Dr. Denis G. Rancourt et al. / OCLA

OCLA researcher Dr. Denis Rancourt and several fellow Canadian academics penned an open letter to support those who have decided not to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. ■ The group emphasizes the voluntary nature of this medical treatment as well as the need for informed consent and individual risk-benefit assessment. They reject the pressure exerted by public health officials, the news and social media, and fellow citizens. ■ Control over our bodily integrity may well be the ultimate frontier of the fight to protect civil liberties. Read the letter below or as a PDF here.

Open Letter to the Unvaccinated

Update: The letter has been shared widely on the Internet, and translated into several languages, including Czech, Estonian, French, German, Norwegian, Russian and Spanish.

You are not alone! As of 28 July 2021, 29% of Canadians have not received a COVID-19 vaccine, and an additional 14% have received one shot. In the US and in the European Union, less than half the population is fully vaccinated, and even in Israel, the “world’s lab” according to Pfizer, one third of people remain completely unvaccinated. Politicians and the media have taken a uniform view, scapegoating the unvaccinated for the troubles that have ensued after eighteen months of fearmongering and lockdowns. It’s time to set the record straight.

It is entirely reasonable and legitimate to say ‘no’ to insufficiently tested vaccines for which there is no reliable science. You have a right to assert guardianship of your body and to refuse medical treatments if you see fit. You are right to say ‘no’ to a violation of your dignity, your integrity and your bodily autonomy. It is your body, and you have the right to choose. You are right to fight for your children against their mass vaccination in school.

You are right to question whether free and informed consent is at all possible under present circumstances. Long-term effects are unknown. Transgenerational effects are unknown. Vaccine-induced deregulation of natural immunity is unknown. Potential harm is unknown as the adverse event reporting is delayed, incomplete and inconsistent between jurisdictions.

You are being targeted by mainstream media, government social engineering campaigns, unjust rules and policies, collaborating employers, and the social-media mob. You are being told that you are now the problem and that the world cannot get back to normal unless you get vaccinated. You are being viciously scapegoated by propaganda and pressured by others around you. Remember; there is nothing wrong with you.

More »

Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca)
Member scientist, PANDA (pandata.org)
[See section about the author’s expertise, at the end]
Opinion/Belief (not submitted for journal publication)
This is purely my personal beliefs. I do not speak on behalf of OCLA or PANDA.

At this time, I hold the following beliefs about COVID:

● In 2020, no respiratory disease virus or viruses (the postulated SARS-CoV-2 included) caused any anomaly (total     or incremental) in all-cause mortality.
● All-cause mortality by month, week or day has the clear signature of localized mass deaths caused by the     measures purportedly intended to reduce transmission (response-induced deaths).

More »

Stephen Lendman

Injustice defines Western societies. Canada marches in lockstep with Washington. Rogue state ruthlessness defines both countries. Imperial priorities matter most. Inviolable laws don't matter. Nor judicial fairness.

Denis G. Rancourt reflects academia's best, most competent, most responsible and bravest. He has two blog sites. Visit them for updated information. Activist Teacher and U of O Watch provide updates. They explain what most people can't imagine. What happened to Rancourt can happen to anyone responsibly challenging what's too deplorable to accept.

Rancourt is a distinguished University of Ottawa professor. He's tenured. He's a recognized physics and environmental science expert. Students loved him. He's a "phenomenal teacher," they said. He didn't teach to the test like in America. He prioritized learning. He inspired academic achievement. He supports fundamental human and civil rights. Political activism caused his dismissal. University of Ottawa's campus isn't safe. President Allan Rock is a former Canadian politician. He runs University of Ottawa like his private fiefdom. Like a police state. He's unprincipledly hard right. He ignores fundamental Canadian law doing so. Academic freedom doesn't matter. Or free thought, opinion or expression. University of Ottawa is a hotbed of fascist extremism. It's inhospitable to learning.

University of Ottawa Law Professor Joanne St. Lewis colluded with Rock. She did so against Rancourt. She sued him unjustifiably. She wants $1 million. She irresponsibly charged racism. It related to his legitimate blog site comments. He called St. Lewis a "house negro." He cited Malcolm X. He first used the term.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Allan Rock, le recteur de l'Université d'Ottawa (lapresse.ca)

In June 2008, Allan Rock became university president. He's a former Canadian politician and UN ambassador. He's a pro-Israeli flack. He supports its worst crimes.

