An Ontario judge has issued an order forbidding a father from criticizing the federal government’s COVID-19 inoculation program in front of his 10-year-old son.
The father cannot say anything that ““calls into question the safety or efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the Ontario Superior Court ruled.
When your government attempts to silence you in front of your children, it’s a dark sign your country is slipping into a totalitarian state.
And Canada continues its descent into 1984.
Anything that 'calls into question the safety or efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine' is not allowed, the Ontario Superior Court ruled.https://t.co/8EABa04m2l
— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) January 20, 2022
Madness. Ontario court makes it illegal for father to express opinion to his son?! And this is ok?? https://t.co/EVBnCqSgMH
— Rainbow (@Rainbowandsteel) January 20, 2022
Canada, where it's illegal to contradict the government when speaking to your own children.
Ontario court rules father cannot criticize COVID vaccines around 10-year-old sonhttps://t.co/XMAguxQtsQ
— Dakota Christensen (@dax_christensen) January 20, 2022
Rebel News reported:
“I find [the boy] is receiving mixed messages about the risks and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine and that at 10 years of age he is unable to make an informed choice,” wrote Justice Francine Van Melle. The Court granted the urgent motion requested by the boy’s mother.
According to court records, the couple divorced in 2013. The mother, a teacher, wanted the boy to get the shot since “she is worried about sending the child back to school for in-person learning next week without him being vaccinated,” the Court was told.
Justice Van Melle noted the father complained “the government was forcing people to be vaccinated against COVID,” that “there is no benefit to children to receive the COVID vaccine” and that he wanted to “wait until further evidence is available regarding the safety of the vaccine.”
Justice Van Melle ruled that the mother could vaccinate her son, and went further in issuing a gag order prohibiting the father from questioning the government’s vaccine program with his son. “He is not to tell or suggest to [the boy] directly or indirectly that COVID-19 vaccines are untested, unsafe or ineffective or that he is particularly at risk from them,” wrote Van Melle.
“He shall not permit any other person to have any such discussion to make any suggestion to [his son] directly or indirectly,” said the Court. “He is prohibited from showing the child social media sites, websites, other online information, literature or any other material that calls into question the safety or efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines or to permit any other person to do so.”
The court also ruled that the father can take counsel only from a single approved medical professional when it comes to his son’s care.
Justice Van Melle stated in his ruling:
Taking all of these considerations into account, I find that it is in T’s best interests that Lena be given sole decision-making authority on the issue of T.’s COVID-19 vaccinations. Christopher is not to tell or suggest to T. directly or indirectly that the COVID-19 vaccines are untested, unsafe, ineffective or that his particularly at risk from them. He shall not permit any other person to have any such discussions, or to make any suggestion to T., directly or indirectly. He is prohibited from showing the child social medica sites, websites, other online information, literature or any other material that calls into question the safety or efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines or to permit any other person to do so. Christopher shall not involve any medical doctor other than Dr. Aaron Smith in this aspect of T.’s care.
The judge’s ruling follows a decision by a Quebec judge to suspend a father’s visitation rights with his 12-year-old son for refusing to take the COVID-19 jab.