Fighting Back

against a cycle of abuse

Today, news of a counterattack over at The Counter Signal:

In a press release, written by U of T professors Jeff Graham and Robert Holmstedt, as well as McGill University Health Centre President Julie Quenneville and Advocacy School Principal Sean Moore, the group states that in the wake of Ontario dropping its vaccine mandate, the University no longer has the right to discriminate against staff and students or withhold pay from those still on leave.

“The University of Toronto is going against public health recommendations even though they relied on them to enforce overly restrictive mandates on students, staff, and faculty. Why is the University stubbornly resisting the evolving science when they relied on it to legally justify their overreaching vaccination requirements. The University’s approach violates the human rights of members of the University of Toronto community and must be immediately removed,” the press release reads.

McGill has not been so draconian in its regulations. It has deployed a passport regime to deny physical access even to the libraries, though the government did not direct it to do so. But it has not banned the unjabbed from campus or suspended their pay. Curiously, however, it is doing what these Ontario universities are doing—extending covid measures the government has dropped, ostensibly "to help everyone feel more comfortable." Retention of the passport was announced on 10 March.

Upon learning this, I immediately wrote to the committee chairs, pointing out once more that the policy is discriminatory. Ten days later, I wrote again, this time copying the senior administration:

On 11 March, I offered to meet with you to discuss changes to the policy announced below, which I believe discriminatory.  I pointed out that it was contrary to present government directives, as to the evidence of medical science, and that no justification was offered for it other than a vague wish to make people feel safe or “comfortable.”  I observed that this amounted to catering to irrational fears on the part of some members of our community at the expense of others who have no such fears, and that it denied the latter access to goods and services to which they are entitled, leaving them to feel exclusion and frustration over the injustice.  

Having heard nothing in reply, I am now writing you again.  This is not about me.  I go where I wish and am prevented by no one. I never, on principle, display a passport. It is not mainly about colleagues either, who in most cases are able to fend for themselves, though some junior colleagues cannot. It is about our students and about the integrity of our university.  

I have heard from students who either are being denied access to McGill facilities and events, and do not understand why, or are being asked to turn other students away and do not understand why.  The government app for checking passports has been disabled, for the government does not now support their use. There is indeed no justification for their use, something that is evident even to people who do not share the objection to them in principle. Anyone who is paying the least bit of attention knows that the vaccination program has failed to achieve its stated purpose, to say nothing (though something will have to be said and in the courts is already being said) of the grave harms it has done. 

Last year, the Joint Statement by Federal, Provincial and Territorial Privacy Commissioners pointed out that passports could not be used in violation of privacy laws. It observed specifically that:  “In Quebec, consent cannot form the legal basis for vaccine passports. In that jurisdiction, requesting their presentation would require that the information is necessary to achieve a specific purpose, one that is serious and legitimate.” You do not have such a purpose. Nor have you any cover from the government under emergency powers: “In Quebec, the vaccination passport is no longer required to access a place or to do an activity.”  I remind you also of the section of the Quebec Privacy Act (P-39.1, Division II, 9) that specifically forbids refusal of goods or services on the grounds that someone has declined to disclose private medical information. While Bill 64 is tightening up privacy provisions, you appear to be asking members of our community to violate them. 

Moreover, there is unacceptable discrimination here under section 10 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. As one legal brief I have been reading rightly puts it: “Le passeport vaccinal est une forme ignominieuse de contrainte par laquelle l’État discrimine ses citoyens, sans aucune justification scientifique, car ils refusent de se soumettre à un traitement médical qui n’a pas été rendu obligatoire.” And now that the state itself has abandoned this, the university persists with it?  McGill seems to be more interested in private medical information than in public medical facts. It seems to be less interested in the law, and in fundamental justice for its own students, than in accommodating the irrational and frankly cowardly “safetyism” of certain segments of the community.

We may leave discussion of that lamentable and lamentably misguided safetyism—so desperately out of place in a world torn by genuine threats to people’s very existence— for another day. The passport system, however, may not be left to another day. It must be dismantled immediately. Let all our students get on with their lives freely.  

The letter accompanying the aforementioned press release bears out such claims as my own letter makes. At much greater length, and with all manner of supporting detail, it reaches similar conclusions. We read, for example, that:  

67. In the past week, there has been an admission at the Provincial government level of an absence of evidence that vaccination against COVID-19 prevents viral transmission.

