The original article, far more comprehensive and detailed in its explication of international human rights law was authored by Gail Davidson, Member of the Law Society of British Columbia (retired status). The following is a brief introduction to that important paper by Dr. Matthew Cockle

Excerpts from the podcast:

"Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine policies and mandates led to the suspension or restriction of rights guaranteed by IHRL. The rights affected included rights to education, equality and non-discrimination, freedom of belief, informed consent, freedom from non-consensual medical or scientific experimentation, security of the person and due process. The guaranteed protection of these rights is grounded not only in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms but also in treaties considered cornerstone legal instruments in the establishing of IHRL. In violating these rights Canada’s government failed to fulfill its treaty obligations and its democratic duties. "

"Canada’s vaccine mandates were ill-informed, illegitimate and unlawful. They did not comply with IHRL, and they were not supported by evidence as lawful, proportional, and necessary, let alone effective and safe—all requirements for lawful emergency health measures. States have obligations to promote public health, but these do not override individual rights to informed consent, freedom from forced or coerced medical treatment or freedom from non-consensual medical or scientific experimentation. Public health measures must be lawful, legitimate, necessary, and proportionate. By way of illustration, the ICESCR and the CESCR require states to provide health and education, but do not authorize forced or coerced medical treatment. "

Link to the original article by Gail Davidson

https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/resources/the-right-to-say-no-to-covid-19-vaccines/

The following podcast summarizes and clarifies an important analysis, by Deanna McLeod, of a US CDC report entitled "Cardiac Complications After SARS-CoV-2 Infection and mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination." In her analysis, Deanna McLeod compares the findings of this CDC report with those of a similar, though far more exacting, study conducted jointly in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway. The findings of these two studies are radically different. In this podcast we will work through Deanna McLeod’s analysis, examining the differences between these two studies’ findings, working to understand how such different conclusions were arrived at, and determining which study is more reliable in providing an answer to the question, does COVID-19 vaccination increase or decrease the risk of cardiac complications associated with COVID-19?

The following podcast, presented by Gudrun Welder and Matthew Cockle, discusses the role of the Canadian judiciary and more specifically, the judicial guardianship of rights and freedoms in times of crisis. By judiciary we mean the Canadian system of courts of law, the judges who preside over these courts, and also the branch of government in which judicial power is vested. The discussion ranges over some difficult topics. The subject matter is difficult, largely because it is unfamiliar to most of us. The language can be difficult because legal terms are words that carry actual consequential power within our legal system. The terms and phrases are unfamiliar and sometimes we would like to translate or simplify them, but they can’t always be translated into common language, because then they will no longer carry their full meaning and power within the legal context. In spite of the difficulty that, at times, may arise in listening to the following discussion, we feel that the effort required will be generously repaid because this discussion has the potential to clarify some very common points of confusion. It can clarify the nature of rule-of-law within democracy and the manner in which rule-of-law is designed to protect regular people. It can clarify the nature of judicial guardianship within democracy and the manner in which the judiciary has been established to protect members of the public when government infringes upon their rights and freedoms. And it can clarify the nature of procedural fairness within court proceedings and the importance of maintaining this procedural fairness, particularly when the courts are called upon to scrutinize state actions that are alleged to violate the rights and freedoms of those living within Canada’s borders.