COVID denialism is now enshrined in case law

COVID denialism is now enshrined in case law
Intellihub / Makia Freeman


THE STORY: So-called COVID denialism was the deciding factor in a recent case where a judge denied a father custody rights due to this perspective that COVID was a hoax.

THE IMPLICATIONS: This sets a case law precedent in Canada, and has grave implications for inherent rights and freedom for everyone. Are we entering a world where you can lose your rights solely due to the way you think?

COVID denialism –

a broad term leveled at those who have seen through lies regarding the COVID scamdemic – has been enshrined in legal history and case law, at least in Canada. This is another horrendous yet sadly predictable step of the COVID agenda, which is none other than the agenda to steal your rights and freedom. MSM outlet CBC reported last week that a judge stripped a man (who remains anonymous at this stage) of his custody rights in his divorce case with his ex-wife due to his belief that COVID was a hoax, and his subsequent decision to defy social distancing and mask wearing rules. In other words, he was stripped of some of his rights due to his COVID denialism. The case was heard in late 2020 in the Ontario Superior Court, however Justice George W. King delivered the written decision at the end of January 2021, and the story was just picked up by The Free Thought Project.

Judge Considers Man’s Belief that COVID is a Hoax to be a Factor in Determining his Worthiness as a Father

I have been unable to locate the link to the original ruling, and the CBC article does not link to it, however the article reported that the judge explicitly wrote that the man’s public promotion of his opinions was affecting the health and welfare of his children:

“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.”

This is quite an astounding thing for a judge to write, since it shows how the judge has bought the official COVID narrative hook, line and sinker. The judge is saying that if you challenge the theory (i.e. brainwashing propaganda) that COVID is a highly lethal dangerous disease, that can only be contained or avoided with mandatory social distancing and masking, that therefore you are “jeopardizing” the health of your kids. Wow. It is truly shocking a judge could be so out-of-touch with scientific reality. However, it gets worse. The CBC further reported:

“I have 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,” the decision by Justice King read.”

Now that is a supremely arrogant opinion. This man’s love for his children is subordinate to perspective that COVID is a hoax? WTF? I seriously doubt that is true for any parent – that anyintellectual belief or world perspective would outweigh their love for their children – and even if it were, how could the judge possibly know that? Only the man himself would know. Besides, he is providing immense care for their welfare by REFUSING to put masks on his kids or allow them to be scared of ginned up COVID fear. He is proving his worth as a father by leading by example and being a good role model in showing his children that one must stand up for truth, freedom and inherent rights rather than be bullied by corrupt authorities. He would be doing great damage to the “health and welfare” of his children by forcing them to go along with the absurd, unscientific and freedom-crushing COVID dictates being foist upon the public.


The post COVID denialism is now enshrined in case law appeared first on Intellihub.

Original Article:

About this entry