OAG employee questions medical experiment mandates

Written by thinkwithmabellemichelle.com on December 13, 2021. Posted in Current News

Have you resigned because of the mandates? Have you sent an open letter to your team or department? Would you like your letter to be open to the public? If so, please contact us and we will publish it.

Wow, check this out:

Someone from the OAG (Office of the Auditor General) sent this very well written email to the whole organization! WOW! Mad respect to that courageous person!

Apparently the OAG lawyers are scrambling as it got a lot of people talking.

—– Forwarded Message —–

Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021, 11:21:44 a.m. EST

Subject: A Response to the OAG Vax Policy

Dear Executive Team,

The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;

Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law; …

Preamble, Canadian Bill of Rights

To say that it is appalling and astounding that you have ordered mandatory inoculation and coercion of private medical information to OAG employees would be an understatement. Specifically, the submission of employees to the experimental gene therapy injections for Covid-19, commonly referred to as “vaccines”, currently in the Phase III trials until 2023. The OAG has joined the bandwagon with so many organizations to implement tyranny on their employees, showing little regard for the care and wellbeing of fellow humans.

This unlawful policy seeks to remove our fundamental freedoms and rights and seeks to take away our rights to privacy, autonomy, and consent, breaking numerous established Canadian and International laws. It seeks to segregate Canadians and draws hateful lines of division. It does so at a time when we could desperately use some unity. The claim that this policy has anything to do with improving public health and safety remains illegitimate at best, and diabolically unreasonable at worst.

These claims are particularly concerning considering that we have been working inside the closed walls of our homes for nearly two years. This barbaric policy seeks to deprive individuals and families of their livelihoods through threat, coercion, and intimidation. The provisions of this policy unlawfully place employees on Leave without Pay, taking away their fundamental right to earn a living and provide for their families.

There is no provision in the Collective Agreement for employer initiated LWOP. This action blocks workers’ access to Employment Insurance benefits. You are on course to punish Canadian Public Service employees and their families for refusing to give up their divine and legal rights and freedoms. The fact that you approve of implementing such unwarranted and tyrannical measures is nothing short of contemptible.

The failures of public officials and administrators must not be downloaded onto Canadians in the form of systematically inflicted pain and suffering. It is a tragic state of affairs indeed that while the leadership of this organization claims to consider employees to be equal, but is evidently busy designating some to be less equal through instituting a system of medical apartheid. It is as if you take us to be inert blunt objects that you can move around on a game board to suit your whims.

We are not your subjects, nor do you possess any authority what so ever to inject dangerous foreign materials into our bodies. Our rights are inalienable and ours by virtue of being born human. You do not give us rights. You are required to respect and abide by the law like everyone else.

Let it be perfectly clear that the choice available to the individual is and always has been to choose the injection or to reject it. The choice is NOT between choosing the injection and getting ejected from society. This includes the right to earn a living without prejudice, discrimination, and outright expulsion.

Holding people hostage over their sovereignty, freedoms, and livelihood amounts to extortion under the Canadian Criminal Code. Never have we encountered a cataclysmic conundrum such as this, where the so called protected need to be protected from the alleged unprotected against which they have already been protected with something that has been shown not to protect the protected. At some point during this insanity one must stop and ask the question, is this still about public health and safety? Or is this about concerted harm and subjugation?

Immunization is not mandatory in Canada

According to the Canadian National Report on Immunization, 1996 (pg. 3), vaccination cannot be made mandatory in Canada due to the Canadian Constitution. A 2019 public information from Immunize Canada declares the same. It’s important to remember that this non-negotiable provision is due to the Canadian Constitution. Public health orders and guidelines do not override established laws.

The right to deny medical treatment or to receive consensual medical treatment belongs to the individual. The state cannot force this decision onto a person and it certainly isn’t up to any person in this office. Indeed it is dumbfounding to observe that in an office full of capable professionals, such mind numbingly dangerous and unreasonable rhetoric is permitted to gain traction.

Let it also be clear that mandates, directives, and press conferences are NOT laws. Thus, do not compete with, nor supersede established laws, such as the Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C., 1960, c. 44. Laws to be legislated, in this country, are required to pass many steps of the legislative process through the Parliament and the Senate. Legislation must be discussed openly and voted on three occasions.

The Canadian Bill of Rights, having received royal assent, protects our fundamental rights and freedoms as Canadians. Our rights and freedoms are inalienable and cannot simply be removed by some policy because someone in high office said so. This policy does not hold any such authority. Instead, there is plentiful to be found in it that breaks established laws, infringes upon individual and group freedoms, and that perpetuates a state of holistic terror in the hearts and minds of its victims.

This political gangsterism in the name of public health cannot be permitted in a free and open society.

