Canadian Judge Sets Precedence by Blocking Father’s Rights Over Refusal To Get Vaxxed

    0
    247

    Liberal Canadians have been emboldened since Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister. These groups have sought to disrupt the very way of Canadian life to get their agenda out as the new way Canadian lives shall be lived. Much like liberalism here in the US, this disease is spread easily among those living in fear of offending people yet being easily offended themselves. As they go through life their ways are being passed down to their most impressionable children.

    This mindset has been infecting the Canadian courts for some time now, but a New Brunswick judge has taken it to a new level. The case brought to her involved a custodial agreement first ruled on back in 2019 between a man and his now ex-wife over their three children. The reasoning for the court to see them again? The mom was concerned about her ex and his new wife refusing to get the jab, so she wants the order changed.

    While this accusation alone isn’t often enough to get a judge to change an order, when you learn about their 10-year-old daughter and her battle against non-cancerous tumors in her blood vessels and the immunocompromised life she now leads, you can see where the court is compelled to hear the case. While we here in America have learned that not only is the vax useless against the current strains of COVID, but the masks also aren’t helping things either.

    If anything, this father was helping to save his daughter by refusing to take a vaccine that has proven to cause more problems than it solves. Yet the judge didn’t see it that way. Now not only can he not see his kids, but the mother can also have them vaccinated against his will. The father’s claims to have done his own research about the vaccines and the harm they could cause his immunocompromised daughter was not sufficient to Justice Nathalie Godbout. In her ruling she wrote, “This research is not set out in (his) affidavits in any meaningful way, other than his subjective assertion that it informs his choice and is from ‘credible sources…( He) may find himself conducting ‘research’ for information that supports his position, leaving him blind to evidence that does not.”

    Note, she does not touch on what his research was, what it concluded, or how the conclusion was reached. She just dismissed it as the mainstream narrative in Canada is the right science. Never mind the fact that not trusting the science and instead doing your own science is exactly how science is done in the first place. As difficult as that may be to hear, science is never an exact process. Therefore, we have trials, control groups, and parameters for the experiments. It’s also why they need to be replicated to prove their accuracy before they are accepted.

    Grant Ogilvie served as a lawyer for the children’s mother and explained their perspective on the situation a bit more thoroughly. “This isn’t a case where she wants to take the children away from their father. This is what’s best for the children, period. She’s acknowledged this is going to have an impact on the children, but she said, ‘I have to do what’s best for them.’” To a point, he has a case. Every parent wants what they believe is best for their children.

    For her, this means vaccines and listening to whatever the “experts” have to say. To the father, it means doing his own research and taking a more comprehensive understanding of his daughter’s disease. While every new vaccine has control groups and people to conduct the experiments with, this is not something he was willing to sign her up for. As we have recently seen, they aren’t effective, and for her, they could be a grave risk. He should have a right to have his science heard as well, and not just dismissed.

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here