Ontario-based Western University’s Huron College placed Ethics Professor Julie Ponesse on leave, banning her from campus for speaking candidly about mandated flu/covid jabs.
What’s going on a diabolical act of coercion.
Toxic jabs are destroying the health of individuals taking them — the more gotten the greater the harm.
The more mandates to get them, the greater the trampling on fundamental rights with intent to eliminate them altogether.
Following her academic lynching, Ponesse joined The Democracy Fund as an ethics scholar in an organization that’s dedicated to advancing civil liberties and other constitutional rights — at a time when they’re disappearing throughout the West.
Do not give up your rights, Ponesse stressed in a stirring address delivered on Wednesday.
Think about what life was like pre-2020, she said.
“What did you imagine about the future?”
Who could have imagined what was planned to unfold by diabolical US/Western dark forces — with the worst of evil intentions in mind.
For 20 years, Ponesse taught ethics, ancient philosophy, critical thinking and importance of self-reflection, she explained.
On September 16, she got a “termination with cause” letter after question(ing) and refus(ing) to comply with (her) employer’s (flu/covid) mandate.”
She “was dismissed for doing exactly what (she’d) been hired to do,” adding:
“I was a professor of ethics questioning what I take to be an unethical demand.”
“You don’t have to look very hard to see the irony.”
Canadian laws are grounded in ethics — now abandoned after seasonal flu was renamed covid.
Quoting Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Sydney Robin, Ponesse explained the following:
“The right to determine what shall or shall not be done with one’s own body, and to be free from non-consensual medical treatment, is a right deeply rooted in our common law.”
It’s also fundamental international and US constitutional law under its Supremacy Clause.
According to the above laws, our bodies are “inviolate,” Ponesse stressed, adding:
“(N)ever again (should) humanity” be involuntarily required to obey “medical decision-making” mandates over our bodies for any reasons.
“By definition, (mass-jabbing) mandates are coercive immunization strategies…”
Failure to take them threat(ens) loss of employment” and other civil liberties.
In cahoots with diabolical dark forces, “(e)mployers are holding our careers hostage…”
They’re “removing our participation in the economy and in public life” for noncompliance with mandated bodily harm on the phony pretext of protection not gotten.
Their justification is unjustifiable.
Because of an invented pandemic — no real one exists except among the jabbed — “we must…relinquish autonomy over our bodies for the (alleged) sake of the public good” — a pretext without justification.
When real public health or other emergencies exist, Western lawmakers have “limited power to pass laws that violate” Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the US Constitution, and similar core laws in Britain and EU countries.
All things flu/covid, especially toxic jabs, do not apply to the above standard, Ponesse stressed.
“Consider these facts,” she said:
Flu/covid “has an infection facility rate not even 1% that of smallpox (and it poses even less risk to children).”
“(A) number of safe, highly effective pharmaceuticals exist to treat it (including monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, (hydroxychloroquine – HCQ) fluvoxamine, Vitamin D and Zinc), AND”
Flu/covid jabs caused “more adverse events (including innumerable deaths) than (harm from all vaccines combined) over the last 30 years.”
Medical ethics require doing no harm. Patient needs and rights must be prioritized and respected.
Nothing health-related may legally be administered without voluntary consent — nothing mandated.
Ponesse posed key questions MSM consistently leave unaddressed, asking:
“Why are the (jabbed) granted (health) passports and access to public spaces, when…the CDC (director said jabs) cannot prevent transmission?”
“Why is (jabbing) the ONLY mitigation strategy when emerging evidence (including a recent Harvard study) shows no discernible relationship between the (jabbing) rate and new cases?”
“Why does (the Canadian) government…withhold ivermectin as a recommended treatment when the” US NIH and other world public health agencies endorse its use?
Why was obliteration of flu/covid by this protocol in Uttar Pradesh (India’s most populous state) ignored by Western regimes and their MSM press agents?
“How (did) India (surpass) Canada in health care?”
“Why are we about to (jab children aged-5 – 11 when flu/covid) poses to them less risk than the potential (adverse) reactions AND while there is NO effective monitoring system for the” jabs shown to be harmful to health, not beneficial as falsely claimed?
“Why (are) real-world studies (ignored that) show natural immunity is more protective, more potent, and more enduring” than alleged benefits from jabs that don’t exist?
“Why do we shame the” unjabbed and not dark forces that aim to harm maximum numbers of people with toxic jabs designed for this purpose?
“Why…do the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that did not protect the protected in the first place?”
“By every measure and from every angle, (what’s going on) is a ‘house of cards’ ” catastrophe that’s certain to become self-evident ahead — after the fact over what’s crucial now to prevent it.
Why is what’s most crucial to know suppressed by ruling authorities worldwide and their MSM co-conspirators?
Real pandemics exist — among the jabbed and “of compliance and complacency, in a culture of silence, censorship, and institutionalized bullying.”
There’s a war by other means going on.
It’s a moral and ethical war “of infiltration instead of invasion, intimidation instead of free choice, of psychological forces so insidious we come to believe the ideas are our own and that we are doing our part by giving up our rights,” Ponesse explained.
She quoted a colleague saying:
“This is a war about the role of government.”
“It is about our freedom to think and ask questions, and about whether individual autonomy can be downgraded to a conditional privilege or whether it remains a right.”
“It is a war about whether you are to remain a citizen or become a subject.”
“It is about who owns you…you or the state.”
“It is about where we draw the line,” said Ponesse.
It’s about vital to protect international law rights that are too precious to lose.
It’s about protecting our health from state-sponsored toxins designed to destroy it.
It’s about aiding the survival of countless unwanted millions that are targeted for extermination.
It’s about protecting and preserving everything most important to most people everywhere.
Ponesse chillingly stressed having “no doubt that (flu/covid) is the greatest threat to humanity we have ever faced; not because of a virus…but because of our response (or lack thereof) to it.”
The response that’s needed is “earning its place in every medical ethics textbook that will be published in the next century.”
“What can we do,” she asked?
Most people are “victims…of compliance (that’s) not a virtue.”
“How do we break this silence? How do we regain our sanity…”
“A vocal…noisy 10% is all it takes.”
Individuals concerned about what’s going on but stay silent, “now is the time to act.”
It’s crucial to do whatever it’ll take to turn things around, to prevent an inevitable catastrophe by compliance with what no one should tolerate.
For yourself, your loved ones and what you most cherish:
“Will you be part of the noisy 10%,” Ponesse asked?