Rebel News Banner Ad - WEF Reports

University denies same jab exemption upheld by Canadian Armed Forces

Katherine Bishop's exemption was good enough for the CAF, but not good enough for Laurentian University.

Remove Ads

A fourth year nursing student has been de-rostered from her university classes for the intolerable act of making her own informed medical choices.

Katherine Bishop was set to complete her final year at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. She was completing a bachelor of science in nursing and was president of the Laurentian University Nursing Student Association (LUNSA).

Most recently, Katherine had been invited to an interview at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, a next step of which would have been admission into the medical school; a goal that she has been working towards for years, in hopes of becoming a medical doctor.

All of that has been squashed due to indiscriminate mandates at her campus and clinical placement, Health Sciences North, which is a local hospital in Sudbury.

Katherine Bishop’s mother contacted me after a local media publication ran a story on her. It detailed how Katherine had been denied her request for religious exemption by Laurentian University, but went through the exact same process and was granted an exemption by her employer, the Canadian Armed Forces.

After that publication, Katherine connected with at least one other Laurentian student who had their religious exemption approved. Exemptions were being approved or denied by Michael J. Kennedy, a lawyer at Hicks Morley law firm in Toronto, Ontario.

When Katherine compared notes with the other student, their process and exemption claims looked almost identical, which begs to question why her deemed “singular belief” was not enough to grant a religious exemption.

Especially when Laurentian’s own policy says that “vaccination against COVID-19 is the single most effective public health measure to reduce the spread of COVID-19.”

Except that has shown, in real time, not to be true. This injection does not prevent infection or transmission as originally sold to the public.

So what is the point of this heavy-handed policy that claims to uphold various exemptions (but in actuality does not) based on some arbitrary, third party, opinion? Since this policy may have made sense six months ago, before we had clear data showing that the injectables don’t actually prevent infection or spread, it certainly doesn’t seem to make much sense now.

Will institutions and agencies be revisiting these heavy-handed policies that seem to only benefit Big Pharma?

Are indiscriminate vaccine mandates under the guise of all things healthy and safety, while lives are destroyed in the meantime, here to stay?

Remove Ads
Remove Ads

  • By Ezra Levant

Fight Vaccine Passports

A new civil liberties project — fighting against forced vaccines!

Learn More

Don't Get Censored

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

Remove Ads