised. And to add to the suspicion is the fact that the definition of vaccine was broadened mid-pandemic. Here is the comparison:
From 2015 to August 31, 2021 a vaccine was defined as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” and vaccination was “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
The new definition for the vaccine now reads, “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases,” while vaccination is “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.”
The real reason mandates are not a good idea is that they can end up creating the worst scenarios in a society. The worst scenario is when we report our neighbours and when this means we turn on one another and can no longer trust those who desire to live peacefully beside us.
I’m going to use another analogy. If your neighbour is playing loud music, at first you tolerate it. Then you decide you can no longer tolerate it and you deliberate what you will do about it. Maybe wait it out. Maybe there is a birthday party, a one time occasion and you can let it pass. But then you realize there is no party, so you go over and ask if they might turn the sound down a little. You ask in your calmest tone. We’ve done this on a number of occasions and the result has always been positive. People are accommodating because they are neighbours too. We’ll all do better if we get along.
Now if you went over and told your neighbour you didn’t like their choice of music and demanded that they stop playing it, then they would look at you like you were crazy. And you would be the crazy one because in our society people have the freedom to play whatever music they choose.
Asking people to wear masks is like turning down the music.
Social distancing is like turning down the music.
Even staying home when you’re sick, is like turing down the music.
But vaccine mandates force people to change something very basic about themselves. Vaccines will change what happens inside their body. We are not the same after taking a vaccine and that is the whole purpose of the vaccine. Medically speaking, it is the desired outcome that the vaccine will have a long term “protective” impact. While some people are ready to change their music, others are not. Some are more concerned about the impact on their body than receiving “protection.” I believe we need to respect this. If we sacrifice a few for the good of many, where do we draw the line? I do not see this as a good idea. Maintaining respect for individual music choices is very important to a harmonious society and a harmonious society is important for the world. It is probably the most important thing in the world. We do not become more harmonious by picking on one another and singling out people, turning people against others and name calling.
We live in a condo and have seen interactions between neighbours that have not always been acrimonious. We have been the go-between at times. We’ve employed various means of communication and suggestions for adaptation. One neighbour in particular was a source of agitation for others since they are recently immigrated and don’t understand the culture fully. The people beneath them complained persistently about thudding noise to the point where restraints were put on communication as the relationship became increasingly tense. One day the neighbour appeared at our door and wanted us to see what he had done in his suite. He had put a large plush carpet on the floor. This suggestion had been made at one time. He had a broad smile on his face and to see him happy to have come up with a resolution in his own time was very satisfying, after literally years.
The reason why mandates are not a good idea is mandates do not meet the ultimate end goal of good relationships that are essential in a well-adjusted society. Ask any coach what makes a good team and they will tell you cooperation. Mandates have given people justification for turning on each other. Rather than negotiating, we make “demands.” In the case of the man who installed the carpet, patient understanding brought about a positive outcome.