Take (Civil) Notice

There's something called 'judicial notice' in Canada.

Basically, it's when a judge gets to decide what is evidence. In a way, play God. 

It goes something like this:

"You fine apathetic Canadians, so docile in your obedience and false virtue, are free and dandy and have, ahem, full protection of this great Charter you see here before you. Isn't it a fine piece of document? Yes, it's the finest quality papyrus. Your 'inalienable rights' are given to you by your creator and is embedded in common and Natural law, until Judge Fancywig tells you otherwise."

Ok. I splurged. This is how I perceive the courts behaviour these past couple of years. Arrogant, deferent and lazy.  This and the ridiculous and outrageous procedural games they play. Often in the form of either delaying hearings or dismissing them when they're finally heard as 'moot'.

This is justice?

What is this? A country or a circus? 

Shorter version: The law says this, but I decided that because this is so, like, obvious. 

"Facts that can be “judicially noticed” are facts so notorious or generally accepted as not to be the subject of debate among reasonable persons.Footnote 302 Judicial notice is invoked to relieve parties from having to prove facts that are not in dispute. Thus, when judicial notice is taken of a fact, no formal evidence of that fact must be introduced at the trial or hearing. 

The purpose of taking judicial notice is to shorten the proceeding. Every trial or hearing could continue for an interminable length of time if courts and tribunals were required to receive formal proof of every assertion being made and were not allowed to make use of their ordinary experience to reach a decision. No one is required to provide evidence that Monday follows Sunday, that the sun rises in the east, or any of the other innumerable facts which are “generally known”.

The essential basis for taking judicial notice is that the fact involved is of a class that is so generally known as to give rise to the presumption that all reasonably intelligent persons are aware of it. This analysis excludes from judicial notice “particular” facts not generally known (i.e. facts known to people who have some special knowledge gained through their work or travel, for example, but which are not known by the general public). 

No universal line can be drawn distinguishing between the generally known and particular facts. As a general guideline, the more central to the question in dispute a matter is, the greater the need is for proof to be made at the trial or hearing.Footnote 303

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the threshold for judicial notice is strict. A court or tribunal may take judicial notice—that is, accept a statement as true without formal proof—where the statement (a) would be considered as common knowledge without dispute among reasonable people, or (b) is capable of being shown to be true by reference to a readily accessible source of indisputable accuracy.Footnote 304

Situations in which courts have taken judicial notice include local conditions (e.g., time of sunset in the summer), geographic facts (e.g., location of Canada-U.S. border), the existence and transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19,Footnote 305 and the overincarceration of Aboriginal offenders in Canada.Footnote 306 Judicial notice can be taken of Canadian laws, including all federal and provincial statutes and regulations, however courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws.Footnote 307 The validity or existence of any foreign law must be established in evidence like any other fact to be proved."

We know the virus exists and transmits. What we don't know is precisely how. Nor do we know its origins or whether or not anything we've done works. The point is the response was such that the cure became worse than the disease. It was not reasonable based on the evidence we now have to fire people, lockdown or mask children. None of it has any basis in logic or science. In fact, we now know through released documents the government of Canada (and Quebec) never consulted the experts like they claim. It was all politically based action All of it.

So the courts allowed the government to use Covid to expand its power because it said there was an emergency. Don't you read the news? Shut up and listen to your government. Your government cares and wants to protect you.

This is why so many experts have challenged the narrative. 

So invoking 'judicial notice' in the realm of Covid is a cop-out. 

Because 'no reasonable' person could possibly believe there isn't strong and legitimate evidence challenging the entire premise of not just the Covid response but Covid as a disease itself including its origins. The evidence is clear on this. But judicial notice means judges won't listen to the evidence. 

If this strikes you as a big problem, it's because it is.

A very big one. One in which could set the tone and standard on how we conduct science and formulate policy around health orders in the future. If this is the standard, not only are we in trouble, but the very idea of science no longer exists.

Public health is now political health. It merged. We call this medical tyranny.

Vaccinated people may think this doesn't concern them because, well, they followed all public orders. But they have to look beyond their own personal circumstance and see the wider and deeper picture. Judicial notice and just the overall general trend of recent rulings in Canada in fact concerns every single Canadian. 

This time around it didn't impact you, but what if it does next time?

A similar faux-intellectual stance is when people say of the creeping authoritarian state, 'I got nothing to hide'. Until you do. Why would you leave it to the government to decide what can be hidden or not? You may think you have nothing to hide, but the government will find something to hang on you.

Just look at the attempt of the Liberals to steal and confiscate hunting and sporting rifles. Does this strike you as a reasonable response to fight crime? You may not like guns but even a strong supporter of gun control could see this is not reasonable. People have a right to property. Especially law-abiding citizens. Government goes out and makes criminals of people expand its power. Do you think hunters ever thought they'd run afoul of the government? Well now here we are.

When you have a government as rogue and unprincipally corrupt as the Liberals this is what happens.

Take civil notice.