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.” 

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.