RE-PUBLISHED: MARCH 4, 2021 | by the Constitutional Rights Centre
The mainstream media, feeding off the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s (CPSO) website and the ICRC’s decision with respect to Dr. Kulvinder Gill, continues to spread its addiction to its own “misinformation”.
In its decision to impose a “caution” the CPSO Committee selectively, and in bad faith, throughout its process, selectively takes comments by Dr. Gill out of context.
It knowingly and intentionally ignored the renowned avalanche of world scientific and medical opinion, cited and submitted by Dr. Gill in support of her statements stemming from, supported by, and agreed upon by peer-reviewed scientific and medical publications, eminent professors and world experts up to, and including, Nobel Prize winners.
Moreover, neither the College nor the Province of Ontario have any constitutional jurisdiction to curtail free speech as “unprofessional” or “inappropriate”. While the CPSO baldly states that Dr. Gill’s statements were “factually wrong”, it does not tell us why, nor does it address the avalanche of evidence put before them that indicates that Dr. Gill’s statements are factually right. Ultimately the Superior Courts will determine the issues(s) of who is factually right. Moreover, and to the point, whether making such statements and opinions is “inappropriate” or “unprofessional”. When speech is “inappropriate” and “unprofessional”, and completely divorced from the treatment of patients, it is not medical oversight, it is pure censorship based on intolerant, unscientific, and non-medical politics.
The CPSO has, akin to a Vatican Committee of Cardinals, politicalized and weaponized Public Health dogma and mantra, to gag free speech, by medical and scientific experts. We saw a similar phenomenon during the Catholic Inquisition.
In its decision the CPSO, knowingly and intentionally provides absolutely NO evidence, nor any reasons, for its bald conclusions whatsoever. Moreover, in bad faith, it refused to address the extensive evidence and legal submissions made to it, which fully supported Dr. Gill’s opinions, as stemming from and enunciated by peer reviewed studies by scientific and medical experts from all over the world.
The CPSO decisions(s) will be the subject of an HPARB appeal, Divisional Court application for Judicial Review, as well as an action for Constitutional relief and damages over its unconstitutional stance towards free speech as well as its bad faith and abuse of authority in its conduct over doctor(s) who uphold their oath to “first, do no harm” and do not support the non-scientific and non-medical dogma of governments, bureaucrats, and public health officials harming Canadians.
All of the above was made clear to the CPSO throughout the process, falling on deaf ears, without being addressed. The Superior Courts will now deal with it.
Dr. Gill has yet to be cautioned and will be appearing for her caution. The flagrantly flawed and bad faith decisions are not the caution.
Thank you for your continued and kind support of the CRC
Rocco Galati, BA, LLB, LLM, Executive Director
