On April 30, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) announced a controversial new policy many Ontario doctors had been fearing.
CPSO ordered Ontario’s doctors not to make any statement that might be considered anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing, or anti-lockdown. It forbids them to promote “unsupported, unproven” treatments for COVID-19. The CPSO doesn’t say which treatments, or by whom they are to be judged as unsupported or unproven.
Doctors are further forbidden from making comments that might encourage people to act contrary to government health orders.
Finally, there’s a naked threat: say the wrong thing and you’ll face “disciplinary action.” This translates into, ‘We’ll suspend your licence, cut off your income, and impoverish you.’
This is a horrifying statement from both a medical and a legal perspective.
A courageous group of doctors, calling themselves Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth, quickly pushed back with an online declaration. As I write this, 512 doctors and 13,288 concerned citizens have already signed it.
They make these three major objections. First, the CPSO is commanding them to abandon the scientific method, which requires vigorous, open debate in order to test existing theories and improve upon or replace them with more accurate ones. That’s how science advances.
Second, the CPSO is commanding doctors to breach their pledge to patients to seek out and apply evidence-based medicine in their care and treatment. Instead of a full range of current and emerging evidence from multiple sources, doctors are restricted to applying stagnant information from only one source: the government.
Third, doctors are being ordered to violate their patients’ right to be fully informed before receiving medical treatment. This implies doctors will also have to violate their own duty to obtain fully informed consent, putting themselves at risk of eventual lawsuits. Full information about masks, social distancing and vaccinations is not something you can impart to a patient in a five-minute office visit. Half the world has spent the past 15 months seeking out information about these subjects and there’s still plenty of room for debate.
It’s therefore easy to see why many doctors are outraged by the new CPSO policy. But as a lawyer, I can see two other problems.
First, the dictates of the CPSO violates the Ontario Human Rights Code. Sec. 6 of the code says: “Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to membership in any trade union, trade or occupational association or self-governing profession without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex …” [emphasis added].
The CPSO’s threat is a clear statement of its intention to discriminate on the basis of creed. Although some people interpret “creed” as religion, it actually has a broader meaning. If ever anything qualified as a creed, a doctor’s Hippocratic oath would. It requires doctors to use their own judgment for the benefit of their patients and to “abstain from whatever is deleterious.” Doctors also pledge to “give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked.”
Any doctor who has extensively researched the scientific literature on mandatory mask-wearing, social distancing, and lockdowns will know there is an increasing body of evidence that all of these practices can do more harm than good. More than 4,200 vaccination-related deaths have been recorded in a US database, called Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), where adverse events are widely under-reported. The number in Europe is more than 10,000. Doctors can’t “un-see” this information. It forms an important part of the cost/benefit analysis in determining whether or not COVID-19 vaccines are appropriate for their patients.
The CPSO, by threatening the licenses of doctors who speak up about these issues, is forbidding them to exercise their creed and discriminating against those who do, contrary to the Human Rights Code.
Doctors also have rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Sec, 2 protects the rights to freedom of conscience, belief, opinion and expression, while Sec, 7 protects the rights to liberty and security of the person. The CPSO statement – with its implicit threat to cut off doctors’ incomes – violates these rights. As the body exclusively empowered by the state to govern doctors’ conduct, there’s no question the CPSO is an agent of the state and is therefore governed by the Charter.
Other professionals in the health care industry – chiropractors and naturopathic doctors – have told me privately they too are being bullied into silence and forced to comply with inadvisable practices, such as masking. And now British Columbia has gotten into the game, too. Its College of Physicians and Surgeons issued a May 6 statement containing similar threats.
Eventually, this issue will come before the courts – possibly when a doctor disobeys the CPSO and is facing disciplinary action, or when doctors proactively hire lawyers to sue the CPSO for violating their rights. I look forward to the time when someone stands up.
Karen Selick is a Columnist for the Western Standard
Krahnicle’s Cartoon: January 18, 2022
KAY: Why is Prince Andrew the only one being held accountable?
“All I am saying is that the price he is paying — a royal castaway, shunned for the sake of The Firm’s continued good health, and relegated to a social Devil’s island — is very, very high, much higher than would have been the case for an ordinary man.”
It was with a pang that I was informed by People.com that “Queen Elizabeth strips Prince Andrew of [his eight] military titles and patronages amid sexual assault lawsuit,” as the headline read. A day after a judge rejected Prince Andrew’s attempt to have a civil lawsuit quashed, alleging sexual misconduct against him in 2001 by one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre, the axe fell.
Thursday, the royal palace announced, “With the Queen’s approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen.” Although still nominally a prince, Andrew will no longer have the right to be addressed as His Royal Highness (HRH). No more public duties for the dozens of charities for whom he has been a patron. “The Duke of York is defending this case,” the statement informed us, “as a private citizen.”
Why do I shudder slightly at those words, “private citizen,” and greet the news in general with a “pang,” though? Prince Andrew is nothing to me personally. He got himself into a very tawdry mess through his own appallingly bad judgment. The allegations surfaced in 2019, so this was no surprise. And it is not the first occasion in which bad judgment and a sense of entitlement has led “Randy Andy” into temptation of one kind or another, and thence onward to, at best, unethical behaviour, and at worst — oh dear, oh dear.
