Judge drops gavel on dad who tried to get kids to get stung over ‘antivaxxer’ mom’s objections

Note: This article may contain comments that reflect the author’s opinion.

A judge’s ruling in Ontario Family Court provides an excellent analysis of the social divisions caused by the government’s mishandling of the Covid pandemic and the Pandora’s box of diseases that have bled into marital relationships.

In a court ruling released in late February, Judge Alex Pazaratz said decided against a father who wanted to have two children aged 10 and 12 vaccinated against the objections of their alleged “anti-vaccination” mother. The verdict of the court did not end well for him. Continue reading.

The judge opened with a few bold volleys on the current social environment, which is divided by “political correctness”.

“Since when is it forbidden to ask questions?” wrote the judge. “Especially in the courtroom? And when did it go out of fashion for judges to get answers? Especially when the lives of children are at stake?”

“How did we lower our vigilance and allow the words ‘unacceptable beliefs’ to be paired together? In a democracy? On the scales of justice?” He walked on.

“Judges should sit back when the concept of ‘court notice’ is hijacked from a rule of evidence to a substitute for evidence,” he added. “And is ‘misinformation’ even a real word? Or has it become a crass, self-serving tool to forestall vetting and discredit your opponent? Delegitimizing questions and strategically avoiding answers.”

“Blanket denials are almost never acceptable in our adversarial system,” he continued. “Each party always has the burden of proof in their case, and yet ‘misinformation’ has crept into the court lexicon. A childish — but sinister — way of saying, “You’re so wrong I don’t even have to explain why you’re wrong.”

“In fact, earlier in the pandemic, the father went to court complaining that the mother was too protective of the children regarding COVID,” the judge continued. “In August 2020, the father submitted an application to force the children to attend school in person for the 2020-2021 school year. The mother argued that the risk of COVID exposure was too high; she was particularly concerned about the eldest child’s medical vulnerability due to his history of asthma; and she suggested distance learning for the kids until the pandemic risk subsided.”

The basic facts are undisputed, the judge explained:

On September 23, 2020, Justice Bale issued a full acknowledgment dismissing the father’s application and confirming that the mother’s position was reasonable and in the best interests of the children.
H. In 2020, dad claimed mom was too cautious about COVID. Now he says she’s not protective enough. He brought in a January 25, 2022 motion requesting that LEG and MDG receive the COVID vaccine and any recommended booster vaccines. He also asks that he be allowed to arrange vaccinations and to accompany the children because he does not trust that the mother will comply even if asked.
I. Meanwhile, shortly after the parties signed the protocol in October 2021, the older child CBG decided to get vaccinated. Both parents supported his decision. He received two injections and the parents agree that he has not shown any side effects.
J. The mother insists that the father misrepresents her position. She is not against vaccinations. The derogatory term “vaccination opponents” pushes her. She always made sure that the three children received all their regular vaccinations. She says she’s open to vaccinating both younger children when safety concerns can be better addressed. But she says her extensive research has left her with reasonable concerns that the potential benefits of the current COVID vaccines for LEG and MDG are outweighed by the serious potential risks. She says there are too many unknowns, and she worries that “once children are vaccinated, they can’t be left unkempt.” The mother notes that both children already had COVID – with minimal symptoms – and have made a full recovery. She points to medical research that says that since the children have already recovered from COVID, they now have better protection against future infections.
l. Both parents agree that LEG and MDG are in excellent health with no special medical needs or vulnerabilities.
m. Neither parent has provided evidence from a physician of possible positive or negative considerations regarding these children receiving COVID vaccines.
[17] The mother’s statements focused solely on the medical and scientific issues.
[18] In contrast, the father focused extensively on labeling and discrediting the mother as a person, in a disparaging attempt to argue that her views were not worth considering.
A. This vile trend is fast corrupting modern social discourse: ridicule your opponent and stigmatize them as a person instead of engaging with the ideas they want to talk about.
B. It seems to work for politicians.
C. But is that really something we want to tolerate in a court system where
Parents’ behavior and beliefs are irrelevant unless they affect those of a parent
Ability to respond to a child’s needs?

