The Failure of the Courts: A Breakdown of Justice and the Rule of Law
How Government Mandates and a Lack of Judicial Independence Eroded Public Trust in Canada
What we are witnessing today is the profound failure of the courts to serve the people, a failure rooted in their inability to maintain the perception of being just, fair, and obedient to the rule of law. During the COVID-19 era, the judiciary demonstrated a lockstep obedience to government edicts—from lockdowns and mandates to the pressure for mass vaccination—which brought the judicial process to a grinding halt and compromised the court's independence. The resulting loss of public confidence and the perceived abandonment of fundamental legal principles represent a crisis for Canadian society and the rule of law itself.
Courts Succumb to Government Edicts
The courts' capitulation to government mandates was starkly evident in the early days of the pandemic. They shut down in obedience to government calls for lockdowns, which led to a massive and unaddressed backlog that slowed the court process and effectively ground the economy to a halt. The courts were essentially obeying the government's desire for everyone to be vaccinated, leaving them shut down between the point of the initial closure and full vaccination. This behavior directly contradicted the public's understanding of the courts as an independent body meant to maintain logic, reason, and rationality.
The Purge of the Judiciary and Court Staff
A significant consequence of this obedience was the imposition of the Vax program on the judiciary and all court employees. Judges who resisted the mandate and pushed back were removed from the bench or forced into unpaid leave. This is an astounding historical anomaly, considering that historically, only about 13 Canadian judges have ever been removed, and for genuinely outrageous behavior. The government authorities prioritized the appearance that all judges were "on board" with the vaccination program, believing they "cannot have dissenters in the judiciary" or the public might stop believing them. This was the "purge" of the court system, where anyone deemed "pro-freedom and pro-health" was pushed out, ensuring that the only people allowed in the courthouses were the vaccinated.
The Courts as a Government Echo Chamber
Following this purge, court hearings were dominated by judges who had taken the injection, and they consistently sided with the government and "authorities" on every single issue. The judges, in effect, became parrots of the government programs, simply following along with whatever the government's "experts" said. There was no deviation allowed; the courtrooms operated in lockstep with what the government was mandating to the public. They refused to allow any evidence, no matter how substantial, to be presented as a counter-argument to the government's narrative, effectively silencing dissent in the court system.
Dismissal for Lack of Standing
A particularly astonishing and illogical tactic used by the courts was the dismissal of many cases for "lack of standing". It is difficult to rationalize how an individual directly affected by the Vax program—whose job, livelihood, or health was impacted—could be legally denied standing to have a hearing. The judges were performing "mental backflips" to devise legal reasoning that, upon review, was often "without reason" entirely, solely to achieve the goal of dismissing cases brought by the general public.
The Mystery of Scientific Authority and Proof of Claim
Citizens and lawyers who tried to sue the government to make them explain themselves and prove their proof of claim were met with systemic refusal. In court, government mandates and edicts came from "authorities" who could never show where they actually got their information. Fundamental concepts, like the "magic number" of six-foot distancing or the efficacy of the mask program, were questioned, but the source of the science was consistently refused, rebutted, or shut down in discovery. This lack of a "chain of custody" for the so-called "science" meant that a bureaucracy operating on the momentum of "obey, obey, obey" was never successfully questioned.
Differential Mandates and Economic Destruction
The mandates themselves were applied inconsistently, serving to crush independent small businesses while allowing big box stores and politically connected industries to thrive. The speaker suggests that these mandates were specifically designed to wipe out competition for large, government-connected businesses during the lockdowns. This application of differential mandates, which could not be explained by any scientific basis, further proved that the entire economic shutdown was an arbitrary exercise of power.
The "Comply or Die" Employment Purge
The government's message was clear: "comply or die", meaning die economically. A calculated cycle was observed where the government would impose a vax mandate on an industry for a few months, purging those who refused the shot for reasons of conscience, health, or religion. This led to a high employment rate for "pro-government, pro-vax people" and a low employment rate for "anti-vax, pro-freedom people". The speaker notes the manipulation, asserting that when the "pro-vax" people inevitably started getting sick and dying, the government dropped the mandates and rehired the unvaccinated, who remain "still healthy" and "going to last".
The Road to Rebuilding Credibility
The courts have rendered themselves no longer credible. They are directly culpable for what happened because they failed to work as advertised; they worked, instead, to maintain power for the powerful. The only way for the court system to restore its brand and gain public confidence is to do the "sensible thing": to allow litigation to go through and prove the government's culpability. Mysteriously, however, the courts are refusing to do this, continuing to hold the government "free and clear of culpability". This ongoing refusal to reverse course suggests that the traditional system has failed entirely.
Conclusion: A Need for New Justice
The events surrounding the pandemic have served as a startling "reveal," showing the public that the courts and the government are not working as advertised, shattering a "fairytale" that many were propagandized to believe. When people tried to peacefully litigate their grievances—the promised mechanism for a society ruled by law—the courts repeatedly sided against them and the evidence. Because the courts have failed to save themselves and uphold the fundamental principles they are meant to protect, it may now be time for the people to create their own courts—the people's courts—to seek justice.