Let us not, though, count the ways that make this ultimate disgrace a deserved punishment for Andrew’s sins. Or rather, let other commentators — those who experience an uprush of joy or schadenfreude in their hearts when white males of extreme privilege are brought low, instead of a pang — do that.
When I unpack my pang a bit, what comes to mind is I know this had to be done; I know he deserved it; I know he is a wastrel. But oh, the mortification! And not for love, like Harry’s for Meghan or his great-uncle, Edward VIII’s for Wallis. At least they got to ride off to the colonies believing at the time they made the decision, anyway, their lives as royals were well lost for the glittering prize that had chosen them.
Even though he was of weak character — a suspected Nazi sympathizer, amongst other cases of bad judgment — Edward, Duke of Windsor was still a duke in exile. He was given royal sinecures to keep him busy. He was still a social asset outside Britain. Harry isn’t technically a Royal; he gave up his title voluntarily, but he’s good enough for Hollywood. So he has all the perks of royalty — money-making sinecures, constant attention, lots of social adulation — and none of the tedium. And when he comes home to visit, he still gets to mingle with the family. He has disappointed his family by quitting The Firm, and embarrassed them by foolishly airing private laundry, but he has not brought shame on the House of Windsor. He was not cast out. He left.
But for Andrew it’s the opposite. He cannot leave, but he has been “effectively banished.” There is no corner of the English-speaking world in which he can relax and just be himself. Himself? What would “himself” look like, stripped of what has defined him as a human being for all his 61 years? A turtle without a shell to retreat into. And no natural habitat. His gorgeous military uniforms will hang lifeless in his closets. Forever. I am trying to imagine what a future social life might look like. But I can’t.
Of course, there’s the saving grace of ex-wife Fergie to keep him company. Nobody is less likely to be judgmental, or more likely to empathize with the results of bad judgment in a buddy than Sarah Ferguson. I suspect she will eventually be remembered for her loyalty to Andrew in exile. He will have company watching Netflix. (Do you remember the scene in The Crown where the Duke — played by the wonderful actor Michael Kitchen — and Duchess of Windsor are watching Elizabeth’s televised coronation from their home in France? Oh, the suffering etched on Kitchen’s face.)
Andrew is often referred to as his mother’s favourite child, and that is how he was portrayed in The Crown as a boy on the cusp of manhood. He was buoyant, confident and ready for adventures of all kinds, military (at which he excelled) and prankish — even then, a bit of a wild card, but endearing to his mother on that account. In Philip’s general mold, but without Philip’s maturity, intellect and sense of duty.
But back to my pang. Consider: Stupid as he was, the woman accusing him of being party to her sex trafficking was 17 at the time of the alleged encounter. The age of consent in the U.K. as well as in 32 U.S. states is 16. A lot of other rich and famous men palled around with Epstein and made use of his private plane and visited his island home(s). How come their names didn’t come up in Maxwell’s trial? So maybe my pang has something to do with the murkiness surrounding the alleged encounter, and the fact that Andrew seems to have been cut from the herd to keep all eyes on him and all eyes off the American guys.
The only other man Giuffre publicly charged with sexual assault was celebrated lawyer Alan Dershowitz in 2019, who had defended Epstein in his 2005 sex-trafficking charges. Dershowitz immediately counter-attacked Giuffre in his typical take-no-prisoners style, and that turned into a nightmare of a legal circus that is apparently still unresolved. I imagine Giuffre took a lesson from her challenge to a lion. Next to Dershowitz, Andrew must look a lot like a sacrificial lamb.
Andrew is what he is, and I am not making the case he shouldn’t have paid an appropriate price for his bad behaviour — bad whether he slept with Giuffre or didn’t. All I am saying is that the price he is paying — a royal castaway, shunned for the sake of The Firm’s continued good health, and relegated to a social Devil’s island — is very, very high, much higher than would have been the case for an ordinary man. There is no court of appeal for this lifetime sentence.
Barbara Kay is a senior columnist for the Western Standard.
THOMAS: Gondek’s legacy could very well be an empty parking lot
“There can be no doubt that more than a few Calgarians, who are against using public money to help build the Event Centre, have benefited from the owners’ largess.”
Most of the people who have held the office of mayor of Calgary probably hoped to leave a legacy that people recognize as a positive contribution to the city.
Some did. Some didn’t. A couple of ‘dids’ come to mind.
As mayor from 1980 to 1989, Ralph Klein’s legacy is as being part of the team that brought the 1988 Winter Olympics to Calgary, which resulted in the Saddledome being built, which brought the Calgary Flames to the city.
Dave Bronconnier, mayor from 2001 to 2010, also left a legacy near the Saddledome.
East Village: It’s the area directly east of city hall, stretching to Fort Calgary, with the Bow River on the north and 9 Ave. southeast on the south side.
When ‘Bronco’ took over the mayor’s chair, East Village was the most dangerous area of the city. Totally run down, it was a centre of illegal drug activity and the ‘office’ for sex workers. In earlier years, it served as the Calgary dump. It was not an area you wanted to be in, especially after dark.
