News
Featured Image
Anti-lockdown protestors gather in Queens Park, OntarioLianne Laurence / LifeSiteNews

TORONTO, Ontario (LifeSiteNews) – Chris Weisdorf, a pro-freedom activist and advisor to Adam Skelly, broke down Ontario’s punitive “public health” measures in an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews and explained how Ontarians can “stand their ground and assert their rights.”

Restauranteur Adam Skelly made headlines last year for publicly standing up to the Ontario government lockdown orders by keeping his restaurant open for in-person dining. Skelly is the father of two young children and decided to go against the restrictions imposed on restaurants in order to continue making a living and provide work for his employees.  

Skelly was arrested for his pro-freedom actions after dozens of police officers with cavalry were sent to his location. He launched a legal challenge against the government, and a GoFundMe was launched to help him pay for his legal fees. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were raised. 

Chris Weisdorf is Skelly’s close friend, and acts as his advisor and co-ordinator of evidence. Weisdorf has an encyclopedic understanding of the legal framework oppressing Ontarians today, and he described to LifeSite what rights Ontarians still have and how to legally and peaceful resist government overreach. 

Weisdorf stated that after Skelly was arrested for violating public health orders the government “came down on him like ten tons of bricks,” with “six separate legal proceedings … Toronto and Ontario ganged up on him.” After the arrest, the state attempted to bill Skelly over $100,000 – a move which Weisdorf said was “right out of Communist China … they will bill you for stuff the government does to brutalize you.” 

One of the tactics that the government used against Skelly was to fine him for not having a business license. To the public, that may sound as if the restaurant owner was seeking to circumvent the law, however, as Weisdorf explained, it is actually a common thing in the municipality that Skelly was operating in.  

There were promises of amendments by the city regarding the ease of complying to bylaws concerning business licencing, but they never came to fruition. Weisdorf explained that “a lot businesses just paid $300/year in terms of fines,” which was less costly and easier than dealing with the city. Weisdorf said that many businesses in the area did the same thing. 

Mr. Weisdorf is advising Skelly on a “Section 9” case, which refers to section 9 of the Reopening Ontario Act (ROA), which he calls “Ontario’s Enabling Act.”  The German Enabling Act allowed the Nazi government to issue laws without the consent of Germany’s parliament, laying the foundation for the complete Nazification of German society.  

Weisdorf explained why he chooses to use that term to describe the current situation in Ontario: “During a time of crisis he [Hitler] seized power … he decreed emergency powers then the powers were codified into law by the Reichstag … and those temporary emergency powers, they were permanent, they lasted 12 years.” 

Skelly’s friend and advisor believes there is a parallel between what has been seen in dictatorships of the past and what has happened in Ontario under the guise of COVD safety measures: “The whole purpose of the Reopening Ontario Act was to make a temporary state of emergency virtually permanent. They only have to renew it once every six months, it’s virtually permanent there’s no end in sight, they are not going to end it any time soon, or ever. I don’t think they will ever end until they are forced to.” 

Weisdorf explained that despite the claims of some who have suggested that Skelly took his stand against the government in order to make money off of crowdfunding, that this could not be further from the truth. In fact, all of the money that was raised by the GoFundMe went towards legal fees, and Weisdorf believes that Skelly was taken advantage of by lawyers who did not have his best interests in mind. 

“The first lawyer took $150,000 from Adam, didn’t offer a defence … The second lawyer took over $100,000 from Adam, we didn’t even get heard [in court].”  

Adam Skelly did what he did because he believed that Ontarians should be afforded the rights they are guaranteed under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not because he wanted to make money, Weisdorf said.  

He added that he believes that public knowledge of how much money was raised for Skelly through crowdfunding gave his opposition a clue as to how much money had to be drained in order to make things more difficult for the freedom fighter. Weisdorf cautions against making it known how much money someone has to fight a legal battle for this very reason. 

Despite the obstacles, Skelly’s team has eleven reports before the government and Mr. Weisdorf is confident that “they will be heard.” “We will get the money to see this through… the evidence is before the court right now.” He added that the evidence refuting the rationale for lockdowns is so scant that doesn’t want to touch the contrary evidence “with a forty-foot pole.”  

“They cannot refute it,” he said, “the evidence is going against the government more and more every day … the government will not win when challenged, when challenged directly they [the government] back down and do their best to not be heard.” 

— Article continues below Petition —
BOYCOTT United over religious and medical COVID vaccine exemptions
  Show Petition Text
20709 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 22500!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

PETITION UPDATE (9/27/21)

United has agreed to put off its threatened COVID vaccine mandate for another 2 weeks, as proceedings came to a screeching halt in federal court last Friday.

Mark Paoletta, a partner at Schaerr Jaffe representing the plaintiffs, was quoted by Breitbart as saying:

"Now everyone can follow the court’s decision to take the time and care needed to carefully consider the legitimate claims our clients have as we seek a solution that allows United to take necessary steps to combat COVID-19 while respecting the civil rights of valuable employees who have sincere religious objections or medical conditions that make them unable to take the vaccine."

While this appears to be a lessening of tensions and possibly a step in the right direction, we must wait till the case resumes on October 15 to see if United will scrap their draconian mandate.

In the meantime, we must continue to apply pressure on United.

So, please continue to SIGN and SHARE this pledge to boycott the airline giant for threatening to impose harsh measures - including forced unpaid leave - in order to coerce employees with religious or medical objections to the vaccine to take the jab.

