MRCTV readers and viewers likely are familiar with the courageous activities of Canadian pastor Artur Pawlowski – he who first turned Alberta cops out of his church when they invaded with COVID crackdown papers during his Passover Sermon in April, and who later was arrested in a rain-soaked street for defying their lockdowns and restrictions on the freedom of worship.
Now, a Canadian judge is telling Pastor Pawlowski, his brother, David, and the owner of the Whistle Stop Cafe in Mirror, Alberta, that they MUST push on congregants and patrons the grand COVID claims that the judge and the government command.
In a completely reliable and obviously unbiased Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC -- tax-funded, government TV), piece slathered with the title, “Anti-mask activists ordered by Calgary judge to preach science, too,” “journalist” Meghan Grant got to tell us that these victims of government abuse must march in lockstep to the pronouncements of a judge who, like Ms. Grant, hasn’t noticed some basic facts about the COVID19 debates.
A Calgary-based street pastor, his brother and an anti-mask cafe owner have been fined, put on probation and ordered by a judge that they must also preach science if they continue to rail against COVID-19 public health rules.
Pastor Artur Pawlowski of Street Church Ministries, his brother Dawid Pawlowski, and Whistle Stop Cafe owner Christopher Scott were sentenced Wednesday, following their contempt of court convictions for having incited others to break public health orders.
They “incited” people to break “public health orders?”
As I have noted for MRCTV, there is no such thing as “public health,” and the term, as well as the entire approach of the above “reporting,” reflect the inverted, anti-reality, anti-individual, and anti-source-of-choice narrative of these authoritarian lockdown pushers.
There are only individual health and individual choice. Politicians, bureaucrats and reporters automatically erase the primacy of the individual when they claim that there is something called “public health.” In fact, by assuming that the rights of any individual can be sacrificed for what the government claims is the “public,” the promoters of this illogical consequentialist philosophy actually place every individual at risk, and since the term “group” is merely a word applied to aggregations of individuals who never lose their individuality, those same political players place their vaunted “group” at risk by opening up every individual in said group to the threat of being sacrificed for the mass.
Likewise, for “incitement.” Where free and voluntary actions are concerned, there is no such thing as “incitement” conducted through the expression of ideas. Communication requires more than a speaker. It requires a person to receive, and the receiver is a voluntary, self-owning individual possessing free will. The speaker cannot turn the receiver into an automaton and direct his actions – period.
Artur Pawlowski, David Pawlowski (both of whom escaped from Soviet-controlled Poland), and Christopher Scott, were not compelling anyone. They were not making anyone do anything. They simply were inviting people to engage in free association on private property, and the act of accepting the invitations also reflects the self-ownership of those who entered each location.
Today, politicians and bureaucrats wield the term “incitement” as a way to shut down free expression. Anything can be categorized as “incitement” if enough people agree with the sentiment that the politicians don’t like – and that’s a dangerous problem for anyone who is not in political power.
In a similar vein, we see the “journalist,” Ms. Grant, use the term “science” as if government can dictate what is “the science”, just like it can label other forms of disliked speech “incitement.”
And she adds this, including the disastrous “authority-assuming” lines from the judge:
’They are on the wrong side of science,’ said Court of Queen's Bench Justice Adam Germain.
‘They are also on the wrong side of common sense.’
As part of their probation conditions, Germain ruled that if the three pandemic-denying, anti-mask leaders continued to preach to their followers, they must also present the perspective of medical experts.
So, the judge defines “science,” provides no evidence, and then rules counter to the very principle of free speech, free association, and the scientific method itself. And the government-funded CBC “reporter” hints that “pandemic denial” is part of the defendants' problem.
That might come as a surprise to those who are aware of the scientific fact that in March of 2009 the World Health Organization changed their definition of “pandemic." It was then, prior to the misleading “H1N1 pandemic” that the WHO lowered the lethality threshold of a viral outbreak such that much less lethal communicable diseases could be called “pandemics” when the term was completely inappropriate.
In other words, Ms. Grant's seeming confidence in spouting "science" might come as a surprise to those who know that this viral outbreak -- which, as the CDC itself admitted, has an over 99 percent survivability rate – reasonably can be argued to have been mislabeled as a so-called “pandemic” in the first place.
Then there is the flipping and flopping of even the so-called “officials” when it comes to the efficacy and dangers of masks, a problem that can be seen by comparing Anthony Fauci’s public pronouncements and his personal emails to people on the topic.
But the point here is not “who is right.” The point is that people are supposed to be free to disagree, to be wrong, and even to voluntarily gather with people who might be wrong or might be right. To deny that fundamental liberty is to deny free will and human nature created by God – one of the key facts Artur Pawlowski, David Pawlowski, and Christopher Scott have stressed.
In the opposite direction from this respect for individual sovereignty and free will we have the judge, the CBC reporter, and the government itself. Theirs is the dislocated, disastrous notion that the government can make things “right” by doing wrong, can improve lives by compelling speech and can pursue "science" by commanding it. Theirs is the mindset behind a recent “human rights tribunal ruling” in British Columbia that saw the judge fine a bar owner for not using pronouns the state compels, and it is the mentality that tried to make University of Toronto Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson a pariah simply because he would not conform to the government demand that he call men women and vice-versa.
Of course, we have seen this throughout human history. Thomas Jefferson discussed a variation of it when he said:
…(T)o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical…
Here’s the more fundamental principle:
An individual or group attempting to compel a man to do anything is sinful and tyrannical.
Pastor Pawlowski, his brother, and Mr. Scott appear to understand this.
The Canadian government, and its tax-paid “reporter” indicate that they do not.