A 12-year-old girl in Canada was allowed by an Ontario Superior Court Judge to refuse a Covid-19 jab.
The case before Peterborough Superior Court Justice J. Christopher Corkery involved a young girl who said she did not want receive the experimental vaccine being forced on her by her estranged father, who told her it was essential “to protect her and to protect her classmates, her friends, her neighbors, and family.”
Judge Corkery ended up siding with the girl after agreeing that the recent vaccine rollout debacle proved complete faith should not be placed in governmental institutions.
“Government experts sound so sure of themselves in recommending the current vaccines. But they were equally sure when they told us to line up for AstraZeneca. Now they don’t even mention that word,” Judge Corkery wrote in his ruling.
“I am not prepared to take judicial notice of any government information with respect to COVID-19 or the COVID-19 vaccines.”
“The science relating to COVID-19 is developing,” he added according to Western Standard. “The ‘facts’ are changing.”
The judge was referring to the Canadian government’s suspension last year of AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 jab for people under the age of 55 following numerous reports of blood clots in immunized patients.
More on the judge’s opinion from Lake Superior News:
“What are the health implications if children receive the current vaccine but skip some or all of the boosters?” the judge wondered. “What future COVID variant will boosters guard against?”
These questions, Corkery said, “are all questions requiring answers which are currently unavailable. “It is improper for the Court to pre-determine future medical treatments at unknown times, in unknown circumstances.”
Continuing in his explanation, the Ontario Superior Court justice raised more questions. “Does safe mean there are no side effects? Is the vaccine effective in protecting her from contracting COVID-19, from spreading it, from dying from it, from severity of symptoms?”
Justice Corkery outlined how “As with informed consent there are many factors that must be carefully considered in weighing risks and benefits.”
The Toronto Sun reports the girl’s mother didn’t want to force her daughter to take the vaccine, but that her father was insistent on the injection.
According to letters from the girl to her father obtained by the Toronto Sun, she tried to distance herself from him and attempted to explain she did not want to follow his advice on the vaccine.
“I thought I had made this perfectly clear, but it seems I did not so let me say it again,” the girl wrote to her father in a Dec. 2021 letter. “I do not want anything to do with you. I will not be showing up for Christmas. I do not want my COVID-19 vaccine. Do not contact me again.”
In one of two letters addressed to the court, she repeated her objection against getting vaccinated, writing, “This is me talking, not my mother. This is my final decision. I do not want the vaccine. I hope my wishes will be respected.”
The Sun adds: “In her second note, she expressed her dislike for her father and insisted she — and not her dad — should make choices regarding her health care.”
According to Lake Superior News, the girl criticized how “people who have received both shots and the booster are still getting COVID,” and said she was skeptical after “she heard from friends that their doctors are advising that children not get vaccinated.”
Judge Corkery ultimately decided the “A-student” was a “mature minor” capable of making her own medical decisions.
“Requiring her to be vaccinated against her will would not respect her ‘physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being’ but would, in fact, put her at risk of serious emotional and psychological harm,” the judge opined.
The Sun contrasts Judge Corkery’s ruling with the decidedly inverse ruling of Newmarket, Ontario, Superior Court Justice David A. Jarvis who earlier this year “sided with a father who wanted his daughter, also 12, vaccinated against COVID-19.”
In his opinion, Judge Jarvis accused vaccine skeptics of being science deniers on par with people who believe Elvis is still alive.
“This is not ‘fake science.’ It is not ‘fake medicine,’” he wrote in a pithy judgment. “Whether there is a drug company conspiracy callously or negligently promoting unsafe medicine (the ‘lie’) in collusion with federal and provincial authorities this Court leaves to another day and to those who think Elvis is alive.”
“He isn’t. He left the building decades ago.”
In any event, it’s a relief at least one child will be spared the experimental jab being blamed for tens of thousands of adverse reactions and deaths, and it’s impressive to see a judge rule in favor of common sense.
Follow the author on Truth Social: @adansalazarwins