Garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) is an expression often used in the computer world, but it can also apply to the legal world.
Take, for example, the jaw-dropping legal opinion expressed by David Beatty, professor emeritus of the University of Toronto Law School, when he wrote in last week’s Globe and Mail that vaccine mandates “are justified as a matter of community self-defence and justice.”
Professor Beatty has apparently swallowed an enormous dollop of intellectual garbage, so it’s not surprising that his output is a tad rotten.
The first of his defective premises is that “COVID-19 is a serial killer” that “has taken the lives of more than five million people.” He never cites the source of his data, so one can’t help wondering whether he is completely ignorant of the chicanery that has been exposed behind statistics such as this.
On the CDC website, for instance, we learn that with respect to US deaths, “For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death.” In other words, about 95% of the people being counted as COVID deaths actually died of approximately four other fatal conditions, and just happened to be suspected, incidentally, of having COVID.
As early as April, 2020, Minnesota doctor Scott Jensen (who also happens to be a state senator) announced that his state health department had sent out a 7-page email to doctors “coaching” them on how to fill out death certificates and encouraging them to put down COVID-19 based on mere suspicion, regardless of whether the patient had ever received a confirmed diagnosis or not.
Did Professor Beatty sleep through this shocking disclosure?
His next false premise is that “unvaccinated people are much more likely to become infected and spread the disease.” However, Dr. Robert Malone, a prominent inventor of the mRNA technology underlying the vaccines, says that it’s actually the fully vaccinated who are “super-spreaders” of the virus.
In July, 2021 even the CDC issued guidance admitting that the viral load for delta was just as high in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people, and that the former could just as easily spread the virus. How could Beatty have missed this?
Beatty states that “as a matter of law, vaccine mandates are unquestionably legal.” This comes as a huge surprise to those of us who thought that coercively vaccinating people without their consent constitutes assault. I recall seeing, early on in the pandemic, Canadian government websites acknowledging that mandatory vaccinations would be contrary to the Charter. Those admissions seem to have been recently scrubbed from the internet in preparation for the mandates that Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos seems to be planning.
In fact, is it possible that the federal government retained Professor Beatty to write his Globe article as just another step towards implementation of the plan?
Beatty cites a 1905 decision of the US Supreme Court as his only precedent. He seems to have forgotten two major events that have intervened since 1905. First, we had the Nuremburg trials following World War II, and the consequent establishment of the Nuremburg Code. It forbids administering any experimental treatment without the patient’s fully informed consent, obtained without any element of coercion. The mRNA vaccines, although technically approved by Health Canada, are still considered experimental for ages 5-15 by the CDC in the US. Canada’s approval process was rushed through in a matter of months, compared with the usual decade or so that’s required for most vaccines. They are still being monitored. And the vaccine mandate advocated by professor Beatty makes them a far cry from uncoerced consent.
Secondly, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982. It guarantees the right to “life, liberty and security of the person,” although it is unfortunately weighed down with a couple of “weasel clauses” that the government apparently hopes to slip through.
Beatty argues that mandatory vaccinations become “a matter of self-defence” for the community when a lethal disease is circulating, but he pays only lip service to the important qualifying principle that the defender must use the least amount of force necessary to achieve safety.
Can he really be oblivious to the 73 studies (52 of them peer-reviewed) that have shown ivermectin treatment to be both extraordinarily effective in both preventing and treating COVID and extraordinarily safe for the patients?
Even something as simple as vitamin D supplementation has been shown to be highly effective at preventing COVID-19 mortality in numerous studies summarized here, here and here.
Renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough has stated that “as many as 85% of COVID deaths could have been prevented through early treatment,” with safe drugs such as hydroxychlorquine and ivermectin.
Finally, Beatty seems unaware of the work of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, whose video and slide presentations demonstrate that all-cause mortality is greater among the vaccinated than among the unvaccinated, meaning that vaccines cause more harm than good. This conclusion was confirmed by a German study as well.
Mandatory vaccination is clearly not the least amount of force necessary in order for society to defend itself against COVID. Beatty’s argument stinks.
Freedom-minded lawyers and expert witnesses across the country are busy preparing the kind of evidence that Professor Beatty ignores, to ensure that when judges eventually get to hear these cases, they’ll have wholesome input to chew on, and no excuse for garbage coming out.
Karen Selick is a retired lawyer who now works as a freelance writer and video maker. This article was first published HERE.
Please note: We would like to encourage as many New Zealanders as possible to send in a submission opposing Three Waters. Short submissions ...
Welcome to Breaking Views
Breaking Views brings you expert commentary on topical political and policy issues. The views expressed are those of the author alone. The blog is administered by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, an independent public policy think tank at NZCPR.com - register for the free weekly NZCPR newsletterHERE.