The father’s affidavits included the following:
A. “I understand that the applicant has political affiliations with the People’s Party of Canada. The applicant is entitled to her personal beliefs and ideologies, but I am very afraid that this will have a direct, negative impact on the children, especially when it comes to this vaccine issue.”
B. “I searched the applicant’s recent Facebook posts and was alarmed to see the applicant’s involvement in perpetuating COVID-related conspiracy theories and vaccination hesitation.”
C. He included “a collection of some of the applicant’s Facebook posts…..which I believe indicate her personal views.”
D. “The applicant is a self-proclaimed ‘PPC Founding Member’. In my opinion, it openly promotes very dangerous beliefs. Certainly these thoughts and feelings are also encouraged in their household, where LEG and MDG mainly live.”
e. “I looked up the PPC’s stance on the COVID-19 vaccine and was not surprised to read in the FACTS section of the site that “lockdowns, mask requirements, school closures and other authoritarian sanitation measures are not having a noticeable impact on the course of the pandemic. “Unfortunately, no facts are actually provided.”
Q. He encloses a copy of the PPC’s COVID Policy from their website.
G. “I am concerned that the children are being exposed to the applicant’s unsupported views on the issue of the pandemic and in particular on the effectiveness of the available and government-recommended vaccines.”
H. “Applicant’s anti-vaccination stance is much more strident than that of a normally concerned parent who is unsure whether they want their children to receive a relatively new vaccine. Rather, the applicant is leading the charge, attending anti-vaccine rallies and refusing to follow COVID protocols.”
I. He includes a Facebook post in which the mother is not wearing a mask “in a crowd of 10,000 people at a rally.”
J. He makes further references to the mother’s Facebook account and attaches numerous pictures of her social media pages.
k. He includes photos of PPC leader Maxime Bernier addressing an audience.

“Where do I start,” said the judge.
A. How is any of this relevant?
B. Have we reached the stage where parental rights are being decided based on which political party you belong to?
C. Is it the kiss of death to be seen with Maxime Bernier – or anyone else as far as your trial goes?
D. Can you just say the words “conspiracy theorist” and drop a mic?
e. If you claim that someone is “openly promoting very dangerous beliefs,” don’t give a few details. A little proof maybe?
Q. And if you assume that a parent believes things they shouldn’t believe, can you go a step further and also assume that the parents have to poison their children’s minds with these horrible, unspecified ideas? (“Surely these thoughts and feelings are also encouraged in your household…”)
G. Father criticizes mother for something she didn’t say. He suspects she doubts the effectiveness of school closures, then slams her for not providing evidence. But in this motion, she didn’t raise the issue. And back in 2020, she was the one trying to keep the kids out of school, and he was fighting (unsuccessfully) to get them in school. As with other allegations, the father provides no evidence of his own or address the fact that fierce community debate led to the school closures being abandoned.
H. How far are we willing to go “guilt by association”? When you visit a website, read a book, or attend a meeting, are you constantly troubled by something someone else has written or said? When does the “thought police” intervene?
I. And really, how fine is the line between “vaccination hesitation” and “not taking any risks with your child”? All case law states that judges must act with the utmost caution and consider all relevant evidence when determining the best interests of the child. How then can we impose a lower standard on a proven excellent parent?

“It matters little that an individual litigant chooses to advance such dubious and offensive arguments,” noted Justice Pazaratz. “Even though the father might not admit it, this is still a free country and people can say what they want. Including him.”

“But there is a bigger problem here. An uglier problem,” he continued. “We are seeing more and more of this type of intolerance, slander and condescending character assassination in family courts. Presumably we see it in the courtroom because it’s prevalent outside of the courtroom. It now seems socially acceptable to denounce, punish and ban anyone who disagrees with you.”

“A chilling example: I recently had a case where a mother attempted to cut off an equal father’s contact with his children, largely because he ‘encouraged anti-government beliefs,'” the judge noted. “And in communist China, that request would probably have been granted.”

“But this is Canada and our justice system has an obligation to keep it in Canada,” the judge continued. “I won’t get into the point because I have yet to get to my actual job: determining what is in the best interests of these two children. But word needs to get out that while the court system will not punish intolerance, it certainly will not reward it either.”

Read the entire excellent court ruling below:

The Toronto Star on reported on Thursday that Ontario government employees will no longer be required to receive the Covid vaccines as a condition of employment, nor will they be forced to “test” the requirement.

https://smartzune.com/judge-drops-the-hammer-on-father-who-tried-to-get-kids-jabbed-over-antivaxxer-mothers-objections/ Judge drops gavel on dad who tried to get kids to get stung over ‘antivaxxer’ mom’s objections

Jake Nichol

24ssports is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – admin@24ssports.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button