Bronco, vowing to clean it up, approached the development community to gauge any interest in participating.
There was no interest. Developers told him the cost to remediate the area was too high, but if the city undertook the task, there would be interest in building condo-apartment buildings.
So, the mayor introduced the Tax Incremental Funding (TIF) program, with the blessing of the Alberta government. The way a TIF works is, an area for redevelopment is identified and for 20 years, all taxes collected in that area are used to pay infrastructure costs incurred by the city to get the job done.
No tax money comes out of the city’s general revenues. Only money from taxes collected in the designated area.
It obviously worked. The TIF helped pay for, among other things, the new central library, and East Village is now an urban oasis of apartments and retailers.
The TIF worked so well, city council decided to expand the area it financed, calling it the Rivers District, which runs from the banks of the Bow River south to 25 Ave. S.W., with Macleod Tr. as its western border. Eventually, the Bow Building was added to the Rivers District because of the high taxes it would pay, which would contribute greatly to the TIF, now renamed the Community Revitalization Levy (CRL).
Here, from the City’s website, its (abbreviated) definition of the CRL.
“(The) Community Revitalization Levy substantially funds the delivery of the Rivers District Revitalization Plan. The levy provides a means to segregate increased property tax revenues in the Rivers District, which result from redevelopment into a fund that will be used to pay for the new infrastructure required. The end result is improvements in the Rivers District are self-funded without any additional tax burden on the balance of the city, and at the end of the CRL period, the amounts that were charged under the CRL would become general property tax revenues and flow into the general revenues of the city and the province.”
There’s a lot of work going on in the East Victoria Park area within the Rivers District, including the RoundUp Centre upgrade, the demolition of the Corral and a lot more to come. Plans include homes for 8,000 new residents in the community, with approximately four million square feet of absorbable mixed-use development, a Stampede Trail retail street and the LRT Green Line extension. All of this development might even give some justification to converting the empty downtown office buildings into residences.
Up until about a month ago, the plans included a new Event Centre, to be built on a couple of mostly empty parking lots north of Stampede Park. The cost of the centre would have been shared by the Calgary Flames organization and the City of Calgary.
That deal is dead.
How vital was/is the Event Centre to the success of the Rivers District?
If the district was the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the Event Centre would be Tom Brady.
The Event Centre would be home to more than the Calgary Flames. It would put Calgary in the big leagues in attracting major concerts and other events (hence the name). Under the dead deal with the Flames, the City of Calgary would have received a percentage of ticket sales to every event. There are other opportunities for revenue generation for the city that are now in jeopardy.
However, without the Flames as a partner in some fashion, there isn’t likely to be an event centre.
The Flames ownership group is first and foremost a collection of very successful and astute business people. They are not the billionaire robber barons some Calgarians claim them to be.
Bringing NHL hockey to Calgary was a great contribution, but their greatest contribution is the millions and millions of dollars they have donated to charities, to build major medical facilities and more. There can be no doubt more than a few Calgarians who are against using public money to help build the Event Centre have benefited from the owners’ largess.
Without a new, reasonable deal would the ownership group move the Flames out of the city?
They absolutely would.
That would be Mayor Jyoti Gondek’s legacy.
Myke Thomas is a Western Standard contributor. He started in radio as a child voice actor, also working in television and as the real estate columnist, reporter and editor at the Calgary Sun for 22 years.
WATCH: UCP MLA calls AHS ‘bloated’ and ‘underperforming’
Omicron grounds every 1 in 5 WestJet flights in February
Misery index places Canada in bottom ranks
Dr. Bonnie Henry ordered to stand trial
The Western Standard Is Back
Trudeau calls the unvaccinated racist and misogynistic extremists
- WATCH: UCP MLA calls AHS ‘bloated’ and ‘underperforming’
- Omicron grounds every 1 in 5 WestJet flights in February
- Misery index places Canada in bottom ranks
- WATCH: Family evicted from Ronald McDonald House talks about their emotional ordeal
- LETTER: Does Copping have scientific evidence to continue with vaccine passports?
- Omicron grounds every 1 in 5 WestJet flights in February on
- LETTER: Does Copping have scientific evidence to continue with vaccine passports? on
- Study claims Olympic mandatory app means zero privacy on
- MAKICHUK: The Marines are coming, and it’s going to be bloody on
- Misery index places Canada in bottom ranks on
Petition: No Media Bailouts
We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.
News1 day ago
EXCLUSIVE: Shell drops COVID vaccine requirement for Alberta site
News1 day ago
BC truckers to join convoy across Canada in protest of mandatory vaccine
Opinion2 days ago
MAKICHUK: The Marines are coming, and it’s going to be bloody
News21 hours ago
Calgary lawyer applauds Shell’s reversal of vax mandate
News1 day ago
TAM: ‘We got pandemic planning wrong’
News3 days ago
Three unvaxxed U of W staff suing province
News2 days ago
UPDATED: Data breach @ Palliser School Division has teachers furious
News2 days ago
Judge rules Bible reading in Banff not a documentary