Police Who Fail to Investigate Covid-19 Crimes

This is written in May 2022. For the last two years, Canadians have been subjected to the most significant restrictions of their fundamental rights and freedoms in the history of the nation.

This occurred on the pretext of a public health emergency in which the overall death rate (pre-vaccination) was not significantly different than during a bad influenza season. Critical thinkers can be forgiven for believing that:

• an atmosphere of fear was deliberately created and maintained in order to support the loss of fundamental rights, and to force compliance with government mandates;

• people were manipulated into taking Covid-19 injections by the fear campaign, by misleading messaging, and by mandates restricting freedoms for non-compliance.

Critical thinkers can be forgiven for these beliefs as they are admitted by government officials.

So we have had an unprecedented loss of freedom and assault on our mental states, for a “health emergency” that did not justify these actions.

Medical procedures have been imposed on health care professionals that overwhelmingly lead to death.

Children have almost zero risk of dying of Covid-19. Indeed, they are dramatically more likely to be murdered in Canada than to die of Covid-19. Reports around the world of child deaths, and disablement due to the Covid-19 Vaccines are mounting. We are past the point where section 6 of the Nuremberg Code would mandate that all child vaccinations stop.

Insurance companies are reporting that in the second half of 2021, there were 40% more non-Covid deaths than expected. The trend in excess deaths is continuing. The only significant intervention that can explain these excess deaths is Covid-19 vaccination. If this trend continues, we may find ourselves concluding that the unprecedented vaccination drive was part of one of the largest crimes against humanity ever.

And yet, we are not aware of a single investigation into a crime connected to Covid-19 within Canada. We are aware of citizens asking the police to conduct investigations. We are not aware of any investigation continuing.

Our police have been silent during what will most likely later be seen as our darkest hour.

If a police officer improperly refuses to conduct a Covid-19 investigation, they are undermining the rule of law and breaching the criminal law.

If a police officer or other person directs another police officer to improperly stop a Covid-19 investigation, they are undermining the rule of law and breaching the criminal law.

There are several sections of the Criminal Code that apply. Section 129 makes it an offence to obstruct a police officer. Obstruction would include preventing an officer from conducting a valid investigation (such as a superior directing the officer to cease an investigation).

Section 129 includes:

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,…

is guilty of

(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Obstructing justice found in s. 139 also applies. Section 139 includes:

139(2) Every person who intentionally attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

It is an offence to do anything to obstruct the course of justice. Improperly deciding not to conduct an investigation, or stopping a valid investigation can be obstruction of justice.

Breach of trust found in s. 122 also applies. Section 122 reads:

122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of their office, commits fraud or a breach of trust, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person, is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The word “official” is defined in section 118 to include all civil servants. Section 118 includes:

118 In this Part…

“office” includes

(a) an office or appointment under the government,

(b) a civil or military commission, and

(c) a position or an employment in a public department; (charge ou emploi)

“official” means a person who

(a) holds an office, or

(b) is appointed or elected to discharge a public duty[.]

It is important to note that a “breach of trust” does not relate to trust property. Rather it relates to breaching the trust of the public by using the office improperly (see for example Regina v. Campbell, 1967 CanLII 315 (ON CA)). Failing to properly investigate can be a breach of trust.

It may also be a breach of trust to enforce unconstitutional laws, or to enforce laws in a way that unduly breaches fundamental rights and freedoms.

Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that the Constitution, which includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) , is the supreme law of Canada. Any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution, is of no force and effect. Over the years a tradition has evolved in the case law where there is an implied condition that public officials will exercise their duties in a manner consistent with the Charter. This is important in the case of public officials, and government members involved in orders and directives that curtailed our freedoms. In other words, it can be a breach of trust to unfairly limit fundamental rights and freedoms. Indeed, arguably unfairly restricting fundamental rights and freedoms is the ultimate breach of trust.

Some of the fundamental rights and freedoms found in the Charter include:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

6. Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

15(1)Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

These rights are not absolute. Section 1 of the Charter allows them to be breached as follows:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Under this test, the practice is for the party alleging a violation of a Charter right to prove that there has been a violation. The burden of proof then switches to the party seeking to justify the Charter breach to show that the violation was both prescribed by law, and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The offence of public nuisance may apply. This offence is found in s. 180 which provides:

180 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who commits a common nuisance and by doing so

(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or

(b) causes physical injury to any person.

180(2) For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby

(a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or

(b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.

One difficulty with s. 180 is that it requires proof of endangerment or harm. An officer could be committing public nuisance by restricting rights or improperly failing to investigate. However, if resulting endangerment or harm cannot be shown, a conviction cannot follow.