FUNacceptable Views

In this picture you can clearly see one of the many ostriches that were decapitated, most likely after the 6 hours of shooting stopped, as it squirmed on the ground wounded and in agony. This truly was the most horrific, inhumane and utterly barbaric government sanctioned massacre ever witnessed in this country. Mine and other's posts have gone viral around the world, and Canada now officially has a huge PR disaster on it's hands.

Can anyone help me connect with, Sam Cooper @scoopercooper? I have uncovered some startling and potentially incriminating revelations from an insider regarding the CFIA that I'd very much like to duscuss with him. This story would be right up his alley - Thanks

SOME IMPORTANT FACTS TO CONSIDER WHICH THE CANADIAN MSM CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT OF THEIR REPORTING *Warning, graphic images 1. None of the Ostriches were sick, not one, they had acquired natural immunity and had been healthy for almost 12 months. 2. CFIA refused to test the animals, despite a donor offering to pay for testing. The CFIA even went as far as to threaten massive fines for the farm owners if they attempted to have the animals tested. They also refused assistance from the US government who offered to take the healthy animals alive and study their herd immunity for scientific research. My guess is that Big Pharma lobbied their friends in Canadian government to prevent that from happening under any circumstances. 3. Despite incredibly compelling evidence, the clear incompetence on the part of the CFIA and blatant government overreach, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the farmers appeal, or any of their evidence. 4. The CFIA claim that they hired professional 'Marksmen' to facilitate the 'humane' slaughter of the 300+ healthy Ostriches. However, eye witnesses on the ground have said that they heard between 900 to 1,000 shots ring out throughout the night. That equates to approx. 3.5 bullets/shots to kill each bird. If this was the case, the birds were NOT humanely killed, and the shooters most certainly were not professional marksmen. Make no mistake, what CFIA did here was cruelly & unnecessarily slaughter 300+ healthy animals, which was also sloppy and very poorly executed. It was barbaric and inhumane to both the Ostriches and their owners, period. What happened here clearly demonstrates the level of vile tyrannical vindictiveness the Liberal government are capable of. There was no logical rationale for what they have done, other than to send a clear message to Canadians that not complying and dissenting in any manner will have dire consequences. Canada has fallen, and it's the responsibility of us all to stand up, speak up and fight back.

UPDATE - Some key takeaways and detailed analysis' of @KarlDHarrison and I's Vaccine Travel Mandates Lawsuit hearing at the Federal Court in Toronto yesterday, from our good friends and legal/statistical experts/analysts, Eva Chipiuk (@echipiuk) and Dr. Regina Watteel (@ReginaWatteel). A big shout out to our very talented Lawyer, Sam Presvelos once again on an extremely concisely planned and well executed strategy. Sam did an exceptional job, and needless to say we're feeling very confident today. Eva Chipiuk 1. "Today, the Federal Court of Appeal is hearing a case on the federal travel mandates and the government’s restrictions on movement based on a medical treatment, and whether these actions infringe on our Charter rights. This issue has not yet been fully addressed in court, contrary to what some may believe, the courts have not ruled that such restrictions are automatically allowed. This is an important case that must be heard. Every Canadian should understand when and how their movement can be limited, and every elected official must recognize that their decisions can have real consequences. Holding the government accountable is essential to ensure these kinds of restrictions never happen again." 2. "Sam Presvelos presented strong and compelling arguments appealing the earlier court’s decision not to hear the Charter claims under Section 7 (life, liberty, and security of the person) and Section 12 (protection from cruel and unusual treatment or punishment). He argued that the government exercised “state administrative control” through the mandates, affecting individuals’ security of the person. It is important to note that the federal court has already approved moving forward on Section 6 (mobility rights) and Section 15 (equality rights). This is a really big deal already. Today’s appeal focused on ensuring that all relevant Charter rights, mobility, discrimination, life, liberty, and security of the person, are examined openly and on evidence. It is unfortunate that the government is fighting so hard not to have these arguments heard. You would think that if they were confident they did the right thing, they would welcome the opportunity to defend their decisions in an open court. Doesn’t that say something on its own? When a government imposes measures that are sweeping, coercive, and restrict fundamental freedoms, an open and transparent court process is the only path forward, for accountability, for the truth, and for the rule of law. Thank you again to @KarlDHarrison and @ShaunRickard67 for putting in the time, effort, and resources to fight for all Canadians and ensure this kind of overreach never happens again." Dr. Regina Watteel 1. "In today's hearing, will the courts allow the constitutionality of federal travel restrictions (mandatory C19 vaccination) to be challenged on Charter s7 & s12 grounds, or will they play defense for the Liberals? 2. "The crown just made the dumbest argument. They are arguing that because s7 - the right to bodily autonomy (medical choice without fear of reprisal) - is always being discussed in relation to the reprisal (state-imposed penalty), it somehow means there's no s7 violation??? What a stupid argument. Usually, the penalty isn't itself a Charter protected right. That the reprisal is itself a protected right just makes the s7 even more egregious. So, the crown is arguing that the more egregious the s7 violation, the less likely it should be allowed to be challenged?" 3. "This logic creates a perverse incentive where the worse the reprisal (e.g., grounding millions from essential travel, jobs, family visits), the easier it is for the Crown to wave it away as "not a s. 7 issue" because it's entangled with another right. That's not how the Charter works—s. 7 is a bulwark against coerced bodily decisions. The court appears to be having difficulty deciphering the difference between a natural consequence versus a state-reprisal." 4. There's a few obvious holes in the crown's argument: 1. "The requirement of a standalone s7 deprivation is a crown fabrication. There's no such law or rule. 2. That said, there were standalone deprivations in addition to the s6 deprivation. A. Choosing Between Two Charter Rights = Standalone Psychological Harm. That stress is a standalone s. 7 deprivation of security of the person. B. Rickard’s s7 is literally standalone (Rickard = permanent resident). Rickard has no s. 6 mobility right to leave/return. So his only claim is s. 7 bodily autonomy. It is impossible for his s. 7 to be ‘derivative’ of s. 6 — because he doesn’t have s. 6." 5. "WOW!!! Did you watch the hearing? The crown is attempting to collapse the Charter, bypassing the entire s.7 framework to avoid accountability! They’re doing three unconstitutional things at once: 1. Re-label state reprisal as “consequence” 2. Collapse s. 7 into s. 6 3. Smuggle s. 1 into s. 7 This basically, bypasses S7 (deprivation), prevents dual-right claims (“Because the reprisal is a limitation on mobility rights (s6), it can’t also be a deprivation of security of the person (s7)") and it shifts the burden of proof to citizens while avoiding s7’s fundamental justice analysis." 6. "Crown’s Charter Schizophrenia — Two Cases, Two Lies Public Servants Vaccine Mandate: “Employment is not a protected interest under s. 7 → no deprivation.” Harrison/Rickard Travel Mandate: “s. 7 is not engaged because the penalty is mobility (s. 6) — a Charter right.” Translation: You have no s7 rights! Will courts continue to play along with this strategic nonsense or will they actually respect the law and their duty to Canadians?" We still have a lengthy and very costly battle ahead, any support is greatly appreciated. Donations to our litigation fund can be sent via e-transfer using this e-mail address: [email protected] Or through the donations page on our website here: freedomandjustice.ca/donate/ @Grok, please provide a synopsis, your opinion on the potential outcome, and a full legal analysis on this update related to our ongoing Federal Vaccine Travel Mandates lawsuit.