by WorldTribune Staff, March 2, 2022 247 Real News
As the oppressive jab control regime finally begins to melt away after having lasted far too long, the ruling establishment can assess the effort as an overwhelming success. Why? This unthinkable assault has been successfully implanted in the minds of the general public as a precedent, an agenda item for discussion.
Three recent events from the anti-family front give reason for both hope and grave alarm. On the one hand, sanity does seem to be prevailing for the moment. On the other, the “it takes a village” forces are emboldened by how far they have gotten, and it is obvious that they will continue the fight in the near future.
Item One: Canadian judge rules in favor of mom who did not want kids to get the Jab.
Big-box media outlet The Toronto Globe and Mail spelled things out nicely in a Feb. 28 article:
An Ontario judge has declined to recognize as fact that government-endorsed COVID-19 vaccines are beneficial for children, saying that government decisions have often gone disastrously wrong.
In granting a mother’s wishes that two children aged 12 and 10 not be vaccinated – the father wanted them to be – Ontario Superior Court Justice Alex Pazaratz found that the vaccines’ potential side effects justified her caution. He cited a long list of rights abuses to explain why courts should not simply defer to government experts.
Again, the implications of what we have highlighted in bold above are terrifying. If the judge had recognized such a fact, does this mean the mother is to be restrained while her two kids are forcibly strapped to a gurney and stabbed with the “beneficial” health product? Apparently, this is where things are heading in the not-so-Great White North:
The ruling by Justice Pazaratz – who added in a postscript that he is vaccinated – reflects a debate among Canadian judges over their role in assessing facts surrounding vaccination disputes among parents. In at least four Ontario cases last year, and one in Saskatchewan, judges have taken “judicial notice” of the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine for children, and settled parental disputes over vaccination by ordering that the children involved be vaccinated.
Taking judicial notice means recognizing certain facts as indisputable, so they can be introduced as evidence by one side or the other without having to verify them. The Supreme Court of Canada has said courts may take judicial notice of facts that are so generally accepted as to be beyond debate among reasonable persons.
Yes, this is about disputes between two parents, but surely the greater danger looming over it all is easy to comprehend. Judges are reserving to themselves the right to rule whether or not certain health care products are indisputably good, thus demonizing those who would dare to disagree, including the parents of young children.
Nevertheless, anti-forced vaccination advocates should be delighted that judges do in fact still exist in ruthlessly authoritarian Canada who do not think in such a manner:
Justice Pazaratz, who was appointed to the bench in 2007 by the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, said statements on any medication’s safety or efficacy are opinion, not fact, and do not resolve disputes between parents.
“Should judges sit back as the concept of ‘Judicial Notice’ gets hijacked from a rule of evidence to a substitute for evidence,” he wrote (emphasis in the original).
Item Two: In New Hampshire, seven Democrat state legislators seem to believe that parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids should lose custody over them.
The New Hampshire Union Leader reported March 1:
A parent’s refusal to have their child vaccinated could not be grounds for terminating parental rights, under legislation that narrowly cleared a key House panel Tuesday.
The committee endorsed the bill, 8-7, with all Democrats opposed.
Once again, we see that not only is this shocking notion now up for debate but that it has many supporters as well.
Democrats voiced concerns about changing family law over a problem it claims doesn’t exist:
Rep. Wendy Chase (D-Rollinsford) questioned the need for the bill.
“This idea of children being taken away because of a parent’s refusal to support a vaccine, how often does this happen?” Chase said.
Rep. Debra DeSimone (R-Atkinson) acting chairman of the panel, answered, “According to the records, it has happened more than once and, as far as I’m concerned, that is too many times.”
One has to wonder why Democrats would be unwilling to stoutly declare with no room for wiggle that parental rights cannot be revoked due to health concerns about vaccinating kids:
Rep. Richard Littlefield (R-Laconia) said the measure should have received the support of everyone on the committee.
“I can’t believe seven Democrats would be OK with terminating parental rights over a flu vaccination,” Littlefield said after the vote. “Nothing would start conflict quicker than snatching children away from parents over a yearly flu season. Am I surprised by their decision? Absolutely not!”
Item Three: Australian Government body urges young kids to get vaccinated behind parents’ backs.
Sarah Mclellan wrote Feb. 24 for The Spectator Australia:
The Victorian Department of Education and Training has now become the co-parent of our children. In a most disturbing government document, the state explicitly encourages children as young as 12 to book their own vaccination appointment and assures them that no parental consent is required.
There’s even a trusty handbook to help kids flout their parents’ authority:
The Department of Education and Training published a document titled Promoting COVID-19 vaccine access for students aged 12+ Communications Pack targeting schools and other organizations.
In this comprehensive pack… schools can find all sorts of wonderful ‘trusted’ government websites and eye-catching propaganda to share via social media with call to arms slogans such as “Students aged 12 and over it’s your time to get vaccinated.”
Mclellan ably gets to the heart of the matter:
The communications pack also includes ‘Suggested Newsletter Content’ which begins:
“Dear Students, as part of the Covid-19 vaccination roll-out, everyone aged 12 and older is now eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine…. You can book your own vaccination appointment and you may be able to consent to vaccination yourself if the health professional assesses you to be a mature minor.”
The criteria to assess one deemed a “mature minor” is basically confirming that the child or adolescent can string a sentence together and count to ten.
The government document openly declares that the child should be vaccinated even if it is known that his or her parents object:
[E]ven if the parent/carer does not give consent, the health professional can administer the drug to the child despite the parent/career’s opposition. This is outlined in the Victorian Covid-19 Vaccination Guidelines- Appendix 24: Consent for Covid 19 vaccination administration in children and adolescents under the age of 18 years.
It states the refusal (of the parent/carer) should be followed “unless the child or adolescent chooses to be vaccinated on the day and they are deemed to have decision-making capacity. In this case, the decision of the child or adolescent should be respected and upheld, even if it conflicts with the views of a decision maker” (i.e parent/carer).
Only the most naive observer would fail to conclude that there is a larger agenda at work here, and that the ground is being diligently tilled to eventually implement it. The war on the parental realm is not a side effect of the Jab hysteria. It is a central feature. It will not end with the rescinding of mask mandates and social distancing regulations.