More Questions from the Aylmer Express
Naturally, never made to print.
It is wise to respond to valid questions from the Aylmer Express here. These questions are important and they deserve full answers and this is the place where you will find full responses to those questions. On my blog you will find long form answers to questions and sometimes direction to further study in order to meet the standards that I feel actually articulate thorough responses that obviously the local newspaper cannot provide.
Were you the sole organizer of Saturday’s event? What are your thoughts/impressions on how it went?
Yes, I was the sole organizer for Aylmer’s second Lawful Public Freedom March. I’ve enlisted the help of a lot of people that have volunteered to help in different ways, without whom, things would not have gone as well as they did.
Is Rocco Galati representing you in communicating with the town?
Rocco Galati is representing me in several capacities. However, when organizing a peaceful protest, there is no requirement to communicate with the town on plans. An organizer’s obligation is to provide the itinerary and safety plan (route, etc) to the police, which I did prior to any public announcement. My communications with the town go back to the spring when I already had concerns about restrictions that the town was implementing in response to COVID-19. Those communications went largely ignored. After the Town issued an emergency order following the announcement of our second event, Rocco Galati wrote a letter to the Town, as a response to what I felt was an abuse of power and authority, and an unacceptable intimidation tactic. I’ve also retained him in the event the town continues such abusive actions against me.
Is Rocco Galati representing you if you receive any legal repercussions (That’s what I gathered from the letter the two speakers read at the rally)?
Yes, that is correct.
What are future plans?
There are many activities and actions we are planning in order to resist further unwarranted restrictive measures from all levels of government.
What is the goal going forward – having the COVID rules struck down? Or something else?
We continue to advocate for the freedom of individuals and families to take personal responsibility for their health, for businesses to be allowed to be open, since all businesses are essential, for travel restrictions to be lifted, and for the many other things that we have been calling for in all of our speeches and communications. Furthermore, in light of recent developments with regard to human rights violations by business both locally and nationally, we are fighting for our Charter rights to be upheld, for exemptions for people’s ability to go about their daily business, without discrimination.
You sell shirts that say “The Media is the Virus”. Some signs on Saturday said the same thing. Do you advocate harm to journalists, or against a free press?
Unlike those who oppose what I am advocating for, I never encourage or threaten harm against anyone. In particular, I advocate for free speech, and at the same time, for the press to actually do its job in holding the government’s feet to the fire by representing all sides of the issue, without bias and distortion. This is a function that the press has sold out on – it has largely become a mouthpiece for the state, refusing to publish opposing views, and refusing to even question the state-approved narrative of COVID-19.
You have talked about the importance of freedom for parents to choose how they raise their children – Do you support corporal punishment? Seatbelt use in automobiles? Or is that up to parents?
The role of the state, the family, the church, and the community, and the spheres of authority that each of those have, are enormously complex questions. The state has attempted, and continues to attempt, to swallow up every other sphere, and so to answer a question like this would mean going back to the original function of each of these spheres.
Simply, we are opposed to the government continually overreaching into every aspect of our lives. The government needs to be held to its constitutional limits in protecting our freedoms.