68. At the same time, there is evidence that so-called proof of vaccination is in fact a breach of privacy.

I hope that the action it announces will prove successful and precipitate change both there and elsewhere. Even if successful, however, it is likely to leave unresolved many of the most important questions, among which are these: Why have universities proved so susceptible to the climate of fear cultivated by governments, media, and pharmaceutical companies? Why have they not rather exercised a hermeneutic of suspicion towards the propaganda they have been fed? Why have so few of their scientists and economists and statisticians and legal scholars spoken up against the mishandling of medical and other data? Why have administrations been so keen on promoting repressive government measures and so ready to add their own? What is wrong with the university culture, that it should have failed so miserably to exercise its critical function in this time of crisis?

I will not try to answer such questions here. Perhaps Timothy Evans, who seems to have the requisite background (WHO, GAVI, World Bank, GPMB, etc.) and who arrived at McGill just in time for the pandemic, as for service with Dr Tam on the CITF, might be good enough to address one or two of them, explaining more precisely in what respects universities are leaders or laggards. For my part, I will continue to pursue understanding of what David McGrogan, at Northumbria Law School, speaks of as "a deep sickness in our social foundations," a nihilism "illustrated perfectly by the way in which the interests of children were treated during the pandemic." The diagnosis is accurate, though it requires much elaboration in connection with the universities themselves, which have doggedly cultivated this nihilism among their students, who already in that regard have been treated miserably for years.

The probing of all these things, including the political and financial motives in play, needs to take place sooner rather than later, for many administrations seem quite intent on pressing ahead with their destructive policies, given half a chance.  One notes, for example, Guelph's response to the situation:

In looking ahead to the summer semester and considering the latest government decisions, we have consulted with other universities and also taken part in broader sector consultations, informed by the most recent advice from public health. The following decisions are informed by those conversations. They are based on current public health trends and contingent on public health conditions and direction.

The University's vaccination policy will be paused as of May 1, at which point proof of vaccination will not be required to access U of G spaces. Students will be eligible for in-person learning regardless of their vaccination status. Employees on unpaid leave should speak with their supervisor about their individual situation. Those with vaccination policy exemptions will no longer be required to participate in rapid testing.

The University's mask requirement will be paused as of May 1. We have extended our mask requirement beyond the government's lifting of this public health measure to provide an additional layer of protection for our community during a busy time on campus and through exam season, but we will pause this requirement in May as we enter the summer semester.

Required completion of the U of G COVID-19 Daily Screening form will be paused as of May 1. Remember: if you feel sick, stay home.

Please be aware that with the evolving nature of the pandemic, we may see the return of these public health measures at some point and with little advance notice. We strongly encourage all students, faculty and staff to get vaccinated and to keep up with their booster doses. Staying up to date with your vaccinations not only provides you with the best protection against serious effects of COVID-19 but also keeps our community prepared if public health measures are reinstated as a requirement for campus access, including in-person learning. Before May 1, we will provide you with information about how to update your proof of vaccination in U of G's system to reflect booster doses you may have received.

The Waterloo community received, more or less simultaneously, a similar letter, chock full of unsolicited and incompetent medical advice to be vaccinated and boosted, accompanied by a threat to exercise disciplinary action:  "We strongly encourage everyone to be up-to-date with their vaccinations. If we need to reinstate our proof of vaccination requirement, unvaccinated employees will be subject to the University's discipline policy."

These responses are being crafted in spite of hard data concerning both the futility of the injections and the danger of the injections, including the too-often mortal danger to which some students have already succumbed. They are being coordinated between universities and, one suspects, agents beyond the universities who are determined to keep the racket going. Restrictions are being "paused," not eliminated, much less repented of. Pause, return, repeat—a classic cycle of abuse in which university administrators seem quite content to be complicit. 

There is no time to be lost in fighting back, in breaking that cycle before the next excuse for perpetuating it presents itself.

---

Update 24 March: McGill’s now-public partnership with Moderna speaks volumes about its own motives and its willingness to ignore inconvenient facts regarding genetic vaccine non-performance and, much worse, the collateral damage done over the past two years to lives, laws, economies, institutions, families, student welfare, and the Canadian spirit by the whole covid caper. Other universities have similarly compromised themselves, of course, and deploy equally Orwellian speech:

“This partnership is a sign of McGill’s strength in core research that changes lives,” said Martha Crago, Vice-Principal, Research & Innovation. “We are an acknowledged leader in mRNA, and joining this platform will help us develop vaccines that will protect human health everywhere on the planet.”

Update 25 March: McGill drops passport but continues to encourage students to take the mRNA treatments it is partnering with Pharma to produce and provide. The conflict of interest continues, and I will have more to say about it in due course.