Discover more from Social Disorder
Behind The Mandates
How The Divisive Canadian Flight Mandates Against Unvaccinated Citizens Was Proven Unscientific
There are so few times over the last 2.5 years where you get a qualified chance to have an "I told you so" moment. But, Canadians just got one.
And it's a BIG one for unvaccinated Canadians who were told they weren't allowed to fly domestically or internationally for over 8 months... for reasons.
Well, as it turns out, there were NO reasons when the time came to prove their case in court.
And what's best is, we've got the transcripts to prove it...
In a very rare instance, the public was given access to view the court transcripts from the current trial of Shaun Rickard & Karl Harrison v Government of Canada in it’s entirety!
This is something that doesn’t happen often and almost NEVER before a trial is completed. But here we are… 1299 beautiful pages of holding the Canadian government to the flames. And they don’t do well…
The following article covers some of the broad strokes but, more importantly, has a pdf file at the bottom containing the entire transcripts:
Here is another article that details how Transport Canada haplessly struggled to find justification to make these mandates make since 13 DAYS before the travel mandate was implemented! The punchline is, they couldn’t:
What’s even WORSE is, not only did they NOT have any justifiable reason behind those mandates, there exists a meta analysis on the Government of Canada's OWN WEBSITE that shows the chances of catching Sars-CoV-2 on an airplane were 1 in 1.7 MILLION travelers:
Many of the transcripts are read out on the podcast episode, but I’ll post a few here to give you some semblance of how completely the government is getting crucified in this:
Like I’d mentioned earlier, the trial isn’t even over yet. And here’s where some beautiful, poetic justice comes in…
These transcripts predate the “suspension” of the flight mandates in late June. The term suspension is key here, because when they did that everyone called foul due to the ability for the government to simply re-institute them on a whim later.
After the suspension, the government made a motion to drop the case since the mandates were no longer in effect… it’s a moot point now, they protested.
BUT… because they only SUSPENDED the mandates, the trial will likely be able to continue on the presupposition that they could come back at any time!
A “mootness” hearing will be held in September later this year to determine the continuance of the trial:
What I’m personally curious to see is that; much of the most important information is still being shrouded behind the shield of “Cabinet Confidentiality”. Making it impossible to get the full picture of who made the call to implement it without due cause.
If, through this case, the judge can call discovery on that information, perhaps we can finally see the full story here. And that may set precedent to do the same for the reasons behind the enacting of the emergencies act that’s also been obscured by cabinet confidence!
Even if this trial doesn't come to a beneficial conclusion for Rickard & Harrison, it's proven that everything we were being gas-lit then punished for was a wholesale lie.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Which we assumed already, but now we know.
And maybe that can bring us back to a closer version of normality, knowing that truth cannot be held back forever.
~ Drew Weatherhead
Social Disorder is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Listen to the podcast episode below:
The Social Disorder Podcast: Behind The Mandates