DAY TWO: Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Deena Hinshaw cross-examined in court amidst legal challenge of Alberta public health orders

Lawyers for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and others continue to cross-examining Dr. Hinshaw.

DAY TWO: Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Deena Hinshaw cross-examined in court amidst legal challenge of Alberta public health orders
Remove Ads

Following repeated delays, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) is in court challenging the constitutionality of Alberta Chief Medical Officer of health Dr. Hinshaw’s health orders.

Rebel News' Sheila Gunn Reid (follow @SheilaGunnReid on Twitter) livetweeted the proceedings.

Read the live updated tweets from day one here.

back in court this morning as lawyers with the @JCCFCanada are cross-examining Alberta's CMOH Deena Hinshaw in a lawsuit brought by two churches and other individuals for violating their charter rights with her endless health edicts (nearly 4 dozen in total).

Will livetweet.

Leighton Grey is back to crossing examining Deena Hinshaw, Alberta's CMOH.

He is now asking her about her affidavit from July 2021. wherein she decried the power of social media to spread misinfo "creating a groundswell" of naysayers and people who question severity of covid.

1from 14 February 2020, Grey produces evidence that Hinshaw was remarking about the control of information about covid 19, about a month before the worldwide pandemic was even declared.

She explains she was worried about anti-Asian racism.

Hinshaw says she considered Alberta Health Services and Alberta Health website a reliable source of early covid information, yes yesterday she said had to re-adjust and lower her own published death statistics regarding covid 19.

GREY is asking Hinshaw to explain why she uses the term "non-believers" to describe people who do not conform to govt covid recommendations

She explains non-believers as those who"adopted beliefs that would lead to behaviours that would put themselves and others at risk"

GREY is trying to pin Hinshaw down on her use of the phrases "conspiracy theory" and "naysayers" to describe those who do not reach the same conclusions as govt doctors did.

Hinshaw explains that a small number of individuals with a diff opinion does not change the consensus

GREY: the govt opinion was the only correct one, regardless of where the opinion came from. (then Grey lists highly credentialed Drs with divergent viewpoints)

Hinshaw: I disagree

GREY: paraphrased: but that's what you're saying when you say that you rely on the consensus

Grey confronts Hinshaw with data from the Canadian government about covid deaths, I think to impugn the consensus predictions made by consensus drs.
AHS lawyer immediately objects.


GREY is asking Hinshaw about her affidavit wherein she states that personal freedom opposes behaviour change. "Do you see personal freedom as merely an inconvenience?"

Hinshaw: paraphrased behaviour change is inconvenient. Diff people hold diff values.. we tried to balance

GREY: for the government, in dealing with covid, in the hierarchy of values, public health was over personal liberty.

Hinshaw: when the threat was rising, specific liberties were limited to protect public health as a whole.

GREY: give us an example of a scientific study that was commissioned by the province of Alberta that shows lockdowns were effective.

AHS lawyer objects.

GREY: she expressed her opinion. I am asking for the data to back up the opinion.

Judge allows

Hinshaw: there have been many studies around the world about the impacts of non-pharmaceutical interventions.

(she doesn't mention any Alberta studies, instead talks about ICU numbers in relation to when restrictions were imposed)

GREY: but the govts own data concerning ICU numbers is unreliable. You gave a statement on January 10 about the nature of ICU admissions, and how those were reported, and classified.

Hinshaw explains that over-all ICU admissions stayed the same and it put pressure on system

GREY: but wasn't that misinformation then?

Hinshaw: we didn't know that information to be inaccurate at the time.

[There is something about listening to health bureaucrats that makes me feel like what I would describe as an electric car in really cold weather. I am being drained of life. But, I could also start on fire at any minute.]

GREY produces an examination of over 80 covid 19 studies from around the world that shows lockdowns relied on false assumptions that overestimated benefits and underestimated harms. (by Douglas W Allen)

AHS lawyer immediately objects. Arguments happening.

The judge allows Hinshaw to be questioned on the examination of those 80 studies.

GREY: here we have a contrary opinion to lockdowns, that the harms vastly outweighed the evidence.

Hinshaw: this is the opinion of one individual. I would not be able to comment

[but the contrary opinion is from an economist who looked at over 80 studies on lockdowns]

Hinshaw: we used non-pharmaceutical interventions [lockdowns] sparingly and sparsely.

[sparingly and sparsely= closing gyms/restaurants, jailing pastors, chaining up churches, incarcerating a rural entrepreneur, seizing businesses, fining people, and medical discrimination]


CMOH Hinshaw is talking about how accurate testing for covid is. She says it's accurate.

[I was just looking at this the other day. 1 in 5 people who are actively sick with covid will get a false negative and this has been known from very early on.

ok we are on a morning break for 15 mins. Time to fill up the coffee cup and switch lanes. I have Rebel work screaming at me from my notifications.

We are back. GREY attempts to make Hinshaw justify with evidence the credit she gives herself for combatting wave after wave of covid. She credits lockdowns, but her evidence is "we did lockdowns and then the wave crashed"

GREY argues this was just the ebb and flow of disease.