His administration is unprincipled. It's marked by secrecy, political censorship, abuse of power, and repudiation of fundamental university values. He targets academic and speech freedoms. He violates Canadian law.

Article 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association."

Article 7 assures "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

Hardline rule is university policy. What Rocks says goes. Faculty and student activists are targeted, vilified, persecuted, suspended and dismissed.

More »

Stephen Lendman

U OF O WATCH: St. Lewis v. Rancourt - In A Nutshell
Denis G. Rancourt: Why Donate to My Legal Fund?

Injustice defines Western societies. America long ago spurned rule of law principles. Canada marches in lockstep. Democratic values are quaint and dying. So are honor, integrity, righteousness, and believing right over wrong matters. Even university officials and complicit staff members are tainted. Academia proves not so hallowed ground.

Denis Rancourt is a distinguished tenured University of Ottawa physics professor. He's a recognized expert in his field. His students called him a "phenomenal teacher." His classrooms provided an enriching learning experience. He inspired student confidence and academic achievement. He also champions equity, justice, and human rights. Political activism led to his dismissal. On U of O's campus, it's not safe to advocate right over wrong.

Beginning in September 2005, university officials targeted him unfairly. They oppose his support for Palestinian rights.

The Palestinians are some of the world's most oppressed people. They live under militarized occupation hell. Institutionalized racism harms them. Israeli state terror is policy. Palestinians are treated like subhumans. Their crime is praying to the wrong God. Rancourt eloquently supports them.

He also expresses views forthrightly on political and environmental issues, professional ethics, lobbying, scoundrel media influence, and the right of all persecuted people to live free. He does it in articles, broadcasts, blog postings, at public venues, and in classrooms when he taught. He did the right thing and got punished.

More »

Denis G. Rancourt

U OF O WATCH: St. Lewis v. Rancourt - In A Nutshell

This is an appeal to donate to my legal fund (the Denis Rancourt Legal Fund) in order to provide a moderately fair trial in what some observers have characterized as a SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) against me.

I am committed to obtaining justice but justice is illusive when there is a large asymmetry of means between the opposing parties. At this point I will have exhausted all my financial savings within a month or so.

I was wrongly fired in 2009 from my tenured full professorship in physics at the University of Ottawa by a president, Allan Rock, who had a personal mission to get me. He instructed his executives and hired lawyers to fire me, and this was executed without due process.

Under false pretence, in November 2008, my students and I were locked out of our laboratory and offices without warning.

My research associate of 12 years was summarily fired (she sued and won a settlement).

The laboratory was dismantled before I was even informed of the mock procedure to fire me that was initiated in December 2008 when I was banned from campus, again without notice, under police escort.

More »

Professor Denis G. Rancourt

The university executives do not have the authority to subvert the University of Ottawa Act, 1965. Indeed, the executives have a duty and a responsibility to uphold the Act.

Canadian universities have institutional independence guaranteed by a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. This independence from governments and corporations was explicitly granted to universities in order to protect the academic freedoms of its professors and students.

At the University of Ottawa this established institutional independence is used to subvert lawsuits from mistreated students, and to shield the university from sanctions related to its own violations of its professors' academic freedoms. Such is the perversion of legalese in the service of unprincipled administrations.

In addition, observers have been concerned about the influence of private corporate donations; which are never made transparently and which go into the protected slush fund known as "University of Ottawa Foundation".

This becomes of direct concern when the private donations are overtly tied to specific research chairs, to new research themes, or to newly tailored academic programs.

This is why university senate (the highest institutional authority on all academic matters) recently questioned the university administration's unilateral campaign to create a two-for-one graduate degree in law (LL.M.) and exchange program with the University of Haifa, Israel. (See all posts on this matter HERE.)

In addition to being an obvious degree inflation scheme ("two distinct LL.M. degrees after only one year of studies") -- which is becoming too common as a marketing device at the university -- the Haifa deal came with a tied scholarship thanks to "generous support" from the Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman Foundation.

It was therefore the duty of senate to examine any conditions tied to the Schwartz-Reisman scholarship that might harm academic integrity and institutional independence in view of any risks to academic freedom.

More »

Denis G. Rancourt
Activist Teacher Blog

(Illustration: Ravy Puth)

Based on a public event organized by the geography student association at Universite du Quebec a Montreal (UQAM).

