I figured the courts were involved in pushing the one sided narrative. I think it was in 2022 that two family court justices got their reputations smeared and excoriated by the appeals court and the Toronto star for ruling on the side in two different cases where feuding parents were arguing over their kids getting the shots. The judges sided with the parent who did not want their kids getting the shot. Justice Pazaratz in Hamilton and Justice Bennett in North York. Justice Pazaratz said he didn’t have enough evidence in front of him to rule in favour of getting the shots. Which was the absolute truth. I was shocked at the Toronto star weighing in on something they knew nothing about which was the reason I stopped my subscription. When the virus first came to our shores everybody was scrambling and wanted this life saving shot. Pharma held countries over the barrel, I wonder what was contained in the contracts with pharma. The influence of pharma was far and wide. The smearing of people’s reputations who dared question the shot or downright warned against it is a move right out of pharma’s playbook.
Plenty of limitations, but they're applied so liberally and with so little oversight, the government can effectively do whatever it wants in terms of redacting. We need to change this.
Hugely helpful. I'm just about to dig into this deeper, and your timing couldn't be better. Thank you!
I figured the courts were involved in pushing the one sided narrative. I think it was in 2022 that two family court justices got their reputations smeared and excoriated by the appeals court and the Toronto star for ruling on the side in two different cases where feuding parents were arguing over their kids getting the shots. The judges sided with the parent who did not want their kids getting the shot. Justice Pazaratz in Hamilton and Justice Bennett in North York. Justice Pazaratz said he didn’t have enough evidence in front of him to rule in favour of getting the shots. Which was the absolute truth. I was shocked at the Toronto star weighing in on something they knew nothing about which was the reason I stopped my subscription. When the virus first came to our shores everybody was scrambling and wanted this life saving shot. Pharma held countries over the barrel, I wonder what was contained in the contracts with pharma. The influence of pharma was far and wide. The smearing of people’s reputations who dared question the shot or downright warned against it is a move right out of pharma’s playbook.
Are there any limitations on redactions or can all public institutions operate with zero transparency?
Plenty of limitations, but they're applied so liberally and with so little oversight, the government can effectively do whatever it wants in terms of redacting. We need to change this.
Do you know if there are legal precedents where redactions have been successfully challenged and removed?
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-1/FullText.html
https://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/en#deposer-une-plainte-submit-a-complaint