Thread by @jaycurrie

In Canada our Charter Rights are subject to such limits as are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. So says S.1 of the Charter. Govt action limiting rights is subject to review using the criteria in Oakes which are fairly stringent. 1/

There are a series of actions pending before the Federal Court and the British Columbia Supreme Court seeking to overturn the travel mandates, vax passports and various other COVID related measures which prima facie take away Canadians' Charter Rights. 2/

In each of these cases the govt, federal or provincial, will have to meet the various branches of the Oakes test. Proportionality, rational connection and so on. 3/

At the outset of the COVID "pandemic" almost nothing was known about the disease, its effects, its treatment or what might work to contain it. It looked serious. PHOs and gov't dropped a series of measures on the population. It was a PH emergency. 4/

In those circumstances the Courts, not unreasonably either declined to hear challenges or went out of their way to defer to PH and gov't. While I don't like these outcomes, in a state of ignorance relying on "experts" makes sense. 5/

We are well past that state of confusion. We can, in fact (rather than in goofy models per Dr. Tam) assess the efficacy of the jabs (not much), the boosters (may actually cause harm) and the NPIs (largely a waste of time) with hard evidence. 6/

We can also assess the evidence used by PHO and gov't to impose the various restrictions. For example, in the Peckford matter, cross exam evidence suggests the restrictions were imposed without any evidence they would do a thing to prevent infection. 7/

Each day which passes takes us further away from the panic and confusion of Feb and March 2020. Which means that there will be less and less judicial deference paid to PHO/govt hand waving. What is the evidence? 8/

The ad hoc solutions of passports, church closures, vax mandates, travel restrictions were given a pass early on largely because there was no solid evidence either way as to their efficacy. Now there is. 9/

My #PPC friends tend to see the Courts as captured by the liberal narrative and the administrative state. I don't. While many judges may have a liberal lean, they also tend to be very serious about the law and the evidence before them. 10/

Legal actions exist in particular moments in time. A year ago many people still thought the jabs prevented transmission and had no adverse effects. Using strong arm tactics to force the unjabbed to uphold the greater good seemed justified. 11/

Omicron finished off the idea the jabs prevented infection and transmission. The growing number of reported adverse events has cracked the facade of "safe". And the parties to the actions have and will continue to present evidence to that effect. 12/

Making the injection of a largely disappointing and potentially dangerous substance a pre-condition for the exercise of Charter Rights is a less and less attractive legal position. 13/

It is little wonder that the feds have postponed the hearings in Federal Court in the Peckford and Harrison matters. They realize that as the smoke clears they have no evidence travel mandates did or do a damned thing vis a vis COVID. 14/

We won't have to wait that long for Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson of the BC Supreme Court to rule on a quartet of cases heard in the Spring going to vax passports and other restrictions. I would expect a decision in the next few weeks. 15/

Hinkson has the opportunity to set standards for the legitimate suspension of Charter Rights. At a guess, that standard is going to be very stiff indeed. "You suspended the Charter because of staff shortages?" asked Hinkson, CJBC. This will be interesting. 16/16