Nicholas Wansbutter – Episode 51: Vaccine Passports – Coercive and Unconstitutional
Consent given under fear or duress is ineffective. Consent given under fear or duress is not consent. Nicholas Wansbutter goes through the historical case law that supports Vaccine Passports being unconstitutional, a violation of human rights, and completely discriminatory.

Nicholas Wansbutter explains how Vaccine Passports violate Charter and Human rights in his YouTube video, Episode 51: Vaccine Passports - Coercive and Unconstitutional. A transcript of the video is provided below.

The main problem with Vaccine Passports have to do with,

      1)  Consent/Assault
      2)  Charter/Human Rights

Consent to medical treatment is a thing in Canadian law. Medical treatment is an assault if it is not done with not only the consent, but the informed consent of the patient.

Supreme Court - 1945 – J.R. Parmley (Defendant)…… Appellant;

T.F. Parmley (Defendant)…… Respondent;

Amanda Pearl Yule (Plaintiff)

On Appeal from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

The conclusion appears unavoidable that both of the parties hereto, particularly in the operating room, failed to recognize the right of a patient, when consulting a professional man in the practice of his profession, to have an examination, a diagnosis, advice and consultations, and that thereafter it is for the patient to determine what, if any, operation or treatment shall be proceeded with.

It may be that in the operating room the parties hereto were of the opinion that they were acting in the best interest of Mrs. Yule in extracting the teeth, but that is not the point.

As was said by Garrison J., “No amount of professional skill can justify the substitution of the will of the surgeon for that of his patient.: Bennan v. Parsonnet

Another Supreme Court Decision: Hopp v. Lepp (In the Chief Justice) 1980 Pg 196 (2 S.C.R)

…term “informed consent”, frequently used in American cases, reflects the fact that although there is, generally, prior consent by a patient to proposed surgery or therapy, this does not immunize a surgeon or physician form liability for battery or for negligence if he has failed in a duty to disclose risks of the surgery or treatment, known or which should be known to him, and which are unknown to the patient to decide what, if anything, should be done with his body: see Parmley v. Parmley and Yule, at pp. 645-46

It follows, therefore, that a patient’s consent, whether to surgery or to therapy, will give protection to his surgeon or physician only if the patient has been sufficiently informed to enable him to make a choice whether or not to submit to the surgery or therapy.

Clear – In Canadian law a patient must consent to any medical treatment otherwise it is a form of battery. Otherwise known as an assault.

Assault – any application of force on an individual without their consent.

Vaccine Passports – don’t even get to the level of informed consent, need to look at, is there consent period.

To look at an example of consent:

Supreme Court of Canada - R. v. Ewanchuk (Major J.) Pg 348 – 1999 (1 S.C.R.) (Assault Case)

The rationale underlying the criminalization of assault explains this. Society is committed to protecting the personal integrity, both physical and psychological, of every individual. Having control over who touches one’s body, and how, lies at the core of human dignity and autonomy.

The common law has recognized for centuries that the individual’s right to physical integrity is a fundamental principle, “every man’s person being sacred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the slightest manner”: see Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (4th ed. 1770), Book III at p. 120. It follows that any intentional but unwanted touching is criminal.

What to consider though is it truly consent to receive a vaccine in a context where you're not going to be able to travel, you're not allowed to go to a store, not allowed to go to a café unless you get that vaccine?

For that we look at how coercion or pressure from authority figures influences consent.

(c) Effect of the Complainant’s Fear

To be legally effective, consent must be freely given. Therefore, even if the complainant consented, or her conduct raises a reasonable doubt about her non-consent, circumstances may arise which call into question what factors prompted her apparent consent. The Code defines a series of conditions under which the law will deem an absence of consent in cases of assault, notwithstanding the complainant’s ostensible (apparent) consent or participation. As enumerated in s. 265(3), these include submission by reason of force, fear, threats, fraud or the exercise of authority, and codify the longstanding common law rule that consent given under fear or duress is ineffective: see G. Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd ed. 1983), at pp. 551-61.

This goes directly to vaccination. If they say “we didn’t take you at gunpoint” to a vaccination center. But if you went because of fear you’d lose your job, for example if you are a hockey player and you’ve been drafted into the OHL and in order to play you need to have a vaccine, then that is the type of situation they are talking about here.

Consent given under fear or duress is ineffective.

Consent given under fear or duress is not consent.

265. …

(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

    (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

     (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

     (c) fraud; or

     (d) the exercise of authority

The implementation of a vaccine passport is absolutely the exercise of authority and if a person receives a vaccine only because of the use of that authority, and because they want to be able to live a normal life, they did not consent to that medical treatment. And in my view that is a clear assault. 

And if it is an assault that any physician is a party to that takes part in, then the hypocritic oath requires that the physicians “Do no Harm”, assault is harm. So a vaccine passport is absolutely offensive to a free and democratic society and it is entirely injurious to the sanctity of the individuals person, guaranteed under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And the case law makes clear, it’s an assault.

But there is also a Human Rights and Charter aspect. Section 15 – Equality rights

15(1) Every individual is equal before an under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Medical choice is not listed, but note, that is not an exhaustive list. Section 15 merely says “in particular” and in my view, denying people freedom of movement, guaranteed under section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, giving that to some and not others is a clear violation of section 15. Allowing some people to go to a movie and some not to go to a movie is a clear violation of section 15. 

And the concept of a vaccine passport bears extremely disturbingly familiarity to other passports we have seen in the past in order to engage in certain activities in civil society. Specifically, I would compare a vaccine passport to the Ahnenpafs, the “Ancestor pass” implemented in Nazi Germany in the 1930s that only allowed “racial pure” individuals to hold certain positions, to go to certain places, to travel freely. 

It also has disturbing similarities to apartheid in South Africa or the Jim Crowe laws in the Southern United States before the Civil Rights movement where there was a water fountain for colored people and a water fountain for white people. 

In regards to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Human Rights, in my view, a vaccine passports is identical as well. And I agree 100% with Doug Ford when he said that it would cause a divided society and he doesn’t want a divided society. A divided society is not one of the principles that Canada was founded upon. On the contrary, Canada was founded on the opposite of a divided society; so therefore I felt the need to speak out on this unequivocally as a lawyer, this is something that must be fought anywhere that it is implemented. Fortunately it’s not in Ontario yet, but it is already in Manitoba.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *