Is the lesson meant to be: Agree with the government-prescribed narrative or they’ll take your children away?
What happened to freedom of conscience?
It appears that that doesn’t seem to exist in one courtroom in Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Windsor, a city with approximately 400,000 residents, is just across the border from Detroit, Michigan.
The Canadian taxpayer-funded media outlet, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, reported on Friday that a Windsor judge had ruled that “a person’s vocal disbelief about COVID-19 is a factor in a child custody case.”
The man had a shared custody agreement with his ex and he would take the children on Friday through Sunday afternoon, but the judge’s ruling allows him three supervised visits a week at a “supervised access centre” where he will have to comply with all of the rules of the facility as a “precondition to access.”
Ontario Superior Court Justice George W. King denied a Windsor man interim custody of his kids because the man’s fervent anti-masking beliefs means he wouldn’t take appropriate actions to keep them safe from COVID-19.
The decision notes the man believes COVID-19 to be a hoax and has boasted in public about flouting health restrictions such as masking and social distancing.
“The health and welfare of the children (and by extension their principal caregiver) should not be jeopardized because of [his] public behaviour in promotion of his opinions,” he wrote.
Legal experts say the ruling is consistent with past custody rulings involving issues of children’s health, but say it is significant because it articulates new standards and language specific to COVID-19.
The judge said that he concluded that “the respondent’s behaviour is dictated by his world view. Everything else is subordinate to that view, including, but not limited to, his love for his children.”
It’s a good thing that guy’s a judge because that statement seems a bit… judgmental.
It’s pretty clear that COVID-19 is a respiratory illness that is spreading and has caused death in over 2 million people worldwide, but it’s also been well-documented that there some deaths attributed to the coronavirus are questionable since the virus may not have been the primary cause of death.
Judge King says that the father is free to hold any beliefs that he wants to, and that he can lawfully express them, but the issue is the impact on the health of the children.
So, dude’s anti-masking is a problem for the “health” of the children, but taking them away from their father is in their best interests? Come on!
What kind of precedent-setting case is this?
Astoundingly, it seems that some Canadians in the legal profession are applauding it.
A lawyer who practices family law in Canada was quoted in the article comparing the dad’s anti-COVID beliefs as akin to anti-vaxxers and people who refuse blood transfusions. Seems like a stretch, but ok…
A human rights lawyer made it pretty clear that freedom of thought isn’t as robustly defended in other places as it is in the United States. You’re free to believe something until “harm can come to another person” because of that belief. That seems a rather tenuous thread, doesn’t it?
Yavar Hameed, an Ottawa based human rights lawyer, said that people do have the right to express themselves but that expression is limited at the point where harm can come to another person.
“So it’s not just a matter of freedom of conscience, freedom of expression protected by the charter of rights and freedoms, it’s expressions that simply might relate because of the underlying actions on the safety of another person,” he said.
Source: CBC News
Whoa, there. What about The Science™?
If this man’s children are healthy with no underlying conditions, then COVID-19 isn’t a significant danger for them if they did contract it.
Are they suggesting that a parent is responsible if a child contracts a highly-contagious respiratory virus? That’s insane!
Besides, children aren’t at significant risk and that’s been confirmed by the CDC, the World Health Organization, and even the local Windsor-Essex County Public Health unit says that on their COVID information page.
Here are some of the FAQs from the Windsor-Essex County Health Unit:
No. Children are not at a higher risk for COVID-19 than adults. The majority of confirmed COVID-19 cases are in adults.
Symptoms in children are generally mild; however, children with serious underlying conditions might be at a higher risk for severe illness with COVID-19. Parents are advised to call their health care provider or complete the online assessment tool if their child is showing symptoms that are consistent with COVID-19.
How has the pandemic been affecting Windsor? Well, there are currently about 200 active COVID-19 cases in Windsor-Essex. (Confirmed cases – Deaths – Resolved cases = 222)
Two schools have reported “outbreaks” but that is a bit misleading since the Ontario government labels two or more lab-confirmed cases an “outbreak.”
So, this guy lost shared custody because there is a shade over 200 cases in a population of about 400,000. Good job, everyone.
Statistically, children are at a higher risk of death from the flu than they are from COVID, so will parents have their children taken away for not protecting them from the flu now? Isn’t what that ruling could lead to? If not, then why not?
This new coronavirus has made some people lose their ability to weigh risks.
The ruling by Judge King is a case study itself on just how paranoid and completely irrational people have become when it comes to this virus, and these terrified people are willing to use their power to stomp on the rights of others if they don’t share their unmitigated terror.
“The long-term effects of the pandemic and of delayed treatments to persons with other health conditions is currently unmeasurable,” justice King wrote.
“All of this has occurred while a percentage of our population, including [the man], continue to deny the existence, significance and/or impact of COVID-19.”
The ruling includes giving the mother the power to make decisions around vaccination. But it noted the interim custody was awarded wholly within the context of the pandemic and can be revisited once it subsides.
The mother will make decisions regarding the childrens’ vaccinations? The judge can’t be talking about a COVID vaccine since there isn’t one that has been approved for use on children yet.
This is all just absolutely bonkers.
Now, this is all happening in Canada, but it could just as easily happen in the United States. Just look at the decisions that politicians have made over the past year.
In a real world, with a real media, we could have these discussions out in the open and ask all sorts of questions. Instead, we have medical researchers spraying aerosols at two mannequin heads and telling us that two pieces of cloth over your mouth and nose prevents the spread of an airborne respiratory virus while also saying that the virus can live on fabric for up to three days, and there are no studies about the efficacy of masks outdoors. But, public officials are advocating for mask mandates and lockdowns without considering the cost of either of those while the corporate media nods along because the “experts” in public health have spoken. We also can’t mention that more than 90% of deaths attributed to COVID are people over the age of 55, even though it’s true.
A court in the People’s Republic Of Bananada has just ruled, “Shut up and put on the mask or we’ll take away your kids.”