BOOM!
An Ontario Superior Court Judge has sided with a mother who sought to protect her children from being jabbed with the experimental COVID jab against their will, and acknowledged that children can be harmed by the jabs.
The Honorable Mr. Justice Alex Pazaratz offered his judgement on February 22 regarding a Family Court case between J.N. and C.G. with Court File No.: 987/18 where the father wanted to have his kids jabbed with the COVID shot and sought to prove the mother was “perpetuating COVID-related conspiracy theories and vaccine hesitancy” to the children. The children, who were identified as L.E.G. and M.D.G., are 10 and 12 years old.
It was the father’s opinion that the mother should do what Canadian health officials have recommended, but the judge disagreed with the father’s reasoning and offered a scathing critique of his arguments and the state of free expression in Canada.
“When did it become illegal to ask questions?” Justice Pazaratz wrote. “Especially in the courtroom?”
He began the judgement by asking if the term “‘misinformation’ is even a real word … Or has it become a crass, self-serving tool to pre-empt scrutiny and discredit your opponent?”
He castigated the use of the term “misinformation” and called its usage “childish” and “sinister.”
The judge did not mention Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by name, but called foul on the rhetoric that Trudeau has used: “How did we lower our guard and let the words ‘unacceptable beliefs’ get paired together? In a democracy? On the Scales of Justice?”
The demonizing and punishment of “anyone who disagrees … [drives] polarization, disrespect, and simmering anger …” He called this tactic an “odious trend … rapidly corrupting modern social discourse,” that “seems to be working for politicians.”
Considering the statements and evidence put forth by both parents, Pazarats wrote: “The mother’s evidence focused entirely on the medical and scientific issues.”
He acknowledged in his ruling the list of potential side effects for children by citing data about side-effects related to the Pfizer jab: “Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart) have occurred in some people who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. In most of these people, symptoms began within a few days following receipt of the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.”
“It’s very hard to fault a parent for being worried about such an ominous list of potentially very serious side effects,” he wrote.
He contrasted the mother’s evidence-based concerns with those of the father. “[T]he father focussed extensively on labelling and discrediting the mother as a person, in a dismissive attempt to argue that her views aren’t worthy of consideration.”
The judge provided a summary of the father’s affidavits, which were mostly bits of information concerning her affiliation with the People’s Party of Canada.
“How is any of this relevant?” asked the judge. “Have we reached the stage where parental rights are going to be decided based on what political party you belong to?”
“Even though the father may not admit it, this is still a free country and people can say what they want.”
Pazaratz intimated that this sort of mentality has even found its way into the court room: “We’re seeing more and more of this type of intolerance, vilification and dismissive character assassination in family court. Presumably we’re seeing it inside the courtroom because it’s rampant outside the courtroom.”
2022 ONSC 1198 (CanLII) | J.N. v. C.G. | CanLII
An Ontario Superior Court Judge has sided with a mother who sought to protect her children from being jabbed with the experimental COVID jab against their will, and acknowledged that children can be harmed by the jabs.
The Honorable Mr. Justice Alex Pazaratz offered his judgement on February 22 regarding a Family Court case between J.N. and C.G. with Court File No.: 987/18 where the father wanted to have his kids jabbed with the COVID shot and sought to prove the mother was “perpetuating COVID-related conspiracy theories and vaccine hesitancy” to the children. The children, who were identified as L.E.G. and M.D.G., are 10 and 12 years old.
It was the father’s opinion that the mother should do what Canadian health officials have recommended, but the judge disagreed with the father’s reasoning and offered a scathing critique of his arguments and the state of free expression in Canada.
“When did it become illegal to ask questions?” Justice Pazaratz wrote. “Especially in the courtroom?”
He began the judgement by asking if the term “‘misinformation’ is even a real word … Or has it become a crass, self-serving tool to pre-empt scrutiny and discredit your opponent?”
He castigated the use of the term “misinformation” and called its usage “childish” and “sinister.”
The judge did not mention Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by name, but called foul on the rhetoric that Trudeau has used: “How did we lower our guard and let the words ‘unacceptable beliefs’ get paired together? In a democracy? On the Scales of Justice?”
The demonizing and punishment of “anyone who disagrees … [drives] polarization, disrespect, and simmering anger …” He called this tactic an “odious trend … rapidly corrupting modern social discourse,” that “seems to be working for politicians.”
Considering the statements and evidence put forth by both parents, Pazarats wrote: “The mother’s evidence focused entirely on the medical and scientific issues.”
He acknowledged in his ruling the list of potential side effects for children by citing data about side-effects related to the Pfizer jab: “Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart) have occurred in some people who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. In most of these people, symptoms began within a few days following receipt of the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.”
“It’s very hard to fault a parent for being worried about such an ominous list of potentially very serious side effects,” he wrote.
He contrasted the mother’s evidence-based concerns with those of the father. “[T]he father focussed extensively on labelling and discrediting the mother as a person, in a dismissive attempt to argue that her views aren’t worthy of consideration.”
The judge provided a summary of the father’s affidavits, which were mostly bits of information concerning her affiliation with the People’s Party of Canada.
“How is any of this relevant?” asked the judge. “Have we reached the stage where parental rights are going to be decided based on what political party you belong to?”
“Even though the father may not admit it, this is still a free country and people can say what they want.”
Pazaratz intimated that this sort of mentality has even found its way into the court room: “We’re seeing more and more of this type of intolerance, vilification and dismissive character assassination in family court. Presumably we’re seeing it inside the courtroom because it’s rampant outside the courtroom.”
2022 ONSC 1198 (CanLII) | J.N. v. C.G. | CanLII