In all of human history, what was believed and promoted by the majority of service intellectuals (high priests) in each civilization was only created and maintained to support the hierarchy and the place of the high priests within the hierarchy. To believe that the present is any different regarding any issue managed by our “experts”, whether in medicine, psychology, cosmology, economics, law and governance, population health or ecology, is pure distilled idiocy.

Never mind that the whole climate change scam is now driven by the top-level financiers newly eyeing a multi-trillion-dollar paper economy of carbon trading and that this is the reason it’s now a dominant mainstream media and corporate messaging presence [1].

Never mind that this paper economy of carbon trading will be the largest financial extortion enterprise since the invention of the US-centered military-backed global finance structure of predation itself.

Never mind that establishment scientists are service intellectuals who virtually never diverge from supporting power, who at best look for sanitized and hypothetical “problems” that do not threaten hierarchy and who feed their false self-image of relevance [2][3].

Never mind also the pathetic recent historical record of science with regard to identifying or solving public health and environmental problems [4][5][6].

Never mind all that. Take the red pill by considering the climate “science” fairy tale itself and examine its story elements. Here goes, in five story-element steps.

More »

Denis G. Rancourt
Activist Teacher Blog

“This is the kind of obviousness that a child can see—though the child may, later in life, become browbeaten into believing that the obvious problems are "non-problems", to be argued into nonexistence by careful reasoning and clever choices of definition.” ~ Roger Penrose

“... so obvious that it takes really impressive discipline to miss it ...” ~ Noam Chomsky

Here we have Israel as an internationally recognized thug, keeper of the largest open-air prison on earth, regularly practicing war crimes against civilians, targeting civilian infrastructure and continuously disregarding the Geneva Conventions – virtually unanimously denounced by the international community, by every human rights watch group on the globe, and by international civil society for the last many decades [1] – and how do Canadian politicians and parliamentarians respond?

Israel, the modern sate that shamelessly uses the Nazi holocaust to justify overtly racist domestic and foreign national policies, stock piles nuclear weapons, incites wars on its neighbours, overtly funds propaganda in foreign countries, routinely practices international pirating, kidnappings and murders, openly performs political assassinations [1]... and how do Canadian politicians and parliamentarians respond?

Israel has no significant economic exchanges with Canada and performs no significant geopolitical service of benefit to Canada; a Canada with virtually no economic ties with the Middle East and a Canada that is a net exporter of oil and gas.

Yet, apart from the independent-thinking Bloc Quebecois, it seems that half the time that English Canadian politicians open their mouths it’s to denounce a “new anti-Semitism” that social scientists and statisticians tell us is a media fabrication or to express Israel’s “right to defend itself” or to declare Canada’s “unwavering support for Israel.” Not to mention Israel’s “right to exist”! [2]

What about unwavering support for human rights and international law?

More »

Denis G. Rancourt

Dogs of war ... a detainee at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad
cowers in fear as he is approached by an unmuzzled dog. Photo:
The Washington Post

Reflections on our Ottawa RBC fire and on our genocidal prison system

FALLACIOUS PROPERTY DAMAGE VERSUS HARM TO A PERSON

I was reminded again recently in court about the charade that passes for logical and objective propositions made by the brilliant legal minds that are the gatekeepers of society’s “justice” system.

The issue at hand was the attribution of bail for a political crime in which the entrance lobby area of a neighbourhood branch of a multi-national bank was set on fire in the middle of the night. No person was harmed and the fire did no damage to any personal property. [1][2]

The value of the so-called (see below) property damage was reported in the media first as three hundred thousand dollars, then as five hundred thousand dollars, then as one million dollars, and in court today as 1.2 million dollars. The value of the damage increases as more and more estimates are made. And these ballooning estimates of course are not questioned, in the media or elsewhere. It seems obvious to this observer that an entire new building could be erected with all its furnishings for far less than one million dollars, never mind an entrance lobby area and two cash dispensing machines?

In any case, the point is that the accused has no past criminal charges or convictions of any kind and that, as correctly stated by the defence, the relevant legal precedents show that alleged multiple murderers are regularly released on bail under the principle that one should be assumed innocent until proven guilty, except if there is compelling evidence of significant risk of danger to society (to people).

Next the defence lawyer is found arguing that, in terms of the severity of the charge, one should compare multiple murders to relatively less serious million-dollar property damage.

Hello? Does anyone in the courtroom recognize an error in argumentation? Nope – not a peep. Both sides and the judge appear to concur.

More »