[DUH: Not sure what I was thinking when I kept typing "legislation" instead of "litigation."]
Hilariously, only hours after I had published that earlier post explaining what does and does not constitute strategic litigation, I received a personal e-mail from Rebel News "Alberta Bureau Chief" and oil patch trailer trash Sheila Gunn Reid, really, really, really harping on how they were now really, really, really concentrating on strategic litigation. I'm sure the timing was just a coincidence, but it was entertaining nonetheless.
In any event, so we can all assume that Rebel News is bailing on all those irrelevant cases and is now focused laser-like on cases that actually fit the definition of "strategic litigation?" Well, no.
One need only visit Rebel News' "Vaccine Passports Legal Cases" page to appreciate that nothing there even remotely rises to the level of strategic litigation (below is the entire content of that page, in case you think I'm carefully omitting data):
Let us disembowel the above nonsense the way David Menzies guts the truth, shall we? First, half of those cases clearly involve extraordinary circumstances:
- adverse reaction to vaccine
- pre-existing medical condition
- works remotely
None of the above three cases can be the basis of general strategic litigation as they are founded on clearly unusual circumstances that in no way can be used as the basis for wide-sweeping jurisprudence. The rest of the cases don't seem to have any particular general value, either -- where is the "strategic litigation" value in a burger joint being fined for violating basic pandemic lockdown regulations?
In short, there is still no "strategic litigation" on the table here, but as long as one assumes that Rebel News' target audience probably still has trouble figuring out how to change the clock on their VCR, I suspect Der Rebel is still going to rake in millions.
There is always a market for stupid.
5 comments:
I think the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (which is actually calling the shots here - the Rebel's just the marketing department and the Democracy Fund is the Black Box For Magically Transforming Donations Into Tax Receipts) will pursue the same approach as the Pro Lifers have for years, and throw a legal challenge at any crack in the wall your can find, regardless of legal merit or relevance ("We need a SCIENTIFIC definition of LIFE"! "Gender-based abortion decisions violate the Charter!!", etc., etc.)
I haven't seen anything to suggest that there's any basis for an actual Charter challenge to the vaccine passports, and the arguments I HAVE read have been simply foolish, both legally and scientifically illiterate. But the fact that it's a stupid and doomed set of specious legal arguments doesn't mean it can't be pitched as "strategic".
And of course, if CRA DOES announce it's investigating an impropriety, well then, that's just one more example of TRUDEAU'S tax cops using TRUDEAU'S justice system to oppress and censor TRUDEAU's only honest critics, necessitating another emergency round of fundraising to fight TRUDEAU'S communistic lawfare. It really is a glorious, multilayered and impermeable grift.
As we've discussed before, I don't think either the Rebel or the Justice Centre expects any of these actions to "win"; they simply provide an unending source of "stories" for the Rebel, and ongoing revenue and a cause to keep the Justice Centre busy and in the news. And of course, since the Democracy Fund also provides grants for "a journalism placement program that provides post-secondary journalism students with opportunities to obtain on-the-job skills training", the Rebel presumably receives funding assistance to pay for its current crop of inarticulate amateur millennials taking a break from Tiktok to cosplay "journalist".
Ah... perhaps we're talking about "strategic litigation"?
Perhaps I was. What's it to ya?
I was afraid that I'd woken up in some alternate universe where Der Rebel had legislative powers.
It scared the crap out of me.
As an IT support person who normally works from home, I can testify that remaining unvaccinated is not an option, since I never know when a serious issue might come up where I have to visit either the main office or visit with someone who needs emergency support. Even the slightest possibility that I might need to travel to troubleshoot means I have to be fully vaccinated.
Post a Comment