Biden's mask mandates and forced jabs thrown out in legal ruling
Toddlers at nursery no longer forcibly muzzled
By Adam Edwards
AMERICAN toddlers will finally be allowed to unmask in nursery following a landmark legal ruling on Wednesday against President Joe Biden’s federal mask and vaccine mandates.
Twenty-four US states won a permanent injunction against the illegal diktats, which centres around the federally funded Head Start nursery programme.
Under the mandate, all employees, contractors and volunteers had been forced to take the Covid ‘vaccine’ or face the sack.
Its students, who are aged just three to five and come from some of the poorest families in America, had been forcibly masked by the presidential order.
The permanent injunction confirms an early injunction, in January, by Louisiana Western District Judge Terry Doughty.
The Biden administration has the right to appeal the ruling, as it successfully did with an earlier injunction applied against jab mandate for US healthcare workers by Doughty.
However, if it fails to act, which is likely given the demographic targeted by the Head Start mandates (all the kids come from families below the federal poverty line and a high proportion of these poor, masked kids are from minority backgrounds), any attempts to enforce future jab and mask mandates in the 24 states in question will be considered unconstitutional and could see politicians hauled jailed for contempt of court.
But as if poor black kids being given the same rights at rich ‘Dixiecrat’ politicians isn't good enough news from North America, this week also saw the beginning of the end to Canada’s covidian regime.
The country’s ban on ‘unvaccinated’ travellers is expected to be lifted next Friday. The move coincides with a constitutional challenge against travel mandates by, among others, the last surviving signatory to the Canadian constitution, Brian Peckford (below).
Faced with almost certain defeat in the courts, the Canadian Government has cynically called for the legal challenge to be thrown out, claiming on Wednesday that the case was ‘moot’ given the mandates are due to be scrapped in little over a week’s time.
At the time of going to press, the court had not ruled on this motion to dismiss. In the UK, which uses the same legal system as Canada, the courts threw out several challenges against the government’s Covid regulations, because the rules had, as in this case, since been amended or slated for the scrap.
The fact that the UK Government subsequently re-applied new rules after seeing off any legal challenges has not been lost on our Canadian cousins, who pointed out in court that the Canadian Government has repeatedly said that restriction may return in future and the travel ban is only being “suspended” not scrapped.
As the lawyer Sam Presvelos said in court: “The risk of government constitutional public health policy may be reimposed in the future is not one that should be tolerated in a constitutional democracy.”
In many ways, the judge’s decision on the case could prove to be one of the most important events of the past two and a half years. Either mandates need to be ruled unconstitutional or they will return again and again.
The next government “emergency” is always around the corner. And unless rights are “inalienable”, as Peckford and his colleagues wrote in their Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then they will for ever be dispensable.
Adam Edwards is a freelance journalist.
The government is attempting to throw out Mr. Brian Peckford's case.
The reasoning is that because although our constitutional "Freedom of Mobility" rights were stripped by the Trudeau government on November 1st, 2021, those "rights" were reinstated on June 20, 2022, so Mr. Peckford's case is "moot".
Nice try eh?
For 8 months, unjabbed Canadians were banned from boarding planes, trains and ships (but why not BUSES??).
And it's also untrue that our rights were reinstated.
The "travel ban on the unjabbed" was "suspended". Some believe that's a loophole which can be closed again, at any time, for any reason.
I believe it's the "ArriveCan App" that's in the process of being "scrapped" within days.
The use of ArriveCan will then become voluntary, not obligatory, for entering Canada, jabbed or unjabbed.
In recent months, unjabbed Canadians re-entering Canada were obligated, by Health Canada, enforced by Immigration officers, to "test" twice during a 14 day mandatory quarantine period, upon re-entry.
Unjabbed visitors are still banned from entering Canada. (And the US too. The last "holdouts".)
Unless you're a migrant worker or Ukrainian refugee. Then come on in.
The former Premier of Newfoundland is the last surviving architect of the 1982 Constitutional document which, among other things, protects our Right of Mobility.
That's what Mr. Peckford's case is based upon. That right was VIOLATED. And the point isn't MOOT!
It's scheduled to be heard on October 1st.
Here's his latest blog, regarding what transpired in court the other day, and his thoughts on the matter.