I will remind you of our country’s heritage in the words of John G. Diefenbaker:

• “I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”
• John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada House of Commons Debates, July 1, 1960

Mandates and Mandatory

Black’s law dictionary provides the definition of a mandate. A mandate by definition is gratuitous and is ineffective unless agreed upon by the mandatary. It becomes effective ONLY if the mandatary, in this case the employee, voluntarily agrees to it. It is an offer to contract and it requires consent and agreement. Accordingly, it is meaningless and no contract is established. Because of the gratuitous nature of the mandate, it is done or performed without obligation. I do not agree to nor do I consent to this unlawful mandate.

In a normal world, all of this nonsense would be called out for what it is and responsible parties held accountable under the law for their transgressions. Instead, the past two years have shown that we live in an incredibly abnormal world, where adherence to the rule of law has been pushed aside to make way for incessant Draconian measures, where fear pornography reigns supreme, and where unquestioning acquiescence seems to be the order of the day.

Any questioning of the official version of the story is immediately shunned and met with hostility, sentencing reasonable inquisitive voices to a reality reminiscent of outcasts. The examples are far too many to count here. This witch hunt in the name of health and safety is an insult to human intellect; it is an insult to rational inquiry; and it is an insult to policy making.

While we receive corporate emails about respect and civility, while we hear about workplace harassment, and while managers collect our emergency contact information, no qualms are held about implementing a criminal policy condemning workers into a state of Hegelian extortive control. You have essentially ordered OAG employees to accept highly dangerous and life threatening synthetic injectables or to prepare for the deep freeze living on the streets of Ottawa.

The policy makers quite obviously forgot to don their “respect and civility” hats when constructing this curtailment of rights and freedoms and dared to label it a policy. Where is the respect and civility for the worker rights, their choices, their right to life and liberty, and by extension for the rights of their families?

There is quite the disconnect between demanding respect and civility and then enforcing this rights-infringing policy. So much for caring for people’s mental health. So much for diversity and inclusivity

LWOP – leave without pay

There is no provision in the Collective Agreement for the employer to force employees on leave without pay. The employer cannot just decide to put the employee on unpaid leave. While available as one of the options of leave, LWOP is initiated by the employee or it requires the voluntary consent of the employee. This means the employees can take an unpaid leave, but the employer cannot force them. There are no provisions in the Canada Labour Code, Part II and Part III that allow the employer to forcibly place employees on leave without pay.

Case Law: Cabiakman v. Industrial Alliance Life Insurance Co. [2004]

https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/46624
Summary: If the employee is available and willing to work, the employer cannot place an employee on administrative suspension without pay.

The Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Cabiakman v. Industrial Alliance Life Insurance Co. [2004] 3 S.C.R. 195, 2004 SCC 55, states that the following are required when placing an employee on administrative suspension:
§ The suspension must be necessary to protect the legitimate business interest;
§ The employer must be acting in good faith;
§ The suspension must be for a relatively short time period for a fixed term; and
§ Other than in exceptional circumstances, the suspension must be paid

I did not request any such item. I do not consent to being placed on leave without pay!

The Law

As pointed to earlier, immunization is voluntary in Canada. It cannot be made mandatory. Even if mandated by the government, there is no law that makes it legal to forcefully inject individuals. It is a gross violation of our fundamental Human Rights.

Forced genetic testing, analysis of DNA/RNA or chromosomes for the purposes such as prediction of disease or vertical transmissions risks, or monitoring, diagnosis or prognosis, and discrimination based on such information about an individual is illegal and unlawful under the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act. Further, it is unlawful to force any person to disclose the results of any such test and to discriminate against on the basis of.

1. The Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960

Section 1 guarantees the individual’s fundamental human rights and freedoms and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
Specifically, ss. 1(a) declares our right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of the law; The Bill’s provisions further declare the freedom of religion; of speech; of assembly and association; and freedom of the press.

Section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights expressly declares that every law in Canada must not abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared. These rights are inalienable. If the government endeavors to curtail our rights, it must be demonstrably shown through an Act of Parliament.
What authority do you have that has been demonstrably shown through an Act of Parliament to implement this unlawful policy?

2. Statutory Instruments Act, R.S.C., 1985

Section 3(2)(c) states that the Clerk of the Privy Council, in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, shall examine the proposed regulation to ensure that it does not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Charter and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

OAG’s Framework for Implementation of the Policy on Covid-19 Vaccination infringes upon numerous existing rights, freedoms, and laws protecting privacy and medical autonomy.

3. Emergencies Act, R.S.C., 1985

Preamble declares that the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;

A nationwide emergency has not been declared. Even if the government is taking special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies, the existing fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be removed.

