When we're talking about taking away inalienable rights and liberty from people as has been done in the name of a declared public health emergency we already have protections in our system of justice that guide rules of evidence that must be presented to deprive someone of their rights and liberty:
The last one, Burden of Persuasion, is what government-directed censorship and propaganda is designed to impact. It's a prosecutor lying to a judge and jury with impunity in a courtroom where no defense to the charges is allowed.
Only by suspending the writ of habeas corpus can these evidentiary requirements be bypassed. And Habeas corpus doesn't get suspended on a whim. Even Pres. Bush's detention of terrorists in Gitmo was overruled by the courts who determined that foreign terrorists have evidentiary rights that must be recognized in order to suspend their rights and liberties by detention. It would seem to me that there is an existing legal framework to explicitly prohibit the types of encroachments on our inalienable rights and liberties we've suffered since 2020. We must lean into this framework and have our public policy reflect these same evidentiary requirements under public health emergencies that we require for national security emergencies. It's unconscionable that foreign terrorists have more recognized constitutional rights than US citizens.
The Suspension Clause (co-authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett)
"The Clause does not specify which branch of government has the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ, but most agree that only Congress can do it. President Abraham Lincoln provoked controversy by suspending the privilege of his own accord during the Civil War, but Congress largely extinguished challenges to his authority by enacting a statute permitting suspension. On every other occasion, the executive has proceeded only after first securing congressional authorization. The writ of habeas corpus has been suspended four times since the Constitution was ratified: throughout the entire country during the Civil War; in eleven South Carolina counties overrun by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction; in two provinces of the Philippines during a 1905 insurrection; and in Hawaii after the bombing of Pearl Harbor."
I’m sending this to Health Canada. I am utterly disgusted with Health Canada for launching this new attack against supplement companies. When I wrote asking for a list of dangerous supplement sold in Canada and how many adverse health events and deaths were associated they wrote back with a meaningless statement about how they are incorporating sustainable development in their absurd new requirements and that despite supplements being low risk they were assessing risk vs benefit to protect the health of Canadians. It’s straight out of the OneHealth biomedical security state model that biomedical and pharmaceutical companies are firmly in control of. Clearly our Health agencies are doing their bidding continuing the attack on alternative health. This One Health model is so intrusive and extensive you can be sure more inhumane atrocities are to follow if we are to go by what you have so aptly expressed here. Excellent!
When we're talking about taking away inalienable rights and liberty from people as has been done in the name of a declared public health emergency we already have protections in our system of justice that guide rules of evidence that must be presented to deprive someone of their rights and liberty:
Burden of Proof
Cornell Law School
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof
Preponderance of Evidence
Cornell Law School
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preponderance_of_the_evidence
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Cornell Law School
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/beyond_a_reasonable_doubt
Burden of Production
Cornell Law School
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_production
Burden of Persuasion
Cornell Law School
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_persuasion
The last one, Burden of Persuasion, is what government-directed censorship and propaganda is designed to impact. It's a prosecutor lying to a judge and jury with impunity in a courtroom where no defense to the charges is allowed.
Only by suspending the writ of habeas corpus can these evidentiary requirements be bypassed. And Habeas corpus doesn't get suspended on a whim. Even Pres. Bush's detention of terrorists in Gitmo was overruled by the courts who determined that foreign terrorists have evidentiary rights that must be recognized in order to suspend their rights and liberties by detention. It would seem to me that there is an existing legal framework to explicitly prohibit the types of encroachments on our inalienable rights and liberties we've suffered since 2020. We must lean into this framework and have our public policy reflect these same evidentiary requirements under public health emergencies that we require for national security emergencies. It's unconscionable that foreign terrorists have more recognized constitutional rights than US citizens.
The Suspension Clause (co-authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett)
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/763
"The Clause does not specify which branch of government has the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ, but most agree that only Congress can do it. President Abraham Lincoln provoked controversy by suspending the privilege of his own accord during the Civil War, but Congress largely extinguished challenges to his authority by enacting a statute permitting suspension. On every other occasion, the executive has proceeded only after first securing congressional authorization. The writ of habeas corpus has been suspended four times since the Constitution was ratified: throughout the entire country during the Civil War; in eleven South Carolina counties overrun by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction; in two provinces of the Philippines during a 1905 insurrection; and in Hawaii after the bombing of Pearl Harbor."
I’m sending this to Health Canada. I am utterly disgusted with Health Canada for launching this new attack against supplement companies. When I wrote asking for a list of dangerous supplement sold in Canada and how many adverse health events and deaths were associated they wrote back with a meaningless statement about how they are incorporating sustainable development in their absurd new requirements and that despite supplements being low risk they were assessing risk vs benefit to protect the health of Canadians. It’s straight out of the OneHealth biomedical security state model that biomedical and pharmaceutical companies are firmly in control of. Clearly our Health agencies are doing their bidding continuing the attack on alternative health. This One Health model is so intrusive and extensive you can be sure more inhumane atrocities are to follow if we are to go by what you have so aptly expressed here. Excellent!