Thank you for continuing to SIGN and SHARE!

____________________________________________________________

United Airlines is accused of not respecting the religious and medical COVID vaccine exemptions which the company offered to employees who cannot, in good conscience or health, take the vaccine.

2,000 employees of the industry giant are represented in two court cases which have been initiated to stop United from laying-off or indefinitely furloughing workers who have sought COVID vaccine exemptions.

Please SIGN this BOYCOTT of United and send the airline a stong message that you will not support the implementation of these draconian measures.

Many United Airlines employees have sincerely held religious objections to taking the COVID vaccines, while other employees have been told by their doctors not to take the vaccine due to health concerns.

The religious and medical rights of these employees must be respected, and, will hopefully be vindicated by the courts.

But, airlines are for-profit businesses, and apart from the legal incentives, there must also be financial incentives for them to respect their employees' religious and medical rights, and, indeed, the same rights of all Americans.

And, that's why we are calling for a boycott.

The CEO of United Airlines, Scott Kirby, and HR Manager, Kate Gebo, need to understand that the American public will not support businesses who force their employees or customers to violate their religious beliefs or their doctors' recommendations.

Of course, this is totally unnecessary.

United could simply make reasonable accommodations for their employees who are claiming either a religious or medical exemption.

But, until United adopts that policy, we are asking you to consider boycotting the "unfriendly skies" and find another airline for your travel needs. By doing so, you will meaningfully stand shoulder-to-shoulder with these aggrieved United employees.

Thank you for SIGNING and SHARING this petition to boycott United Airlines over the company's failure to respect religious and medical COVID vaccine exemptions for its employees.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'Pilots seek restraining order against United Airlines’ ‘unlawful, life-threatening, vaccine-mandate’' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pilots-seek-restraining-order-against-united-airlines-unlawful-life-threatening-vaccine-mandate/

'United Airlines will put employees with religious, medical COVID vaccine exemptions on unpaid leave' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/739949/

**Photo Credit: EQRoy / Shutterstock.com

  Hide Petition Text

One the challenges that anti-lockdown advocates face when challenging the legality of lockdowns is that the nature of the legal framework undulates between closed and open. Weisdorf expressed that this is a tactic used by the government to make legal challenges especially difficult.  

“One of the issues is there is no lockdown, right now… if you try to bring a lockdown challenge when there is no lockdown, the court will go ‘there is no active, no live controversy,’ so you are trying to challenge something that is moot. Let’s say we suddenly ended up in court tomorrow… the judge would say ‘sorry there’s no live controversy,’ so we have to be heard during the lockdown.” 

Courts have been consistently delayed as a result of lockdown measures, which further hurts the chances of challenges like Adam Skelly’s of being heard in a timely fashion, which is essential to their cases. The legal process can take upwards of two years if someone wishes to have something heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, and the courts at various levels have failed to strongly consider any of the evidence that goes against the public health orthodoxy.  

Weisdorf stated that this fits the definition of tyranny as defined in Federalist No. 47, which states: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” In Weisdorf’s opinion, this aptly describes the maneuvering of public health as a pseudo-governmental organization that dictates what citizens are allowed to do, irrespective of the natural and constitutional rights.  

LifeSite asked Chris Weisdorf what Ontarians should do to advocate for their rights and to live as free citizens as vaccine measures have been introduced. He explained that as frightening as the mandates and directives may sound to many, they are not necessarily laws in the fullest sense of the term, and even within the framework provided, there are protections afforded to citizens from coercion.  

The main issue in his opinion, is that Ontarians don’t know the fullness of their rights, and the legal framework is too complicated to grasp without a lot of study. In addition, many legal professionals and professional associations to do not want to touch the issues surrounding vaccines and other measures, as it could come at a cost socially.  

He stated that the narrative about the supposed vaccination mandate is not what it seems: “… it talks about the implementation of a legitimate mandate to implement vaccination policy, there is nothing in there about testing or vaccination, being required to or anything to be done without your consent, because our entire legal system rests on the concept of consent, and bodily autonomy and individual rights and has for centuries.” 

He urged people to not consent or to ask for exemptions that require frequent testing if their employer tries to coerce them into accepting the jab. He believes this could lead to a permanent state of testing that employers will never relent on if they are given the permission in the first place.  

“Everything does rest on consent. I would say, the real hope here is people realize they can so no. If you’re not willing to lose your job, you will probably lose it anyway once you comply with this, they can do anything they want to you.” 

He also said that he knows for a fact that a lot of people are not complying with the various mandates, but they are simply not stating it publicly. “The numbers [of people not complying] are higher than you’re hearing, they are up to 50% in some circumstances.” 

Weisdorf did say that the vaccine passports required to access certain establishments are more complicated, and it will take a while to work out how to deal with them legally, even though they are an affront to natural rights and constitutional freedoms.  

In order to help Ontarians to understand his wealth of knowledge, Chris Weisdorf offers seminars that people can attend virtually to better understand how to navigate the murky waters of lockdowns and restrictions.  

In an email he described the events: “I call them Discussions on Defiance. They are designed to enable, empower and embolden people to stand their ground and assert their rights. I still call them seminars and presentations, but it’s best when people can interact and discuss their experiences. That’s what’s really needed to remove the fear.” 

Ontarians who are interested in learning more about asserting their rights can contact 416-657-7771 and [email protected] for more information.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.