4. Financial Administration Act, R.S.C., 1985

As discussed earlier in point #1, this act must not limit, nor eliminate in any shape or form the inalienable rights of Canadians protected in the Canadian Bill of Rights. Sections 1 and 2 of the Bill make this abundantly clear.

While sections 7 and 11.1 of the Financial Administration act provide for the administration of certain aspects of the Government of Canada, these activities must not infringe upon existing laws. The OAG policy on “vaccination” is a direct violation of the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights, and therefore is invalid.

5. Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985

The Criminal Code of Canada defines the enforcement of this “vaccine” policy as criminal offences under the following sections:

Section 264.1 (1) Uttering threats; Section 264.1 (1)(2) Punishment
Criminal Code s. 264.1 (1), (2), (3) describe that uttering threats is a criminal offence and everyone who commits an offence under these sections is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment.

Section 265 (1) Assault; Section 265 (3) Consent
Criminal Code s. 265 (1) states that a person commits an assault when (a) without consent of another person applies force directly or indirectly; (b) attempts to or threatens. S. 265 (3) further describes the invalidity of forced consent.

Section 346 (1) Extortion; ss. 346 (1)(1.1) extortion as indictable offence
Criminal Code s. 346 (1) and ss. 346 (1)(1.1) describe the extortive behaviour and it being an indictable offence. In this case, to obtain certain highly private information through coercion and threatening with retaliatory measures.

Section 319 (1) Public incitement of hatred
Criminal Code s. 319 (1) outlines public incitement of hatred against identifiable groups; it being an indictable offence; and liability of imprisonment.

With this policy you are openly and unlawfully threatening employees with non-consensual and invasive medical treatments. You are threatening employees with experimental “vaccines” and/or DNA/RNA testing, that if they don’t comply, you will remove their fundamental right to earn a living and provide for their families. You are publicly issuing threats to discriminate against identifiable groups of employees if they don’t sign away their rights and fall in line with certain draconian measures.

6. Case law on informed consent

a. Parmley v. Parmley, [1945]
Informed consent medical, page 645
Summary: Informed consent is required for medical treatments. Consent must be given freely and information about risks involved must be provided.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1945/1945canlii13/1945canlii13.html

b. Hopp v. Lepp, [1980]
Informed consent medical, page 196
Summary: Informed consent is required for medical treatments. Consent must be given freely and information about risks involved must be provided.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1980/1980canlii14/1980canlii14.html

c. R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999]
If no consent, then assault
Summary: If there is threat of harm, or reprisal, or pressure from an authority, then there is no consent. Thus, the act would be assault.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1684/index.do

7. Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, S.C. 2017

Under section 3(1) of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, it is prohibited for any person to require an individual to undergo a genetic test as a condition of (a) providing goods or services to that individual; (b) entering into or continuing a contract or agreement with that individual; or offering or continuing specific terms or conditions in a contract or agreement with that individual.

Section 3(2) prohibits refusal to engage in activities described in s. 3(1) with individuals who refuse to undergo genetic testing. Section 4(1) prohibits any requirement for an individual to disclose the results of a genetic test as a condition of engaging in activities described in s. 3(1) of the Act. Further, section 4(2) prohibits refusal to engage in activities described in s. 3(1) on the basis that an individual has refused to disclose the results of a genetic test.

This act makes it abundantly clear that it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of genetic characteristics, to require genetic testing, and to disclose the results of genetic test results analyzing DNA/RNA. This type of incredibly invasive forced testing is not permitted in this country. Section 7 of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act outlines the offences and punishments for contravening sections 3 to section 5 of the Act.

Contraventions of the provisions of sections 3 to 5 of this Act are indictable offences punishable with fines and/or imprisonment. You cannot force the RT-PCR or any other type of genetic testing that analyzes DNA/RNA for the purposes described in this Act.

8. Canada Labour Code, Part II and Part III

There are no provisions for employers to forcefully place employees on leave without pay. This is an option available only to and requested by the employee.

Case Law: Cabiakman v. Industrial Alliance Life Insurance Co. [2004]
Summary: If the employee is available and willing to work, the employer cannot place an employee on administrative suspension without pay.
https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/46624

9. Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985

Section 3(3) of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the ground of refusal to undergo a genetic test or to disclose, or authorize the disclosure of, the results of a genetic test. This discrimination is deemed to be on the ground of genetic characteristics. Therefore, subjecting individuals to forced genetic testing and to further reveal the results of those tests is unlawful.

10. Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985

According to section 4 of the Privacy Act, No personal information shall be collected by a government institution unless it relates directly to an operating program or activity of the institution. The office has no business demanding and extorting employees for their private medical information. The privacy of employees must be respected.

This is taken from a long document. Read the rest here: thinkwithmabellemichelle.wordpress.com

Header image: Bloomberg

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.