GREY: was there ever a time pursuant to the course of your orders that in-person worship was prohibited?

Hinshaw: no

GREY: are you aware of the church closures?

AHS lawyer immediately objects.

GREY is naturally referring to GraceLife, Harvest Baptist, and Cave of Adullam.

Hinshaw acknowledges the church closures ( at her hand btw) and we move on.

[Icy. Men were imprisoned. Dragged from their children like terrorists and she sleeps at night pretending she didn't do it.]

GREY asks Hinshaw about her masking rules for children.

AHS objects because GREYs clients are not children.

Grey says he is cross-examining Hinshaw on her evidence and she put evidence of children not being a great risk of covid spread in her own affidavit.

Judge allows.

GREY is now making Hinshaw confirm many of the horrible restrictions she imposed. 5 people in a gathering outside, closed gyms, restricted funerals to just 10, closed indoor dining, 15% in churches.

"There are prison inmates who would not be subject to such harsh restrictions"

AHS launches an objection. Says Grey is being argumentative.

GREY: she testified that her restrictions were the least restrictive measures. How can she say this?

Judge allows.

Hinshaw: we were trying to protect the acute care system.

GREY now asking about Christmas and Hanukkah restrictions on gathering.

Calls them fundamentally discriminatory, that people who celebrate those holidays would be harmed more and first by Hinshaw's restrictions that hit in the winter.

and court is breaking for lunch. Rebel duties call for the next hour.

Just a quick note: I'm doing my best to put my own commentary on this Hinshaw cross-examination into brackets.

I know some of you want "just the facts, ma'am" but pls remember we have been in the thick of helping good people and their families destroyed by her edicts for 2 yrs

of course, I am biased. I am a conservative. The difference between me and the mainstream media is that I am honest about my bias and don't pretend our readers/viewers are too stupid to see it.

And the best part? No one is making you pay for my work against your will.

court is back in session.

scheduling things are happening. Someone forgot about Good Friday, which is really the story of so much of this nonsense

Grey asks Hinshaw about the use of therapeutics versus lockdowns.

She says she looked at the sum of evidence available to her and saw no data that showed the benefit of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of covid.

GREY: We know there are other jurisdictions, for example, Florida, that after the initial stage, gave info and trusted the public, and protected liberty. Wasn't there always another way to go?

Hinshaw: ...

AHS lawyer: objection. Argumentative.

Judge: paraphrased, rephrase.

court is breaking for 10 mins

Lawyer Jeffrey Rath is now cross-examining Hinshaw.

(sorry I was on another skype call for half an hour)

Rath: are you aware that your numerous orders have resulted in the bankruptcies of many Alberta businesses? I believe that Albertans are entitled to know?

AHS lawyers object, say Hinshaw answered this.

(I did not hear her answer, she simply "acknowledged harms")

Rath is now asking about the suicide data for 2021. Hinshaw put evidence of 2020 suicide rates suggesting they were lower than the previous 5 years.

"are you suggesting no people have committed suicide as a result of your orders?"

Rath shows Hinshaw an AHS document about suicide showing most visits to emergency rooms about suicide are aged 20-39.
(The implication here is that lockdowns on young people, which don't seem to make sense given their covid outcomes, may drive suicide rates up)

Rath: were you receiving inputs from the scientific advisory group relating to the broader impacts on the mental health of Albertans from the lockdowns?

Hinshaw: not from that group, no.

Rath: did you receive input from the scientific advisory group about the psychological harms of masking kids? Was there information provided to you in those reports?

Hinshaw: I would need to go back and review

(Rath notes no one from the advisory group was a psychologist)

Rath asks if Hinshaw was aware of the economic impacts of her edicts.

Hinshaw: yes I would have heard (from the economic experts)

Rath: Can you tell the court how many billions of dollars your CMOH orders have cost the economy of Alberta.

Hinshaw: It's not appropriate to assume that all economic impacts are related to orders. Some were as a result of community spread.

Rath: As an Albertan, surely you have seen the shuttered bars and businesses.

AHS lawyer goes to object, realizes he has none and instead just audibly groans.

Hinshaw: yes, I have seen

Rath: did your orders contribute to this?

Hinshaw: I am sure the orders were a factor.

Rath asks Hinshaw about Kenney's plan to wildly ramp up healthcare capacity at the beginning of the pandemic.

She says there were insufficient staff to expand capacity in the way that Kenney promised

(good thing they laid off all those unvaccinated healthcare workers smh)

(I feel like I've been attacked by a chupacabra, listening to a highly paid health bureaucrat counterfeit concern and skirt responsibility for what she's done to so many people through her edicts)

Ok we have some legal back and forth. And it sounds like we might be breaking for the day.

Court is reconvening at 930 am tomorrow

At which point I will submit myself to this torturous process one more time.

Remove Ads
Remove Ads

  • By Ezra Levant

Help Chris!

Rebel News has set up a crowdfunding campaign for Chris Carbert of the Coutts Four.

Take Action

Don't Get Censored

Big Tech is censoring us. Sign up so we can always stay in touch.

Remove Ads